AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northwest => Topic started by: jakeroot on December 04, 2020, 02:16:22 PM

Title: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on December 04, 2020, 02:16:22 PM
WSDOT's Puget Sound Gateway Program (https://wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Gateway/default.htm) will construct two freeway extensions (called 'completion projects'):

(1) WA-167 (https://wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR167/completion/default.htm); from WA-161 to WA-509 in Fife, with an interchange at I-5
(2) WA-509 (https://wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR509/completion/default.htm); from S 188 St to I-5 in Kent

There's been some occasional chatter about these projects for almost ten years on this forum, but only recently has there been any actual construction activity. So I'm creating this thread to make it easier to find and share information around both projects.

Some project photos (all from WSDOT):

WA-167 extension:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50680090112_fb6619bc55_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50680092351_098cf0326d_o.png)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50680091921_5a785bcc03_o.png)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50680092111_408d4b1b8d_o.png)



WA-509 extension:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50672407676_a28fa2faaa_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50672408036_07e303d6ac_o.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50672408191_14011587a0_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Alps on December 04, 2020, 04:25:39 PM
It's not April Fools Day! You can't just post this!
Thoughts:
* Really, you're gonna terminate a freeway in a DDI?
* Why can't 167 end at 509? Why do we need a number change for no reason?
* What's 509's future routing south of the new freeway to connect it to the rest of the road?
* Where is it supposed to head north?
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on December 04, 2020, 05:33:06 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 04, 2020, 04:25:39 PM
It's not April Fools Day! You can't just post this!

meh

they've been planning this thing for like 738 years and it was only this year they finally broke ground. Regular updates might actually become a thing.

Quote from: Alps on December 04, 2020, 04:25:39 PM
Thoughts:
* Really, you're gonna terminate a freeway in a DDI?
* Why can't 167 end at 509? Why do we need a number change for no reason?
* What's 509's future routing south of the new freeway to connect it to the rest of the road?
* Where is it supposed to head north?

One thing to note is at the WA-167/WA-161 interchange, that will be a full SPUI as shown in the EIS image. The renderings were made right before that decision.

* The DDI conclusion is dumb I agree, although I think it was changed when the ramps to/from the south were added. I think ramps to/from the north were the only original inclusion. With that setup, a continuous green-T would have been easy to achieve.

* I don't like that 167 is extending to Fife at all since it results in some backwards cardinal directions; I'd rather see 509 Spur be the entire route.

I will post some more images of the 509 extension if I can find any. Most of the renderings have been from 24th Ave S down to Kent-Des Moines Road, where the biggest interruptions will be.

This video has some renders in it for the 509. Skip to 0:43 for a render of the proposed parclo at 188th:

https://youtu.be/t20saLhT35Y
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: KEK Inc. on December 04, 2020, 08:18:06 PM
My guess for the DDI is the lack of sufficient funding.  Utah used continuous flow interchanges for a while until they finally had funding to upgrade the Bangerter Highway corridor to a limited-access freeway with SPUIs. 

A future flyover from SB I-5 to NB WA-167 would be the only thing really necessary in that design (since a lot of people from Seattle may use that route to get to WA-410 for Crystal Mtn / Sunrise / Chinook Pass and even access to WA-161 for access to Paradise).  There's already a dedicated bypass from NB I-5 to NB WA-167 and SB WA-167 to NB I-5.  Granted, I'm not familiar with how much Sumner - Tacoma traffic there is.

I notice that 509 has toll points.  I'm hoping they will finally upgrade WA-99 north of the 1st Ave Bridge to freeway standards.  I don't mind paying the toll on the tunnel since I live in Fremont.  It's much more convenient than taking I-5. 
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 04, 2020, 10:11:05 PM
I'm happy to hear that WA 167 will finally be built to Interstate 5. The freeway has dead-ended at WA 161 long enough. Once the WA 167 freeway is complete, will existing 167 along River Road be reverted to local control as a city street?
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: froggie on December 05, 2020, 11:45:05 AM
Just for clarification, the 509 extension ties into the existing freeway near SEA, right?
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Revive 755 on December 05, 2020, 12:46:38 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 04, 2020, 10:11:05 PM
I'm happy to hear that WA 167 will finally be built to Interstate 5. The freeway has dead-ended at WA 161 long enough.

What's with the truss bridge in the field north of the current end of WA 167? (https://goo.gl/maps/mYjASLssDEi5p7Xn9)
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on December 05, 2020, 01:07:51 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on December 04, 2020, 08:18:06 PM
A future flyover from SB I-5 to NB WA-167 would be the only thing really necessary in that design (since a lot of people from Seattle may use that route to get to WA-410 for Crystal Mtn / Sunrise / Chinook Pass and even access to WA-161 for access to Paradise).  There's already a dedicated bypass from NB I-5 to NB WA-167 and SB WA-167 to NB I-5.  Granted, I'm not familiar with how much Sumner - Tacoma traffic there is.

I guarantee you that I-5 southbound to WA-167 northbound (aka southbound towards Puyallup) will be a popular maneuver. 167 gets jammed up regularly south of Auburn into Sumner. This would provide an alternative for traffic coming from the north to access Puyallup and WA-512.

It may also help alleviate some pressure placed on the interchange at 54th in Fife, and the curve going into Fife, two traffic hotspots.

Quote from: KEK Inc. on December 04, 2020, 08:18:06 PM
I notice that 509 has toll points.  I'm hoping they will finally upgrade WA-99 north of the 1st Ave Bridge to freeway standards.  I don't mind paying the toll on the tunnel since I live in Fremont.  It's much more convenient than taking I-5. 

North of the 1st Ave South Bridge? Like upgrading East Marginal? I don't think that's very likely.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on December 05, 2020, 01:13:12 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 04, 2020, 10:11:05 PM
I'm happy to hear that WA 167 will finally be built to Interstate 5. The freeway has dead-ended at WA 161 long enough. Once the WA 167 freeway is complete, will existing 167 along River Road be reverted to local control as a city street?

Most likely it will be given over to Pierce County, or it will be renumbered. There is a county project (https://www.canyonroadconnection.org/) to build a new bridge over the Puyallup River, about halfway down River Road between Puyallup and Tacoma, and I could see some value in Pierce County owning the road once that project is underway and the 167 extension is complete.

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 05, 2020, 12:46:38 PM
What's with the truss bridge in the field north of the current end of WA 167?

That was the original bridge over the Puyallup River (https://goo.gl/maps/RN1xhxMyvfuksqox8), just to the south of the interchange. It was relocated while the state sought a buyer...no luck, clearly.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on December 05, 2020, 01:20:14 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 05, 2020, 11:45:05 AM
Just for clarification, the 509 extension ties into the existing freeway near SEA, right?

Correct, yes. The trumpet interchange at S 188 St will be converted into something else that will allow full movement.

The only evidence of alignment so far, beyond a lack of buildings along what is the apparent routing, is this overpass (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.4191819,-122.300932,218m/data=!3m1!1e3) along 24th/28th Ave S, which the 509 extension will pass under.

Here's an image of the whole alignment. My guess is that about half the cost of the project is going into improvements along I-5, especially at WA-516/Kent-Des Moines Road ...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50683486661_9ff3249c27_o.png)
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on December 05, 2020, 01:25:12 PM
For anyone interested, this was the original plan for the 167 extension as envisioned by the 2006 EIS. Parts of this plan will eventually be constructed, like a full interchange at I-5, but other parts did not make it, like the weigh station or parclo interchanges at Valley Ave and 54th.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50682735668_cf1fd5a5d1_o.jpg)

There is also these renders of several of the original plans and alternatives. A flyover at Alexander Ave in Fife, along the 509 itself (not the Spur portion, which is the only new part) was originally envision but they seem to be more interested in a RIRO there now.

Steve/Alps: as you can see from these images, WSDOT was originally calling the extension "167":

Quote from: jakeroot on February 17, 2016, 02:20:05 AM
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.

(https://web.archive.org/web/20061212173626im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/37D38D2C-677C-4D03-A3DA-747417CD8F69/0/I5_SR167_oblique.jpg)
(https://web.archive.org/web/20080804080629im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/CB224CBB-FB06-487F-AF24-22EA98DE105F/5808/view3prop.jpg)

after...

(https://web.archive.org/web/20080918075009im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/BBA727A2-B92A-4048-AE02-8AF021C18FB9/0/I5_DVA_08.jpg)

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)...

