Washington

[KEK Inc.]

I don't have any photos, because I am an idiot, but there is going to a four-lane meter at the on-ramp from 150th/SE 37th in Bellevue. It's part of the I-90 Eastgate to SR-900 auxiliary lane improvements. It will be in the same location as what I believe was the state's first three-lane ramp meter, only followed much later by the Mercer Street three-lane meter for traffic heading southbound on I-5.

Also in ramp meter news, at least a couple three lane meters are being installed in the JBLM area. I think both will be from Berkeley St. There may be another at Steilacoom-Dupont Rd once that interchange is rebuilt. The plan seems to be to meter the HOV lane, which for the longest time was a big no-no around here (the only one I know of is the westbound I-90 on-ramp from Mercer Way on Mercer Island).

I also think there may be a three-lane meter from Marvin Road in Lacey (at the new DDI).

Took this on my way to hiking.  The fog was thick this morning.


iPhone

[mrsman]

It seems like WSDOT is not as into HOV bypasses as they once were. They recently added a meter to the one at NE 45th St southbound, and removed the ones at 85th and 130th southbound (they're both now 2-lane standard meters, but they aren't in Street View yet). The new ones at Cherry St (2 lanes) and the northbound CD lanes (3 lanes) won't have HOV bypasses either. I wonder if they're getting tired of HOV violators, since I've never seen any enforcement of ramp HOV lanes...

I shall imagine that it's not just the violators, but also the general growth in popularity of HOV. Eventually, the entire purpose of a meter is defeated when there is so much HOV traffic bypassing the meter signals that the entrance ramp becomes a steady flow as it may have been pre-metering.

There may be other states that have typically allowed HOV traffic to ignore the meter signal, but it's limited. Minnesota, possibly? California has many HOV lanes at their ramp meters, but I've not seen a single example that didn't have a meter signal for that lane.

There are still examples in CA where the HOV lane can bypass the metering signal.  The purpose of ramp metering is to get even flow on entrance ramps to reduce mainline crowding by putting the crowiding at the on-ramps (to whatever extent they could).  The small HOV bypasses were designed to allow HOVs to bypass the entering crowding.  You are correct that if too many people use the bypass, it will just cause overall congestion.

Here's an example on Woodman Ave at ramps to US 101 south in Sherman Oaks, CA that still allows HOV bypass of the meter.  Signs indicate that the left lane is carpool only when metered.  Other signs say "<>Left Lane Do not Stop"

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1553174,-118.429898,3a,75y,59.36h,80.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s08UV8Xyrbx_1JDDLEmK4nA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[jakeroot]

I don't have any photos, because I am an idiot, but there is going to a four-lane meter at the on-ramp from 150th/SE 37th in Bellevue. It's part of the I-90 Eastgate to SR-900 auxiliary lane improvements. It will be in the same location as what I believe was the state's first three-lane ramp meter, only followed much later by the Mercer Street three-lane meter for traffic heading southbound on I-5.

Also in ramp meter news, at least a couple three lane meters are being installed in the JBLM area. I think both will be from Berkeley St. There may be another at Steilacoom-Dupont Rd once that interchange is rebuilt. The plan seems to be to meter the HOV lane, which for the longest time was a big no-no around here (the only one I know of is the westbound I-90 on-ramp from Mercer Way on Mercer Island).

I also think there may be a three-lane meter from Marvin Road in Lacey (at the new DDI).

Took this on my way to hiking.  The fog was thick this morning.

Thank you. Maybe one day I can get a picture of my own lol.

I'll be very interested to see how it operates once they activate the meter. I think two of the four approaches are HOV.

[jakeroot]

It seems like WSDOT is not as into HOV bypasses as they once were. They recently added a meter to the one at NE 45th St southbound, and removed the ones at 85th and 130th southbound (they're both now 2-lane standard meters, but they aren't in Street View yet). The new ones at Cherry St (2 lanes) and the northbound CD lanes (3 lanes) won't have HOV bypasses either. I wonder if they're getting tired of HOV violators, since I've never seen any enforcement of ramp HOV lanes...

