News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Extending the 167 freeway to Tacoma is a priority

Started by Landshark, December 03, 2011, 11:29:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

kkt

Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 22, 2014, 01:59:49 AM
Technically WA-410 was supposed to be I-82. 


iPhone

In some people's minds.  However, there are already all-winter passes at I-90 and US 12.  We don't need another one.  Note also that commercial vehicles are not allowed in the national park.


I94RoadRunner

Quote from: kkt on August 22, 2014, 01:27:42 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 22, 2014, 01:59:49 AM
Technically WA-410 was supposed to be I-82. 


iPhone

In some people's minds.  However, there are already all-winter passes at I-90 and US 12.  We don't need another one.  Note also that commercial vehicles are not allowed in the national park.


That was the point of WA 168 - to allow commercial traffic to get between the Port of Tacoma and Yakima without having to use Snoqualmie Pass. However with an improved WA 18 (potentially becoming I-605 in the future) and improvements to I-90 east of Snoqualmie Pass, I would highly doubt that WSDOT is going to even consider investing in a rerouted/extended I-82 into Tacoma any time in the near future
Chris Kalina

“The easiest solution to fixing the I-238 problem is to redefine I-580 as I-38

TEG24601

Quote from: xonhulu on April 14, 2013, 09:53:30 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 14, 2013, 05:35:20 PM
US 197 and SR 14 from Dallesport to Maryhill (1964-2006)

I know this concurrency existed on paper until 2006, but I don't think it was ever signed.  I'm pretty sure the US 197 shields were removed along with the US 830's when the later was decommissioned in favor of SR 14.



*AHEM* SR 12.

They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

doorknob60

Quote from: TEG24601 on August 24, 2014, 11:45:12 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on April 14, 2013, 09:53:30 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 14, 2013, 05:35:20 PM
US 197 and SR 14 from Dallesport to Maryhill (1964-2006)

I know this concurrency existed on paper until 2006, but I don't think it was ever signed.  I'm pretty sure the US 197 shields were removed along with the US 830's when the later was decommissioned in favor of SR 14.



*AHEM* SR 12.

Huh? Sure about that?

Bruce

Quote from: doorknob60 on August 24, 2014, 04:05:07 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 24, 2014, 11:45:12 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on April 14, 2013, 09:53:30 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 14, 2013, 05:35:20 PM
US 197 and SR 14 from Dallesport to Maryhill (1964-2006)

I know this concurrency existed on paper until 2006, but I don't think it was ever signed.  I'm pretty sure the US 197 shields were removed along with the US 830's when the later was decommissioned in favor of SR 14.



*AHEM* SR 12.

Huh? Sure about that?
SR 14 and SR 12 switched numbers in 1967 during the extension of US 12 to Aberdeen.

doorknob60

Quote from: Bruce on August 24, 2014, 04:10:37 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on August 24, 2014, 04:05:07 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 24, 2014, 11:45:12 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on April 14, 2013, 09:53:30 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 14, 2013, 05:35:20 PM
US 197 and SR 14 from Dallesport to Maryhill (1964-2006)

I know this concurrency existed on paper until 2006, but I don't think it was ever signed.  I'm pretty sure the US 197 shields were removed along with the US 830's when the later was decommissioned in favor of SR 14.



*AHEM* SR 12.

Huh? Sure about that?
SR 14 and SR 12 switched numbers in 1967 during the extension of US 12 to Aberdeen.
Interesting, although I though that it was 1968 when US-830 was decommissioned, so when that happened it went from US-830 to WA-14. Though correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm just going from knowledge on this forum and Wikipedia, I wasn't around at the time (though most members of this forum weren't).

Kacie Jane

You are correct.  And so is Bruce.  TEG, unfortunately, is not.  Allow me to explain.