(https://web.archive.org/web/20061003150851im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/ED7899B2-1AC3-4995-8DC9-0211ADF1C9AE/5826/view1prop.jpg)

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

(https://web.archive.org/web/20081003225131im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A479D729-DDAD-4079-861D-BC22160F03E1/0/509_DVA_08.jpg)

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

(https://web.archive.org/web/20061003150943im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/8A8B99C1-4DE0-46B0-B879-2B3D8D3C4470/5799/view2prop1.jpg)
(https://web.archive.org/web/20061003150943im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/8A8B99C1-4DE0-46B0-B879-2B3D8D3C4470/5800/view2prop2.jpg)

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

(https://web.archive.org/web/20141023174244im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/74F32571-6167-4C30-AEEC-DF7FE3294EBE/0/54th_DVA_08.jpg)

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

(https://web.archive.org/web/20080804113108im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/DBB7EFC4-912B-4DD0-A20C-B2BB22F8DE0B/5810/view4prop1.jpg)
(https://web.archive.org/web/20061003150933im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/DBB7EFC4-912B-4DD0-A20C-B2BB22F8DE0B/5811/view4prop2.jpg)
(https://web.archive.org/web/20061003150933im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/DBB7EFC4-912B-4DD0-A20C-B2BB22F8DE0B/5812/view4prop3.jpg)

after...

(https://web.archive.org/web/20081003225136im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6BBF6784-93AE-40D6-A783-189BBCC6AAD4/0/Valley_DVA_08.jpg)

Finally, the 161 junction has not changed. The extremely limited ROW has prevented them from proposing anything other than a SPUI.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: TEG24601 on December 05, 2020, 02:31:31 PM
I certainly hope that WSDOT talks about renumbering either 509 as part of this project.  Hopefully the northern one can be 515, and the existing 515, which isn't widely known, can just just be retired or renumbered to a 18x or 16x route.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on December 05, 2020, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on December 05, 2020, 02:31:31 PM
I certainly hope that WSDOT talks about renumbering either 509 as part of this project.  Hopefully the northern one can be 515, and the existing 515, which isn't widely known, can just just be retired or renumbered to a 18x or 16x route.

I don't see why we need to steal 515. It's not like there aren't other options.

I could see the following:

southern 509 Fwy: renumber entire stretch to 167
north of Fife up to Burien: renumber to 549

northern 509 Fwy: keep as 509.
Title: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: KEK Inc. on December 05, 2020, 03:11:14 PM
Or we can get interstate designation of I-905 for the Burien segment. 


iPhone
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on December 05, 2020, 04:11:50 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on December 05, 2020, 03:11:14 PM
Or we can get interstate designation of I-905 for the Burien segment.

Possibly, although only about 5% of the project is from federal grants, and certainly nothing from the original 90/10 era.

Still, yeah, that would be a thought especially to encourage it as a bypass. I might nominate 105 instead though, just because I'd rather pick the lowest unused number.

Only issue might be that it would be a toll. But then, issues around tolls along interstates usually only applies to existing construction, whereas this would be new.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: TEG24601 on December 05, 2020, 04:28:37 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 05, 2020, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on December 05, 2020, 02:31:31 PM
I certainly hope that WSDOT talks about renumbering either 509 as part of this project.  Hopefully the northern one can be 515, and the existing 515, which isn't widely known, can just just be retired or renumbered to a 18x or 16x route.

I don't see why we need to steal 515. It's not like there aren't other options.

I could see the following:

southern 509 Fwy: renumber entire stretch to 167
north of Fife up to Burien: renumber to 549

northern 509 Fwy: keep as 509.


Why 549?  The 3-digit numbers go up from South to North (except 599, which is just named for what it does), which is why I would leave the mainline 509 in the south, as-is.  The Spur should certainly be 167 or more logically 514, as it would be E-W, and SR 514 used to exist in the area, so it would be revived for this new freeway. Extend the 516 designation through Des Monies to the existing end of the freeway at Seatac.  Then the new freeway could be 513 and 513 in Seattle could be decommissioned, as no one knows it is there anyway.  I'm not a fan of spur routes, illogical numbers (especially in Washington, where we seem to keep some pretty good consistency), route gaps, or massive overlaps.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: compdude787 on December 06, 2020, 04:27:17 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on December 05, 2020, 04:28:37 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 05, 2020, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on December 05, 2020, 02:31:31 PM
I certainly hope that WSDOT talks about renumbering either 509 as part of this project.  Hopefully the northern one can be 515, and the existing 515, which isn't widely known, can just just be retired or renumbered to a 18x or 16x route.

I don't see why we need to steal 515. It's not like there aren't other options.

I could see the following:

southern 509 Fwy: renumber entire stretch to 167
north of Fife up to Burien: renumber to 549

northern 509 Fwy: keep as 509.


Why 549?  The 3-digit numbers go up from South to North (except 599, which is just named for what it does), which is why I would leave the mainline 509 in the south, as-is.  The Spur should certainly be 167 or more logically 514, as it would be E-W, and SR 514 used to exist in the area, so it would be revived for this new freeway. Extend the 516 designation through Des Monies to the existing end of the freeway at Seatac.  Then the new freeway could be 513 and 513 in Seattle could be decommissioned, as no one knows it is there anyway.  I'm not a fan of spur routes, illogical numbers (especially in Washington, where we seem to keep some pretty good consistency), route gaps, or massive overlaps.

Why not use a number like SR 511 for the non freeway part of existing SR 509?
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on December 06, 2020, 04:10:48 PM
Good points about the north to south transition. I forgot how the 500-series came to be.

Here's an idea:

southern 509 Fwy: WA-514, extend to WA-161 in Puyallup to avoid wrong-way cardinal directions (something that still drives me crazy)

existing non-Fwy: keep as WA-509 OR turn over to city control?

northern 509 Fwy: WA-519

WA-519 could become I-90 Business/Spur? I think it's still signed I-90 temp :-D
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: ErmineNotyours on December 06, 2020, 10:19:30 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 05, 2020, 01:13:12 PM

Quote from: Revive 755 on December 05, 2020, 12:46:38 PM
What's with the truss bridge in the field north of the current end of WA 167?[/url]

That was the original bridge over the Puyallup River (https://goo.gl/maps/RN1xhxMyvfuksqox8), just to the south of the interchange. It was relocated while the state sought a buyer...no luck, clearly.

One source I've found says it is to be repurposed as the crossing for the Foothills Trail between Enumclaw and Buckley.  One selling point for building a crossing is that it can be use as an emergency crossing if the SR 410 bridge is closed, so it has to be built to hold traffic.  See page 10 here: https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/services/parks-recreation/parks/Foothills/technical-reports/2016-02-25_Foothills_Trail-Route_Options_Review_Report.ashx?la=en

Either they will have to airlift it there, or disassemble/reassemble it.  I found this information recently because I wanted to check to see how much of the project was complete before I walked there.  The Boise Creek Bridge was supposed to be completed last year and they're still working on it, and the other two phases will follow after that.

(See also: https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/parks-and-recreation/documents/cip/2012%20ABAM%20-%20SR167%20Puyallup%20River%20bridge%20Reuse%20Assessment-Phase%201%20Final%20Report%20Reduced.pdf )
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Bruce on December 07, 2020, 01:34:28 AM
I'd rather have the entire freeway corridor under a single number, even if it does create a wrong-way direction for a bit.

Also, if we really need to free up an extra number, perhaps we could just extend SR 410 over SR 512 to create a nice continuous corridor.  :-D
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on December 08, 2020, 01:20:51 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on December 06, 2020, 10:19:30 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 05, 2020, 01:13:12 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 05, 2020, 12:46:38 PM
What's with the truss bridge in the field north of the current end of WA 167?[/url]

That was the original bridge over the Puyallup River (https://goo.gl/maps/RN1xhxMyvfuksqox8), just to the south of the interchange. It was relocated while the state sought a buyer...no luck, clearly.

One source I've found says it is to be repurposed as the crossing for the Foothills Trail between Enumclaw and Buckley.  One selling point for building a crossing is that it can be use as an emergency crossing if the SR 410 bridge is closed, so it has to be built to hold traffic.  See page 10 here: https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/services/parks-recreation/parks/Foothills/technical-reports/2016-02-25_Foothills_Trail-Route_Options_Review_Report.ashx?la=en

Either they will have to airlift it there, or disassemble/reassemble it.  I found this information recently because I wanted to check to see how much of the project was complete before I walked there.  The Boise Creek Bridge was supposed to be completed last year and they're still working on it, and the other two phases will follow after that.

(See also: https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/parks-and-recreation/documents/cip/2012%20ABAM%20-%20SR167%20Puyallup%20River%20bridge%20Reuse%20Assessment-Phase%201%20Final%20Report%20Reduced.pdf )

I'd have to wonder what kind of improvements to the super-structure would be required for it to also handle vehicle traffic in a pinch. Last I checked, it was in simply awful shape by the time it was removed. Pedestrian travel would have nearly no effect on the overall structural integrity, but even a couple weeks of vehicular traffic would begin to take a serious toll on the integrity. I would guess. Though, I am no engineer. I just seem to remember the bridge being very poorly rated by the time it was removed, perhaps the worst in state for overall integrity.

