For those of you not in the know, WSDOT is creating a north-south freeway in Spokane to help alleviate traffic problems. They plan on shifting US 395 over to it from its current alignment. Some more information about the project can be found at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/US395/NorthSpokaneCorridor/ (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/US395/NorthSpokaneCorridor/).
Being that the road is brand new, and will be presumably built to interstate standards, I thought it would be a great idea for it to get a 3di designation since it begins at I-90 going north. I-190 or I-390 would work. I emailed Larry Larson, the project engineer, and he didn't seem to get that all I cared about was the designation; it wouldn't be hard to install the signage for an interstate route. Anyway here's an excerpt from my correspondence with him in December 2007.
QuoteIn the case of the North Spokane Corridor (NSC) it has no "parent"
highway. It is designated US-395 and it begins in the Los Angeles area
and traverses through the east side of California, Oregon and
Washington, finally terminating at the Canadian border. While the NSC
will be built to Interstate Standards in Spokane, the bulk of it from
beginning to end is not.
I hope this answers your question, if not please write back. In the
meantime, here is a link to further information.
It's a little annoying when you get talked down to about the difference between 2di, 3di and all that when you are keenly aware! He didn't seem to get that I was just referring to the freeway section of the NSC, and since it starts at I-90, it does too have a @#$#@ parent highway!
Has anybody else had any frustrating dealings with DOT people in regards to a simple question? I just had wanted to know if they could designate that 10 mile freeway as a 3di, that's all.
Have had that happened to me several times. I will sometimes write back and clarify. My emails about the I-10 control city of Pascagoula were addressed to me this way, until I wrote back with a more detailed question.
As for the North Spokane Corridor, I blogged about it a couple of years ago here (https://www.aaroads.com/blog/?p=75). The new American Map Company atlas (Geonova base) shows the entire corridor under construction with a "FUT U.S. 395" shield along it.
The construction plans for it (various contracts have been coming out since about 2003) now show "FUTURE" US 395 signs. It is also signed as "North Spokane Corridor" on some crossroads signs.
Especially annoying since US 395 doesn't start anywhere near the Los Angeles area anymore, and also spends a fair amount of time in Nevada
Since I-90 already goes square through Spokane, I don't see the need for an Interstate designation for the corridor. It'd be a different story of I-90 skipped Spokane altogether and the corridor led into the city (ala Rochester, MN or Rochester, NY), but that's not the case here.
Hang in there ctroadgeek. I support the designation of US 2/395, Spokane N/S Freeway as "I-390" and the designation of the almost completed US-395 freeway from Ritzville to Pasco, WA as "I-490." WA-18 should also be designated as "I-690" because of its importance connecting Tacoma and South King County, WA to I-90 and Snoqualmie Pass. I also like the idea of a future freeway loop around the north end of Spokane that I would designate as "I-290."
Getting There: Corridor bridge girders installed (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/oct/11/corridor-bridge-girders-installed/)
QuoteConstruction of the North Spokane Corridor took a big jump forward in recent days with the installation of bridge girders at the future Wandermere interchange at U.S. Highway 395.
The work comes as the project timeline nears the one-year mark until completion of the northern leg of the north-south freeway route.
The state Department of Transportation hopes to open the segment between Wandermere and Farwell roads by the end of 2011.
"Bridge girders are going up as we are speaking," Al Gilson, spokesman for DOT in Spokane, said last week.
The girders rest on piers that were drilled 160 feet into the ground.
Traffic through the construction zone has been limited to one lane in each direction on U.S. 395 for the past few months.
Opening of the Wandermere freeway segment will hinge on winter weather and how much crews can accomplish when temperatures drop below freezing.
A cold, snowy winter could delay the opening until early 2012 if concrete work shuts down, Gilson said.
While workers were erecting the interchange bridge at Wandermere last week, another crew was paving the southbound lanes with concrete in the vicinity of Northwood Middle School.
To the south, more workers were busy on the spaghetti-like interchange at U.S. Highway 2 where the former highway lanes have been lowered so that the freeway and interchange ramps can run overhead.
To the south of that, yet another crew was moving hills of dirt and rock to clear the way for completion of southbound freeway lanes between Farwell and Freya Street in Hillyard.
That portion of the project should be completed in early 2012.
October 11, 2010
"When they are completed in a year or so, we will have fully half of the North Spokane Corridor open," Gilson said.
The 5.5-mile northern segment will link U.S. 2 and 395 with the Hillyard area at Freya Street just north of Francis Avenue.
Funding is being sought for the southern portion from Freya to Interstate 90.
So far, more than $550 million has been allocated to the 10-mile corridor, including a $35 million federal economic stimulus grant announced earlier this year for paving southbound lanes from Farwell to Freya.
In 2009, the state opened two-way traffic on what will become the northbound lanes of that same segment. The route has been seeing increasing use in recent months, DOT officials said.
Quote from: corco on May 24, 2009, 11:47:33 PM
Especially annoying since US 395 doesn't start anywhere near the Los Angeles area anymore, and also spends a fair amount of time in Nevada
Not to mention that it sneaks into Nevada and re-enters California after leaving Reno! (Then again, I-24 does the same thing near Chattanooga, going from Tennessee to Georgia, then back into Tennessee.)
Still, this would be a great route for commuters coming in from the north. Perhaps we could see the existing US 395 through downtown become Business US 395?
Pretty much the entire old alignment of US-395 is also US-2, so it will probably stay that way. Or they'll just put 2 on the NSC as well.
Washington doesn't really like business routes, and it's not like WSDOT is in great financial shape. They'll almost certainly try to relinquish 395 back to the Spokane. I have no idea what that would do to SR 291- maybe they extend that to the NSC to help recoup for forcing 395 to the city, or they could decommission the thing entirely. It serves a state park, which is neat, but not a legal requirement for the system to do, and is otherwise a non-logical link in an otherwise very logical system.
Giving this thread a bump. I recently took I-90 through Spokane, on the maps it appears the northern leg of the North Spokane Corridor is complete but there doesn't seem to be any indication of construction for the southern leg or I-90 interchange. Does anyone know the status or timeline?
WSDOT has a page dedicated to the project: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/us395/northspokanecorridor/
They are slowly working their way south.
I could see an I-x90 spur into Spokane, once the whole thing is completed. It would probably function the same as I-580 from Reno to Carson City, which also shares pavement with US 395.
The big question is what designations will move to where?
I'd prefer to see US 395 on the new NSC (possibly co-signed as I-190) and US 2 remaining on Division Street/Newport Highway.
Quote from: ctroadgeek on May 24, 2009, 02:18:38 PM
For those of you not in the know, WSDOT is creating a north-south freeway in Spokane to help alleviate traffic problems. They plan on shifting US 395 over to it from its current alignment. Some more information about the project can be found at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/US395/NorthSpokaneCorridor/ (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/US395/NorthSpokaneCorridor/).
Being that the road is brand new, and will be presumably built to interstate standards, I thought it would be a great idea for it to get a 3di designation since it begins at I-90 going north. I-190 or I-390 would work. I emailed Larry Larson, the project engineer, and he didn't seem to get that all I cared about was the designation; it wouldn't be hard to install the signage for an interstate route. Anyway here's an excerpt from my correspondence with him in December 2007.
QuoteIn the case of the North Spokane Corridor (NSC) it has no "parent"
highway. It is designated US-395 and it begins in the Los Angeles area
and traverses through the east side of California, Oregon and
Washington, finally terminating at the Canadian border. While the NSC
will be built to Interstate Standards in Spokane, the bulk of it from
beginning to end is not.
I hope this answers your question, if not please write back. In the
meantime, here is a link to further information.
It's a little annoying when you get talked down to about the difference between 2di, 3di and all that when you are keenly aware! He didn't seem to get that I was just referring to the freeway section of the NSC, and since it starts at I-90, it does too have a @#$#@ parent highway!
Has anybody else had any frustrating dealings with DOT people in regards to a simple question? I just had wanted to know if they could designate that 10 mile freeway as a 3di, that's all.
I have thought as well that between I-90 and the US 2 split should be I-190. Along with that, I had an idea for an I-390 connector in Moses Lake, WA .....
Here's how the routes will be planned out
US 395 will occupy the entire corridor.
US 395 between US 2 and Future US 395 will become Division Street.
No interstate designation is planned for the route, however, one of WADOT's North Spokane Corridor videos on YouTube (I think) referred to the route as I-390.
I don't think an interstate designation will be applied, however.
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on November 11, 2016, 10:33:48 AM
No interstate designation is planned for the route, however, one of WADOT's North Spokane Corridor videos on YouTube (I think) referred to the route as I-390.
I don't think an interstate designation will be applied, however.
Wait, what? It seems weird that they said they were going to make it a 3di, because I don't think that was ever part of the plan.
I don't think the NSC needs a 3-digit Interstate designation. Designate and sign it as US 395 and call it a day.
Question: will US 2 remain on Division Street as it does currently, or will it move over to the NSC with US 395?
Quote from: sparker on November 12, 2016, 02:43:44 PM
Question: will US 2 remain on Division Street as it does currently, or will it move over to the NSC with US 395?