I shall imagine that it's not just the violators, but also the general growth in popularity of HOV. Eventually, the entire purpose of a meter is defeated when there is so much HOV traffic bypassing the meter signals that the entrance ramp becomes a steady flow as it may have been pre-metering.

There may be other states that have typically allowed HOV traffic to ignore the meter signal, but it's limited. Minnesota, possibly? California has many HOV lanes at their ramp meters, but I've not seen a single example that didn't have a meter signal for that lane.

There are still examples in CA where the HOV lane can bypass the metering signal.  The purpose of ramp metering is to get even flow on entrance ramps to reduce mainline crowding by putting the crowiding at the on-ramps (to whatever extent they could).  The small HOV bypasses were designed to allow HOVs to bypass the entering crowding.  You are correct that if too many people use the bypass, it will just cause overall congestion.

Here's an example on Woodman Ave at ramps to US 101 south in Sherman Oaks, CA that still allows HOV bypass of the meter.  Signs indicate that the left lane is carpool only when metered.  Other signs say "<>Left Lane Do not Stop"

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1553174,-118.429898,3a,75y,59.36h,80.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s08UV8Xyrbx_1JDDLEmK4nA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

That's very interesting. I've never seen a full-blown HOV bypass in California. At least the style often used in Washington. Even for CA, this must be rare, given the supplementary "do not stop" sign.

I've always thought ramp meters for HOV lanes made sense. I get that having the ability to bypass the meter is a big bonus for HOV traffic, but eventually there's just too much traffic bypassing the meter for that "do not stop" style of metering to make any sense. Luckily, it seems that most of WSDOT's HOV bypasses still have pressure plates in the ground for later conversion to HOV metering. And for the meters that don't have much HOV traffic, the wait at the meter won't be too bad. But trying to merge with HOV traffic that is flying by you in the immediately adjacent lane, usually at 60+, is quite difficult and fairly dangerous. I say: make everyone stop.

[Bruce]

WSDOT uses a similar "Do Not Stop for Signal" sign at some ramp meters, like I-5 & 220th in Mountlake Terrace.

[jakeroot]

WSDOT uses a similar "Do Not Stop for Signal" sign at some ramp meters, like I-5 & 220th in Mountlake Terrace.

And now that you mention it, I was thinking of the southbound on-ramp from 405 and 525 onto I-5, where the HOV bypasses are on the outer edges and there are single-head signals over the HOV lanes (not sure what color) with accompanying "HOV Shoulder Do Not Stop" signs. Pretty unusual design.

[roadfro]

I've always thought ramp meters for HOV lanes made sense. I get that having the ability to bypass the meter is a big bonus for HOV traffic, but eventually there's just too much traffic bypassing the meter for that "do not stop" style of metering to make any sense. Luckily, it seems that most of WSDOT's HOV bypasses still have pressure plates in the ground for later conversion to HOV metering. And for the meters that don't have much HOV traffic, the wait at the meter won't be too bad. But trying to merge with HOV traffic that is flying by you in the immediately adjacent lane, usually at 60+, is quite difficult and fairly dangerous. I say: make everyone stop.

I noticed the sentence bolded above. I'm hoping WSDOT doesn't actually use pressure plates...as that's a fairly old technology now (which I understand wasn't particularly reliable and had maintenance issues). Might they actually use inductive loops embedded in the pavement? (Street View example: inductive loop sensors in a square-ish pattern in Reno, NV)

[jakeroot]

I've always thought ramp meters for HOV lanes made sense. I get that having the ability to bypass the meter is a big bonus for HOV traffic, but eventually there's just too much traffic bypassing the meter for that "do not stop" style of metering to make any sense. Luckily, it seems that most of WSDOT's HOV bypasses still have pressure plates in the ground for later conversion to HOV metering. And for the meters that don't have much HOV traffic, the wait at the meter won't be too bad. But trying to merge with HOV traffic that is flying by you in the immediately adjacent lane, usually at 60+, is quite difficult and fairly dangerous. I say: make everyone stop.