This mynorthwest.com article (https://mynorthwest.com/1535858/no-one-would-take-the-old-puyallup-river-bridge-even-for-1m/?) from last year indicates that it could sit in state ROW through 2025 if no other use is found. The 167 extension contractor would demolish it.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on December 08, 2020, 01:34:32 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 07, 2020, 01:34:28 AM
I'd rather have the entire freeway corridor under a single number, even if it does create a wrong-way direction for a bit.

Also, if we really need to free up an extra number, perhaps we could just extend SR 410 over SR 512 to create a nice continuous corridor.  :-D

I don't see why a single number is necessarily desirable. There are already numerous examples of this occurring elsewhere: both ends of the 405 (where it becomes 518 and 525); southern end of the 705 where it becomes Hwy 7; Hwy 99 where it becomes 599 in Tukwila; the 101 where it becomes Hwy 8 west of Olympia and then also Hwy 12 in Elma; I-182 where it become Hwy 12 in the Tri-Cities...probably another example I can't think of.

There are certainly reasons why these decisions were made, yes, but the cardinal direction issue is a good enough reason to also not use a continuous number here either. How does it make any sense, going southeast on Valley Ave, that you need to go south on 167 reach I-5? Or going southbound on I-5 and taking the ramp to northbound 167 to reach Puyallup...huh? The situation kind of already exists at River Road and I-5, but (A) it's more east-west compared to the new 167 which would be more north-south, and (B) literally everyone calls that road "River Road", whereas the freeway would only have a number (aka, no fallback).

As for the 410/512/167 situation: interesting solution. Although given the importance of 512 as an east-west corridor, removing it and moving it elsewhere, even if it kept it somewhat within the north-south rules for those 500-series highways, it would be really confusing for residents who have become used to the 512 number. I'd rather end 167 at 410, and keep 410 going all the way to the 705 in Tacoma. Still mostly east-west! I think a large portion of traffic on 167 comes from 512 or 410 anyways, so the idea of 167 continuing even past those roads seems hard to justify.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Evan_Th on December 08, 2020, 02:28:24 PM
How about extending 167 over 512, and giving all this new freeway a new number?
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Bruce on December 08, 2020, 02:31:17 PM
Quote from: Evan_Th on December 08, 2020, 02:28:24 PM
How about extending 167 over 512, and giving all this new freeway a new number?

In that case, we could extend WA 410 over the new freeway and all the way over to Downtown Tacoma on WA 509.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on December 08, 2020, 03:41:40 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 08, 2020, 02:31:17 PM
Quote from: Evan_Th on December 08, 2020, 02:28:24 PM
How about extending 167 over 512, and giving all this new freeway a new number?

In that case, we could extend WA 410 over the new freeway and all the way over to Downtown Tacoma on WA 509.

That's exactly what I was proposing in my post just above: end 167 at 410 or 512, and use 410 for the new route and eliminate 509 west of Alexander Ave in Fife.

Do not get rid of 512. I'm telling you guys that it's way too heavily used to be dumped and then moved a few miles to the north. It would be very confusing.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Evan_Th on December 08, 2020, 06:53:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 08, 2020, 03:41:40 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 08, 2020, 02:31:17 PM
Quote from: Evan_Th on December 08, 2020, 02:28:24 PM
How about extending 167 over 512, and giving all this new freeway a new number?

In that case, we could extend WA 410 over the new freeway and all the way over to Downtown Tacoma on WA 509.

That's exactly what I was proposing in my post just above: end 167 at 410 or 512, and use 410 for the new route and eliminate 509 west of Alexander Ave in Fife.

Do not get rid of 512. I'm telling you guys that it's way too heavily used to be dumped and then moved a few miles to the north. It would be very confusing.

But what if we just dump it without moving it?
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on December 08, 2020, 07:18:25 PM
Quote from: Evan_Th on December 08, 2020, 06:53:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 08, 2020, 03:41:40 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 08, 2020, 02:31:17 PM
Quote from: Evan_Th on December 08, 2020, 02:28:24 PM
How about extending 167 over 512, and giving all this new freeway a new number?

In that case, we could extend WA 410 over the new freeway and all the way over to Downtown Tacoma on WA 509.

That's exactly what I was proposing in my post just above: end 167 at 410 or 512, and use 410 for the new route and eliminate 509 west of Alexander Ave in Fife.

Do not get rid of 512. I'm telling you guys that it's way too heavily used to be dumped and then moved a few miles to the north. It would be very confusing.

But what if we just dump it without moving it?

I don't really understand what we gain from doing so. If we re-route 167 onto 512, the cardinal directions along a very east-west freeway are now north-south. That's not helpful. We could re-route 410 onto 512, but that doesn't solve the issues around the number for the new freeway.

I still think ending 167 somewhere in Sumner or North Puyallup and extending 410 makes the most sense. It's what was originally planned anyways:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50696873086_d8b18ea3af_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on December 09, 2020, 03:32:24 AM
The first stage of the 509 project, between I-5 and 24th Ave S, has been awarded to Guy F Atkinson Construction. Design work to be completed within next year; construction starts early 2022. It will take about three years:

https://wsdot.wa.gov/news/2020/12/02/sr-509-completion-project-reaches-major-milestone-264-million-apparent-best-value

Project will include:

Quote from: WSDOT
* The first mile of a new SR 509 Expressway between I-5 and 24th Avenue South in SeaTac
* A new interchange at 24th Avenue South in SeaTac that connects to the new SR 509 Expressway
* A new, wider South 216th Street bridge with improved access over I-5 for people who drive, bike and walk
* New ramps along I-5 that connect to the new SR 509 Expressway
* A new I-5 underpass at Veterans Drive in Kent, which provides a direct connection to the manufacturing and warehousing area in the Kent Valley
* A reconfigured I-5/SR 516 interchange that improves mobility for people who drive, walk, bike, and use transit
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: stevashe on December 18, 2020, 01:37:51 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 08, 2020, 03:41:40 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 08, 2020, 02:31:17 PM
Quote from: Evan_Th on December 08, 2020, 02:28:24 PM
How about extending 167 over 512, and giving all this new freeway a new number?

In that case, we could extend WA 410 over the new freeway and all the way over to Downtown Tacoma on WA 509.

That's exactly what I was proposing in my post just above: end 167 at 410 or 512, and use 410 for the new route and eliminate 509 west of Alexander Ave in Fife.

Do not get rid of 512. I'm telling you guys that it's way too heavily used to be dumped and then moved a few miles to the north. It would be very confusing.

This is what I proposed in a previous thread (or maybe the Washington thread), I think it's a good idea.

Also if we need a new route number for either freeway, there are some clear choices that fit in nicely and don't require stealing numbers from other routes: 511, 517, and 521, which are all currently unused. :P
I suspect the state would prefer 517 or 521, since I'm thinking 511 may have been skipped due to being the road information phone number.

At any rate, if I ever get to talk with some WSDOT folks that are involved with this project, I'll be sure to ask them about the numbering.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on December 30, 2020, 04:16:45 AM
Quote from: stevashe on December 18, 2020, 01:37:51 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 08, 2020, 03:41:40 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 08, 2020, 02:31:17 PM
Quote from: Evan_Th on December 08, 2020, 02:28:24 PM
How about extending 167 over 512, and giving all this new freeway a new number?

In that case, we could extend WA 410 over the new freeway and all the way over to Downtown Tacoma on WA 509.

That's exactly what I was proposing in my post just above: end 167 at 410 or 512, and use 410 for the new route and eliminate 509 west of Alexander Ave in Fife.

Do not get rid of 512. I'm telling you guys that it's way too heavily used to be dumped and then moved a few miles to the north. It would be very confusing.

This is what I proposed in a previous thread (or maybe the Washington thread), I think it's a good idea.

Also if we need a new route number for either freeway, there are some clear choices that fit in nicely and don't require stealing numbers from other routes: 511, 517, and 521, which are all currently unused. :P
I suspect the state would prefer 517 or 521, since I'm thinking 511 may have been skipped due to being the road information phone number.

At any rate, if I ever get to talk with some WSDOT folks that are involved with this project, I'll be sure to ask them about the numbering.

If you can actually get to and talk to some WSDOT folks, I would love to hear their reasoning. I expressed concern at a previous meeting and received a non-answer.

I would seriously think a 410 extension would be a good idea. Here's my thinking:

(1) end 167 at 410
(2) extend 410 to 509 in Fife
(3) end 512 at 410 using current trumpet
(4)(!) reconstruct interchange between 410, 512, and 167 so that there is no multiplexing (eg., direct access ramps from 512 to both 410 and 167 to avoid signing multiple routes for one movement).