I believe so.
Not sure what the point of a 3di would be here; since the Corridor itself doesn't serve a destination that Interstate travellers would use, and it will already have one and possibly two U.S. designations that aren't going away anytime soon.
Quote from: compdude787 on November 12, 2016, 08:34:13 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 12, 2016, 02:43:44 PM
Question: will US 2 remain on Division Street as it does currently, or will it move over to the NSC with US 395?
I believe so.
I was wondering the same thing, because I thought one of their reasons for building the corridor was, maintaining Division as a highway was too expensive. Do you think they just meant WITH truck traffic it was too expensive?
Quote from: Howpper on December 16, 2016, 01:25:20 AMDo you think they just meant WITH truck traffic it was too expensive?
Yes because trucks (and buses) tend to cause more wear and tear on the pavement. I saw this a lot on roads in Seattle that were on bus routes.
Resurrection!
What is the status on this corridor? is it completed all the way to I-90?
It won't be completed till 2029, according to WSDOT's website (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/US395/NorthSpokaneCorridor/). They're working on the overpasses over Freya Street currently.
Quote from: compdude787 on January 01, 2018, 03:08:08 PM
It won't be completed till 2029, according to WSDOT's website (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/US395/NorthSpokaneCorridor/). They're working on the overpasses over Freya Street currently.
If they ever get it done on time...
2029? And they've already cleared out all that r/w?
Panning around on aerials, looks like 100+ homes have been leveled in the N Spoke Corridor and along I-90. Turning back the clock, it looks like they've been buying and clearing properties for a decade already.
I appreciate planning ahead, but jeez, that's a long time for urban land to sit vacant.
2029 is only 11 years away. Some road projects have lingered for far longer before they were finally built.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on January 17, 2018, 10:14:16 AM
2029? And they've already cleared out all that r/w?
Panning around on aerials, looks like 100+ homes have been leveled in the N Spoke Corridor and along I-90. Turning back the clock, it looks like they've been buying and clearing properties for a decade already.
I appreciate planning ahead, but jeez, that's a long time for urban land to sit vacant.
I can't speak for Washington, but in Oregon the McMinnville Bypass had ROW set aside to widen it to 4 lanes in the future. They even left space for expansion beneath the overpasses. This was back in
1959 -- and it's still mostly 2 lanes to this day.
That's a piss poor excuse just because other projects have taken ridiculous amounts of time to happen. Whatever the reason is, 11 years away is a very long time and is insane.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 17, 2018, 09:46:22 PM
That's a piss poor excuse just because other projects have taken ridiculous amounts of time to happen. Whatever the reason is, 11 years away is a very long time and is insane.
Although I agree, at least the have a timeline *cough cough* Newberg-Dundee Bypass *cough cough*
Building a new freeway in an existing urban area, in the 21st century, is going to be difficult no matter how much money you throw at it. Best thing to do is to not plan around it and maybe the project will become entirely unnecessary in a few decades, with improved traffic control systems, higher transit patronage, and the world-saving self-driving vehicle.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 17, 2018, 09:46:22 PM
That's a piss poor excuse just because other projects have taken ridiculous amounts of time to happen. Whatever the reason is, 11 years away is a very long time and is insane.
I think it has to do with funding availability.
Quote from: Bruce on January 18, 2018, 06:26:24 PM
Building a new freeway in an existing urban area, in the 21st century, is going to be difficult no matter how much money you throw at it. Best thing to do is to not plan around it and maybe the project will become entirely unnecessary in a few decades, with improved traffic control systems, higher transit patronage, and the world-saving self-driving vehicle.
I highly doubt it will become unnecessary to build this freeway. I think more people will want freeways when self driving cars become a thing. After all, they will allow for higher capacities on freeways, so that traffic will still be moving at speeds faster than on surface streets during rush hour. This will be awesome. :D But freeways will still be difficult to get built because of NIMBYs. :-/
The vast majority of any "future" freeways will be depressed and or cut and cover replacements of pre-existing elevated or at grade facilities. The political difficulties of all new routes in urban settings are extreme.
I believe the completion has been delayed due to a soil contamination issue south of Wellesley Street. WashDOT is working with BSNF to get the area cleaned up.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/US395/NorthSpokaneCorridor/NscBlackTank.htm
The Connecting Washington budget from two summers ago funded the completion of the corridor. Money is not an issue.
Quote from: compdude787 on January 20, 2018, 05:35:13 PM
But freeways will still be difficult to get built because of NIMBYs. :-/
It's not just NIMBYs. It's also those who are in the path of the freeway, who are displaced as a result.
Quote from: DJStephensThe vast majority of any "future" freeways will be depressed and or cut and cover replacements of pre-existing elevated or at grade facilities. The political difficulties of all new routes in urban settings are extreme.
That's certainly true right now, but things can change.
Apologies in advance for the long post. More often than not these stridently anti-freeway, new urbanist places also carry very high living costs and soaring inflation rates on those living costs. They preach "sustainability," but ignore the money math of their Utopian vision and what it means to any working stiff in the city who isn't rich.
Between now and the year 2030 this nation could go through quite a lot of economic turmoil. Online merchants currently control 11% of all retail; that number could be 18% by 2022. Retail is but one part of overall digital disruption. Manufacturing lines are increasingly automated. Price Waterhouse Coopers published a report saying as many as 45% of current jobs could be automated through various means, like rapidly improving AI technology. Big companies could save a fortune in wages, but how would the national economy handle the loss of so many millions of jobs? And then there's the wild card of our nation's declining birth rate, hitting new all time lows. That could be bad if the trend is extended over a decade or more. America's economy and even its demographics are increasingly out of balance. That's not exactly good "bedrock" on which New Urbanists can build out their dream vision.
Our nation will adapt to changes that take place in the years and decades ahead. How it adapts won't be very predictable or pain free. There's no telling what will happen for certain. But these high priced urban areas with hyper-inflated real estate costs could see a big come-down. That could change a lot of things, including how people feel about roads, light rail, etc. Maybe new freeways in urban areas could still be capped and covered with parks, green space, etc. Still, something has to be done about that cost inflation on these projects.
I think self-driving vehicles will actually create a boom, not just in street and highway construction, but also innovations in parking lots/garages, hotel designs and more. The personal computing revolution got America's economy out of a funk in the early 1980's. A revolution in automobile technology could do the same in the 2020's.
As for the North Spokane Corridor, it's odds for completion are better than some others. Substantial progress has already been made. Its next 3 miles of ROW extending South are fairly clear of buildings. A bunch of property near the future I-90 interchange has been cleared. It's just that last 1.5 miles South of the river that have to be spanned.
Have to say agree with most of what you've said. Have seen wealthy ex-Californians move here (New Mexico) and work to mold this area to what they left. They tend to vote in a bloc and have voting participation of 80 - 90 %, so they are getting what they want. Road diets, regressive planning and design, over densification of land use, bizarre growth patterns and structures, etc.
I was watching a presentation a couple weeks ago given by Jim Kuntsler. He thinks that many of the technologies that the sustainable urbanism people think will save us won't pan out, and that this combined with economic trends will cause a collapse of not only suburbia but also large and medium-sized cities as well. He was saying that we may go back to a more 19th-century style lifestyle, with our current transportation system, particularly trucking, collapsing for long-haul movement, with society re-centered around small cities (think Saratoga Springs or Troy small) along waterways and railroads. His books are available on Amazon and elsewhere for anyone interested in reading more. Certainly could affect things like freeway development in the future if his predictions come to pass.
So if trucking collapsed, what would replace it? Horse drawn canal boats and steam engined trains?? The trend seems to be of an ever greater segmentation of consumer "choice" - with an ever greater amount of imported widgets to consume. Meaning more and more trucks on the road. Do have to say like what you quoted, being the future being a return to simpler less consumptive times.
I don't think that will happen. Some how some way we'll find a way to continue on with materialistic obsessions and over consumption. I'm that way and I'll admit it. No shame in my game. But that's just a disclaimer. When I sit back and look, we have ways found a way to move forward. Sometimes we might take a step back or two but we always move forward. The only thing I see causing something like that is nuclear winter or a catastrophic natural event such as Yellowstone erupting or and asteroid colliding with the planet. Then we might have problems. Real problems. Global warming or issues like how to fund infrastructure and lifestyles, those are really nothing serious and happen very slowly. They're problems, but manageable ones.
At 24 years old, that's my take on that issue. People just need to relax and lay back on the knee jerk reactions so many have today.
There are growing trends of younger generations spending more of their money on experiences (dining out, concerts, vacations & other fun stuff) and not as much on tangible goods that take up room in one's living space. If you're in a living situation where you're in some small apartment, possibly with one or more roomates you'll have only so much room for "stuff."
However, I do not see cities and suburbs collapsing anytime soon.
