AARoads Forum

I figure I should start a separate thread for these historic newspaper snippets that I find.

Today's is about an alternative to SR 522 that would have linked Duvall to Skykomish on the way to Stevens Pass. King County lobbied for it in 1952 but were unsuccessful because of its impact on the Tolt River watershed (where Seattle sourced some of its water).

(https://i.imgur.com/YgSE2zj.png)

Source: The Seattle Times (June 15, 1952)

I-82 was originally planned to go to Seattle.  I always wondered about the backstory on that one.

Rick

Quote from: nexus73 on July 29, 2020, 06:52:31 PM
I-82 was originally planned to go to Seattle.  I always wondered about the backstory on that one.

Rick

Or the routing?

Quote from: nexus73 on July 29, 2020, 06:52:31 PM
I-82 was originally planned to go to Seattle.  I always wondered about the backstory on that one.

Rick

The original plan was Ellensburg to Pendelton, but Washington wanted to add the rest of the US 410 corridor to Tacoma and ultimately Aberdeen in 1959 (see this news report (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll1/id/3285)). A key part of the plan would have been a tunnel under Naches Pass, which obviously didn't pan out.

Similarly, Oregon threw out proposals to have I-80N (later I-84) extend up to Astoria.

I totally forgot that we had an existing topic for this.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23146.0

Quote from: Bruce on July 29, 2020, 09:17:13 PM

Quote from: nexus73 on July 29, 2020, 06:52:31 PM
I-82 was originally planned to go to Seattle.  I always wondered about the backstory on that one.

Rick

The original plan was Ellensburg to Pendelton, but Washington wanted to add the rest of the US 410 corridor to Tacoma and ultimately Aberdeen in 1959 (see this news report (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll1/id/3285)). A key part of the plan would have been a tunnel under Naches Pass, which obviously didn't pan out.

Similarly, Oregon threw out proposals to have I-80N (later I-84) extend up to Astoria.

Was that part of the 505 to Clatskanie idea? If so, it would have been 505, not 80N/84.

Quote from: Bruce on July 29, 2020, 09:17:13 PM

Quote from: nexus73 on July 29, 2020, 06:52:31 PM
I-82 was originally planned to go to Seattle.  I always wondered about the backstory on that one.

Rick

The original plan was Ellensburg to Pendelton, but Washington wanted to add the rest of the US 410 corridor to Tacoma and ultimately Aberdeen in 1959 (see this news report (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll1/id/3285)). A key part of the plan would have been a tunnel under Naches Pass, which obviously didn't pan out.

Similarly, Oregon threw out proposals to have I-80N (later I-84) extend up to Astoria.

When I was in middle school, the library had been donated an old, leather bound, road atlas from the 1960s. In it, the road over Snoqualmie Pass was designated I-82.  I also recall seeing images of plans to convert US-12, to I-82, all the way to Aberdeen.


It is too bad that Oregon doesn't have a safe way to get to the coast, as all the routes are massively undersized for the traffic that uses them.

I wonder if there ever were plans for I-82 through Stampede Pass. 

Currently, the Green River Watershed seems to only be occupied by Bonneville Power Administration and the main railroad artery east of the Seattle metro area.

Thinking about unbuild highways, there is the missing piece(s) of SR 501.


There is also SR 109 from Taholah to Queets.


And there is the fact that every ferry route that the state took over in 1953 was supposed to be supplanted by state funded bridges.

Quote from: TEG24601 on August 06, 2020, 01:16:07 PM
Thinking about unbuild highways, there is the missing piece(s) of SR 501.


There is also SR 109 from Taholah to Queets.


And there is the fact that every ferry route that the state took over in 1953 was supposed to be supplanted by state funded bridges.

Was 501 intended to be connected?

Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 23, 2021, 12:34:25 PM

Quote from: TEG24601 on August 06, 2020, 01:16:07 PM
Thinking about unbuild highways, there is the missing piece(s) of SR 501.


There is also SR 109 from Taholah to Queets.


And there is the fact that every ferry route that the state took over in 1953 was supposed to be supplanted by state funded bridges.

Was 501 intended to be connected?

Yes, though it's not clear whether it was via the main Columbia River shore routing or the Spur 501 routing along Lake Vancouver.
But with mainline 501 getting cut back because of erosion, the Vancouver and the Ridgefield segments will never be connected.

Quote from: TEG24601 on August 06, 2020, 01:16:07 PM
And there is the fact that every ferry route that the state took over in 1953 was supposed to be supplanted by state funded bridges.

Really?  I thought it was for safety after well-publicized accidents on the mosquito fleet and the hopes that the state would be a safer operator.

I doubt there was ever a proposal to extend Interstate 82 northward to the Canadian border. If such a proposal had been made, would it have been possible to build such an extension (perhaps following existing US 97 to the border, and possibly terminating at BC 97 north of Osoyoos), or would insufficient traffic counts and difficult terrain have derailed such a proposal?

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 25, 2021, 09:23:57 PM
I doubt there was ever a proposal to extend Interstate 82 northward to the Canadian border. If such a proposal had been made, would it have been possible to build such an extension (perhaps following existing US 97 to the border, and possibly terminating at BC 97 north of Osoyoos), or would insufficient traffic counts and difficult terrain have derailed such a proposal?

The mountainous terrain north of Ellensburg would make it difficult, and there's not enough traffic beyond Wenatchee to justify even a four-lane highway. Wenatchee did want to study upgrading SR 28 and SR 281 into a freeway in the early 2000s, but couldn't find the funds.

The majority of I-82 traffic is heading across the Cascades to the Seattle area anyway, so the route functions just fine in its current form.

Kelowna BC is growing rapidly. Could there be a Spokane-Kelowna-Kamloops freeway connection in the near future?

Quote from: nexus73 on July 29, 2020, 06:52:31 PM
I-82 was originally planned to go to Seattle.  I always wondered about the backstory on that one.

Rick

Not sure from who or when the idea came around, but I-82 into Seattle sounds almost FritzOwlish to me. I-90 is a slight NW-SE diagonal between Seattle and I-82, which fits I-82's alignment perfectly for E-W travel. And a southern alignment to I-90 through the Cascades get pretty close to Mount Rainier, whether you're paralleling US 12 or WA 410 on a new tunnel alignment.

Quote from: kkt on March 24, 2021, 02:19:28 PM

Quote from: TEG24601 on August 06, 2020, 01:16:07 PM
And there is the fact that every ferry route that the state took over in 1953 was supposed to be supplanted by state funded bridges.

Really?  I thought it was for safety after well-publicized accidents on the mosquito fleet and the hopes that the state would be a safer operator.

From my understanding, the State took over the Black Ball line due to a strike.  At the time, the Black Ball had to get state permission to raise tolls, to pay the demands of the workers.  They state refused.  The strike caused such a problem that the state took over the Black Ball, broke the union or met their demands (the take over and resolution are not well enumerated).  They then started the process of replacing several vessels, and planning for toll bridges to replace all routes, including the San Juans by 2000.  In reality, only 2 routes were replaced, the Tacoma Narrows, and Hood Canal.  But the rest were not removed from the operational mission of the Highway Department until the 80s.  I believe some of the Super Class Ferries still have "Washington State Toll Bridge Authority" as the signatory agency on their dedication plaques.  I know at least the Elwa did.  Replacing the ferries with bridges would be a disaster for the west side of the sound, as there would be unobstructed access to the city, likely turning the entire sound into a single metroplex.  It would also destroy the peace and quiet on Whidbey Island, where most people live to be close enough to access the city without too much hassle, but far enough away that the negative elements and traffic are not something they have to deal with.  I could never imagine bridges through the San Juans, as that is some deep water and steep shores.