I noticed the sentence bolded above. I'm hoping WSDOT doesn't actually use pressure plates...as that's a fairly old technology now (which I understand wasn't particularly reliable and had maintenance issues). Might they actually use inductive loops embedded in the pavement? (Street View example: inductive loop sensors in a square-ish pattern in Reno, NV)

Yeah, I meant to say inductive loops. I just watched a video on detection methods and I flip-flipped the terminology.

Unlike that NV example, WSDOT uses perfectly circular inductive loops. They are manufactured by Reno A&E.

[roadfro]

I've always thought ramp meters for HOV lanes made sense. I get that having the ability to bypass the meter is a big bonus for HOV traffic, but eventually there's just too much traffic bypassing the meter for that "do not stop" style of metering to make any sense. Luckily, it seems that most of WSDOT's HOV bypasses still have pressure plates in the ground for later conversion to HOV metering. And for the meters that don't have much HOV traffic, the wait at the meter won't be too bad. But trying to merge with HOV traffic that is flying by you in the immediately adjacent lane, usually at 60+, is quite difficult and fairly dangerous. I say: make everyone stop.

I noticed the sentence bolded above. I'm hoping WSDOT doesn't actually use pressure plates...as that's a fairly old technology now (which I understand wasn't particularly reliable and had maintenance issues). Might they actually use inductive loops embedded in the pavement? (Street View example: inductive loop sensors in a square-ish pattern in Reno, NV)

Yeah, I meant to say inductive loops. I just watched a video on detection methods and I flip-flipped the terminology.

Unlike that NV example, WSDOT uses perfectly circular inductive loops. They are manufactured by Reno A&E.

Ah, much better!

Nevada's newer installs are now using round loops as well...a recent change adopted in the last couple years.

[sparker]

I've always thought ramp meters for HOV lanes made sense. I get that having the ability to bypass the meter is a big bonus for HOV traffic, but eventually there's just too much traffic bypassing the meter for that "do not stop" style of metering to make any sense. Luckily, it seems that most of WSDOT's HOV bypasses still have pressure plates in the ground for later conversion to HOV metering. And for the meters that don't have much HOV traffic, the wait at the meter won't be too bad. But trying to merge with HOV traffic that is flying by you in the immediately adjacent lane, usually at 60+, is quite difficult and fairly dangerous. I say: make everyone stop.

I noticed the sentence bolded above. I'm hoping WSDOT doesn't actually use pressure plates...as that's a fairly old technology now (which I understand wasn't particularly reliable and had maintenance issues). Might they actually use inductive loops embedded in the pavement? (Street View example: inductive loop sensors in a square-ish pattern in Reno, NV)

Yeah, I meant to say inductive loops. I just watched a video on detection methods and I flip-flipped the terminology.

Unlike that NV example, WSDOT uses perfectly circular inductive loops. They are manufactured by Reno A&E.

Ah, much better!

Nevada's newer installs are now using round loops as well...a recent change adopted in the last couple years.

Simply a matter of physics -- round air/nonmagnetic cores can be manufactured to much tighter tolerances than square-section types, which have an irregular field within the loop itself (I manufacture loudspeakers, and have to regularly deal with this in regards to crossover filter components); a square-section coil is more sensitive to outside interference as well.  But I can see how rectangular loops would find favor with DOT's -- if the idea is to simply detect a vehicle above it, stretching a rectangle across the lane would get the job done with less wire (likely cheaper) -- but it would also be more prone to produce "false" signals from vehicles passing near but not over the loop.  And since the "trigger" is the measured difference between no car over the loop and a car over the loop, adjacent vehicles setting it off isn't a desirable condition.  So switching to a circular coil is a step in the right direction -- and apparently, it allows purchase from an in-state vendor, so it's a "win-win" scenario.     