I can't be 100% sure whether US 830 was decommissioned in 1967 or 1968, though I too lean toward '68.  It may have been at the same time as US 12 being extended in 1967, but it was certainly no earlier.  (The most likely theory is that both changes were approved at the same meeting in 1967, but for whatever reason, changes in signage didn't take place until the following year for US 830.)  So you are correct that regardless of exactly when, US 830 was renumbered directly to SR 14, and not to SR 12.

Where Bruce is correct, and where TEG is confused, is a bit further east.  US 830 (and US 197) ended at US 97 in Maryhill, and did not continue east to what is now I-82.  When the current SR numbering system was posted in 1964, a highway from Maryhill northeast to Kennewick* (which was part of the same old PSH that US 830 was) was numbered SR 12.  Then three years later -- the date for US 12 being extended is firmly 1967 -- what was then SR 14 from Napavine to Naches became part of US 12, and SR 12 was renumbered to a new SR 14.  Then, either at the same time or within the next year, US 830 was decommissioned and became an extension of that new SR 14.

So, slightly shorter version: yes, there was an SR 12 that "switched places" with SR 14 in 1967.  But no, US 830 was not renumbered to SR 12, it went right to SR 14.

* Then in the 1980s when I-82 was built, SR 14 was rerouted to head due east rather than northeast out of Maryhill, and now ends near Paterson rather than Kennewick.  But that's neither here nor there. :P

I94RoadRunner

I noticed that on Google Maps that the WA 167 proposed freeway extension is showing up if you zoom in. Notice the stupid temporary half diamond interchange proposed with I-5 in the first phase! Also, the WA 509 extension in Burien and SeaTac also is on the map connection to I-5 at S. 210th

167 extension:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.2429755,-122.3375159,17z
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.2429755,-122.3375159,474m/data=!3m1!1e3

509 extension:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.412038,-122.2940699,17z
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.412038,-122.2940699,472m/data=!3m1!1e3

Chris Kalina

“The easiest solution to fixing the I-238 problem is to redefine I-580 as I-38

TEG24601

Quote from: Kacie Jane on August 26, 2014, 09:50:58 AM
You are correct.  And so is Bruce.  TEG, unfortunately, is not.  Allow me to explain.

I can't be 100% sure whether US 830 was decommissioned in 1967 or 1968, though I too lean toward '68.  It may have been at the same time as US 12 being extended in 1967, but it was certainly no earlier.  (The most likely theory is that both changes were approved at the same meeting in 1967, but for whatever reason, changes in signage didn't take place until the following year for US 830.)  So you are correct that regardless of exactly when, US 830 was renumbered directly to SR 14, and not to SR 12.

Where Bruce is correct, and where TEG is confused, is a bit further east.  US 830 (and US 197) ended at US 97 in Maryhill, and did not continue east to what is now I-82.  When the current SR numbering system was posted in 1964, a highway from Maryhill northeast to Kennewick* (which was part of the same old PSH that US 830 was) was numbered SR 12.  Then three years later -- the date for US 12 being extended is firmly 1967 -- what was then SR 14 from Napavine to Naches became part of US 12, and SR 12 was renumbered to a new SR 14.  Then, either at the same time or within the next year, US 830 was decommissioned and became an extension of that new SR 14.

So, slightly shorter version: yes, there was an SR 12 that "switched places" with SR 14 in 1967.  But no, US 830 was not renumbered to SR 12, it went right to SR 14.

* Then in the 1980s when I-82 was built, SR 14 was rerouted to head due east rather than northeast out of Maryhill, and now ends near Paterson rather than Kennewick.  But that's neither here nor there. :p
I think we are both right.  While US 830 wasn't decommissioned until 1968 (according to US-Highways.com), what is now SR 141 was signed as SR 121 because Washington considered the entire portion of 830 East of Vancouver to be SR 12 (much in the same way that US 395 is considered SR 29 by WSDOT) in addition to the portion East of Maryhill.