Quote from: 1 on March 26, 2021, 11:37:48 AM
Kelowna BC is growing rapidly. Could there be a Spokane-Kelowna-Kamloops freeway connection in the near future?

BC Hwy 5 is already an expressway up to Merritt, so I don't think an inland-only freeway would be necessary at all.

Quote from: SkyPesos on March 26, 2021, 11:47:39 AM

Quote from: nexus73 on July 29, 2020, 06:52:31 PM
I-82 was originally planned to go to Seattle.  I always wondered about the backstory on that one.

Rick

Not sure from who or when the idea came around, but I-82 into Seattle sounds almost FritzOwlish to me. I-90 is a slight NW-SE diagonal between Seattle and I-82, which fits I-82's alignment perfectly for E-W travel. And a southern alignment to I-90 through the Cascades get pretty close to Mount Rainier, whether you're paralleling US 12 or WA 410 on a new tunnel alignment.

The plan was to replace US 410 (now SR 410 and US 12) with a new all-weather route along Naches Pass to serve Tacoma.

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

All the way to Aberdeen!  heh.  Well, they did do some work on US 101 from Olympia to junction with WA 8 making it a freeway, and they made WA 8 into 4-lane expressway.  But US 12 has had only small improvements.  Now the harvestable timber is about gone and the jobs with it.  There's still some fishing and tourism.

Naches Pass tunnel.  Right.

And given that Oregon was never able to push through an I-84 extension to Astoria, there are no Interstates that reach the actual Pacific Coast north of San Francisco.

Quote from: Bruce on March 26, 2021, 09:19:34 PM
And given that Oregon was never able to push through an I-84 extension to Astoria, there are no Interstates that reach the actual Pacific Coast north of San Francisco.

Is there enough traffic west of Portland for a full interstate extension to the Pacific Ocean. I know US 26 is a freeway from Portland to a point west of Hillsboro, but beyond that, you're out of the Portland metro area.

Quote from: SkyPesos on March 26, 2021, 09:24:31 PM

Quote from: Bruce on March 26, 2021, 09:19:34 PM
And given that Oregon was never able to push through an I-84 extension to Astoria, there are no Interstates that reach the actual Pacific Coast north of San Francisco.

Is there enough traffic west of Portland for a full interstate extension to the Pacific Ocean. I know US 26 is a freeway from Portland to a point west of Hillsboro, but beyond that, you're out of the Portland metro area.

On the weekends during the summer? Yes.

The entire Oregon and Washington coast don't have any freeways to get inland.

Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 26, 2021, 09:36:03 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on March 26, 2021, 09:24:31 PM

Quote from: Bruce on March 26, 2021, 09:19:34 PM
And given that Oregon was never able to push through an I-84 extension to Astoria, there are no Interstates that reach the actual Pacific Coast north of San Francisco.

Is there enough traffic west of Portland for a full interstate extension to the Pacific Ocean. I know US 26 is a freeway from Portland to a point west of Hillsboro, but beyond that, you're out of the Portland metro area.

On the weekends during the summer? Yes.

The entire Oregon and Washington coast don't have any freeways to get inland.

This.  Given that the Interstates were envisioned as a national defense system, it seems short sighted to not have them reach the coast north of San Francisco (and arguably, they don't reach north of LA), if for no other reason than to provide a means of evacuation in the event of Tsunami or other costal disaster, or to allow the movement of defense forces if someone get a wild hair and wants to invade the Pacific coast.  And with the elimination of the costal railroads, there isn't even alternative means of moving goods to and from, or along the coast.


Washington has at least been trying with their upgrades to US 12, and Oregon has the right-of-way and bridges build for expansing OR 18 (among others), but a actual numbered interstate to the coast in both states would good for those reasons. Of course, I would also love to see both states work together to expand the Cascades system to cover the coasts and the inland communities, but that is also a pie-in-the-sky idea.

Quote from: TEG24601 on March 27, 2021, 05:26:15 PM

Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 26, 2021, 09:36:03 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on March 26, 2021, 09:24:31 PM

Quote from: Bruce on March 26, 2021, 09:19:34 PM
And given that Oregon was never able to push through an I-84 extension to Astoria, there are no Interstates that reach the actual Pacific Coast north of San Francisco.

Is there enough traffic west of Portland for a full interstate extension to the Pacific Ocean. I know US 26 is a freeway from Portland to a point west of Hillsboro, but beyond that, you're out of the Portland metro area.

On the weekends during the summer? Yes.

The entire Oregon and Washington coast don't have any freeways to get inland.

This.  Given that the Interstates were envisioned as a national defense system, it seems short sighted to not have them reach the coast north of San Francisco (and arguably, they don't reach north of LA), if for no other reason than to provide a means of evacuation in the event of Tsunami or other costal disaster, or to allow the movement of defense forces if someone get a wild hair and wants to invade the Pacific coast.  And with the elimination of the costal railroads, there isn't even alternative means of moving goods to and from, or along the coast.


Washington has at least been trying with their upgrades to US 12, and Oregon has the right-of-way and bridges build for expansing OR 18 (among others), but a actual numbered interstate to the coast in both states would good for those reasons. Of course, I would also love to see both states work together to expand the Cascades system to cover the coasts and the inland communities, but that is also a pie-in-the-sky idea.

Exactly! In the event of tsunami or other disaster anywhere on hundreds of mikes of coastline, the quickest way to get there is a very limited number of two lane highways.

On a side note, I don't believe there's any commercial flights to coastal areas north of SF.

Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 27, 2021, 11:35:40 PM
On a side note, I don't believe there's any commercial flights to coastal areas north of SF.

OTH (at Coos Bay) have United service to SFO, and seasonal to DEN. It's the only airport on the Oregon coast with passenger service.

Quote from: TEG24601 on March 27, 2021, 05:26:15 PM
This.  Given that the Interstates were envisioned as a national defense system, it seems short sighted to not have them reach the coast north of San Francisco (and arguably, they don't reach north of LA), if for no other reason than to provide a means of evacuation in the event of Tsunami or other costal disaster, or to allow the movement of defense forces if someone get a wild hair and wants to invade the Pacific coast.  And with the elimination of the costal railroads, there isn't even alternative means of moving goods to and from, or along the coast.

You can see why, though.  No major cities + no major defense installations.  The tsunami danger wasn't appreciated in the 50s when the interstates were laid out, and probably the best thing would be abundant roads perpendicular to the coast leading over the first range of hills.  I don't think we have to worry too much about an invasion - land forces aside, we do still have a navy and air force.

Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 27, 2021, 11:35:40 PM
Exactly! In the event of tsunami or other disaster anywhere on hundreds of mikes of coastline, the quickest way to get there is a very limited number of two lane highways.

Trying to force tsunami evacuations on a single corridor will trap people in their cars. Realistically, most evacuation will be on foot to the nearest high point (hopefully well-signed) or an appropriate built shelter like those slowly being added on the coast. Remember, roads might not be passable due to earthquake damage before the tsunami strikes.

With evacuations, I assume tsunami evacuations are different from hurricane evacuations because with the former, an earthquake likely would've occurred too, so it may be more difficult to use the roads.

Compared to Oregon and Washington, points east of I-95 in the Carolinas, Virginia and NJ are well-served by freeways, probably because of the much higher population. You have I-26 to Charleston, I-40 to Wilmington, I-64 to the Hampton Roads and the ACE and I-195 to Coastal NJ.  For US route expressways, there's 76/501, 74, 70, 64 and 58. Though for mass hurricane evacuation, a 4 lane freeway with contraflow lanes on may not be enough.