Obviously part 4 would be 20+ years into the future and after an HOV extension to the south end, where it might tie into future HOV lanes on 512 and the new freeway.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: TheStranger on December 30, 2020, 06:17:17 PM
Extending WA 410 on the new route would essentially restore the number along the former US 410 corridor, right?
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on December 30, 2020, 10:44:17 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on December 30, 2020, 06:17:17 PM
Extending WA 410 on the new route would essentially restore the number along the former US 410 corridor, right?

Sort of. 410 followed present-day 167 into Puyallup and then along the river to Tacoma, to an interchange with I-5 along a separate corridor. But original renderings for this freeway back in the 60s (posted on last page) envisioned a 410 number for this new freeway, so in a way, yes it would sort of restore the original number.

I think we can all blame planners in the early 70s: 167 took over 410's route in 1973, for no clear reason. The exit from I-5 onto River Road originally read "SR-410 EAST" (note the green-out on the old sign (https://goo.gl/maps/FtpsWuMbgmmq7DGM9)), which is exactly the direction it was, but was then changed to say "SR-167 NORTH", which it was definitely not (as the crow flies). What exactly we gained out of terminating 410 at 167 back in 1973, I do not know, but I do know a north-south number took over an east-west highway which makes zero sense. Now, we get to deal with funky new numbers and wrong-way cardinal directions. Yeeesh.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 30, 2020, 11:31:41 PM
I've never been to the NW yet but looking at Google maps 410 should be upgraded to a freeway forming a loop with the 169 connecting to the 18. That would allow and accommodate more growth.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Bruce on December 31, 2020, 02:09:33 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 30, 2020, 11:31:41 PM
I've never been to the NW yet but looking at Google maps 410 should be upgraded to a freeway forming a loop with the 169 connecting to the 18. That would allow and accommodate more growth.

Not necessary at all. The Enumclaw Plateau should remain a protected agricultural area, and all residential development in the vicinity of one of the most dangerous volcanoes in the world should be extremely limited. We've got plenty of land to build densely on before we put more people in lahar zones.

The SR 169 corridor is also quite hilly, so building a freeway would be expensive and pointless. Traffic already flies through the rural sections.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Rothman on December 31, 2020, 08:28:47 AM
Pfft.  If the Italians still live in the shadow of Vesuvius, there's little worry about living 50 miles from Rainier.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 31, 2020, 01:33:34 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 31, 2020, 02:09:33 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 30, 2020, 11:31:41 PM
I've never been to the NW yet but looking at Google maps 410 should be upgraded to a freeway forming a loop with the 169 connecting to the 18. That would allow and accommodate more growth.

Not necessary at all. The Enumclaw Plateau should remain a protected agricultural area, and all residential development in the vicinity of one of the most dangerous volcanoes in the world should be extremely limited. We've got plenty of land to build densely on before we put more people in lahar zones.

The SR 169 corridor is also quite hilly, so building a freeway would be expensive and pointless. Traffic already flies through the rural sections.
Seems like the issue of a volcano erupting would only be loss of property not life since we have advanced warnings of such an event.

Now you know more than more here when it comes to this area but looking at a Google maps I didn't THAT much agricultural land usage it looked more like rural estate dwellings in acreages.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on December 31, 2020, 01:46:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 31, 2020, 08:28:47 AM
Pfft.  If the Italians still live in the shadow of Vesuvius, there's little worry about living 50 miles from Rainier.

Ehhh, not sure I agree. The primary argument is that both "shadows" should be reserved for agricultural use; land around volcanoes is very fertile.

The Italians have managed to maintain some pretty intense density around Vesuvius to preserve land for agriculture usage. But then Italy is the size of Arizona, so it's not like they were able to pack up and leave Vesuvius' shadow overnight.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 31, 2020, 01:33:34 PM
Seems like the issue of a volcano erupting would only be loss of property not life since we have advanced warnings of such an event.

It becomes more difficult to move people out of an area the more people that are in that area. Orting residents were fine for years, as there wasn't that many people in the Orting Valley. Now there's hundreds, maybe thousands of new homes and they're all competing for the few roads leaving town. Most residents' best bets are using ATVs or other off-roaders.

But then we shouldn't discount the loss of property either. The average acre of land with no built improvements should be cheaper than land with improvements. If the Enumclaw Plateau could be destroyed, it would be more desirable for the destruction to primarily be barns and farmhouses than entire housing estates.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 31, 2020, 02:03:50 PM
Even if not used for development expansion purposes, this could be a rather useful segment of a Eastern Seattle Bypass(that will never be built lol), no?
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on December 31, 2020, 02:29:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 31, 2020, 02:03:50 PM
Even if not used for development expansion purposes, this could be a rather useful segment of a Eastern Seattle Bypass(that will never be built lol), no?

I wouldn't mind seeing some improvements to WA-169. Possibly a divided highway with a one-way couplet in Enumclaw, with a bypass around the north edge of Buckley and the west edge of Black Diamond.

Overall, the 410-169 corridor wouldn't really be any more useful of a bypass than improvements to 18, which I think are more in the books right now anyways.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: thefraze_1020 on December 31, 2020, 08:02:42 PM
I'm sure we've touched on this before, but I think the portion of SR-509 from Port of Tacoma Road up to SR-99 in Federal Way is pointless. The only good it serves is to lead to the state park. But this doesn't seem to be a necessity anymore (i.e. Saltwater State Park in Des Moines). This whole section is a circuitous route and sporadically signed. I don't think it even is maintained by WSDOT; it looks more like county signage and maintenance. Likewise, the portion of 509 that doglegs up to 1st Ave S at the end of the freeway in Burien and winds down to Des Moines is pointless as well. That could go bye-bye, especially when the freeway is extended to I-5. If that were the case, SR-516 would end all alone. So either leave that, or extend it up Des Moines Memorial Drive to the 509 freeway.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Plutonic Panda on May 05, 2021, 03:54:30 PM
Progress is being made on the SR-167 project:

QuoteThe new bridge and nearby roundabout to SR 99 – being constructed by Guy F. Atkinson crews – are essential steps for the SR 167 Completion Project, which will build 6 mi. of highway and complete the unfinished SR 167 corridor near Tacoma.

The SR 167 Completion Project is part of the estimated $2 billion Puget Sound Gateway Program that includes the SR 509 Completion Project near Seattle. Both projects complete two crucial unfinished links in Washington State's highway and freight network.

Full article which is free and photos here: https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/sr-167-completion-project-gaining-momentum/52058

Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: ErmineNotyours on May 14, 2021, 12:47:00 AM
When I posted the old SR 509 plans on the Never Built thread, CompDude mentioned that you could see the undeveloped path of the freeway on Google Satellite View.  I noticed that on the overlay of current streets I could see SR 99 was swinging out of the way where 509 is going to cross under it, so that meant they were working on the undercrossing.  They are building Link Light Rail along here too, which is crossing above 99 while the new freeway is crossing  under.  These posts you see here are the only new supports put up around here.  The path a few blocks behind the photo to the end of the line is still unpopulated.  They're also digging a trench along I-5 to the south, but I don't know if that's for this freeway yet or just for the light rail.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51178774410_4c555b108e_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kYuAAf)
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Bruce on November 22, 2021, 01:54:00 AM
A new video of the conceptual design of "SR 509 Spur" between I-5 and the Port of Tacoma:



One of the interchanges looks to be a single-point urban roundabout, which looks fun.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51685101451_ec58b1a0a0_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mKeDYP)
New shared-use path to walk, bike, roll (https://flic.kr/p/2mKeDYP) by Washington State Dept of Transportation (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: duaneu2 on December 02, 2021, 08:23:03 PM
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on December 31, 2020, 08:02:42 PM
I'm sure we've touched on this before, but I think the portion of SR-509 from Port of Tacoma Road up to SR-99 in Federal Way is pointless. The only good it serves is to lead to the state park. But this doesn't seem to be a necessity anymore (i.e. Saltwater State Park in Des Moines). This whole section is a circuitous route and sporadically signed. I don't think it even is maintained by WSDOT; it looks more like county signage and maintenance. Likewise, the portion of 509 that doglegs up to 1st Ave S at the end of the freeway in Burien and winds down to Des Moines is pointless as well. That could go bye-bye, especially when the freeway is extended to I-5. If that were the case, SR-516 would end all alone. So either leave that, or extend it up Des Moines Memorial Drive to the 509 freeway.