If anything, I expect small rural towns to continue shrinking and dying off. There is no sign that big numbers of young people want to move out to the sticks, even if they can live on the cheap there. Good opportunity is limited in little towns and so are social prospects (like finding girlfriends or a wife). Rising costs of health care, hospice care and health insurance will force more aging Americans into cities of at least some substantial size (where such services are much closer). Most small towns have declining tax bases. They're finding it increasingly difficult to maintain local infrastructure and fund basic services (police, fire dept, garbage removal, etc). Companies providing mobile phone service and broadband Internet service aren't going to serve little towns with the latest technologies -at least not without a giant amount of government funding. So that's another advantage for cities. If the declining birth rate in the US turns into a long term trend it will affect many things. Enrollment levels in public schools will drop; small school districts will have a tough time justifying their existence. Population decline could cause housing prices to drop in many places. That'll be great if you're looking for a place to buy/rent. It'll be lousy if you already own your property.
One thing that's worth noting is that Kuntsler believes that fossil fuels will eventually run out and/or become too expensive to extract and that no technology will emerge to provide an adequate replacement. In short, the energy to run the global economy as we know it simply won't be there. Cities, alas, can't sustain themselves on local, low-energy traditional non-mechanized farming.
Another mile paved, but not open to traffic because there's no exit. But that was enough work for WSDOT to hold a ribbon-cutting party.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/sep/27/with-another-section-of-the-north-spokane-corridor/
Quote from: Bruce on September 29, 2019, 01:48:43 AM
Another mile paved, but not open to traffic because there's no exit. But that was enough work for WSDOT to hold a ribbon-cutting party.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/sep/27/with-another-section-of-the-north-spokane-corridor/
Looks like they paved it so they could sit on nice flat ground under that bridge.
On a related note, is it too early to switch all the proposal tags for the south end of the NSC to construction tags in OpenStreetMap? (Proposal tags don't show up for regular viewers; construction tags do.)
Quote from: X99 on October 10, 2019, 06:51:24 PM
On a related note, is it too early to switch all the proposal tags for the south end of the NSC to construction tags in OpenStreetMap? (Proposal tags don't show up for regular viewers; construction tags do.)
Construction tags should only be used if actual construction is going on. Otherwise, keep it at proposed.
From the looks of it, the NSC is tagged correctly.
Quote from: vdeane on February 12, 2018, 02:51:26 PM
I was watching a presentation a couple weeks ago given by Jim Kuntsler. He thinks that many of the technologies that the sustainable urbanism people think will save us won't pan out, and that this combined with economic trends will cause a collapse of not only suburbia but also large and medium-sized cities as well. He was saying that we may go back to a more 19th-century style lifestyle, with our current transportation system, particularly trucking, collapsing for long-haul movement, with society re-centered around small cities (think Saratoga Springs or Troy small) along waterways and railroads. His books are available on Amazon and elsewhere for anyone interested in reading more. Certainly could affect things like freeway development in the future if his predictions come to pass.
That reminds me of a thread on Skyscraperpage forums about poverty moving from the cities to the suburbs. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=240503
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on October 11, 2019, 08:17:00 AM
That reminds me of a thread on Skyscraperpage forums about poverty moving from the cities to the suburbs. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=240503
Not just a thread. Fairly well-documented situation at this point.
What's particularly worrying to many, is how many seniors live in suburban housing (having moved there in the 50s-80s). This leaves them very isolated and prone to injury, plus it forces their kids to drive all the way out to wherever they are, to take care of them.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 11, 2019, 05:40:12 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on October 11, 2019, 08:17:00 AM
That reminds me of a thread on Skyscraperpage forums about poverty moving from the cities to the suburbs. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=240503
Not just a thread. Fairly well-documented situation at this point.
What's particularly worrying to many, is how many seniors live in suburban housing (having moved there in the 50s-80s). This leaves them very isolated and prone to injury, plus it forces their kids to drive all the way out to wherever they are, to take care of them.
whats also becoming more and more documented is their kids are moving back to the suburbs.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 11, 2019, 05:40:12 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on October 11, 2019, 08:17:00 AM
That reminds me of a thread on Skyscraperpage forums about poverty moving from the cities to the suburbs. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=240503
Not just a thread. Fairly well-documented situation at this point.
What's particularly worrying to many, is how many seniors live in suburban housing (having moved there in the 50s-80s). This leaves them very isolated and prone to injury, plus it forces their kids to drive all the way out to wherever they are, to take care of them.
With lifespans growing (for most US demographics) -- and the fact that a large number of these folks moved to the 'burbs in the pre-'73 years when gas was under a half-buck/gallon (and a 3-bedroom house outside coastal areas could be gotten for about $35-40K or less) -- the number of seniors "stuck" in the outlying areas will only increase. If their residence is fully paid and amortized, fixed-income folks have little incentive to move to denser areas despite the relative lack of amenities, including health care, since housing near city cores (even in "secondary" cities such as Reno, Boise, and Spokane) is priced to reflect the proximity of amenities. I suppose seniors (and technically I'm one of them!) in outlying areas would need to regularly assess their living and health situations and make provisions to accommodate their particular requirements while avoiding things that place them at risk as much as is feasible. Even though I live in a dense area (and with a RN), those are considerations undertaken on a regular basis (she
does nag me about lifting heavy objects, which I must occasionally do as part of my business, because I have a problematic knee: displaced cartilage, courtesy of a sports accident in my youth). But I'm one of the lucky ones -- about to turn 70 with a decent portion of my health intact. And I have no illusions about being taken care of by my offspring -- my only child, my daughter, lives in the West Village (NYC) and has never owned a car in her life!
Bottom line -- there's not a lot that can be done about the distribution of the senior population -- and the
general population of the suburbs largely mirrors that situation -- often the consideration of relocating to a denser area is thwarted by not only the prospect of trading space for convenience and/or safety, but also the likelihood that it might not be as simple as that equation -- the differences are arguably not linear in nature, with the more desirable neighborhoods affected in terms of price by ongoing gentrification -- so even finding anything affordable becomes a quixotic quest. At this point, a
real & viable solution has yet to emerge.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 11, 2019, 06:28:56 PM
whats also becoming more and more documented is their kids are moving back to the suburbs.
The argument isn't so much that people aren't moving to suburbs, but more that those over 65 are increasing their share of the total populace in the suburbs (and rural areas). Urban areas are getting older as well, but not at the same rate as suburban and rural areas
[1] (https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/). It's not a massive difference, but it's growing.
The main thing to keep in mind, is that it's easier to be more dependent on your community in more tightly-packed areas (even trailer parks satisfy this need). You see more people on a regular basis; assuming you aren't a total hermit, you may get to know some of these people, and they can give you hand every now and then. Things like a ride to the doctor, or help crossing the street; help with groceries, etc. This is where suburban living gets more difficult for older generations. Such things may seem foreign to suburbanites who are used to uber-private lifestyles, but it's not unusual in urban areas, where getting help from strangers is fairly commonplace. I live across from a retirement home (bad idea if you hate sirens!), and regularly help the seniors across the street (no marked crossings so they're quite cautious).
Quote from: sparker on October 11, 2019, 06:54:35 PM
With lifespans growing (for most US demographics) -- and the fact that a large number of these folks moved to the 'burbs in the pre-'73 years when gas was under a half-buck/gallon (and a 3-bedroom house outside coastal areas could be gotten for about $35-40K or less) -- the number of seniors "stuck" in the outlying areas will only increase. If their residence is fully paid and amortized, fixed-income folks have little incentive to move to denser areas despite the relative lack of amenities, including health care, since housing near city cores (even in "secondary" cities such as Reno, Boise, and Spokane) is priced to reflect the proximity of amenities. I suppose seniors (and technically I'm one of them!) in outlying areas would need to regularly assess their living and health situations and make provisions to accommodate their particular requirements while avoiding things that place them at risk as much as is feasible. Even though I live in a dense area (and with a RN), those are considerations undertaken on a regular basis (she does nag me about lifting heavy objects, which I must occasionally do as part of my business, because I have a problematic knee: displaced cartilage, courtesy of a sports accident in my youth). But I'm one of the lucky ones -- about to turn 70 with a decent portion of my health intact. And I have no illusions about being taken care of by my offspring -- my only child, my daughter, lives in the West Village (NYC) and has never owned a car in her life!
Bottom line -- there's not a lot that can be done about the distribution of the senior population -- and the general population of the suburbs largely mirrors that situation -- often the consideration of relocating to a denser area is thwarted by not only the prospect of trading space for convenience and/or safety, but also the likelihood that it might not be as simple as that equation -- the differences are arguably not linear in nature, with the more desirable neighborhoods affected in terms of price by ongoing gentrification -- so even finding anything affordable becomes a quixotic quest. At this point, a real & viable solution has yet to emerge.
No doubt that moving to more urban areas can be expensive. But that's why you have urban planners doing their best to ensure that we build more densely in the first place, and work with subsidized housing organizations to maintain a supply of well-built affordable housing close to public transit and other places that can be accessed on foot (especially helpful for older people who may not be able to afford a car, or who may be blind and unable to drive). This is happening somewhat successfully in some cities (Tacoma), but not as much in some others (San Francisco, from what I can tell). But a lot of west-coast cities have also seen massive population booms over the last twenty years or longer, which has been leapfrogging the pace of development.