Some thoughts on the Naches Pass Interstate:


I think an interstate to Aberdeen would have been excellent, but only as justification for removing the awful two-way arterial on the eastern edge of Aberdeen (where Hornsby Way merges with Wishkah St) that's literally the cause of all seaside travel backups into/through Aberdeen. Well, and perhaps the merge from the 101-Chehalis River Bridge. Okay, jokes aside, the current route (101 to 8 to 12) is actually pretty decent; with some additional grade separation and interchange reconstruction, perhaps funded federally, it could be made into I-105 ("Aberdeen Spur" or perhaps "Aberdeen-Olympic Freeway" as a play on the current "Olympic Hwy" name). The dreams of a cross-pass interstate are likely dead, however.

Looking at the current divided highway: it would likely need to bypass Central Park, although I don't know where exactly given the terrain is not favorable for a northern bypass, and there's just tons of homes to the south. After that, hopefully demolish most of those fast food joints in East Aberdeen, tying directly into the one-way system.


The interstate would have been 167 miles long; Hwy 167 partially took over this route. Coincidence? I think NOT.

167 not a coincidence.  :)

Through or around Aberdeen would be a problem... could punt and decide Fleet Street on the east side of downtown is the end of I-105.

Quote from: kkt on March 28, 2021, 07:14:29 PM
167 not a coincidence.  :)

Through or around Aberdeen would be a problem... could punt and decide Fleet Street on the east side of downtown is the end of I-105.

Could end 'I-105' at Montesano if a bypass around Central Park is an issue.

Though in reality, I doubt it will get an interstate designation at all, and will stay as US 12/WA 8/US 101.

How likely is a conversion to full freeway standards along the US 12/WA 8/US 101 corridor? I would say unlikely and I've never been to Washington State.

Proposed Oregon & Washington inland freeway: Interstate 11!

I don't find the video persuasive.  It just puts a line on a map without any justification in vehicle traffic or upgrades needed for trucks or anything.  Kinda like Fritzowl.

Quote from: ErmineNotyours on March 28, 2021, 10:26:12 PM
Proposed Oregon & Washington inland freeway: Interstate 11!

At this rate, we'll be lucky to get I-11 from Vegas to Reno, let alone Oregon or Washington.

Trying to build through Hanford and add a few unnecessary bridges on the Columbia is too far even for FritzOwl.

This belongs in Fictional Highways anyway. We should keep discussing real-but-cancelled proposals here.

Another supposidely cancelled freeway project: 'I-605' Seattle outer eastern loop. This idea seemed like it has come and gone as a proposal a couple of times, without that much done past the drawing board. There's no way WA 203 north of I-90 would get constructed anytime soon. For the part south of I-90, WA 18 is a freeway between I-5 near Federal and the southern edge of Tiger Mountain, which is 7 miles southwest of I-90. The non-freeway section is mostly a divided roadway with 1 lane on one side and 2 lanes on the other. I checked the AADT of that section, which is 27k both directions in 2019. I think that's high enough for 2 lanes on each side. Is there any plans for widening in that section to 4 lanes total?

The current plan (https://wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr18/issaquah-raging-river-br/home) is to widen it to 4 lanes with some truck climbing lanes, but there is no construction funding available yet for the widening. A separate project to rebuild the I-90/SR 18 interchange into a DDI is funded and planned to be finished in 2024.

The "I-605" moniker has been used for three different corridors between I-405 and the Cascades over the decades, so it's always been vaporware of some sort. The first attempts were in eastern Bellevue (roughly following 148th Avenue), the second try was on the east shore of Lake Sammamish, and the third was the Snoqualmie Valley corridor.

But none of them have ever been serious enough to start putting together a right of way.

Quote from: Bruce on March 29, 2021, 12:57:16 AM
This belongs in Fictional Highways anyway. We should keep discussing real-but-cancelled proposals here.

Indeed it does.

I've created a thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28912.0) for anyone interested in further discussion of an Interstate to Aberdeen.

Quote from: SkyPesos on March 28, 2021, 12:41:22 PM
With evacuations, I assume tsunami evacuations are different from hurricane evacuations because with the former, an earthquake likely would've occurred too, so it may be more difficult to use the roads.

Compared to Oregon and Washington, points east of I-95 in the Carolinas, Virginia and NJ are well-served by freeways, probably because of the much higher population. You have I-26 to Charleston, I-40 to Wilmington, I-64 to the Hampton Roads and the ACE and I-195 to Coastal NJ.  For US route expressways, there's 76/501, 74, 70, 64 and 58. Though for mass hurricane evacuation, a 4 lane freeway with contraflow lanes on may not be enough.

The Eastern shore is also a lot flatter, warmer, and sandier than the Western shore, so it's a lot more attractive destination and thus has more places to visit.

Quote from: Alps on March 29, 2021, 06:20:17 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on March 28, 2021, 12:41:22 PM
With evacuations, I assume tsunami evacuations are different from hurricane evacuations because with the former, an earthquake likely would've occurred too, so it may be more difficult to use the roads.

Compared to Oregon and Washington, points east of I-95 in the Carolinas, Virginia and NJ are well-served by freeways, probably because of the much higher population. You have I-26 to Charleston, I-40 to Wilmington, I-64 to the Hampton Roads and the ACE and I-195 to Coastal NJ.  For US route expressways, there's 76/501, 74, 70, 64 and 58. Though for mass hurricane evacuation, a 4 lane freeway with contraflow lanes on may not be enough.

The Eastern shore is also a lot flatter, warmer, and sandier than the Western shore, so it's a lot more attractive destination and thus has more places to visit.

Well.....that all depends upon what one considers to constitute a shoreline visitation.  If you're looking for warmer ocean temperature and wider and "sandier" beaches, then nothing beats the eastern seaboard, particularly from Hampton Roads south through Key West.  But the scenery itself is pretty consistent along that shoreline (although it periodically gets better in South Florida over spring break -- at least in non-COVID years).  But if one is looking for raw scenery rather than flopping down on the beach itself, the West Coast serves up a greater helping of that!  You do get the opportunity for the "beach experience" out west, especially south of San Francisco -- but in reality that's only good for a few hours each day, even in summer -- otherwise, you'll freeze your ass off even without going into the water, which is several degrees cooler than over on the Atlantic shore.  But from Malibu north, the coastline -- when you can access it -- generally has more raw scenery and interesting topology in one mile than the Eastern Seaboard has in twenty!  CA 1 north of San Luis Obispo (when it isn't closed due to Mother Nature) is spectacular; north of S.F. is less visited but no less dramatic (cliffs, bridges -- but keep your eye on the road!).  But for sheer visual pleasure, interrupted by pleasant towns and impressive bridges, IMO US 101 up the Oregon coast is one of the best drives -- and destinations -- in the country.  Haven't been up there in a few years, but that's something way overdue!   
Apologies if I'm sounding like a commercial, but I couldn't let the "more attractive destination" comment go unremarked.   

Seconded, Sparker.  Althought if I'm actually going in the water, it should be south of Monterey to be warm enough.

Swimming beaches are more common around lakes around these parts, especially in urban areas.

Yep.  And rivers.

Decided to expand the scope of this thread so that we can include our neighbors down south.