I've thought for a while now that the two sections of SR 509 should be severed and the northern part renumbered as either 511 or 517.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: SkyPesos on December 02, 2021, 08:34:27 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 22, 2021, 01:54:00 AM
One of the interchanges looks to be a single-point urban roundabout, which looks fun.
They're pretty common in the UK. Maybe they'll gradually get more popular here, like traditional roundabouts (excluding dogbone interchanges, since those are a bit different in geometry)?
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on December 03, 2021, 12:05:22 PM
I'm already thinking there's going to be quite a lot of backups approaching that roundabout. The new roundabout at Pacific Hwy and Wapato Way (built as part of the same project) is already not operating optimally, with trucks having to split the lanes well ahead of the roundabout due to the excessive amount of chicanes. It would seem that this roundabout is going to be designed similarly.

Personally, I would have just used a half diamond. It could have been a simple two-phase signal, would have been much friendlier to pedestrians and trucks, and would have taken a lot less land.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Henry on December 09, 2021, 10:55:13 AM
If there's one thing I hate, it's incomplete freeways that end at a random point, so it's great to hear that WA 167 will be extended to I-5!
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Alps on December 09, 2021, 11:52:35 PM
If there's one thing I hate, it's incomplete posts th
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Plutonic Panda on April 07, 2022, 01:49:11 PM
I was wondering how long it'd take for an article to come out bitching about these projects lol

https://www.kuow.org/stories/new-highways-headed-to-seattle-area-despite-drive-to-fight-climate-change
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: stevashe on April 07, 2022, 07:19:57 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 07, 2022, 01:49:11 PM
I was wondering how long it'd take for an article to come out bitching about these projects lol

https://www.kuow.org/stories/new-highways-headed-to-seattle-area-despite-drive-to-fight-climate-change

Hmm... well at first I was going to say that this actually is not the first article to criticize these projects, but it doesn't seem like you read the actual article past the first few paragraphs at most. If you had, you'd see that it's just a collection of interviews from people with different viewpoints, some for the new highways and some against. I'm actually quite impressed that it's fairly balanced. In fact you'd only have needed to read to the second section to get to someone who is very much not "bitching about these projects":

Quote from: John Ryan/KUOW
Kristin Kershaw with Superfresh Growers in Yakima says she's excited about the Puget Sound Gateway.

"We export about 25—30% of our apple crop and even more of our cherry crop,"  Kershaw said. "So access to ports and air cargo – it's really important."
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Plutonic Panda on April 07, 2022, 07:39:51 PM
I did read the entire article.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Algorithm on April 09, 2022, 10:51:07 PM
One quote from that article stuck out for me:

"If you think the backups at the First Avenue South Bridge are bad now, wait "˜til you see what it's like when you basically are mainlining cars from I-5 to the west of Sea-Tac Airport straight to the First Avenue Bridge,"  McGinn said.

Seems like this is a problem that can be mitigated by rechanneling southbound East Marginal Way traffic under the bridge, cutting a path through Front Street and a barely-used turnaround ramp. That would eliminate the light at the end of the bridge, and while there'd still be a light at 1st, I think this would provide a large improvement at minimal expense.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jay8g on April 10, 2022, 02:48:06 AM
Quote from: Algorithm on April 09, 2022, 10:51:07 PM
Seems like this is a problem that can be mitigated by rechanneling southbound East Marginal Way traffic under the bridge, cutting a path through Front Street and a barely-used turnaround ramp. That would eliminate the light at the end of the bridge, and while there'd still be a light at 1st, I think this would provide a large improvement at minimal expense.

There's no such thing as "minimal expense" when buying new right-of-way in Seattle is involved, especially when railroads and industrial land are involved. Unless you're intending for it to be a 1-lane low-speed facility, which seems like it would defeat the point. Plus, I imagine there would still need to be a signal to merge the 3 lanes of northbound 99 with the three lanes of northwestbound East Marginal Way S.

I'm certainly never a huge fan of highway expansion, but I feel like these two projects aren't that big of a deal, basically just tying up some old loose ends, plus I imagine having these short links be tolled will mean that there won't be too much traffic using them. I sure hope WSDOT will make these the last major new freeways in the Seattle area, however.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on April 10, 2022, 12:42:43 PM
I find McGinn's comment a bit puzzling anyway. The traffic at the First Avenue South Bridge is only bad because of the occasional bridge opening and, temporarily, diversion traffic from the West Seattle Bridge closure. Otherwise, I don't recall the bridge being a major pain-point for the 599/99/509 corridor(s).

When they dualled the bridge in the mid 1990s, I recall the project being a source of pride for local officials. 25 years later, there should still be plenty of pride: it handles way more traffic much more safely. They built the road to handle lots of cars, and it does so, even today, exceptionally well, even with all of the diversion traffic from the WSB -- what other intersection in Seattle has a quadruple left turn!? I don't think having 509 extend beyond 188th is going to be a major problem.

I get induced demand, but it's of secondary concern when you're talking about corridors so heavily used by freight traffic. Getting large trucks off local streets should be considered a major achievement for everyone. Trucks are slow, dangerous, and clog up the road; getting them onto corridors where they can operate independent of everything but other cars should be very important to everyone.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Algorithm on April 10, 2022, 02:53:18 PM
Quote from: jay8g on April 10, 2022, 02:48:06 AM
There's no such thing as "minimal expense" when buying new right-of-way in Seattle is involved, especially when railroads and industrial land are involved. Unless you're intending for it to be a 1-lane low-speed facility, which seems like it would defeat the point. Plus, I imagine there would still need to be a signal to merge the 3 lanes of northbound 99 with the three lanes of northwestbound East Marginal Way S.

I'm certainly never a huge fan of highway expansion, but I feel like these two projects aren't that big of a deal, basically just tying up some old loose ends, plus I imagine having these short links be tolled will mean that there won't be too much traffic using them. I sure hope WSDOT will make these the last major new freeways in the Seattle area, however.

There's enough room for two lanes between the railroad and the bridge ramp, and if you cut into the retaining wall under the bridge there should be enough room for a medium-speed curve.  No additional property acquisition required.  Also, East Marginal does not need three lanes going northbound.  I'm envisioning two lanes, merging to one before meeting 509, resulting in four northbound lanes with one splitting off onto 1st.  But even if there's too much traffic on East Marginal for one lane to handle, there's enough room for five northbound lanes in that spot since it'll all be one-way.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on April 10, 2022, 05:46:07 PM
Quote from: Algorithm on April 10, 2022, 02:53:18 PM
Quote from: jay8g on April 10, 2022, 02:48:06 AM
There's no such thing as "minimal expense" when buying new right-of-way in Seattle is involved, especially when railroads and industrial land are involved. Unless you're intending for it to be a 1-lane low-speed facility, which seems like it would defeat the point. Plus, I imagine there would still need to be a signal to merge the 3 lanes of northbound 99 with the three lanes of northwestbound East Marginal Way S.

I'm certainly never a huge fan of highway expansion, but I feel like these two projects aren't that big of a deal, basically just tying up some old loose ends, plus I imagine having these short links be tolled will mean that there won't be too much traffic using them. I sure hope WSDOT will make these the last major new freeways in the Seattle area, however.

There's enough room for two lanes between the railroad and the bridge ramp, and if you cut into the retaining wall under the bridge there should be enough room for a medium-speed curve.  No additional property acquisition required.  Also, East Marginal does not need three lanes going northbound.  I'm envisioning two lanes, merging to one before meeting 509, resulting in four northbound lanes with one splitting off onto 1st.  But even if there's too much traffic on East Marginal for one lane to handle, there's enough room for five northbound lanes in that spot since it'll all be one-way.

How does traffic coming off the bridge access 1st Ave?
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Algorithm on April 10, 2022, 11:25:03 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 10, 2022, 05:46:07 PM
How does traffic coming off the bridge access 1st Ave?

If there's only one lane coming from East Marginal, then the right lane on the bridge could access 1st without changing lanes.  On the combined northbound road, the rightmost lane would be right-turn only and the second-rightmost would be right-turn optional.  If there were two lanes from East Marginal, then they'd both go to 1st.  In this case, traffic could possibly cross-merge, but in the likely event that this would cause backups they'd have to stay separated and cross over on a side street like Lucille.  This is why I would prefer having only one lane from East Marginal at the merge point.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: KEK Inc. on April 19, 2022, 12:05:03 AM
Or they can just turn 99 into a viaduct south of Spokane St.  :bigass:
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 19, 2022, 02:36:20 PM
I don't think the locals would be too pleased with that, even if the corridor is only populated by businesses and industries.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: TEG24601 on May 06, 2022, 02:55:50 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 19, 2022, 02:36:20 PM
I don't think the locals would be too pleased with that, even if the corridor is only populated by businesses and industries.