My grandparents are both in their late 70s; one turns 80 in two weeks. Both are doing fairly well, but have given up on good portions of their 12-acre suburban property because it takes them longer to maintain the important areas directly adjacent to their home. Bad knees, bad backs, and other injuries are slowing them down, and forcing them to be more cautious. Neither has any life-alert system, but may need to consider that in the future. In the meantime, I've begun volunteering to help them with various yard-work projects, but I don't have much additional time to devote to this; they are well-aware that moving somewhere more urban (a genuine fear of my grandmother, who loves the country) will eventually become a necessity, because it's simply not practical to live where they are now, given the amount of effort required by themselves and others to keep the place running. They are more of an edge case, but old people in general have a harder time with basic maintenance (ladders, mowing, etc).
QuoteNo doubt that moving to more urban areas can be expensive. But that's why you have urban planners doing their best to ensure that we build more densely in the first place, and work with subsidized housing organizations to maintain a supply of well-built affordable housing close to public transit and other places that can be accessed on foot (especially helpful for older people who may not be able to afford a car, or who may be blind and unable to drive). This is happening somewhat successfully in some cities (Tacoma), but not as much in some others (San Francisco, from what I can tell). But a lot of west-coast cities have also seen massive population booms over the last twenty years or longer, which has been leapfrogging the pace of development.
I would say urban planning that encourages the construction of good-quality yet truly affordable housing in dense urban cores is happening only in very rare circumstances within the US.
Within the largest American cities the housing markets are primarily an investment tool to make lots and lots of money.
New York City is very "liberal," but the market is notorious for all the scams used to kick elderly people and low income families out of rent-controlled apartments so the units could be renovated into "luxury" apartments for
upwardly mobile hispter youth -basically the "yuppie scum" of today.
Scams to flip rent-controlled apartment buildings into luxury condos aren't as widespread in politically red-ish cities like Dallas. But there is a large enough conservative population, enough influence from business groups and a whole hell of a lot of NIMBY-rage to stop lots of affordable housing developments from being built at all.
In the end, there is a very short supply of housing that is affordable to young adults. These young adults could be college graduates saddled with a fortune of student loan debt or they might be young adults who couldn't afford college and had to train for a lower paying trade instead. Either way they're faced with a very tiny inventory of affordable housing units large enough for a spouse and children. Financially a bunch of these people are stuck
living tiny either with parents or as single adults in the smallest of apartments. These are not great conditions in which our nation can grow the next generation of its work force and tax base.
Quote from: sparker on October 11, 2019, 06:54:35 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 11, 2019, 05:40:12 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on October 11, 2019, 08:17:00 AM
That reminds me of a thread on Skyscraperpage forums about poverty moving from the cities to the suburbs. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=240503
Not just a thread. Fairly well-documented situation at this point.
What's particularly worrying to many, is how many seniors live in suburban housing (having moved there in the 50s-80s). This leaves them very isolated and prone to injury, plus it forces their kids to drive all the way out to wherever they are, to take care of them.
With lifespans growing (for most US demographics) -- and the fact that a large number of these folks moved to the 'burbs in the pre-'73 years when gas was under a half-buck/gallon (and a 3-bedroom house outside coastal areas could be gotten for about $35-40K or less) -- the number of seniors "stuck" in the outlying areas will only increase. If their residence is fully paid and amortized, fixed-income folks have little incentive to move to denser areas despite the relative lack of amenities, including health care, since housing near city cores (even in "secondary" cities such as Reno, Boise, and Spokane) is priced to reflect the proximity of amenities. I suppose seniors (and technically I'm one of them!) in outlying areas would need to regularly assess their living and health situations and make provisions to accommodate their particular requirements while avoiding things that place them at risk as much as is feasible. Even though I live in a dense area (and with a RN), those are considerations undertaken on a regular basis (she does nag me about lifting heavy objects, which I must occasionally do as part of my business, because I have a problematic knee: displaced cartilage, courtesy of a sports accident in my youth). But I'm one of the lucky ones -- about to turn 70 with a decent portion of my health intact. And I have no illusions about being taken care of by my offspring -- my only child, my daughter, lives in the West Village (NYC) and has never owned a car in her life!
Bottom line -- there's not a lot that can be done about the distribution of the senior population -- and the general population of the suburbs largely mirrors that situation -- often the consideration of relocating to a denser area is thwarted by not only the prospect of trading space for convenience and/or safety, but also the likelihood that it might not be as simple as that equation -- the differences are arguably not linear in nature, with the more desirable neighborhoods affected in terms of price by ongoing gentrification -- so even finding anything affordable becomes a quixotic quest. At this point, a real & viable solution has yet to emerge.
The market will provide the solution. As more of the population ages, or becomes less mobile in general since it appears that a good portion of the current generation coming of age isn't interested in driving, transportation solutions/agencies will progressively crop up in the currently under-served areas, or the services will adapt to go to them. I basically run my IT consulting business out of my home and do most work onsite at the customer location as it was made clear to me 15 years ago by my first client that it didn't make sense for people to bring problem equipment to me to work on and hope they could communicate and replicate the issue after unhooking everything and delivering it, only to have to hopefully hook everything back up correctly and hope the problem was fixed. This was even before the Geek Squad became a thing, but they haven't exactly cut into my business anyway. I've worked on an awful lot of stuff they attempted to work on before they just gave up and recommended a new computer, which, conveniently, they also sold. There's going to be a huge market for entrepreneurs who are willing to drive to where the client is since the population is aging and will be progressively less mobile, regardless of whether cars will drive themselves. Quite frankly, I think we'll have self-flying VTOL transportation as drones scale up in size and weight capacity before we'll have effective self-driving vehicles, if they ever actually become capable of operating better that humans on anything other than a standardized freeway environment.
I don't see us ever having flying cars. Regular people with crappy math skills and no pilot's license have zero business controlling any vehicle that is airborne. On top of that, Americans on average are so scatter-brained we can't concentrate on piloting such a craft anyway. Just look at all the mobile phone-related car accidents and other inattentive driving issues that take place on the roads. We don't need the same stupid business happening overhead at all.
I think California is a microcosm of what the future could hold for many other parts of the nation. Apple is headquartered there and we all know how other businesses like to copy Apple!
Anyway, the housing crisis in California just keeps getting worse. Over 40% of the state's population lives in a "housing stressed" condition where they're spending more than 1/3 of their income on rent or a mortgage. People in that group span from the lower income classes well up into the upper middle class segments. California has 10% of the nation's population but over 25% of the nation's homeless. More than 100,000 residents per year are leaving California for other locations. Texas gained over 80,000 new residents from California last year. 50,000 went to Washington state.
Certain people like to laugh and mock the term "income inequality" as if it's just some meaningless "snowflake" invention. But the money math is very very real. Runaway living cost inflation in most areas of California is setting that state up for economic ruin. Most real estate developers across the United States are fixated on building new homes for the well-off set.
But if a developer wanted to build new homes or apartments with pricing accessible to the burger-flipper class or school teachers it's 100% assured NIMBY groups, real estate developers and the ever-present cronyism in local politics would block the living hell out of such efforts. In California that situation is compounded by the mountains of regulatory red tape and fees to get any residential building effort going. Developers are literally forced to build only for the rich because that's the only kind of housing development that can generate any profit. In the end GREEDY RESIDENTS do not want a larger supply of housing. They don't want the risk of their own properties losing any value/equity.
So it's looking more like a "when" and not "if" for a population exodus and employment apocalypse to happen. And then that will bring California's housing prices back down to reality in a crash. Here's how absurd the situation has become in California: in August the city of San Mateo approved a plan to convert an old Fire Station into barracks for its police officers. Why did they do that? Because a bunch of their police officers where effectively homeless. They were sleeping in their cars between shifts because they couldn't afford any housing anywhere in the vicinity.
Very few of the hundreds of thousands of people leaving California are moving to small town and rural areas where the cost of living is relatively cheap. They're mostly moving to other large cities where the bubble economy has not yet got out of hand. But issues like housing affordability are already growing problems in booming cities of Texas, Colorado, Arizona, Idaho and some other odd places -like North Dakota. Oil field workers in the Bakken Shale have a tough time finding any place affordable to rent/own.
The United States has such extremes in place that we are setting the stage for even worse long term, down-ward development than what Japan is now suffering. Once you're a grown adult 20 years can pass by pretty quick. So I'm seeing age 70 and my own Social Security Situation as something visible on the horizon. What I see ahead for America is a very ugly future. We may end up being a weak, broke nation mostly populated mostly with old farts -just dying to be invaded by another world power.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 10, 2019, 12:19:18 AM
I don't see us ever having flying cars. Regular people with crappy math skills and no pilot's license have zero business controlling any vehicle that is airborne. On top of that, Americans on average are so scatter-brained we can't concentrate on piloting such a craft anyway. Just look at all the mobile phone-related car accidents and other inattentive driving issues that take place on the roads. We don't need the same stupid business happening overhead at all.
I think California is a microcosm of what the future could hold for many other parts of the nation. Apple is headquartered there and we all know how other businesses like to copy Apple!