As for the I-82 comment earlier, I have seen atlases from the 1960s that actually have the Snoqualmie Pass freeway designated as I-82 (unsure if it was ever posted that way) and several Atlases and Thomas Guides that show a proposed rerouting of I-82 along US 12, with the shield and everything.  I only bring up the Thomas Guide, as I found one from the Early 80s and one from the Late 80s that show the proposed routing of SR 525 over SR 99 as a freeway, which was eventually constructed.


Of course, as I've stated in other portions of this forum, if the 167 Freeway is completed, I feel that the E-W portion should be tacked on to SR 16, simply so we don't have another US 101 situation, where the Southern Terminus of a State Route is reached by traveling Northbound.
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

Kacie Jane

Quote from: TEG24601 on October 05, 2014, 12:40:31 PM
I think we are both right.  While US 830 wasn't decommissioned until 1968 (according to US-Highways.com), what is now SR 141 was signed as SR 121 because Washington considered the entire portion of 830 East of Vancouver to be SR 12 (much in the same way that US 395 is considered SR 29 by WSDOT) in addition to the portion East of Maryhill.

Nah.  Yes, 3-digit routes are sometimes numbered according to the 2-digit route's spot in the grid rather than its actual route number.  But it's way too much of a stretch to say that WSDOT "considers" US 395 to be SR 29.

Besides, even by your logic, if you agree that US 830 wasn't decommissioned until 1968, by then the road on the Columbia had already been "considered" SR 14 for a year.  So xonhulu (sorry I got the author wrong in my last post) is still entirely correct when they say "when the later was decommissioned in favor of SR 14," and your "correction" would still be a year out of date.

Quote from: TEG24601 on October 05, 2014, 12:40:31 PMOf course, as I've stated in other portions of this forum, if the 167 Freeway is completed, I feel that the E-W portion should be tacked on to SR 16, simply so we don't have another US 101 situation, where the Southern Terminus of a State Route is reached by traveling Northbound.

Meanwhile, this ignores that SR 167's southern terminus is already in Tacoma, and you already have to go slightly north out of Puyallup to get to it.

They're building an extension of the freeway, yes.  But it's not an extension of SR 167, it's a realignment.  (In fact, I think if anything, it's a truncation.  I think the mileage will be slightly shorter to its new terminus further east.)

Bruce

Quick update: the 2015 transportation package passed by the Senate (and pending approval from the House) includes funding for the Puget Sound Gateway project, which extends the SR 167 freeway from Puyallup to the Port of Tacoma and the SR 509 freeway from Burien to Federal Way.

There's tons of other projects in there (finishing SR 520, new interchanges on I-5 in Marysville, removing the final traffic light on SR 522 between Bothell and Monroe...), but the gateway is the biggest and most controversial.

jakeroot

Quote from: Bruce on June 30, 2015, 09:56:42 PM
the gateway is the biggest and most controversial.

I think it's getting less and less controversial by the day. Most of the controversy does seem to be limited to King County, however. Down here in the Puyallup area, I haven't met one person who doesn't support an extension of the 167.

Bickendan

Is the 167 extension only in Pierce County or is it straddling the county lines between Pierce and King?

jakeroot

Quote from: Bickendan on July 01, 2015, 11:05:13 AM
Is the 167 extension only in Pierce County or is it straddling the county lines between Pierce and King?

The whole of the 167 lies in both King and Pierce Counties, but the extension is just in Pierce County.

The 509 extension, on the other hand, lies entirely within King County.

KEK Inc.

Quote from: jakeroot on July 01, 2015, 04:17:59 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 30, 2015, 09:56:42 PM
the gateway is the biggest and most controversial.

I think it's getting less and less controversial by the day. Most of the controversy does seem to be limited to King County, however. Down here in the Puyallup area, I haven't met one person who doesn't support an extension of the 167.

Along with the extention, 167 should be widened between Puyallup and Renton.  And WSDOT desperately needs to modernize the intersection with 167 and 18. 