[jakeroot]

I got a couple more photos of the four-head ramp meter on eastbound I-90 from 150th Ave/SE 37th in Eastgate. No HOV bypasses from the looks of it:



This is the current state of the ramp (aka, not finished):

[jakeroot]

I saw from the WSDOT blog (which I should check more but often forget to) that the SR-18/I-90 DDI was pushed back a year:

https://wsdotblog.blogspot.com/2020/11/new-timeline-for-i-90sr-18-interchange.html

The blog did have a cool render showing the actual plans, including the lane configuration and planned channelization. The four-lane section of SR-18 looks to be getting pushed further south than it is right now. Gotta wonder if they're planning to tie in the northbound two-lane stretch into the existing two-lane stretch that ends just after the last hill?

From a pedestrian point of view, we can also see that they plan to put the pedestrian pathway along the west side of the road, instead of in the center as is typical for DDIs. I like this change.

[stevashe]

Gotta wonder if they're planning to tie in the northbound two-lane stretch into the existing two-lane stretch that ends just after the last hill?

(From the project's page)

In addition, this project will widen nearly 1.5 miles of SR 18 to four lanes from the interchange to Deep Creek.

Yup! in fact, looks like 1.5 miles works out to the start of that climbing lane at the bottom of that hill.

[Alps]

Pardon if it's buried in a thread I couldn't find, but with I-5 being Exit 2 from I-90 (and apparently mile 2.48), where was the theoretical Mile 0 from which the highway was mileposted?

[jakeroot]

Pardon if it's buried in a thread I couldn't find, but with I-5 being Exit 2 from I-90 (and apparently mile 2.48), where was the theoretical Mile 0 from which the highway was mileposted?

I'm sure it would have been WA-99. There were ramp stubs on the viaduct that would have connected to the freeway had it been built as originally imagined.

Just to be clear, I recognize that the viaduct was only about a mile west, but there's really nowhere else it could have begun. Unless the mileage was based on the surface street routings from the ferry terminal or something.

[Alps]

Pardon if it's buried in a thread I couldn't find, but with I-5 being Exit 2 from I-90 (and apparently mile 2.48), where was the theoretical Mile 0 from which the highway was mileposted?

I'm sure it would have been WA-99. There were ramp stubs on the viaduct that would have connected to the freeway had it been built as originally imagined.

Just to be clear, I recognize that the viaduct was only about a mile west, but there's really nowhere else it could have begun. Unless the mileage was based on the surface street routings from the ferry terminal or something.

SPUI's theory is that it used the old state highway 2 mileage that reflected US 10 without adjusting for the revised terminus.

[jakeroot]

Pardon if it's buried in a thread I couldn't find, but with I-5 being Exit 2 from I-90 (and apparently mile 2.48), where was the theoretical Mile 0 from which the highway was mileposted?

I'm sure it would have been WA-99. There were ramp stubs on the viaduct that would have connected to the freeway had it been built as originally imagined.

Just to be clear, I recognize that the viaduct was only about a mile west, but there's really nowhere else it could have begun. Unless the mileage was based on the surface street routings from the ferry terminal or something.

SPUI's theory is that it used the old state highway 2 mileage that reflected US 10 without adjusting for the revised terminus.

If there's an answer, Bruce will have it. I don't recall where PSH-2 started.

Looking at the highway logs, the distance between the accumulated route mileage (actual mileage) and the mileposts varies, from 1.94 miles at 4th Ave S to 2.31 miles by the ID border. No clue where this other gap would be.

[kkt]

A pictorial of the connection from I-90 to the Alaskan Way Viaduct is shown here:

https://www.historylink.org/file/9977

They call it the Connecticut Street Viaduct.  Connecticut Street was the former name of Royal Brougham Way.  The proposed viaduct was planned a lot like the Alaskan Way Viaduct - two decks of expressway above the street, small if any shoulders.  They had in mind connections to both directions of the Alaskan Way Viaduct plus entrances/exits at First Ave. South and it looks like Utah Ave. South.  Still unclear where the missing couple of miles could have gone.