Anyway, the housing crisis in California just keeps getting worse. Over 40% of the state's population lives in a "housing stressed" condition where they're spending more than 1/3 of their income on rent or a mortgage. People in that group span from the lower income classes well up into the upper middle class segments. California has 10% of the nation's population but over 25% of the nation's homeless. More than 100,000 residents per year are leaving California for other locations. Texas gained over 80,000 new residents from California last year. 50,000 went to Washington state.
Certain people like to laugh and mock the term "income inequality" as if it's just some meaningless "snowflake" invention. But the money math is very very real. Runaway living cost inflation in most areas of California is setting that state up for economic ruin. Most real estate developers across the United States are fixated on building new homes for the well-off set.
But if a developer wanted to build new homes or apartments with pricing accessible to the burger-flipper class or school teachers it's 100% assured NIMBY groups, real estate developers and the ever-present cronyism in local politics would block the living hell out of such efforts. In California that situation is compounded by the mountains of regulatory red tape and fees to get any residential building effort going. Developers are literally forced to build only for the rich because that's the only kind of housing development that can generate any profit. In the end GREEDY RESIDENTS do not want a larger supply of housing. They don't want the risk of their own properties losing any value/equity.
So it's looking more like a "when" and not "if" for a population exodus and employment apocalypse to happen. And then that will bring California's housing prices back down to reality in a crash. Here's how absurd the situation has become in California: in August the city of San Mateo approved a plan to convert an old Fire Station into barracks for its police officers. Why did they do that? Because a bunch of their police officers where effectively homeless. They were sleeping in their cars between shifts because they couldn't afford any housing anywhere in the vicinity.
Very few of the hundreds of thousands of people leaving California are moving to small town and rural areas where the cost of living is relatively cheap. They're mostly moving to other large cities where the bubble economy has not yet got out of hand. But issues like housing affordability are already growing problems in booming cities of Texas, Colorado, Arizona, Idaho and some other odd places -like North Dakota. Oil field workers in the Bakken Shale have a tough time finding any place affordable to rent/own.
The United States has such extremes in place that we are setting the stage for even worse long term, down-ward development than what Japan is now suffering. Once you're a grown adult 20 years can pass by pretty quick. So I'm seeing age 70 and my own Social Security Situation as something visible on the horizon. What I see ahead for America is a very ugly future. We may end up being a weak, broke nation mostly populated mostly with old farts -just dying to be invaded by another world power.
This thread is about the North Spokane Corridor. Please return to topic.
Something to consider: Shouldn't SR 291 (a child of US 395) be extended east to the Freya Street interchange on the NSC? It would be awkward to leave it stranded, though WSDOT has a habit of doing this.
Quote from: Bruce on February 12, 2020, 06:40:14 PM
Something to consider: Shouldn't SR 291 (a child of US 395) be extended east to the Freya Street interchange on the NSC? It would be awkward to leave it stranded, though WSDOT has a habit of doing this.
How would WSDOT handle a WA SR 395 designation on that spur? Would that even be allowed? If it were, definitely a good statement for continuity and purpose of the future route...
Quote from: BigManFromAFRICA88 on February 12, 2020, 11:42:42 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 12, 2020, 06:40:14 PM
Something to consider: Shouldn't SR 291 (a child of US 395) be extended east to the Freya Street interchange on the NSC? It would be awkward to leave it stranded, though WSDOT has a habit of doing this.
How would WSDOT handle a WA SR 395 designation on that spur? Would that even be allowed? If it were, definitely a good statement for continuity and purpose of the future route...
The plan is to have US 395 use the new freeway and US 2 stay on Division Street. There would be no point in creating a US 395 Spur on Francis Street or to replace SR 291. If SR 291 is not extended, it should be renumbered to be a child route of US 2 (perhaps SR 208).
Quote from: Bruce on February 12, 2020, 06:40:14 PM
Something to consider: Shouldn't SR 291 (a child of US 395) be extended east to the Freya Street interchange on the NSC? It would be awkward to leave it stranded, though WSDOT has a habit of doing this.
Probably would be fine, if the state chipped in additional money for maintenance. I can tell the current stretch within the city is already maintained by Spokane.
How is 291 a child of 395? I don't think I understand numbering in this state.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 13, 2020, 12:22:23 AM
Quote from: Bruce on February 12, 2020, 06:40:14 PM
Something to consider: Shouldn't SR 291 (a child of US 395) be extended east to the Freya Street interchange on the NSC? It would be awkward to leave it stranded, though WSDOT has a habit of doing this.
Probably would be fine, if the state chipped in additional money for maintenance. I can tell the current stretch within the city is already maintained by Spokane.
How is 291 a child of 395? I don't think I understand numbering in this state.
US 395 fits into the state grid as "SR 29" and thus it has children there...but it also has SR 397.
US 97 is the same way, having both SR 131 and SR 150-155, as well as SR 970-971.
The full table includes all these repeats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_highways_in_Washington
Quote from: Bruce on February 12, 2020, 11:54:17 PM
The plan is to have US 395 use the new freeway and US 2 stay on Division Street. There would be no point in creating a US 395 Spur on Francis Street or to replace SR 291. If SR 291 is not extended, it should be renumbered to be a child route of US 2 (perhaps SR 208).
Thanks for the answer! Unfortunately, I asked my question rather ambiguously haha.
I guess it basically boils down to if Washington allowed routes of different auxiliary designations (like a state-owned SR 395 freeway from Division St. south--different from your SR 291 extension east along Francis St. as I now understand--vs. US 395 north from that interchange) like Caltrans does--essentially establishing the 395 number on the NSC freeway and retaining all old numbers until full completion and rerouting.
Really doesn't matter in the end because (1) US 395 would eventually be rerouted onto SR 291/395 (Division could then make for a good Business US 395 optionally), (2) the freeway section is already signed as Future US 395 (like on the US-2 southbound signs), and (3) frankly, nobody except roadgeeks cares. :-D
Quote from: Bruce on February 13, 2020, 12:26:25 AM
US 395 fits into the state grid as "SR 29" and thus it has children there...but it also has SR 397.
US 97 is the same way, having both SR 131 and SR 150-155, as well as SR 970-971.
The full table includes all these repeats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_highways_in_Washington
Checks out, thanks. Extending it east via Francis and Freya to the future US 395 makes sense then.
Quote from: Bruce on February 13, 2020, 12:26:25 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 13, 2020, 12:22:23 AM
Quote from: Bruce on February 12, 2020, 06:40:14 PM
Something to consider: Shouldn't SR 291 (a child of US 395) be extended east to the Freya Street interchange on the NSC? It would be awkward to leave it stranded, though WSDOT has a habit of doing this.
Probably would be fine, if the state chipped in additional money for maintenance. I can tell the current stretch within the city is already maintained by Spokane.
How is 291 a child of 395? I don't think I understand numbering in this state.
US 395 fits into the state grid as "SR 29" and thus it has children there...but it also has SR 397.
US 97 is the same way, having both SR 131 and SR 150-155, as well as SR 970-971.
The full table includes all these repeats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_highways_in_Washington
Oh yeah, I get it. I was thinking too literally. Thank you.
Quote from: BigManFromAFRICA88 on February 13, 2020, 12:34:19 AM
I guess it basically boils down to if Washington allowed routes of different auxiliary designations (like a state-owned SR 395 freeway from Division St. south--different from your SR 291 extension east along Francis St. as I now understand--vs. US 395 north from that interchange) like Caltrans does--essentially establishing the 395 number on the NSC freeway and retaining all old numbers until full completion and rerouting
I've not heard of this happening in Washington.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 13, 2020, 12:34:45 AM
Quote from: BigManFromAFRICA88 on February 13, 2020, 12:34:19 AM
I guess it basically boils down to if Washington allowed routes of different auxiliary designations (like a state-owned SR 395 freeway from Division St. south--different from your SR 291 extension east along Francis St. as I now understand--vs. US 395 north from that interchange) like Caltrans does--essentially establishing the 395 number on the NSC freeway and retaining all old numbers until full completion and rerouting
I've not heard of this happening in Washington.
Thought so. Thanks man.
Quote from: BigManFromAFRICA88 on February 13, 2020, 12:34:19 AM
Quote from: Bruce on February 12, 2020, 11:54:17 PM
The plan is to have US 395 use the new freeway and US 2 stay on Division Street. There would be no point in creating a US 395 Spur on Francis Street or to replace SR 291. If SR 291 is not extended, it should be renumbered to be a child route of US 2 (perhaps SR 208).
Thanks for the answer! Unfortunately, I asked my question rather ambiguously haha.
I guess it basically boils down to if Washington allowed routes of different auxiliary designations (like a state-owned SR 395 freeway from Division St. south--different from your SR 291 extension east along Francis St. as I now understand--vs. US 395 north from that interchange) like Caltrans does--essentially establishing the 395 number on the NSC freeway and retaining all old numbers until full completion and rerouting.
Really doesn't matter in the end because (1) US 395 would eventually be rerouted onto SR 291/395 (Division could then make for a good Business US 395 optionally), (2) the freeway section is already signed as Future US 395 (like on the US-2 southbound signs), and (3) frankly, nobody except roadgeeks cares. :-D
The plan is to have the entire North Spokane Corridor, from I-90 to the Windermere interchange, signed as US 395 when it is fully complete in 2030. Until then, it is Future US 395 / internally SR 395 NSC.