Here's a model of Portland showing the never-finished connections to the Mount Hood Freeway off the Marquam Bridge:

(https://i.redd.it/4nqe76ytys131.jpg)

(Source on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/bvp0ft/heres_an_oldschool_model_showing_what_the_mount/))

Is that a Water Ave/Stark St -> Morrison Bridge ramp I see weaving under the I-5 S -> Morrison/Belmont ramps?
Looks like the Mt Hood was meant to be a Cyprus/Embarcadero/Alaskan style double deck facility out to about 11th and 12th Avenues. While I like the Marquam Bridge's aesthetics as is, I can't say it would have been served well with the Mt Hood structure.

Note Front Ave (now Naito Pkwy): Southbound was forced onto Jefferson St or onto the Hawthorne Bridge; Front looks like a northbound only one-way south of there to where US 99W split off onto Harbor Dr over the Stadium Freeway.
Interesting ramp braiding on Harbor between Market/Clay and the northernmost reach of the Baldock Freeway.

The Mount Hood Freeway was to have had a drawbridge across the Willamette River? Depending on how often the drawbridge was opened, I'm sure that would have caused traffic jams.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 01, 2021, 11:37:56 AM
The Mount Hood Freeway was to have had a drawbridge across the Willamette River? Depending on how often the drawbridge was opened, I'm sure that would have caused traffic jams.

No, that's the Morrison Street Bridge, which was actually built (probably already existed even when this model was made). The Mount Hood Freeway is the double deck structure running off to the upper left of the image.

Quote from: kkt on March 31, 2021, 09:10:42 PM
Seconded, Sparker.  Althought if I'm actually going in the water, it should be south of Monterey to be warm enough.

Actually, some of the beaches a few miles up the coast from Santa Cruz (Bonny Doon or Panther, both near Davenport) have several hours of nice warm sun from mid-spring to mid-fall.   The fact that they're facing SSW helps a lot in that regard.  But I will concede that the water is still pretty cold; from my experience, the warm water seems to dissipate north of San Luis Obispo -- except for the crowd in Santa Cruz, even most area surfers wear upper-body wet suits.   But lately there have been numerous shark sightings, so going out past waist-deep in the water may not be the safest swimming plan (not that surfers really give a rat's ass about such things!).

Another, better quality map of Portland's 1960s ambitions.

Source: The Oregonian (September 25, 1966)

(https://i.imgur.com/uw5pYAT.png)

Wow, that's a lot of freeways.  Every 2-4 miles!

Quote from: kkt on March 28, 2021, 12:00:37 AM

Quote from: TEG24601 on March 27, 2021, 05:26:15 PM
This.  Given that the Interstates were envisioned as a national defense system, it seems short sighted to not have them reach the coast north of San Francisco (and arguably, they don't reach north of LA), if for no other reason than to provide a means of evacuation in the event of Tsunami or other costal disaster, or to allow the movement of defense forces if someone get a wild hair and wants to invade the Pacific coast.  And with the elimination of the costal railroads, there isn't even alternative means of moving goods to and from, or along the coast.

You can see why, though.  No major cities + no major defense installations.  The tsunami danger wasn't appreciated in the 50s when the interstates were laid out, and probably the best thing would be abundant roads perpendicular to the coast leading over the first range of hills.  I don't think we have to worry too much about an invasion - land forces aside, we do still have a navy and air force.

Frankly it does not matter, you still want ready access to the coast for defense purposes. And that may change with time anyway. A complete civil defense highway network would leave nothing to "its someone else's job."

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 05, 2021, 04:34:07 PM

Quote from: kkt on March 28, 2021, 12:00:37 AM

Quote from: TEG24601 on March 27, 2021, 05:26:15 PM
This.  Given that the Interstates were envisioned as a national defense system, it seems short sighted to not have them reach the coast north of San Francisco (and arguably, they don't reach north of LA), if for no other reason than to provide a means of evacuation in the event of Tsunami or other costal disaster, or to allow the movement of defense forces if someone get a wild hair and wants to invade the Pacific coast.  And with the elimination of the costal railroads, there isn't even alternative means of moving goods to and from, or along the coast.

You can see why, though.  No major cities + no major defense installations.  The tsunami danger wasn't appreciated in the 50s when the interstates were laid out, and probably the best thing would be abundant roads perpendicular to the coast leading over the first range of hills.  I don't think we have to worry too much about an invasion - land forces aside, we do still have a navy and air force.

Frankly it does not matter, you still want ready access to the coast for defense purposes. And that may change with time anyway. A complete civil defense highway network would leave nothing to "its someone else's job."

The best coastal defense is to not overpopulate it.

Quote from: Bruce on April 05, 2021, 05:41:15 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 05, 2021, 04:34:07 PM

Quote from: kkt on March 28, 2021, 12:00:37 AM

Quote from: TEG24601 on March 27, 2021, 05:26:15 PM
This.  Given that the Interstates were envisioned as a national defense system, it seems short sighted to not have them reach the coast north of San Francisco (and arguably, they don't reach north of LA), if for no other reason than to provide a means of evacuation in the event of Tsunami or other costal disaster, or to allow the movement of defense forces if someone get a wild hair and wants to invade the Pacific coast.  And with the elimination of the costal railroads, there isn't even alternative means of moving goods to and from, or along the coast.

You can see why, though.  No major cities + no major defense installations.  The tsunami danger wasn't appreciated in the 50s when the interstates were laid out, and probably the best thing would be abundant roads perpendicular to the coast leading over the first range of hills.  I don't think we have to worry too much about an invasion - land forces aside, we do still have a navy and air force.

Frankly it does not matter, you still want ready access to the coast for defense purposes. And that may change with time anyway. A complete civil defense highway network would leave nothing to "its someone else's job."

The best coastal defense is to not overpopulate it.

There is some validity in that, but it is really separate from being able to move units there if needed. Populated or not it is still of strategic importance.
Incidentally, that is one of the great advantages of suburbanization as well, a diffusion of the population making aerial attack less effective.

We have a navy and they're fairly easy to deploy from the Puget Sound basin to the Cascadian coast.

Our over-suburbanization would make it harder to render aid in the event of a natural disaster or military attack anyway. A scenario where tens of thousands of suburban residents are stranded in their far-flung workplaces and have no means to return home is very possible.

Quote from: Bruce on April 05, 2021, 06:10:32 PM
We have a navy and they're fairly easy to deploy from the Puget Sound basin to the Cascadian coast.

Our over-suburbanization would make it harder to render aid in the event of a natural disaster or military attack anyway. A scenario where tens of thousands of suburban residents are stranded in their far-flung workplaces and have no means to return home is very possible.

It does not matter if Puget Sound is easy to deploy from for the Navy in peacetime. In wartime there are innumerable other factors that come into play, and the versatility of being able to transport to the coast, for whatever reason, is never going to be a bad thing. The sound could be mined, under attack from the air, etc. and having the flexibility to reach the actual coastline (including harbor cities like Aberdeen WA) is part of being well prepared. Coastal air defense as well is GREATLY enhanced by having good transportation close to the coast, thereby enhancing the strike range of land based aircraft by minimizing their flight over land.

The actual experience of bombing in the Second World War proved very much the opposite, it was FAR better to have the population and industry dispersed over a wide area making a hard to hit target in the first place rather than have everything built together. In most cases major aid had to come from outside the city anyway, and it did little or no good having everyone close together during the actual attack. The ability to "return to home" is a minor consideration in an air attack, far more important is how many casualties are inflicted, how much hosing is destroyed, how much industry is damaged, etc. Road transport is one of the easiest things to put back together in the aftermath of an attack, housing, heavy industry, and lives are not. This was certainly one reason that the government encouraged suburbanization in the Cold War.

An actual attack on the U.S. mainland today would be met with massive air retaliation on the homeland of whoever attacked.  You know that, right?  Improving interstate access to the redwood country is pretty irrelevant to defense.