It could just be a bypass.  Elevate a 2-lane passenger vehicle viaduct, for those headed over the Duwamish, and get that traffic off of the road and away from the trucks.  Might give them a chance to improve the surface conditions, and maybe give the road a diet, along with some new bike/ped facilities, and removing the disused rail infrastructure.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on May 12, 2022, 11:02:23 AM
New visualisations of the 509 extension at 188th and 160th.

Slight change to the interchange design at 188th (1/4 partial cloverleaf with roundabouts) and some new roundabouts at the existing partial cloverleaf at 160th.

Warning for the cartographers: both visuals are south-up, confusingly.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52067394556_14a3e16963_o.jpg)
SR 509 Completion Project Visualization: SR 509/South 160th Street Interchange (https://flic.kr/p/2nk21pf) by Washington State Dept of Transportation (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52066349982_59768ffa8f_o.jpg)
SR 509 Completion Project Visualization: SR 509/South 188th Street Interchange (https://flic.kr/p/2njVDTm) by Washington State Dept of Transportation (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Plutonic Panda on May 12, 2022, 12:29:12 PM
I'm surprised they're only building SR-509 with two lanes each way.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on May 12, 2022, 01:35:59 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 12, 2022, 12:29:12 PM
I'm surprised they're only building SR-509 with two lanes each way.

I don't think there's money for anything more than that.

I think the master plan calls for HOV ramps to 509 to/from the south on I-5, but not sure if that will ever happen.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Bruce on May 12, 2022, 05:08:43 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 12, 2022, 12:29:12 PM
I'm surprised they're only building SR-509 with two lanes each way.

It doesn't need to be any wider.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on May 12, 2022, 05:51:54 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 12, 2022, 05:08:43 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 12, 2022, 12:29:12 PM
I'm surprised they're only building SR-509 with two lanes each way.

It doesn't need to be any wider.

I would agree with that, especially given that 509 is only four lanes north of 188th.

That said, they were definitely thinking wider at one point (almost twenty years ago, I think). This may still happen once the South Access project at SeaTac Airport takes off:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-ei6oUjRFg8A%2FVmzIBKfl7JI%2FAAAAAAAATqk%2FXrsM3Buii8c%2Fs1600%2FENLARGED509proposed2003.jpg&hash=0f25b7de6a0a23ed90c72f5fcb22ea93b17f8618)
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: kkt on May 12, 2022, 11:18:30 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 19, 2022, 12:05:03 AM
Or they can just turn 99 into a viaduct south of Spokane St.  :bigass:

:pan:
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: ErmineNotyours on May 18, 2022, 06:59:10 AM
509 north of 518 is still dominated by galvanized steel with wood supports.  It's never been revised with an HOV lane and it looks like a time warp.  All the freeways in Puget Sound used to look like that.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Bruce on May 24, 2022, 01:20:12 AM
The clearest and simplest explanation of the SR 509 component I've seen yet.

Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: I94RoadRunner on August 31, 2022, 12:36:10 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 08, 2020, 03:41:40 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 08, 2020, 02:31:17 PM
Quote from: Evan_Th on December 08, 2020, 02:28:24 PM
How about extending 167 over 512, and giving all this new freeway a new number?

In that case, we could extend WA 410 over the new freeway and all the way over to Downtown Tacoma on WA 509.

That's exactly what I was proposing in my post just above: end 167 at 410 or 512, and use 410 for the new route and eliminate 509 west of Alexander Ave in Fife.

Do not get rid of 512. I'm telling you guys that it's way too heavily used to be dumped and then moved a few miles to the north. It would be very confusing.

I don't see any reason for the 509 designation between SR 99 at dash point sharing pavement up to SR 516 then sharing with 516 as well. I'd say truncate 509 at SR 99 at the Dash Point Rd intersection and then renumber the whole freeway north of there including the new extension as SR 517 as that is an unused number
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: I94RoadRunner on August 31, 2022, 12:45:09 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on May 06, 2022, 02:55:50 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 19, 2022, 02:36:20 PM
I don't think the locals would be too pleased with that, even if the corridor is only populated by businesses and industries.


It could just be a bypass.  Elevate a 2-lane passenger vehicle viaduct, for those headed over the Duwamish, and get that traffic off of the road and away from the trucks.  Might give them a chance to improve the surface conditions, and maybe give the road a diet, along with some new bike/ped facilities, and removing the disused rail infrastructure.

The original plans were for the Alaskan Way Viaduct to tie directly into the 1st Ave S Bridge as a full freeway. The section from the W Seattle Freeway to the 1st Ave S Bridge was never built however.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on August 31, 2022, 11:48:22 AM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on August 31, 2022, 12:45:09 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on May 06, 2022, 02:55:50 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 19, 2022, 02:36:20 PM
I don't think the locals would be too pleased with that, even if the corridor is only populated by businesses and industries.


It could just be a bypass.  Elevate a 2-lane passenger vehicle viaduct, for those headed over the Duwamish, and get that traffic off of the road and away from the trucks.  Might give them a chance to improve the surface conditions, and maybe give the road a diet, along with some new bike/ped facilities, and removing the disused rail infrastructure.

The original plans were for the Alaskan Way Viaduct to tie directly into the 1st Ave S Bridge as a full freeway. The section from the W Seattle Freeway to the 1st Ave S Bridge was never built however.

Welcome back to the forum!

Do you remember where you saw those original plans? I had never heard that. I'm guessing the plan would have been to replace the 1st Ave S Bridge whenever that southerly extension took place. And I doubt 509 would have ended prematurely in Burien if the freeway was continuous all the way into Seattle, as the demand for that route would have certainly been much higher without the (original) bottleneck at the 1st Ave S Bridge and an elevated freeway along East Marginal.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: I94RoadRunner on August 31, 2022, 08:02:49 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 31, 2022, 11:48:22 AM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on August 31, 2022, 12:45:09 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on May 06, 2022, 02:55:50 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 19, 2022, 02:36:20 PM
I don't think the locals would be too pleased with that, even if the corridor is only populated by businesses and industries.


It could just be a bypass.  Elevate a 2-lane passenger vehicle viaduct, for those headed over the Duwamish, and get that traffic off of the road and away from the trucks.  Might give them a chance to improve the surface conditions, and maybe give the road a diet, along with some new bike/ped facilities, and removing the disused rail infrastructure.

The original plans were for the Alaskan Way Viaduct to tie directly into the 1st Ave S Bridge as a full freeway. The section from the W Seattle Freeway to the 1st Ave S Bridge was never built however.

Welcome back to the forum!

Do you remember where you saw those original plans? I had never heard that. I'm guessing the plan would have been to replace the 1st Ave S Bridge whenever that southerly extension took place. And I doubt 509 would have ended prematurely in Burien if the freeway was continuous all the way into Seattle, as the demand for that route would have certainly been much higher without the (original) bottleneck at the 1st Ave S Bridge and an elevated freeway along East Marginal.

I had seen it on an article about the RH Thompson freeway that was once proposed along Seattle's eastern edge. In addition to the continuous freeway that was once proposed, there was a huge system interchange that was on the books for where SR 99 departed from SR 509 that was never built because the gap in the freeway never was built. The original interchange dud have direct ramps leading from SR 99/509 to Highland Park way but that was rebuilt to its current configuration in the mid to late 1990's
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Bruce on October 25, 2022, 10:03:46 PM
New flyover video from Sound Transit of the Federal Way Link Extension, which also includes footage of the SeaTac extension for SR 509:

Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: ErmineNotyours on October 26, 2022, 01:31:22 AM
Quote from: Bruce on October 25, 2022, 10:03:46 PM
New flyover video from Sound Transit of the Federal Way Link Extension, which also includes footage of the SeaTac extension for SR 509:



At one time there was going to be an operations base at Midway at the location of the Dick's Hamburgers.  Now I don't see a break in the path anywhere for an operations base.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Bruce on October 26, 2022, 02:15:35 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on October 26, 2022, 01:31:22 AM
Quote from: Bruce on October 25, 2022, 10:03:46 PM
New flyover video from Sound Transit of the Federal Way Link Extension, which also includes footage of the SeaTac extension for SR 509:



At one time there was going to be an operations base at Midway at the location of the Dick's Hamburgers.  Now I don't see a break in the path anywhere for an operations base.

Sound Transit's preferred site (https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/operations-maintenance-facility-south) will be just north of SR 18. Since it won't be needed until the Tacoma Dome Extension is built, it doesn't need to be north of Federal Way TC.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jay8g on October 30, 2022, 03:00:27 AM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on August 31, 2022, 08:02:49 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 31, 2022, 11:48:22 AM
Welcome back to the forum!