[jakeroot]

Looking at that historylink article...a few questions:

(1) that second-to-last photo shows "'CBD' ramps" ... I wonder when that term fell out of favor. I recognize that CBD was common at some point. At least in writing.

(2) where is the rest of Connecticut Street? I get that it was renamed to Royal Brougham Way, but there are streets to the east that would have lined up with it, yet none use the name. Judkins being the closest. Neither Holgate nor Lander line up perfectly with their grid extensions to the east, but they still keep the name.

(3) does anyone have a photo of the traffic light at Mercer and Aurora? I see that the underpass was built by the late 50s.

[kkt]

(2) There wasn't much more of Connecticut St.  It formerly existed west of Alaskan Way but that was closed by the Port of Seattle.  I'm looking at a Shell street map from 1956 thanks to David Ramsey.  Some east-west streets in that area have their names continued in West Seattle but where Connecticut St. might have gone is instead California Way and California Lane.  East of the hospital on 12th Ave. some names are again repeated, but the space where Connecticut might be seems to be used by Judkins St.

[Alps]

Looking at that historylink article...a few questions:

(1) that second-to-last photo shows "'CBD' ramps" ... I wonder when that term fell out of favor. I recognize that CBD was common at some point. At least in writing.

(2) where is the rest of Connecticut Street? I get that it was renamed to Royal Brougham Way, but there are streets to the east that would have lined up with it, yet none use the name. Judkins being the closest. Neither Holgate nor Lander line up perfectly with their grid extensions to the east, but they still keep the name.

(3) does anyone have a photo of the traffic light at Mercer and Aurora? I see that the underpass was built by the late 50s.

As to 1), I think we understand better now, or times have changed, that economic and residential commercial centers are dispersed.

[thefraze_1020]

I have looked through my map collection, and I have a map of Seattle for every single year from 1945-1970 (past 1970 is not relevant here, I don't think), plus Seattle maps for 1937, 39 and 41.

The state road system existed prior to 1937. In 1937, the PSH and SSH system began, of course being used until 1964 in the field and 1970 in the legislature.

My 1937 and 1939 maps show the western terminus of US-10/ PSH 2 at the intersection of 4th Ave S and Jackson St (4th Ave S of course being US-99/ PSH 1):
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.599181,-122.3291956,145m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

By 1941, the western terminus of US-10/ PSH 2 had been moved to 4th Ave S and what's now Seattle Blvd S:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5964824,-122.3293404,145m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

This remained the case through 1956. In 1957, the Gousha map shows 4th Ave S as being Business US-99, with the mainline moved to 1st Ave S and the viaduct. It does not indicate where US-10/ PSH 2 end. However, a Rand McNally map from the same year (1957) shows US-10/ PSH 2 turning north on 4th Ave and continuing to a terminus where Business US-99 and mainline US-99 merge at the north portal of the Battery Street Tunnel:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6187424,-122.3440336,145m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

It was not until the 1962 map that Gousha actually specified that PSH 2 followed Business US-99 north through downtown.
For 1964 and on, maps do not show PSH/ SSH numbers, because they were no longer signed in the field.

At that time, from 1957 until the death of US-10 in 1969, from it's western terminus, eastbound US-10 ran south from US-99 at the north end of the Battery Street Tunnel, southwest on Wall Street, then a left turn on 2nd Ave, merged onto 4th Ave S on the north side of King Street Station, took a left on Seattle Blvd S and an immediate left on S Dearborn St. Before the I-90 interchange was completed in the early 90's, I-90 effectively began under I-5 at Dearborn. If I were to draw a line from the north end of the Battery Street Tunnel to that spot under I-5, using the route I just mentioned, Google Maps says that is 2.3 miles.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/47.618558,-122.3438444/47.5958239,-122.3203656/@47.6078591,-122.32617,4646m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!4m8!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d-122.3293838!2d47.5988553!3s0x54906abb43339bbf:0xf08bb758b661cc76!1m0!3e0?hl=en

If we were to assume the exit numbers on the current incarnation of I-90 were based off of the route mileage when the renumbering occurred in 1964, that exit number (2) would line up with a terminus at the north end of the Battery Street Tunnel.