Quote from: kkt on April 05, 2021, 09:16:51 PM
An actual attack on the U.S. mainland today would be met with massive air retaliation on the homeland of whoever attacked.  You know that, right?  Improving interstate access to the redwood country is pretty irrelevant to defense.

You greatly overestimate the primacy of the US armed forces, they are not all powerful. And for that matter, striking another nation's homeland will not spare your own. The lesson of WWII was that the bomber will always get through, projection of your power against another nation's soil is not a defense, it is purely an offense.
Interstate access to both coasts is fundamental to any real defensive strategy, and if you cannot see that you have not read enough military history. Air power has been promoted as supreme for a century, but it has failed to decide any major conflict.

I think most people in the Pacific Northwest are more concerned about coastal tsunami risk than the possibility of an amphibious assault from a foreign enemy. And even then there's not enough, given a few bond measures to fortify local schools and hospitals against tsunami inundation have failed.

Quote from: kkt on April 05, 2021, 04:27:49 PM
Wow, that's a lot of freeways.  Every 2-4 miles!

I would love to show that map to Portland's city council today. I think they'd have a coronary

Quote from: OCGuy81 on April 12, 2021, 01:09:30 PM

Quote from: kkt on April 05, 2021, 04:27:49 PM
Wow, that's a lot of freeways.  Every 2-4 miles!

I would love to show that map to Portland's city council today. I think they'd have a coronary

Probably. The idea of people actually being able to drive where they want to go is enough to send them right over the edge.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 12, 2021, 01:46:08 PM

Quote from: OCGuy81 on April 12, 2021, 01:09:30 PM

Quote from: kkt on April 05, 2021, 04:27:49 PM
Wow, that's a lot of freeways.  Every 2-4 miles!

I would love to show that map to Portland's city council today. I think they'd have a coronary

Probably. The idea of people actually being able to drive where they want to go is enough to send them right over the edge.

A friend of mine who lives there (technically Camas, WA just across the river) says Portland is doing everything they can to make it as difficult as possible to drive a car there.

Many urban areas are modifying their street grids to favor "alternative" modes of transportation. Portland's strategy is not remarkable in this way.

That said, these projects may seem quite radical to someone visiting from a car-dependent suburb like Camas, where walking is primarily a workout rather than a transportation mode.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 12, 2021, 01:46:08 PM

Quote from: OCGuy81 on April 12, 2021, 01:09:30 PM

Quote from: kkt on April 05, 2021, 04:27:49 PM
Wow, that's a lot of freeways.  Every 2-4 miles!

I would love to show that map to Portland's city council today. I think they'd have a coronary

Probably. The idea of people actually being able to drive where they want to go is enough to send them right over the edge.

You can still drive where you want in Portland, just at a reasonable speed while sharing the ROW with the rest of the public on different modes. Shockingly, a city does not have to bow down to the almighty car.

Quote from: Bruce on April 12, 2021, 06:46:37 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 12, 2021, 01:46:08 PM

Quote from: OCGuy81 on April 12, 2021, 01:09:30 PM

Quote from: kkt on April 05, 2021, 04:27:49 PM
Wow, that's a lot of freeways.  Every 2-4 miles!

I would love to show that map to Portland's city council today. I think they'd have a coronary

Probably. The idea of people actually being able to drive where they want to go is enough to send them right over the edge.

You can still drive where you want in Portland, just it'll take you forever as every other mode gets in your way. Shockingly, a city does not have to be reasonable to the almighty car.

FTFY

Quote from: Bruce but actually Alps
You can still drive where you want in Portland, just it'll take you forever as every other mode gets in your way.

Are high average vehicle speeds a good indicator of transportation accessibility in an urban area?

Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2021, 07:58:08 PM

Quote from: Bruce but actually Alps
You can still drive where you want in Portland, just it'll take you forever as every other mode gets in your way.

Are high average vehicle speeds a good indicator of transportation accessibility in an urban area?

Yes. Because travel in a vehicle is inherently superior to all other forms. Ride on a nasty bus next to someone that has not bathed in a year 5 days a week and you will quickly decide a nice Town Car is the way to go.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2021, 07:58:08 PM

Quote from: Bruce but actually Alps
You can still drive where you want in Portland, just it'll take you forever as every other mode gets in your way.

Are high average vehicle speeds a good indicator of transportation accessibility in an urban area?

Not at all. Low average delays are a much better indicator, for all modes.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 12, 2021, 09:09:59 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2021, 07:58:08 PM

Quote from: Bruce but actually Alps
You can still drive where you want in Portland, just it'll take you forever as every other mode gets in your way.

Are high average vehicle speeds a good indicator of transportation accessibility in an urban area?

Yes. Because travel in a vehicle is inherently superior to all other forms. Ride on a nasty bus next to the homeless drug user that has not bathed in a year 5 days a week and you will quickly decide a nice Town Car is the way to go.

Not everyone can drive. Not everyone can afford a car (including upkeep).

A proper transit system allows you to change cars or vehicles (with only a few minutes of waiting) if there's an unpleasant encounter. Most drivers won't let someone who is visibly not-all-there onto the bus anyway.

Maybe it's different in Philadelphia, but Portland does have a functional transit system (though it needs improvements).

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 12, 2021, 09:09:59 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2021, 07:58:08 PM

Quote from: Bruce but actually Alps
You can still drive where you want in Portland, just it'll take you forever as every other mode gets in your way.

Are high average vehicle speeds a good indicator of transportation accessibility in an urban area?

Yes. Because travel in a vehicle is inherently superior to all other forms. Ride on a nasty bus next to the homeless drug user that has not bathed in a year 5 days a week and you will quickly decide a nice Town Car is the way to go.

That sounds so like what kernals12's would say.

Quote from: Bruce on April 12, 2021, 10:24:16 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 12, 2021, 09:09:59 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2021, 07:58:08 PM

Quote from: Bruce but actually Alps
You can still drive where you want in Portland, just it'll take you forever as every other mode gets in your way.

Are high average vehicle speeds a good indicator of transportation accessibility in an urban area?

Yes. Because travel in a vehicle is inherently superior to all other forms. Ride on a nasty bus next to the homeless drug user that has not bathed in a year 5 days a week and you will quickly decide a nice Town Car is the way to go.

Not everyone can drive. Not everyone can afford a car (including upkeep).

A proper transit system allows you to change cars or vehicles (with only a few minutes of waiting) if there's an unpleasant encounter. Most drivers won't let someone who is visibly not-all-there onto the bus anyway.

Maybe it's different in Philadelphia, but Portland does have a functional transit system (though it needs improvements).

Portland's transit system generally works well on a purely radial basis, with LR handling the trunks to the burbs reasonably well and the trolley system serving downtown, PSU, and the near east side.  It does leave something to be desired in regards to bus service; while downtown and the east side have at least adequate service (the presence of a usable grid pattern east of the Willamette certainly helps), it seems that to the west they've simply all but given up; outside of the main radial arterials and the Hillsboro LR line there's little attempt to serve the various neighborhoods up in the hills between downtown and the Beaverton flatlands.  When I lived up there in the early/mid '90's, I had occasion to travel from my home in SW to an auto dealership in Beaverton where my car was being repaired for a warranty issue; that necessitated heading into downtown and then catching another bus west -- no lateral connectors to speak of.  Now -- that was about 27 years ago; it's possible that things have improved -- but in my experience (and conversing with Metro planners as part of my academic activities back then) the transit focus was geared toward radial movements focusing on downtown; avoiding anything that may encourage activity in the suburban areas east (Gresham and vicinity) and west (the Beaverton/Hillsboro valley) was well up on their priority list circa 1994.   