There is no reason to retain any bit of US 395 on Division Street or reroute it before the full opening.
There is no SR 395, as it is the same as US 395. A separate route with the same number is something that Washington does not want to create.
Quote from: Bruce on February 13, 2020, 01:23:46 AM
The plan is to have the entire North Spokane Corridor, from I-90 to the Windermere interchange, signed as US 395 when it is fully complete in 2030. Until then, it is Future US 395 / internally SR 395 NSC.
There is no reason to retain any bit of US 395 on Division Street or reroute it before the full opening.
There is no SR 395, as it is the same as US 395. A separate route with the same number is something that Washington does not want to create.
Thanks very much for the thoughtful answer. My younger brother is considering following two of our older cousins to Spokane for college at Gonzaga, so if I end up visiting all of them frequently I'll definitely check out the progress!
Quote from: jakeroot on February 13, 2020, 12:34:45 AM
Quote from: BigManFromAFRICA88 on February 13, 2020, 12:34:19 AM
I guess it basically boils down to if Washington allowed routes of different auxiliary designations (like a state-owned SR 395 freeway from Division St. south--different from your SR 291 extension east along Francis St. as I now understand--vs. US 395 north from that interchange) like Caltrans does--essentially establishing the 395 number on the NSC freeway and retaining all old numbers until full completion and rerouting
I've not heard of this happening in Washington.
I've seen mention of something like this in only one place - old official state highway maps show I-405 and SR-405 while the former was being built in the 1960s:
(https://i.imgur.com/mpTHE9m.png)
------
Quote from: Bruce on February 13, 2020, 01:23:46 AM
The plan is to have the entire North Spokane Corridor, from I-90 to the Windermere interchange, signed as US 395 when it is fully complete in 2030. Until then, it is Future US 395 / internally SR 395 NSC.
There is no reason to retain any bit of US 395 on Division Street or reroute it before the full opening.
There is no SR 395, as it is the same as US 395. A separate route with the same number is something that Washington does not want to create.
What about the section of current US 395 between the end of the US 2 concurrency on division and the interchange with NSC?
An answer to my own question: WSDOT's Corridor Sketch Summary for SR 291 (https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2018/03/01/CSS449-SR291-US2Jct-SevenMileRdInt.pdf) mentions the following:
QuoteAs the North Spokane Corridor (Future US 395) is completed, the corridor may extend eastward to Freya Street, converting the existing city street to a state highway to intersect with the North Spokane Corridor.
Funding from politicians, including support from democrats, to restore funding and move this project forward again:
QuoteSPOKANE, Wash. – The Washington House released its transportation budget proposal on Monday, featuring some key changes from Gov. Jay Inslee's proposed transportation budget.
One of the biggest changes is lawmakers want to continue to fund major projects like the North Spokane Corridor (NSC). Inslee's proposed budget called for pulling the funding for the NSC project for four years.
Read more here: https://www.krem.com/article/news/local/new-budget-proposal-funding-north-south-freeway-spokane/293-8ad08037-9774-4a1d-9f99-fcad472c94e9
TBH, I didn't even know that the project was in jeopardy. That is frustrating. Hopefully it moves forward and gets built.
Quote from: Bruce on February 13, 2020, 01:23:46 AM
Quote from: BigManFromAFRICA88 on February 13, 2020, 12:34:19 AM
Quote from: Bruce on February 12, 2020, 11:54:17 PM
The plan is to have US 395 use the new freeway and US 2 stay on Division Street. There would be no point in creating a US 395 Spur on Francis Street or to replace SR 291. If SR 291 is not extended, it should be renumbered to be a child route of US 2 (perhaps SR 208).
Thanks for the answer! Unfortunately, I asked my question rather ambiguously haha.
I guess it basically boils down to if Washington allowed routes of different auxiliary designations (like a state-owned SR 395 freeway from Division St. south--different from your SR 291 extension east along Francis St. as I now understand--vs. US 395 north from that interchange) like Caltrans does--essentially establishing the 395 number on the NSC freeway and retaining all old numbers until full completion and rerouting.
Really doesn't matter in the end because (1) US 395 would eventually be rerouted onto SR 291/395 (Division could then make for a good Business US 395 optionally), (2) the freeway section is already signed as Future US 395 (like on the US-2 southbound signs), and (3) frankly, nobody except roadgeeks cares. :-D
The plan is to have the entire North Spokane Corridor, from I-90 to the Windermere interchange, signed as US 395 when it is fully complete in 2030. Until then, it is Future US 395 / internally SR 395 NSC.
There is no reason to retain any bit of US 395 on Division Street or reroute it before the full opening.
There is no SR 395, as it is the same as US 395. A separate route with the same number is something that Washington does not want to create.
Has there been any thought of designating the NSC when completed as an I-x90 spur up to US 2?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 30, 2023, 01:16:36 AM
Funding from politicians, including support from democrats, to restore funding and move this project forward again:
QuoteSPOKANE, Wash. – The Washington House released its transportation budget proposal on Monday, featuring some key changes from Gov. Jay Inslee's proposed transportation budget.
One of the biggest changes is lawmakers want to continue to fund major projects like the North Spokane Corridor (NSC). Inslee's proposed budget called for pulling the funding for the NSC project for four years.
Read more here: https://www.krem.com/article/news/local/new-budget-proposal-funding-north-south-freeway-spokane/293-8ad08037-9774-4a1d-9f99-fcad472c94e9
TBH, I didn't even know that the project was in jeopardy. That is frustrating. Hopefully it moves forward and gets built.
There's active construction occurring right now. The only potential thing in jeopardy has been the
timing of the final phase of the project, not whether it moves forward or not.
Quote from: ctroadgeek on May 24, 2009, 02:18:38 PM
For those of you not in the know, WSDOT is creating a north-south freeway in Spokane to help alleviate traffic problems. They plan on shifting US 395 over to it from its current alignment. Some more information about the project can be found at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/US395/NorthSpokaneCorridor/ (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/US395/NorthSpokaneCorridor/).
Being that the road is brand new, and will be presumably built to interstate standards, I thought it would be a great idea for it to get a 3di designation since it begins at I-90 going north. I-190 or I-390 would work. I emailed Larry Larson, the project engineer, and he didn't seem to get that all I cared about was the designation; it wouldn't be hard to install the signage for an interstate route. Anyway here's an excerpt from my correspondence with him in December 2007.
QuoteIn the case of the North Spokane Corridor (NSC) it has no "parent"
highway. It is designated US-395 and it begins in the Los Angeles area
and traverses through the east side of California, Oregon and
Washington, finally terminating at the Canadian border. While the NSC
will be built to Interstate Standards in Spokane, the bulk of it from
beginning to end is not. I hope this answers your question, if not please write back. In the
meantime, here is a link to further information.
It's a little annoying when you get talked down to about the difference between 2di, 3di and all that when you are keenly aware! He didn't seem to get that I was just referring to the freeway section of the NSC, and since it starts at I-90, it does too have a @#$#@ parent highway!
Has anybody else had any frustrating dealings with DOT people in regards to a simple question? I just had wanted to know if they could designate that 10 mile freeway as a 3di, that's all.
According the original poster, it was asked in 2007. Sounds like typical arrogance, on the part of a public official. Although the OP did get a response. I've encountered quite a bit of this, in this part of the country. Meaning no response, from "engineers" or "planners" to any detailed queries. Don't believe the Pacific NW, has the same outlook, as say, the southeast, or NC to be specific. Kind of amazing they are even building this, instead of just giving up, and resolving to lock in eternal, constant worsening gridlock.
Well, thankfully, it seems like this project is indeed happening:
Quoteome 77 years after it was first conceived, the North Spokane Corridor project takes the saying "Slow and steady wins the race" literally.
"I've lived in Spokane for seven years now, and I've heard for a long time that 'I'll never see it – it will never be built while I'm alive,'" says Joe McHale, spokesman for the Washington State Department of Transportation. "One thing we really want to let people know is yes, you will."
Construction on the project, which began in 2001 and is better known as the north-south freeway, is underway but faced a setback earlier this year when Gov. Jay Inlsee proposed delaying the project's funding and pushing its completion to 2035.
But this month, the Legislature approved House Bill 1125, which allocates another $169 million to the $1.5 billion project. The appropriations bill passed both the House and Senate last week.
- https://www.inlander.com/spokane/spokanes-15-billion-north-south-freeway-is-back-on-schedule-but-will-it-work-to-ease-traffic/Content?oid=25770247
Construction has been underway for years, so of course it's happening.
Still a general waste of money when an expressway with traffic lights could've done just fine, but at least it frees up Division to be dieted and BRT'd to something actually usable. It's a nightmare to use in its current state.
Quote from: Bruce on April 13, 2023, 04:08:51 PM
Construction has been underway for years, so of course it's happening.
Still a general waste of money when an expressway with traffic lights could've done just fine, but at least it frees up Division to be dieted and BRT'd to something actually usable. It's a nightmare to use in its current state.