I would usually say this is my $0.02 worth, but since I wrote an essay, I am going to call it my $0.04 worth. 

[stevashe]

At that time, from 1957 until the death of US-10 in 1969, from it's western terminus, eastbound US-10 ran south from US-99 at the north end of the Battery Street Tunnel, southwest on Wall Street, then a left turn on 2nd Ave, merged onto 4th Ave S on the north side of King Street Station, took a left on Seattle Blvd S and an immediate left on S Dearborn St. Before the I-90 interchange was completed in the early 90's, I-90 effectively began under I-5 at Dearborn. If I were to draw a line from the north end of the Battery Street Tunnel to that spot under I-5, using the route I just mentioned, Google Maps says that is 2.3 miles.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/47.618558,-122.3438444/47.5958239,-122.3203656/@47.6078591,-122.32617,4646m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!4m8!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d-122.3293838!2d47.5988553!3s0x54906abb43339bbf:0xf08bb758b661cc76!1m0!3e0?hl=en

If we were to assume the exit numbers on the current incarnation of I-90 were based off of the route mileage when the renumbering occurred in 1964, that exit number (2) would line up with a terminus at the north end of the Battery Street Tunnel.

I would usually say this is my $0.02 worth, but since I wrote an essay, I am going to call it my $0.04 worth. 

To put your claim to the test I've measured the distance along your stated route from the Rainier Ave Bridge on I-90, since that's where the previous and current routings of (Temp) I-90 converge (map below). The state highway log says this point is at milepost 3.30, and we get exactly 3.30 miles right at the point where the ramp branched off north of the Battery St tunnel's north portal, so I think you might just be correct! Great detective work there.

[thefraze_1020]

At that time, from 1957 until the death of US-10 in 1969, from it's western terminus, eastbound US-10 ran south from US-99 at the north end of the Battery Street Tunnel, southwest on Wall Street, then a left turn on 2nd Ave, merged onto 4th Ave S on the north side of King Street Station, took a left on Seattle Blvd S and an immediate left on S Dearborn St. Before the I-90 interchange was completed in the early 90's, I-90 effectively began under I-5 at Dearborn. If I were to draw a line from the north end of the Battery Street Tunnel to that spot under I-5, using the route I just mentioned, Google Maps says that is 2.3 miles.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/47.618558,-122.3438444/47.5958239,-122.3203656/@47.6078591,-122.32617,4646m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!4m8!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d-122.3293838!2d47.5988553!3s0x54906abb43339bbf:0xf08bb758b661cc76!1m0!3e0?hl=en

If we were to assume the exit numbers on the current incarnation of I-90 were based off of the route mileage when the renumbering occurred in 1964, that exit number (2) would line up with a terminus at the north end of the Battery Street Tunnel.

I would usually say this is my $0.02 worth, but since I wrote an essay, I am going to call it my $0.04 worth. 

To put your claim to the test I've measured the distance along your stated route from the Rainier Ave Bridge on I-90, since that's where the previous and current routings of (Temp) I-90 converge (map below). The state highway log says this point is at milepost 3.30, and we get exactly 3.30 miles right at the point where the ramp branched off north of the Battery St tunnel's north portal, so I think you might just be correct! Great detective work there.

Well done! That's an even better conclusion than I came up with.

[compdude787]

Oh that makes a lot of sense! I'd always wondered how they ended calling the first exit on I-90 exit 2.