Quote from: Bruce on April 12, 2021, 10:24:16 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 12, 2021, 09:09:59 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2021, 07:58:08 PM

Quote from: Bruce but actually Alps
You can still drive where you want in Portland, just it'll take you forever as every other mode gets in your way.

Are high average vehicle speeds a good indicator of transportation accessibility in an urban area?

Yes. Because travel in a vehicle is inherently superior to all other forms. Ride on a nasty bus next to the homeless drug user that has not bathed in a year 5 days a week and you will quickly decide a nice Town Car is the way to go.

Not everyone can drive. Not everyone can afford a car (including upkeep).

A proper transit system allows you to change cars or vehicles (with only a few minutes of waiting) if there's an unpleasant encounter. Most drivers won't let someone who is visibly not-all-there onto the bus anyway.

Maybe it's different in Philadelphia, but Portland does have a functional transit system (though it needs improvements).

Of course not everyone can drive, but everyone should aspire to drive. I spent my time riding public transit when I had no other choice, it was a good motivation to do something else in life so I did not have to do that crap anymore. Philadelphia's transit system rivals that of Portland, as does DC, but no matter how many trains and buses you put there you will never fix the fundamental issues with public transit, which include some amount of foot travel in adverse conditions, dealing with other riders, and transporting goods and luggage, all of which are solved with a car.

Quote from: Bruce on April 12, 2021, 10:24:16 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 12, 2021, 09:09:59 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2021, 07:58:08 PM

Quote from: Bruce but actually Alps
You can still drive where you want in Portland, just it'll take you forever as every other mode gets in your way.

Are high average vehicle speeds a good indicator of transportation accessibility in an urban area?

Yes. Because travel in a vehicle is inherently superior to all other forms. Ride on a nasty bus next to the homeless drug user that has not bathed in a year 5 days a week and you will quickly decide a nice Town Car is the way to go.

Not everyone can drive. Not everyone can afford a car (including upkeep).

A proper transit system allows you to change cars or vehicles (with only a few minutes of waiting) if there's an unpleasant encounter. Most drivers won't let someone who is visibly not-all-there onto the bus anyway.

Eh... up until the pandemic, Trimet drivers didn't really have a choice but to let them on.
While I've never experienced it myself whenever I've needed to take Trimet, I've heard stories from drivers, and having attempted to and nearly gone all the way through the process to become a driver for Trimet (finishing university was a reason I pulled out just before training, arguably a mistake), they made it clear that it was more important to let someone on than keep them off the bus.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 13, 2021, 10:33:58 AM
Of course not everyone can drive, but everyone should aspire to drive. I spent my time riding public transit when I had no other choice, it was a good motivation to do something else in life so I did not have to do that crap anymore. Philadelphia's transit system rivals that of Portland, as does DC, but no matter how many trains and buses you put there you will never fix the fundamental issues with public transit, which include some amount of foot travel in adverse conditions, dealing with other riders, and transporting goods and luggage, all of which are solved with a car.

But driving is an aspiration because of how expensive it is. It should be no wonder that cities like to invest in public transit, as it is an accessible mode of transportation for people of all backgrounds, abilities, and income. Not everyone can drive, but everyone can take the bus.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2021, 01:21:25 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 13, 2021, 10:33:58 AM
Of course not everyone can drive, but everyone should aspire to drive. I spent my time riding public transit when I had no other choice, it was a good motivation to do something else in life so I did not have to do that crap anymore. Philadelphia's transit system rivals that of Portland, as does DC, but no matter how many trains and buses you put there you will never fix the fundamental issues with public transit, which include some amount of foot travel in adverse conditions, dealing with other riders, and transporting goods and luggage, all of which are solved with a car.

But driving is an aspiration because of how expensive it is. It should be no wonder that cities like to invest in public transit, as it is an accessible mode of transportation for people of all backgrounds, abilities, and income. Not everyone can drive, but everyone can take the bus.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2021, 01:21:25 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 13, 2021, 10:33:58 AM
Of course not everyone can drive, but everyone should aspire to drive. I spent my time riding public transit when I had no other choice, it was a good motivation to do something else in life so I did not have to do that crap anymore. Philadelphia's transit system rivals that of Portland, as does DC, but no matter how many trains and buses you put there you will never fix the fundamental issues with public transit, which include some amount of foot travel in adverse conditions, dealing with other riders, and transporting goods and luggage, all of which are solved with a car.

But driving is an aspiration because of how expensive it is. It should be no wonder that cities like to invest in public transit, as it is an accessible mode of transportation for people of all backgrounds, abilities, and income. Not everyone can drive, but everyone can take the bus.

All well and good, provided the bus network goes where you need it to (see reply #71 above) rather than where planners think you should be going.  And it's not just Portland; San Jose's LR was structured around local planners' concepts of downtown housing serving, via the LR network, employment centers in outflung areas of town.   Unfortunately, back in the '80's during the planning process, the likelihood of hyper-gentrification of that same downtown area drove housing prices up, especially the densely-placed condominium/townhouse developments near downtown; leaving most of the lower-income residents who would most benefit from LR lines largely distant from the system branches.   By trying to cater to a particular user profile (tech employees), VTA (transit provider) missed the opportunity to deploy their system where it would be most useful.   

Quote from: sparker on April 14, 2021, 05:37:50 AM
All well and good, provided the bus network goes where you need it to (see reply #71 above) rather than where planners think you should be going.  And it's not just Portland; San Jose's LR was structured around local planners' concepts of downtown housing serving, via the LR network, employment centers in outflung areas of town.   Unfortunately, back in the '80's during the planning process, the likelihood of hyper-gentrification of that same downtown area drove housing prices up, especially the densely-placed condominium/townhouse developments near downtown; leaving most of the lower-income residents who would most benefit from LR lines largely distant from the system branches.   By trying to cater to a particular user profile (tech employees), VTA (transit provider) missed the opportunity to deploy their system where it would be most useful.   

Absolutely a legitimate problem. And without the local metropolitan planning committee stepping in to say "at least x-number of these units must be 'affordable'", you end up with a line serving high-income people who probably only use the line occasionally. As opposed to bus lines through lower income areas, where ridership is likely quite consistent, and the only real issue is either a long walk to the bus stop, or frequency. At the very least, robust bus-to-rail transfers should be in place (assuming affordable or free transfers!), assuming we can't just go and build dozens of metro lines simultaneously, enough to throw off land speculators.

Anyways, I think we might be a wee off topic.

Quote from: sparker on April 14, 2021, 05:37:50 AM

Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2021, 01:21:25 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 13, 2021, 10:33:58 AM
Of course not everyone can drive, but everyone should aspire to drive. I spent my time riding public transit when I had no other choice, it was a good motivation to do something else in life so I did not have to do that crap anymore. Philadelphia's transit system rivals that of Portland, as does DC, but no matter how many trains and buses you put there you will never fix the fundamental issues with public transit, which include some amount of foot travel in adverse conditions, dealing with other riders, and transporting goods and luggage, all of which are solved with a car.

But driving is an aspiration because of how expensive it is. It should be no wonder that cities like to invest in public transit, as it is an accessible mode of transportation for people of all backgrounds, abilities, and income. Not everyone can drive, but everyone can take the bus.

Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2021, 01:21:25 AM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 13, 2021, 10:33:58 AM
Of course not everyone can drive, but everyone should aspire to drive. I spent my time riding public transit when I had no other choice, it was a good motivation to do something else in life so I did not have to do that crap anymore. Philadelphia's transit system rivals that of Portland, as does DC, but no matter how many trains and buses you put there you will never fix the fundamental issues with public transit, which include some amount of foot travel in adverse conditions, dealing with other riders, and transporting goods and luggage, all of which are solved with a car.

But driving is an aspiration because of how expensive it is. It should be no wonder that cities like to invest in public transit, as it is an accessible mode of transportation for people of all backgrounds, abilities, and income. Not everyone can drive, but everyone can take the bus.

All well and good, provided the bus network goes where you need it to (see reply #71 above) rather than where planners think you should be going.  And it's not just Portland; San Jose's LR was structured around local planners' concepts of downtown housing serving, via the LR network, employment centers in outflung areas of town.   Unfortunately, back in the '80's during the planning process, the likelihood of hyper-gentrification of that same downtown area drove housing prices up, especially the densely-placed condominium/townhouse developments near downtown; leaving most of the lower-income residents who would most benefit from LR lines largely distant from the system branches.   By trying to cater to a particular user profile (tech employees), VTA (transit provider) missed the opportunity to deploy their system where it would be most useful.   

The US is not a 3rd world country, we should be able to make driving accessible for every working American man.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 14, 2021, 06:45:24 PM
The US is not a 3rd world country, we should be able to make driving accessible for every working American man.

Only about 64% (slightly lower during COVID) of American adults are in the labor force (I'm not one of them, since I'm a college student), and only half of them are male.

Can we not derail this thread with anti-transit zealots from outside the Northwest?

Back on topic: a few proposed routings for the "third" Lake Washington floating bridge that quietly died in the 1970s:

(https://i.imgur.com/VQV7btu.png)

(By this time, the options still included twinning the Evergreen Point Bridge, which would've made the modern replacement extremely difficult)

Quote from: 1 on April 14, 2021, 06:48:48 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 14, 2021, 06:45:24 PM
The US is not a 3rd world country, we should be able to make driving accessible for every working American man.

Only about 64% (slightly lower during COVID) of American adults are in the labor force (I'm not one of them, since I'm a college student), and only half of them are male.

Children can't drive cars, old people are retired, so they worked and should be able to drive (at least while they are still with it, sometimes grandma does need the keys taken away). So that should be much more than 64%. And many people were recently working so would be included to. I was a college student too once, I also worked thus I drove.
The point of the above, for those of us that don't read strings as literally as Python does, is that driving should be accessible to working Americans, ie. everyone but those who are work shy.

To paraphrase an older saying, A bucket of fried chicken on every table and two cars in every garage!

One of the interesting things about that map is 30th [Ave.] NE.  That's not a major street now, 25th Ave. and 35th Ave. NE are the major streets.  I wonder if the city was thinking about making 30th a major arterial back then.

Is the dashed line labeled with "˜Thomson' on that above map a cancelled freeway too?

Quote from: SkyPesos on April 14, 2021, 07:52:53 PM
Is the dashed line labeled with "˜Thomson' on that above map a cancelled freeway too?

Yes, that's the Thomson Expressway which was never built.  Some stub ramps from its proposed interchange with WA 520 remained until the 520 bridge was rebuilt over the last few years.  I have trouble imagining how the Thomson Expressway could have been built - densely built and very expensive residential real estate, even back then, north of NE 45th St. and south of 520.

Quote from: kkt on April 14, 2021, 07:43:35 PM
One of the interesting things about that map is 30th [Ave.] NE.  That's not a major street now, 25th Ave. and 35th Ave. NE are the major streets.  I wonder if the city was thinking about making 30th a major arterial back then.

I think the map (from The Seattle Times) mislabeled 35th Avenue as 30th. It lines up more with 35th based on where it intersects SR 513 and where the Thomson Expressway would have gone.

Cuck fars.

Quote from: kkt on April 14, 2021, 07:58:59 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on April 14, 2021, 07:52:53 PM
Is the dashed line labeled with "˜Thomson' on that above map a cancelled freeway too?

Yes, that's the Thomson Expressway which was never built.  Some stub ramps from its proposed interchange with WA 520 remained until the 520 bridge was rebuilt over the last few years.  I have trouble imagining how the Thomson Expressway could have been built - densely built and very expensive residential real estate, even back then, north of NE 45th St. and south of 520.

Yeah -- I can't imagine UW or the community based there being silent about a freeway bisecting its neighborhood -- that alone would probably have doomed any prospective area corridor.

Quote from: sparker on April 14, 2021, 08:51:07 PM

Quote from: kkt on April 14, 2021, 07:58:59 PM

Quote from: SkyPesos on April 14, 2021, 07:52:53 PM
Is the dashed line labeled with "˜Thomson' on that above map a cancelled freeway too?

Yes, that's the Thomson Expressway which was never built.  Some stub ramps from its proposed interchange with WA 520 remained until the 520 bridge was rebuilt over the last few years.  I have trouble imagining how the Thomson Expressway could have been built - densely built and very expensive residential real estate, even back then, north of NE 45th St. and south of 520.

Yeah -- I can't imagine UW or the community based there being silent about a freeway bisecting its neighborhood -- that alone would probably have doomed any prospective area corridor.

At the time, the flats along Union Bay were used as a landfill. A good chunk of the stronger opposition came from the Montlake area, who wanted to preserve the arboretum, and a coalition from the Central District who wanted to save their neighborhood.

I'm in the middle of researching the Thomson Expressway for a project on Wikipedia, but I'll have to check and see if UW supported the project.

That curved crossing from Sand Point to Kirkland looks to have been needlessly costly. Were there bathymetry considerations for that proposal?

Quote from: Bickendan on April 14, 2021, 10:28:53 PM
That curved crossing from Sand Point to Kirkland looks to have been needlessly costly. Were there bathymetry considerations for that proposal?

I'll have to check, but the WSDOT Library does have two documents with tons of proposals: Second Lake Washington Bridge Proposals from 1957 (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll6/id/8473/rec/1) and a Legislative Reconnaissance from 1958 (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll6/id/8660/rec/16).

The second document shows that it was supposed to be a floating tunnel ("Corridor E"), which would explain the curves. It also has this map that includes the first iteration of I-605, the Thomson Expressway, and the Bothell Freeway (replacing SR 522):

(https://i.imgur.com/wHqV9de.png)

Another fun one: a bridge to replace the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry, as studied in 1968 (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll2/id/36732) (and found to be infeasible even with tolling).

The most "feasible" route would go over Hat Island to Everett in order to avoid a 620-foot depth and instead only need to deal with a 500-foot drop. All at a cost of $160 million in 1968 dollars.

(https://i.imgur.com/wHBPe0p.png)

Quote from: Bruce on April 15, 2021, 02:43:21 AM
Another fun one: a bridge to replace the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry, as studied in 1968 (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll2/id/36732) (and found to be infeasible even with tolling).

The most "feasible" route would go over Hat Island to Everett in order to avoid a 620-foot depth and instead only need to deal with a 500-foot drop. All at a cost of $160 million in 1968 dollars.

(https://i.imgur.com/wHBPe0p.png)

Since the Hat Island alternative crossed two channels, it would be likely that the portion over the deep/navigable channel would likely have included a suspension span across the depths (likely as lengthy as the Golden Gate or Verrazano ones to clear the 500'+ deep channel); the other longer bridge to the east could have been done as a simple viaduct with one raised section to clear the deeper portion for navigability purposes.  Nevertheless, it's better that no bridge was built; Whidbey certainly doesn't need any more casual traffic -- and the idea of a bridge today wouldn't likely get out of the starting blocks -- although the shorter high-clearance bridge might have been done today with a cable-stay span, a type that didn't see favor until around 1980.   But since the east end of the bridge would have been in Everett, there's a chance that it may have been considered to be a US 2 extension that would utilize the Port Townsend ferry to get to a US 101 terminus. 

