Extending the 167 freeway to Tacoma is a priority

[Bruce]

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.

I'm certain that WSDOT knew about the possibility of light rail, but didn't bother to include it because they're WSDOT. WSDOT does what WSDOT wants.

Sound Transit has been criticized (and rightly so) for building the amount of parking lots and garages that they already have, since it's getting expensive and is really hurting the chances of transit-oriented development. Personally, I'd rather have a "time-bomb park and ride", aka one that will close after a few years (with a set-in-stone date) and be redeveloped in a manner similar to South Kirkland P&R.

[The Ghostbuster]

How long before construction might begin? Or don't they have a construction date, funding, or both?

[jakeroot]

How long before construction might begin? Or don't they have a construction date, funding, or both?

Based on current income flow, WSDOT's project folio predicts phased construction to begin in 2019, and end in 2031. The next transportation package could include additional funding, which would complete the project sooner.

WSDOT has actively pursuing construction since the late 80s/early 90s, but only received an income source last summer. The freeway's future "path" has been "drawn out" since at least 1968, back when the freeway was numbered "410" (see here for current satellite view of lower-right interchange).

[Kacie Jane]

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.

I'm certain that WSDOT knew about the possibility of light rail, but didn't bother to include it because they're WSDOT. WSDOT does what WSDOT wants.

I think Jake nailed it actually.  The issue with trying to connect this freeway project with light rail is that the two projects are at two completely different phases of planning.  SR 167 is essentially shovel-ready; they have the alignment finalized down to the individual ramps.  Sound Transit has only just chosen the alignment to Federal Way (and I'm not certain even that is set in stone), south of there through Fife is still in the debate stage, and construction on it would probably be at least seven years behind the freeway.

Trying to plan 167 around light rail would be the perfect example of the idiom "putting the cart before the horse".  Let WSDOT build 167 as they will, let Sound Transit put their station in a location that makes sense given where the access (old and new) is.  Then if they need to expand the nearest interchange, they can, but I'd be at least a little skeptical how many customers at a P&R in Fife would be using the 167 freeway.  It's oriented mostly to get traffic to/from I-5 and Puyallup, while I'd wager most parkers would be coming locally via surface streets.  They certainly won't be coming from I-5, though they might come from NE Tacoma via 509.  You might get some customers from Puyallup during off-hours when Sounder isn't running, but during off-hours, traffic should be light enough that driving would be faster.

[Bruce]

Building a few short stub ramps and leaving enough space for flyover columns to connect up to a potential bus station and HOV-accessible park-and-ride wouldn't hurt and probably won't make a dent in the SR 167 budget. The region has a problem of not planning even the slightest bit ahead, requiring half-assed solutions or massive retrofitting to make pieces work together.

I'd leave space for a pair of HOV ramps from SR 167 to the light rail station (probably in a greenfield) and also serving the Pacific Highway if possible.

[Kacie Jane]

But my point is that it's impossible to do if they have no idea where the light rail station is going to be*.  Also, there's probably not even space for an interchange -- definitely not @ Pacific Highway -- since the I-5 interchange is right there (and the I-5 interchange itself has to be shoehorned in between existing development).  Also also, the freeway's only going to have two lanes in each direction (if that -- the section through the I-5 interchange might only have one to be expanded later) with no HOV lanes, so HOV ramps won't do much good.  (Not zero good, but not much good either.)  Also also also, like I said, I'm not sure you can convince me why anyone driving to a Fife P&R will be taking 167 anyway.  If they're coming from the north, they'll come in on 54th, 70th, or SR 99 and won't save any time getting off surface streets.  If they're coming from Milton or anywhere south of I-5, they can't use the new freeway without backtracking to Valley Avenue, which is probably way too far.

*Your complaint about WSDOT being shortsighted is totally valid, I'm not disputing that in the general case.  But an equally valid complaint is that Sound Transit does too much to cater to Park & Ride customers, at the cost of those transferring from local buses or walking up to light rail.  The best place for a light rail station would be at Pacific & 54th, or perhaps even further west than that, which is actually really far from the new 167 freeway.  There may not be room for a Park & Ride there, but that's where the people are.

[jakeroot]

Using the WayBack Machine, I was able to access some old images from prior proposals of this extension. The big takeaway is the general scope of the project, which while still huge, is slightly less massive.

As for my preferences? They are listed below...

- The Alexander Road interchange should be a fly-over, because traffic coming from Fife will have to go to either Port of Tacoma Road (exceptionally busy as it's the main entrance to the port) or 54 Ave (really out of the way) to go east towards downtown Tacoma. The prior design, which incorporated the grading as it exists today, as well as the pre-existing frontage roads, keeps Alexander Ave as a third interchange. The current proposal makes Alexander Ave a RIRO.

- The 54 Ave interchange should be a half-SPUI, as proposed today.

- The 5/167/509 junction is not perfect in either scenario, but I prefer the prior design because the ramps were less curvy, and the 70 Ave bridge shoots north towards the current signal, instead of west towards the EQC, as proposed today (70 Ave is planned to be a super-corridor in Pierce County once Canyon Road is extended over the Puyallup River at some point in the future, so maintaining the route's relatively straight alignment should be important). With all of that said, however, the current design does have some things going for it: the proposal elevates the freeway over 20 St, to avoid redirecting that road altogether, and there is no left exit from 509 EB to 5 NB.

- The Valley Ave interchange should be the prior parclo design (the one that intersects with Valley Ave, not Freeman). Traffic from SB 167 towards Fife will be forced to wait for a left turn in the present-day proposal. I have a feeling that, given the large amount of warehouses in both Fife and the Kent/Auburn Valley, that particular movement will be quite popular, and keeping it as a free-flow movement would be the best.

- I have no opinion on the 161 junction, since the design has not changed in any of the modern proposals.

Oddly, WSDOT has removed the present-day design visualizations from their website. I swear not even last week they were up. VERY interesting!?!?



First, the 5/167/509 junction, before...




after...



Second, the junction with present-day 509, before (which did include a ramp from 509 west towards Browns Point, though it is not as obvious on this map)...



after (the scope was lessened because Alexander Ave is no longer a through road into the port)...



Third, the connection with Fife's 54 Ave, before (two proposals, half diamond or parclo)...




after (who thought this was a good angle?)...



Fourth, the Valley Ave interchange, before (three options)...





after...



Finally, the 161 junction has not changed. The extremely limited ROW has prevented them from proposing anything other than a SPUI.