It's more efficient to drive without having to stop at traffic lights. With this high speed roadway and no lights it'll surely take a lot of traffic of Division st.
Are there any detailed plans on they'll do with Division street? I was street viewing it and there is so much potential. Actual dedicated BRT lanes and a cycleway should be in play.
It would have been hilariously ironic if somehow the funding for the final phase never came through, leaving it disconnected from I-90. Meanwhile, the only section of the original north-south freeway that was built? The connection with I-90. :-D
Still, yes, as mentioned by Bruce (and me before :pan:) this project has never been in doubt. There are no NIMBYs in Spokane blocking this, no "environmentalists" or "urbanists", whatever. The only thing ever in question is exact timing of when the final phases will occur, but WSDOT has been indicating 2025 (for a while now) at the latest for everything.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2023, 10:02:19 PM
It would have been hilariously ironic if somehow the funding for the final phase never came through, leaving it disconnected from I-90. Meanwhile, the only section of the original north-south freeway that was built? The connection with I-90. :-D
Gee, it looks like they could start with that freeway stub, and build an elevated freeway over the Spokane River up to Greene St, and hardly have to condemn any properties. Or, they could build part of it elevated above the RR tracks. I wonder what's more expensive, buying a quarter acre lot with a house or business on it and building 200 ft of freeway on it, or building 200 ft of freeway up in the air.
Quote from: pderocco on April 14, 2023, 12:16:24 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2023, 10:02:19 PM
It would have been hilariously ironic if somehow the funding for the final phase never came through, leaving it disconnected from I-90. Meanwhile, the only section of the original north-south freeway that was built? The connection with I-90. :-D
Gee, it looks like they could start with that freeway stub, and build an elevated freeway over the Spokane River up to Greene St, and hardly have to condemn any properties. Or, they could build part of it elevated above the RR tracks. I wonder what's more expensive, buying a quarter acre lot with a house or business on it and building 200 ft of freeway on it, or building 200 ft of freeway up in the air.
Well if built as you describe, it would not be just up in the air, but also over a river, which is the part that would definitely make it more expensive, not to mention be much more likely to be stopped for environmental reasons. Plus, the reason that only a stub was built of the original freeway was due to public opposition, which resulted in the routing being moved further east to where it is today.
I, for one, will be glad when the freeway is completed to I-90 and open to traffic, whether in seven years or 12.
It took 55 years for the NSC to go from original conception to when construction first began (1946-2001). If it is completed by 2029, as planned, that will have been 83 years between original conception to completion. That's a hell of a long time!
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 14, 2023, 10:40:52 PM
It took 55 years for the NSC to go from original conception to when construction first began (1946-2001). If it is completed by 2029, as planned, that will have been 83 years between original conception to completion. That's a hell of a long time!
*2nd Ave subway has entered the chat*
Project link has changed: https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/major-projects/north-spokane-corridor
Obviously they're currently referring to this road as "Future 395", but I came to this thread trying to find out whether it will carry US 2 as well. Once the connection to I-90 is complete, I can't imagine they would continue directing US 2 traffic down Division. If Division needs to remain on the state highway system, then wouldn't WSDOT just designate it Business 2/395? Or maybe give it an SR number?
Quote from: usends on April 25, 2023, 04:13:47 PM
Project link has changed: https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/major-projects/north-spokane-corridor
Obviously they're currently referring to this road as "Future 395", but I came to this thread trying to find out whether it will carry US 2 as well. Once the connection to I-90 is complete, I can't imagine they would continue directing US 2 traffic down Division. If Division needs to remain on the state highway system, then wouldn't WSDOT just designate it Business 2/395? Or maybe give it an SR number?
WSDOT does not maintain business routes for Interstates or US routes, so the options are keeping US 2 on Division (which I believe is the current plan) or assigning a new state route (which would be a bit pointless).
So that would leave making N. Newport Hwy., N./S. Division St., N. Ruby St., and N./S. Browne St. unnumbered local streets maintained by the city.
Quote from: Bruce on April 25, 2023, 05:13:03 PM
Quote from: usends on April 25, 2023, 04:13:47 PM
Obviously they're currently referring to this road as "Future 395", but I came to this thread trying to find out whether it will carry US 2 as well. Once the connection to I-90 is complete, I can't imagine they would continue directing US 2 traffic down Division. If Division needs to remain on the state highway system, then wouldn't WSDOT just designate it Business 2/395? Or maybe give it an SR number?
WSDOT does not maintain business routes for Interstates or US routes....
Washington supposedly has five Interstate (but no US) business routes. Are those routes locally maintained?
Quote from: oscar on April 25, 2023, 05:36:19 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 25, 2023, 05:13:03 PM
Quote from: usends on April 25, 2023, 04:13:47 PM
Obviously they're currently referring to this road as "Future 395", but I came to this thread trying to find out whether it will carry US 2 as well. Once the connection to I-90 is complete, I can't imagine they would continue directing US 2 traffic down Division. If Division needs to remain on the state highway system, then wouldn't WSDOT just designate it Business 2/395? Or maybe give it an SR number?
WSDOT does not maintain business routes for Interstates or US routes....
Washington supposedly has five Interstate (but no US) business routes. Are those routes locally maintained?
They are all locally maintained and signed, which is why their standards vary a bit. WSDOT does not acknowledge them at all in the state highway logs or other inventories. There are also a few business routes for state highways that are not in the logs, but do get mentioned in random spots (e.g. this project plan (https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/search-projects/sr-3-freight-corridor-new-alignment) for SR 3).
It's why I don't really bother to keep track of them; researching their history is really difficult due to how poorly documented they are.
With that in mind, who is responsible for the I-5 Business Loop in Seattle?
As far as I know, it's just the C/D lanes, which would still be WSDOT maintenance.
How on earth would C/D lanes qualify as a business loop, that's worse than Sacramento :crazy:
Quote from: Algorithm on April 29, 2023, 02:10:13 PM
How on earth would C/D lanes qualify as a business loop, that's worse than Sacramento :crazy:
I don't know if it's actually legit, but it has been up for five years now.
I believe those signs were intended to be a temporary thing for the northbound mainline paving project a few years back along with the widening project that is currently underway, but the (seemingly endless) delays with the widening project have meant that the signs have stayed in place much longer than they were really supposed to. I've never quite understood why they were installed in the first place... probably a misguided attempt to make people less confused when through traffic was being detoured to the CD lanes during construction.
Quote from: jay8g on May 01, 2023, 08:57:09 PM
I believe those signs were intended to be a temporary thing for the northbound mainline paving project a few years back along with the widening project that is currently underway, but the (seemingly endless) delays with the widening project have meant that the signs have stayed in place much longer than they were really supposed to. I've never quite understood why they were installed in the first place... probably a misguided attempt to make people less confused when through traffic was being detoured to the CD lanes during construction.
It almost seems like they just forgot to cover the Business 5 shield, since one of them was covered up at some point, but the other is still visible: https://goo.gl/maps/CyiXR467t6nS3mqW6
Quote from: oscar on April 25, 2023, 05:36:19 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 25, 2023, 05:13:03 PM
WSDOT does not maintain business routes for Interstates or US routes....
Washington supposedly has five Interstate (but no US) business routes. Are those routes locally maintained?
This sign in Cashmere would beg to differ about there being no US business routes! https://goo.gl/maps/ajNVkdbjJJ11XcFi7
This is the only one I know of, though.
Another 2.5 miles down to Wellesley Avenue will open in "mid-November" with a ribbon-cutting scheduled for November 16.
https://www.krem.com/article/money/economy/boomtown-inland-northwest/section-of-spokanes-north-south-freeway-nearing-completion-boomtown-krem-2-news/293-ca61c338-11a7-483a-bc0b-1e51d59622ff
Quote from: Bruce on November 05, 2023, 09:02:17 PM
Another 2.5 miles down to Wellesley Avenue will open in "mid-November" with a ribbon-cutting scheduled for November 16.
https://www.krem.com/article/money/economy/boomtown-inland-northwest/section-of-spokanes-north-south-freeway-nearing-completion-boomtown-krem-2-news/293-ca61c338-11a7-483a-bc0b-1e51d59622ff
Very good news. But I don't know where they're getting 2.5. Being generous, I'm only getting around 2 miles. Then again, I'm just using the Google Maps measurement tool.
Great to see this project making more progress. I think people in Spokane are rightly frustrated by the lack of progress, but getting this section opened, and really seeing some highly-visible progress elsewhere, will really help with the PR part of this project.
How is this supposed to connect to I-90? Seems like there is a lot of development in the way.
Quote from: hurricanehink on November 06, 2023, 06:54:28 PM
How is this supposed to connect to I-90? Seems like there is a lot of development in the way.
Structures are being demolished to make way for a directional-T interchange.
Most of the demolition has already occurred. If you go back into historic imagery (Historic Aerials, Google Earth, et al) you can see how much has been demolished. It's quite extensive.
(https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/max_1300x1300/public/2023-03/NSC-StagingMap-2023.jpg?itok=5HpMQOsK)
Quote from: hurricanehink on November 06, 2023, 06:54:28 PM
How is this supposed to connect to I-90? Seems like there is a lot of development in the way.