Also, 18 and 90 is pits.  On the way home from many of the hikes along I-90, I notice a mass of cars backed up on I-90 trying to exit on SR-18.
Take the road less traveled.

jakeroot

Quote from: KEK Inc. on July 02, 2015, 01:23:45 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 01, 2015, 04:17:59 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 30, 2015, 09:56:42 PM
the gateway is the biggest and most controversial.

I think it's getting less and less controversial by the day. Most of the controversy does seem to be limited to King County, however. Down here in the Puyallup area, I haven't met one person who doesn't support an extension of the 167.

Along with the extention, 167 should be widened between Puyallup and Renton.  And WSDOT desperately needs to modernize the intersection with 167 and 18. 

Also, 18 and 90 is pits.  On the way home from many of the hikes along I-90, I notice a mass of cars backed up on I-90 trying to exit on SR-18.

Well, at least the latter is in the works. The former, I'm not so sure of. I too would love to see that interchange re-worked (at least by adding the missing movements, even if it required removing the old interchange with West Valley Highway, which should have been removed to begin with), but I'm not sure as to what style of intechange would work better there. Some flyover from 18(W) to 167(S) seems like a good start, but there'd have to be some C/D lanes because of the proximity to the Supermall/15th Street exit. A loop ramp from 167(N) to 18(W) would also be a good idea, but it would require the removal of the warehouse in the NE corner of the interchange. 18(E) to 167(N) should probably be a flyover as well, and the 167(S) to 18(E) should remain a loop but should be rebuilt to make it less awkward (I hate non-perfect clovers) as well as larger to keep a high speed. I would suggest another flyover but I don't want anymore than three levels.

kkt

A flyover from 167(s) to 18(e) looks like it could be built sharing the same exit from 167(s) as the ramp to 18(w), then flyover and merge with the 167(n) to 18(e) ramp, taking few if any parking spaces from the Sam's Club lot.  That would allow removing the irregular 167(s) to 18(e) loop, and remove the short weaves in 167(s) and 18(e).

The 167(n) to 18(w) move could be done by flyover, or it's probably low volume enough to do by loop if that would be a lot cheaper.  It's just a warehouse, not the Taj Mahal, and it looks like it belongs to the school district so it should be easy to relocate them without eminent domain.

Looking at it, I'm kind of surprised it hasn't been done already.

TEG24601

Finally money is being earmarked for this project, as well as replacing the I-5 Bridges to Fife.  12¢/gal Gas Tax is fine with me, so long as they don't start trying to charge tolls on these roads.
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

KEK Inc.

I'd much rather have tolls than GPS trackers. 
Take the road less traveled.

TEG24601

Quote from: KEK Inc. on July 03, 2015, 01:22:44 AM
I'd much rather have tolls than GPS trackers.


Well, that is Oregon.


I'm still convinced that Washington would be much better off assigning each vehicle type a number of points based on size, weight, and fuel type, and that the total amount of money desired from gas taxes divided evenly over these points, then add the cost to the yearly tabs.  It wouldn't be a significant cost for most people, but Hybrids would pay their fair share, same for electrics.  I figured it out at one point, and for most single family, petrol powered vehicles, it would be between $10 and $20 a year.  You could then add an additional $5 for everyone, and we wouldn't need discover passes either.  We could then drop all the state fuel taxes, and everyone would be happy, and we wouldn't use those GPS system that other states are proposing.
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

mgk920

Quote from: TEG24601 on July 03, 2015, 10:55:39 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on July 03, 2015, 01:22:44 AM
I'd much rather have tolls than GPS trackers.


Well, that is Oregon.


I'm still convinced that Washington would be much better off assigning each vehicle type a number of points based on size, weight, and fuel type, and that the total amount of money desired from gas taxes divided evenly over these points, then add the cost to the yearly tabs.  It wouldn't be a significant cost for most people, but Hybrids would pay their fair share, same for electrics.  I figured it out at one point, and for most single family, petrol powered vehicles, it would be between $10 and $20 a year.  You could then add an additional $5 for everyone, and we wouldn't need discover passes either.  We could then drop all the state fuel taxes, and everyone would be happy, and we wouldn't use those GPS system that other states are proposing.