Do you remember where you saw those original plans? I had never heard that. I'm guessing the plan would have been to replace the 1st Ave S Bridge whenever that southerly extension took place. And I doubt 509 would have ended prematurely in Burien if the freeway was continuous all the way into Seattle, as the demand for that route would have certainly been much higher without the (original) bottleneck at the 1st Ave S Bridge and an elevated freeway along East Marginal.

I had seen it on an article about the RH Thompson freeway that was once proposed along Seattle's eastern edge. In addition to the continuous freeway that was once proposed, there was a huge system interchange that was on the books for where SR 99 departed from SR 509 that was never built because the gap in the freeway never was built. The original interchange dud have direct ramps leading from SR 99/509 to Highland Park way but that was rebuilt to its current configuration in the mid to late 1990's

I hadn't heard of that either, but it certainly would have made sense. There were also plans to extend the double-deck section of I-90 to the AWV (the "Connecticut Street Viaduct" (https://www.historylink.org/Content/Media/Photos/Large/plan-drawing-connecticut-street-viaduct-seattle-1960.jpg)), which is probably the main reason that small double-deck section exists.

As far as the south end goes, WSDOT to this day still owns right-of-way going all the way to this point (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Barnes+Creek+Nature+Trail/@47.3958814,-122.3144816,700m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x54905bac92bf28ed:0x563c8d7153b7eb58!8m2!3d47.3942043!4d-122.3139168?hl=en) on SR 516 where the SR 509 extension was originally supposed to go. I'm not sure what the plan was south of there.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on October 30, 2022, 04:17:13 AM
Quote from: jay8g on October 30, 2022, 03:00:27 AM
As far as the south end goes, WSDOT to this day still owns right-of-way going all the way to this point (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Barnes+Creek+Nature+Trail/@47.3958814,-122.3144816,700m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x54905bac92bf28ed:0x563c8d7153b7eb58!8m2!3d47.3942043!4d-122.3139168?hl=en) on SR 516 where the SR 509 extension was originally supposed to go. I'm not sure what the plan was south of there.

I've long wondered the same thing. I have to assume the plan was to eventually link it up with I-5, but I cannot identify any particular stretch where it would have clearly interchanged. No stubs, extra-wide ROW, etc.

I find it extremely hard to believe that they built 509 without any plans of where it was going, so there must be some kind of plan. Unpublished on the internet, of course... :-|
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: ErmineNotyours on November 01, 2022, 01:29:37 AM
Quote from: jay8g on October 30, 2022, 03:00:27 AM
As far as the south end goes, WSDOT to this day still owns right-of-way going all the way to this point (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Barnes+Creek+Nature+Trail/@47.3958814,-122.3144816,700m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x54905bac92bf28ed:0x563c8d7153b7eb58!8m2!3d47.3942043!4d-122.3139168?hl=en) on SR 516 where the SR 509 extension was originally supposed to go. I'm not sure what the plan was south of there.

I was asked this before, and I still have a 1977 Thomas Bros. map that shows one possible answer.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51178498559_827c36a9c6_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kYtbAc)
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on November 01, 2022, 03:09:43 AM
Thanks Arthur.

My gut told me it would go through the Midway Landfill. Not sure what the state of the landfill was back then, though.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Bruce on November 01, 2022, 03:21:09 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 01, 2022, 03:09:43 AM
Thanks Arthur.

My gut told me it would go through the Midway Landfill. Not sure what the state of the landfill was back then, though.

Looks like it was a gravel quarry until the 1960s and then a landfill until 1983. Now a Superfund site (https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Cleanup&id=1000851#bkground).
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on November 01, 2022, 08:03:26 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 01, 2022, 03:21:09 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 01, 2022, 03:09:43 AM
Thanks Arthur.

My gut told me it would go through the Midway Landfill. Not sure what the state of the landfill was back then, though.

Looks like it was a gravel quarry until the 1960s and then a landfill until 1983. Now a Superfund site (https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Cleanup&id=1000851#bkground).

smh...of course it's a super-fund site. And people wonder why it's not going to be a light rail maintenance yard.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: rte66man on November 22, 2022, 08:22:35 AM
https://www.king5.com/article/traffic/traffic-news/exclusive-new-expressway-puyallup-port-of-tacoma/281-cd8a2f74-afbb-455a-9c7f-713c7cde18e8

Quote
'Once-in-a-lifetime project' will connect Puyallup to Port of Tacoma
It's a project that's been talked about for decades, a much-needed cure to the congestion from semis going to and from the Port of Tacoma.

Author: Kristin Goodwillie
Published: 8:34 AM PST November 21, 2022
Updated: 6:55 PM PST November 21, 2022

PUYALLUP, Wash. – A lot can happen in three decades. Cities change and neighbors come and go. But Fife resident Warren Walsborn and his family stayed.

"Probably about three or four years after I was here, then I started getting notices that we're going to take your property,"  Walsborn said.

Twenty-five years ago, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) was acquiring land for a new expressway project connecting I-5 to the Port of Tacoma. They initially wanted Walsborn's land, but he did not sell. He's now one of the only houses still standing on his street.

"It's been a rollercoaster of, 'Do I have to move? Can I stay? Where do I go?'" Walsborn said.

The new expressway will be close to his home, but he can stay put. Construction began this summer to alleviate the semi-congestion butting up to his backyard in Fife. Truck traffic has been a problem for years. The vision of this connector talked about for decades.

"There was a gap in time primarily through the latter part of the '70s and '80s where very little happened,"  said John White, program administrator for the Puget Sound Gateway Program.

The early lack of money from the legislature stalled this project, but since getting funding in 2015, WSDOT has been working to get it finished.

"When you see these corridors open up, it will transform things for these communities that surround the missing links,"  White said.

The project will connect Highway 167 where it currently ends in Puyallup to I-5 in Fife and over to the Port of Tacoma. It will be about 4 miles of highway to get to I-5 in Fife. The highway will go through fields that are currently farmland and over 20th Street before connecting to I-5 and crossing over the interstate and Pacific Highway.

From there, it will form into a "diverging diamond" interchange which allows vehicles to enter and exit the highway more easily,  ending with another 2 miles to the Port of Tacoma.

"This is one of those once-in-a-lifetime projects," said Tom Slimak, the WSDOT project engineer:

WSDOT is also creating miles of biking and walking trails and investing in climate resiliency.

"So we have over 150 acres of wetland mitigation, stream creation and habitat creation that we're doing that we call a Hylebos Restoration Program,"  Slimak said.

The Fife expressway will be completed in 2026. The entire project is on track to be completed in 2028. White said the impact tonFife will be transformative.

The expressway will have tolls, which WSDOT said will be based on the time of day. You'll pay more during high peak times and less when traffic is low. The state legislature decides on tolls.

In the last 20 years, WSDOT has acquired 150 pieces of land and portions of 50 parcels. They still need to acquire eight full pieces of land and eight partial acquisitions.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on January 27, 2023, 07:29:35 AM
Some new details from the current online open house.

https://engage.wsdot.wa.gov/sr167completionproject/

First, unless every diagram is wrong, the "509 Spur"  moniker is being dropped, and the whole freeway will be called 167. So, exiting I-5 southbound, you can now stay left towards "NORTH, Puyallup" , or "SOUTH, Tacoma" . Brilliant.

Second, Valley Ave is going to be a roundabout. Dogbone design. The southerly ramps will be constructed in the future.

Third, the interchange at Meridian will now be a DDI. With what appears to be a very complicated southern intersection.

Fourth, the intersection at Alexander Ave is being redesigned into a single non-split intersection. Based on the roadway layout, it seems WSDOT is giving up on building any overpass here anytime soon.

Here is a video, which many of you will find very interesting:

https://youtu.be/DfzXC2gtxnk
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jay8g on January 29, 2023, 03:05:09 AM
Something else that's interesting, from the bottom of the "What to Expect" page:
QuoteTemporary Orange Striping

By spring 2023, travelers on I-5 will experience new, temporary orange lane lines that identify construction work zones. The orange striping is a new strategy to help travelers track lane shifts and heighten driver awareness traveling through work zones. When driving through an area with orange striping, drivers should follow the orange lane markers and remain aware of active work zones.

Has this been used anywhere else in Washington? I'm not aware of any other projects using European-style orange temporary markings.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on January 29, 2023, 07:35:08 AM
Yeah, I saw that too. I wonder what their strategy will be, I've heard orange markings are near impossible to see in the dark. Most freeways don't have any overhead lighting, so the markings need to be very reflective. I think it's why white is usually best for road markings.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Revive 755 on January 29, 2023, 11:00:32 PM
Quote from: jay8g on January 29, 2023, 03:05:09 AM
Something else that's interesting, from the bottom of the "What to Expect" page:
QuoteTemporary Orange Striping

By spring 2023, travelers on I-5 will experience new, temporary orange lane lines that identify construction work zones. The orange striping is a new strategy to help travelers track lane shifts and heighten driver awareness traveling through work zones. When driving through an area with orange striping, drivers should follow the orange lane markers and remain aware of active work zones.

