Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jakeroot]

WSDOT's Puget Sound Gateway Program will construct two freeway extensions (called 'completion projects'):

(1) WA-167; from WA-161 to WA-509 in Fife, with an interchange at I-5
(2) WA-509; 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:











WA-509 extension:

[Alps]

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?

[jakeroot]

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.

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:

[KEK Inc.]

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. 

[The Ghostbuster]

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?

[froggie]

Just for clarification, the 509 extension ties into the existing freeway near SEA, right?

[Revive 755]

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?

[jakeroot]

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.

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.

[jakeroot]

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 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.

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, just to the south of the interchange. It was relocated while the state sought a buyer...no luck, clearly.

[jakeroot]

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 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 ...

[jakeroot]

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.



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":

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.




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.

[TEG24601]

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

[KEK Inc.]

Or we can get interstate designation of I-905 for the Burien segment. 


iPhone

[jakeroot]

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.

[TEG24601]

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.

[compdude787]

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?

[jakeroot]

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

[ErmineNotyours]

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, 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 )

[Bruce]

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. 

[jakeroot]

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, 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 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.

[jakeroot]

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. 

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.

[Evan_Th]

How about extending 167 over 512, and giving all this new freeway a new number?

[Bruce]

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.

[jakeroot]

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.