So then you like the idea of the little old lady who only drives to church on Sundays subsidizing the traveling salesguy?

Mike

TEG24601

Quote from: mgk920 on July 04, 2015, 01:06:20 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 03, 2015, 10:55:39 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on July 03, 2015, 01:22:44 AM
I'd much rather have tolls than GPS trackers.


Well, that is Oregon.


I'm still convinced that Washington would be much better off assigning each vehicle type a number of points based on size, weight, and fuel type, and that the total amount of money desired from gas taxes divided evenly over these points, then add the cost to the yearly tabs.  It wouldn't be a significant cost for most people, but Hybrids would pay their fair share, same for electrics.  I figured it out at one point, and for most single family, petrol powered vehicles, it would be between $10 and $20 a year.  You could then add an additional $5 for everyone, and we wouldn't need discover passes either.  We could then drop all the state fuel taxes, and everyone would be happy, and we wouldn't use those GPS system that other states are proposing.

So then you like the idea of the little old lady who only drives to church on Sundays subsidizing the traveling salesguy?

Mike


They already do for Water, sewer, and power.  Plus, it is the only way to get the people in their smugmobiles to pay their fair share, without compromising personal liberty, that I can figure out.  Also, the traveling sales guy would have a Commercially registered vehicle, which would have a higher yearly charge.
They said take a left at the fork in the road.  I didn't think they literally meant a fork, until plain as day, there was a fork sticking out of the road at a junction.

jakeroot

#47
Slight thread revival here.

This sign was recently posted near the end of the 167 at Meridian, in Puyallup. WSDOT doesn't usually post things like this, but I would guess that the local representatives may have asked WSDOT to display it (last year, I had someone come to my door to ask me to vote for them (she got elected) -- her pamphlet had a picture of the 167 Freeway on it; district representatives were very forthcoming about their support for the extension, and I assume they are now beaming as the monies are finally rolling in).


Bruce

Quote from: jakeroot on February 09, 2016, 02:03:27 AM
Slight thread revival here.

This sign was recently posted near the end of the 167 at Meridian, in Puyallup. WSDOT doesn't usually post things like this, but I would guess that the local representatives may have asked WSDOT to display it (last year, I had someone come to my door to ask me to vote for them (she got elected) -- her pamphlet had a picture of the 167 Freeway on it; district representatives were very forthcoming about their support for the extension, and I assume they are now beaming as the monies are finally rolling in).



WSDOT has made quite a few of the Connecting WA signs for various projects, paraded at events across the state. I'd love to see more posted like this to give people a sense of where things are going to undergo major change.

---

Back on topic:

I wonder how this project will interface with the planned light rail extension to Tacoma in the ST3 package. I imagine a nice tall flyover for trains (similar to the SR 518 canyon) will be required. I hope HOV lanes from SR 167 will link up with a Link station, direct access ramps and all.

jakeroot

Quote from: Bruce on February 10, 2016, 02:02:18 AM
I wonder how this project will interface with the planned light rail extension to Tacoma in the ST3 package. I imagine a nice tall flyover for trains (similar to the SR 518 canyon) will be required. I hope HOV lanes from SR 167 will link up with a Link station, direct access ramps and all.

That's a very interesting concept, one that I wish WSDOT would embrace. They just need to make sure they provide enough parking. For example, I'm 99% sure that the Sounder's capacity is being limited by the parking availability in Puyallup, which is full by basically 0600.

All told though, something tells me that WSDOT hasn't even considered the light rail. So many of the plans were drawn up years ago. Hopefully new designs are in the works to incorporate the light rail, wherever it ends up getting built.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.