Has this been used anywhere else in Washington? I'm not aware of any other projects using European-style orange temporary markings.

Not Washington, but Wisconsin used them.  Streetview of orange markings on I-94. (https://goo.gl/maps/JCGV5DtPCzp8X3v9A)

Searching through the listings on the MUTCD website, it appears there may also be projects in Kentucky using the orange markings and somewhere under the jurisdiction of the North Texas Tollway Authority.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Bruce on January 30, 2023, 12:19:38 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 29, 2023, 07:35:08 AM
Yeah, I saw that too. I wonder what their strategy will be, I've heard orange markings are near impossible to see in the dark. Most freeways don't have any overhead lighting, so the markings need to be very reflective. I think it's why white is usually best for road markings.

I-5 got shifted and restriped in Everett recently, but it was just the normal white paint. It's pretty awful, on par with the Mountlake Terrace section that I loathe so much.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: ErmineNotyours on January 30, 2023, 12:25:17 AM
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: stevashe on January 30, 2023, 12:32:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 27, 2023, 07:29:35 AM
First, unless every diagram is wrong, the "509 Spur"  moniker is being dropped, and the whole freeway will be called 167. So, exiting I-5 southbound, you can now stay left towards "NORTH, Puyallup" , or "SOUTH, Tacoma" . Brilliant.

Keeping it 167 the whole way would certainly be less confusing from a numbering standpoint, but the cardinal directions would definitely be rather nonsensical! I almost wonder if WSDOT would simply drop the directions altogether in this section and rely solely on control cities if they do go with 167.

I did manage to find one place where 509 Spur is still shown, on a sign in the I-5/SR 167 DDI concept image:

(https://i.imgur.com/S2eTWuf.png)

Unfortunately, I think it's more likely that this sign is outdated than all the other diagrams being incorrect.

Quote from: Bruce on January 30, 2023, 12:19:38 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 29, 2023, 07:35:08 AM
Yeah, I saw that too. I wonder what their strategy will be, I've heard orange markings are near impossible to see in the dark. Most freeways don't have any overhead lighting, so the markings need to be very reflective. I think it's why white is usually best for road markings.

I-5 got shifted and restriped in Everett recently, but it was just the normal white paint. It's pretty awful, on par with the Mountlake Terrace section that I loathe so much.

I drove the section of SR 167 north where the HOV lane was just added from Sumner to Puyallup last year while it had temp striping in the dark while it was raining. Couldn't see the lane lines AT ALL until they were maybe 20 feet from me (i.e. I could see one dash half the time and nothing at all the other half). Good thing they also had reflectors or I'd have been driving blind!
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Evan_Th on February 07, 2023, 02:37:05 PM
Quote from: stevashe on January 30, 2023, 12:32:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 27, 2023, 07:29:35 AM
First, unless every diagram is wrong, the "509 Spur"  moniker is being dropped, and the whole freeway will be called 167. So, exiting I-5 southbound, you can now stay left towards "NORTH, Puyallup" , or "SOUTH, Tacoma" . Brilliant.

Keeping it 167 the whole way would certainly be less confusing from a numbering standpoint, but the cardinal directions would definitely be rather nonsensical! I almost wonder if WSDOT would simply drop the directions altogether in this section and rely solely on control cities if they do go with 167.


This's why I still support ending SR 167 at the 410 junction, and numbering the new freeway as an extension of 410.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on February 07, 2023, 05:56:51 PM
Quote from: Evan_Th on February 07, 2023, 02:37:05 PM
Quote from: stevashe on January 30, 2023, 12:32:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 27, 2023, 07:29:35 AM
First, unless every diagram is wrong, the "509 Spur"  moniker is being dropped, and the whole freeway will be called 167. So, exiting I-5 southbound, you can now stay left towards "NORTH, Puyallup" , or "SOUTH, Tacoma" . Brilliant.

Keeping it 167 the whole way would certainly be less confusing from a numbering standpoint, but the cardinal directions would definitely be rather nonsensical! I almost wonder if WSDOT would simply drop the directions altogether in this section and rely solely on control cities if they do go with 167.


This's why I still support ending SR 167 at the 410 junction, and numbering the new freeway as an extension of 410.

This always seemed most logical to me. I believe the only reason WSDOT is sticking with 167 is because it has always been planned as 167.

I do wonder what the plan is for River Road once 167 moves to the new freeway. I hope it's not gonna be some damn spur. Maybe they plan to move 410 to River Road  :-D.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Bruce on February 17, 2023, 12:14:50 AM
The sign plans (https://ftp.wsdot.wa.gov/contracts/9424-SR509CompletionStage1B/RFP/ConformedRFP/Appendices/M/M1/_09_STG1B_Signing.pdf) for SR 509 Stage 1B seem to imply that the new tollway will be signed as just "24th Avenue" instead of SR 509 until the next stage is done.

(https://i.imgur.com/2UV5nkj.png)

FWIW, the SR 167 sign plans still show SR 509 Spur around the Port of Tacoma.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on February 17, 2023, 01:40:10 AM
Signing it as simply "24th" does make a lot more sense, although I am admittedly hoping for some BGSs with green-outs before the 509 is totally finished.

I suspect the change from 509 Spur to 167 in Tacoma was quite recent, documents still showed "509 Spur" until quite recently. These sign plans would be a couple years old.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Bruce on May 08, 2023, 10:43:26 PM
A recent flyover video of Sound Transit's Federal Way Link Extension, which includes footage of the SR 509 project:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbsdIoUpmXI
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: stevashe on June 13, 2023, 12:58:12 AM
Quote from: jay8g on January 29, 2023, 03:05:09 AM
Something else that's interesting, from the bottom of the "What to Expect" page:
QuoteTemporary Orange Striping

By spring 2023, travelers on I-5 will experience new, temporary orange lane lines that identify construction work zones. The orange striping is a new strategy to help travelers track lane shifts and heighten driver awareness traveling through work zones. When driving through an area with orange striping, drivers should follow the orange lane markers and remain aware of active work zones.

Has this been used anywhere else in Washington? I'm not aware of any other projects using European-style orange temporary markings.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 29, 2023, 07:35:08 AM
Yeah, I saw that too. I wonder what their strategy will be, I've heard orange markings are near impossible to see in the dark. Most freeways don't have any overhead lighting, so the markings need to be very reflective. I think it's why white is usually best for road markings.

The orange markings are now in! Interestingly, they are in addition to the regular white dashed lines, striped after the white dashes similar to how black contrast stripes are sometimes placed on light colored pavement.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52970828511_cd74fb8f6c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oGRkQK)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52970229857_9b00120f1d_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oGNgT8)
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on June 13, 2023, 04:59:16 AM
Yikes, those don't seem like they are going to be useful at all. They honestly don't look radically different than some yellow lines.

I think they need to be more in-your-face. Something like Ontario, where everything is orange. Cattle chute roadways with tiny shoulders, narrowed lanes...these are not exclusive to construction zones anymore (eg. parts of the new northbound 167 with the HOV lane). Besides the "road work ahead" sign, I'm not sure many people even know they are in work zones sometimes. These orange markings are not impactful enough.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: Rothman on June 13, 2023, 06:38:57 AM
Meh.  Given South Carolina's somewhat recent experience, cattle chutes seem like a safety concern in of themselves.
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on July 18, 2023, 07:22:58 AM
Quite a lot of construction is now progressing on the stretch of the 509 Spur (or is it 167?) between I-5 and [actual] 509 in Fife (see whole album (https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjALtbW)):

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53029811494_53b15b9941_o.jpg)
A temporary channel for Hylebos Creek in Fife (https://flic.kr/p/2oN4DqJ) by Washington State Dept of Transportation (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53029811489_cf89f2249b_o.jpg)
More, more and more dirt (https://flic.kr/p/2oN4DqD) by Washington State Dept of Transportation (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
Post by: jakeroot on October 08, 2023, 01:11:30 AM
WSDOT posted this photo (https://flic.kr/p/2p3KTLw) (below) to their Flickr with an interesting description:

Quote from: WSDOT on Flickr
You may also notice, directly to the left of the overpass, is a closed off tunnel. That tunnel was a city of SeaTac project that is a forward compatible feature for a possible future direct link to Sea-Tac Airport.

I had always wondered what the point of that tunnel was, and now we know. I guess it would be for a one-way ramp connection from the future southern Airport Expressway.


SR 509 future connection to 24th Avenue South in SeaTac, WA by Washington State Dept of Transportation, on Flickr