The area around the future interchange has already been razed for the most part, and the remainder in between is mostly industrial. It's going to be a disruptive freeway through what remains of a historically Black neighborhood, because what's old is new again.
Still good news mobility will be improved in the area. I can't wait to drive the whole thing.
On Google Maps Satellite View, it shows signs of construction on the North Spokane Corridor going as far south as E. Mission Ave. near Spokane Community College (although there are no signs of constructing a bridge over the Spokane River).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 07, 2023, 04:54:04 PM
On Google Maps Satellite View, it shows signs of construction on the North Spokane Corridor going as far south as E. Mission Ave. near Spokane Community College (although there are no signs of constructing a bridge over the Spokane River).
It is not visible on satellite imagery, but info from WSDOT on their page for the project suggests that work has begun.
https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/search-projects/us-395-nsc-spokane-river-crossing
The latest Google Earth imagery (for which you have to turn on the time slider) doesn't show any sign that there will be a connection between Wellesley Ave and US-395 southbound, only northbound, and neither does that low-resolution map.
Quote from: pderocco on November 08, 2023, 02:16:35 AM
The latest Google Earth imagery (for which you have to turn on the time slider) doesn't show any sign that there will be a connection between Wellesley Ave and US-395 southbound, only northbound, and neither does that low-resolution map.
The ramps to/from southbound 395 to Wellesley Ave are right up against the freeway and tie into a roundabout, slightly visible in the imagery underneath the 395 overpass.
(https://media.krem.com/assets/KREM/images/5d87df31-481d-4dd9-bbfd-4d461633145b/5d87df31-481d-4dd9-bbfd-4d461633145b_1140x641.jpg)
Wow, they could have moved the road a little more to the right, couldn't they?
Quote from: pderocco on November 09, 2023, 12:18:33 AM
Wow, they could have moved the road a little more to the right, couldn't they?
Possibly yes. Though maybe that would have required more earthwork on both sides of the ramp. The current setup basically is just a wall on the left, and grading up to the railway on the right. In either case, they were working within pretty tight confines, so it was never going to be as spacious as the folded diamond for the northbound ramps.
Gee, as long as they are putting roundabouts underneath overpasses, they might as well have done what Massachusetts commonly did in the old days, which is to make a large rotary that straddles the freeway, and serves the cross road and the ramps.
Both directions are now open:
https://twitter.com/WSDOT_East/status/1725579579002364055
I think the US 2 designation should've been applied to the North Spokane Corridor along with the US 395 designation. After all, 2 and 395 have been co-designated for a sufficient length through the Spokane area since 1948 (US 195 was also co-designated with US 2 between Spokane and Sandpoint, Idaho until 1969).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 17, 2023, 09:14:05 PM
I think the US 2 designation should've been applied to the North Spokane Corridor along with the US 395 designation. After all, 2 and 395 have been co-designated for a sufficient length through the Spokane area since 1948 (US 195 was also co-designated with US 2 between Spokane and Sandpoint, Idaho until 1969).
US 2 is less of a through route in the Spokane area and is better suited to staying on a major local street like Division. It isn't really associated with freeways given how short its I-90 concurrency and airport stub is; US 395, meanwhile, is largely freeway between the Tri-Cities and Ritzville.
I do wonder what will happen to the current section of US 395 north of the wye; it would probably be best to number it as a state route, maybe SR 293 or SR 297. The move will leave SR 291 as a bit of an orphan, so perhaps an extension east to Freya and north to the NSC would make sense (though Spokane would still retain control of the corridor).
There are two free-flow ramps connecting US 2 West with future US 395 South, and one connecting future US 395 North with US 2 East. That tell's me that a move of the US 2 designation to the North Spokane Corridor is possible, or was at least contemplated when that portion of the NSC was designed and later constructed. Though you are probably right about US 2 remaining on its existing alignment. I guess we'll all find out when the NSC is completed at the end of 2030.
From their blog post about the opening (here (https://wsdotblog.blogspot.com/2023/11/north-spokane-corridor.html)), I thought this was a pretty interesting image. For those not in the know, it's a section of the 395 freeway/NSC viaduct in front of the Spokane Community College. I don't know why this section was built before everything else, but it looks quite ominous standing on its own.
The more interesting thing is just that we are still building stuff like this. Elevated freeways are a dime a dozen here in Japan (legitimately everywhere because they save on ROW acquisition especially when built on top of existing roads), but increasingly rare in the US, especially in urban areas. It's necessitated through here because of the tight ROW and need to pass over a substantial number of roads, but I guess freeways in these kinds of areas are rarer nowadays, so you just don't see this kind of construction as often. The northern section of the 395 freeway/NSC is more what I imagine when I think of modern freeway construction; at-grade, more out of the way from urban areas, and only bridging only at specific points.
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj65oBmfjtx5hoj1HrOUmh6lVXC3A1NMr6pZ8jw2jrxPONGgqlsWacE2JbKukvMgF6gyDJaRAjzojrU7ngyTyP0fyyrOQbPiVuYLQbqyMCDzzM2D946GF1RGjgNde_6BSfnfQfzLQ0zUfWHWGn5t3TJqElDVbI1G0T6IEB_NhNkUkrzTl1rXPRLqqfxts4/s1600/angle-view-viaduct.jpg)
Is that a 3x3 crosssection?
Quote from: Bickendan on November 21, 2023, 10:30:38 PM
Is that a 3x3 crosssection?
I am replying tentatively with "yes", as everything else is 3x3 and having this section be 2x2 would not be logical. Though I will concur with what I suppose is your observation, that it's not
obviously 3x3 and seems pretty narrow if it is, or at the very least seems to be lacking shoulders of Interstate-quality width (obviously not a concern for this non-Interstate route).
When I use the measuring tool in Google Earth on those bridge decks the roadway on each bridge is roughly 52' wide. That would leave enough room for three lanes 12' wide, plus a 10' outer shoulder and a 6' inner shoulder.
In this case specifically the narrow ROW available and constraints on both sides lead to a lot of design decisions. Wouldn't be surprised if there are utilities directly under the freeway they're trying to avoid impacting.
This elevated part appears in some of the street view along Greene.
Quote from: pderocco on November 09, 2023, 09:57:26 PM
Gee, as long as they are putting roundabouts underneath overpasses, they might as well have done what Massachusetts commonly did in the old days, which is to make a large rotary that straddles the freeway, and serves the cross road and the ramps.
That is how they do it in Europe. My personal favourite (since I used to drive this one) is:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5623741,-0.4987382,1262m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu
Notice the mini-roundabouts included at 3 of the junction points.
The US is moving away from high-speed rotaries and traffic circles.
That is likely a good thing. Roundabouts take up far less space than traffic circles anyway.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 21, 2023, 08:24:24 PM
I don't know why this section was built before everything else, but it looks quite ominous standing on its own.
Head start on reclaiming the space underneath for parking maybe?
It seems this highway is really controversial on Reddit - lots of people wanting a rail corridor built there instead. I've never been to Spokane but it doesn't seem THAT walkable to begin with judging from a map view?
You're kidding me!? Reddit users not liking a freeway? No way.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 06, 2023, 05:19:05 PM
You're kidding me!? Reddit users not liking a freeway? No way.
I was gonna say, the only thing Reddit hates more than its CEO is freeways.
How many of those Reddit users would have utilized a rail line had it been constructed instead of the NSC? My guess is very few would have.
Quote from: Voyager on December 06, 2023, 05:12:57 PM
It seems this highway is really controversial on Reddit - lots of people wanting a rail corridor built there instead. I've never been to Spokane but it doesn't seem THAT walkable to begin with judging from a map view?
Spokane has a pleasant downtown, though the wide one-way streets make it harder to walk around. Riverfront Park (site of Expo 74) is a real gem and has plenty of crossings that make the Spokane River a bit less of an obstacle. Bus frequency is much better than you'd expect from a city of this size, with one BRT line now in operation and several high-frequency routes (including a ring around the city). It's got great bones and would work well for rapid transit in the future, but there's also a lot of sprawl (particularly to the north and east).
I still question the utility of the NSC at full buildout, since it's so far east that it doesn't really serve any normal commuters. It'll be handy for taking freight off Division (which needs a diet ASAP, it's a death trap), but beyond that the freeway isn't really going to be the panacea it is touted to be. Spokane's traffic problems are a joke, with or without the NSC.
The sentiment I've seen on r/spokane has been a bunch of shrugs, so I'm not seeing the supposed controversy.
Quote from: Bruce on December 06, 2023, 08:56:43 PM
I still question the utility of the NSC at full buildout, since it's so far east that it doesn't really serve any normal commuters. It'll be handy for taking freight off Division (which needs a diet ASAP, it's a death trap), but beyond that the freeway isn't really going to be the panacea it is touted to be. Spokane's traffic problems are a joke, with or without the NSC.
The NSC is far enough east that it affects a relatively low amount of residential neighborhoods; other than at the interchange with I-90, no houses had to be torn down, which is pretty impressive for an urban freeway. It's a good thing that the old railyard just happened to be there for them to route the freeway through.