Quote from: sparker on April 15, 2021, 04:34:30 AM

Quote from: Bruce on April 15, 2021, 02:43:21 AM
Another fun one: a bridge to replace the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry, as studied in 1968 (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll2/id/36732) (and found to be infeasible even with tolling).

The most "feasible" route would go over Hat Island to Everett in order to avoid a 620-foot depth and instead only need to deal with a 500-foot drop. All at a cost of $160 million in 1968 dollars.

(https://i.imgur.com/wHBPe0p.png)

Since the Hat Island alternative crossed two channels, it would be likely that the portion over the deep/navigable channel would likely have included a suspension span across the depths (likely as lengthy as the Golden Gate or Verrazano ones to clear the 500'+ deep channel); the other longer bridge to the east could have been done as a simple viaduct with one raised section to clear the deeper portion for navigability purposes.  Nevertheless, it's better that no bridge was built; Whidbey certainly doesn't need any more casual traffic -- and the idea of a bridge today wouldn't likely get out of the starting blocks -- although the shorter high-clearance bridge might have been done today with a cable-stay span, a type that didn't see favor until around 1980.   But since the east end of the bridge would have been in Everett, there's a chance that it may have been considered to be a US 2 extension that would utilize the Port Townsend ferry to get to a US 101 terminus.

I would hardly say it is "better" that no bridge was built, it would provide a vastly superior routing to what is currently available. Building it today would have course fall prey to the usual problems with NIMBYs, special interest groups, activists, etc.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 15, 2021, 05:38:03 PM
I would hardly say it is "better" that no bridge was built, it would provide a vastly superior routing to what is currently available. Building it today would have course fall prey to the usual problems with NIMBYs, special interest groups, activists, etc.

Seems like being able to drive directly from Whidbey southeast to the mainland without a ferry is a special interest.

Quote from: NE2 on April 15, 2021, 05:48:12 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 15, 2021, 05:38:03 PM
I would hardly say it is "better" that no bridge was built, it would provide a vastly superior routing to what is currently available. Building it today would have course fall prey to the usual problems with NIMBYs, special interest groups, activists, etc.

Seems like being able to drive directly from Whidbey southeast to the mainland without a ferry is a special interest.

Hardly, special interests are groups that seek to exercise undue influence over projects for the public good. Wanting adequate infrastructure to get around is very mainstream.

Quote from: Bruce on April 15, 2021, 02:43:21 AM
Another fun one: a bridge to replace the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry, as studied in 1968 (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll2/id/36732) (and found to be infeasible even with tolling).

The most "feasible" route would go over Hat Island to Everett in order to avoid a 620-foot depth and instead only need to deal with a 500-foot drop. All at a cost of $160 million in 1968 dollars.

There are now bridges with main spans over 1 mile, as opposed to 50 years ago. More feasible.

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 15, 2021, 05:54:25 PM

Quote from: NE2 on April 15, 2021, 05:48:12 PM

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 15, 2021, 05:38:03 PM
I would hardly say it is "better" that no bridge was built, it would provide a vastly superior routing to what is currently available. Building it today would have course fall prey to the usual problems with NIMBYs, special interest groups, activists, etc.

Seems like being able to drive directly from Whidbey southeast to the mainland without a ferry is a special interest.

Hardly, special interests are groups that seek to exercise undue influence over projects for the public good. Wanting adequate infrastructure to get around is very mainstream.

Are you implying that ferries are, by comparison, inadequate? Perhaps to move two identical versions of Seattle between each other, but not Whidbey/Vashon/Bainbridge to the mainland. Those municipalities specifically did not want bridges because high capacity roads would have adversely affected land use. Instead of the quaint, recreation/tourism-focused islands we have now, they could have easily become suburban landscapes like the Eastside or South Hill. And that would have been fine -- we wouldn't have known any better -- but the Seattle metro area does not need those islands for housing at this point.

Right, influence should be exerted by the Chamber of Commerce types and the Mayor playing golf with the Department of Highways officials and making sure the new freeway doesn't plow through any of their neighborhoods.  That way the public interest is served. 

Quote from: kkt on April 15, 2021, 07:13:58 PM
Right, influence should be exerted by the Chamber of Commerce types and the Mayor playing golf with the Department of Highways officials and making sure the new freeway doesn't plow through any of their neighborhoods.  That way the public interest is served.

Did you read my comment? I hate ALL forms of NIMBYism including the golfing with the mayor kind. Let the military, the engineers, and the economists plan the highways and leave the politicians, activists, protesters, NIMBYs and the like out of the process.

To bring this back on the focus of specific never-built highways in the Northwest, here's an interesting map I came across while researching the history of the Sunset Highway. It's from from The Oregonian on January 25, 1931, and it shows various proposed alignments of the "short road to the sea" from Portland:

(https://i.imgur.com/yzMg7LK.jpg)

In order of preference, the engineers recommended:

• Ridge Route
• Wilson River Route
• Vernonia-Hamlet Route
• Trask River Route
• Vernonia-Saddle Mountain Route
• Salmonberry Route

I don't know the full story yet, but eventually the Ridge Route was moved northward and built along the present-day Sunset Highway between 1932 and 1948. Most of the Wilson River Route was built as OR-6 around that same time. This map I mocked up shows the proposed routings above next to what was actually built, with US-26/Sunset Highway in red and OR-6/Wilson River Highway in green:

(https://i.imgur.com/6v1I3D0.jpg)

Quote from: HighwayStar on April 15, 2021, 05:38:03 PM

Quote from: sparker on April 15, 2021, 04:34:30 AM

Quote from: Bruce on April 15, 2021, 02:43:21 AM
Another fun one: a bridge to replace the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry, as studied in 1968 (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll2/id/36732) (and found to be infeasible even with tolling).

The most "feasible" route would go over Hat Island to Everett in order to avoid a 620-foot depth and instead only need to deal with a 500-foot drop. All at a cost of $160 million in 1968 dollars.

(https://i.imgur.com/wHBPe0p.png)

Since the Hat Island alternative crossed two channels, it would be likely that the portion over the deep/navigable channel would likely have included a suspension span across the depths (likely as lengthy as the Golden Gate or Verrazano ones to clear the 500'+ deep channel); the other longer bridge to the east could have been done as a simple viaduct with one raised section to clear the deeper portion for navigability purposes.  Nevertheless, it's better that no bridge was built; Whidbey certainly doesn't need any more casual traffic -- and the idea of a bridge today wouldn't likely get out of the starting blocks -- although the shorter high-clearance bridge might have been done today with a cable-stay span, a type that didn't see favor until around 1980.   But since the east end of the bridge would have been in Everett, there's a chance that it may have been considered to be a US 2 extension that would utilize the Port Townsend ferry to get to a US 101 terminus.

I would hardly say it is "better" that no bridge was built, it would provide a vastly superior routing to what is currently available. Building it today would have course fall prey to the usual problems with NIMBYs, special interest groups, activists, etc.

I totally understand why they wanted to build the bridges.  I could also get behind some of those ideas, back in the day.  However, today, with the Naval Base in Everett, there are few viable options, and the most logical one actually goes from Harbour Pointe to Possession Pt.


That being said, I like being isolated from the crap that goes on in Everett, I just wish I could convince my fellow Islanders, that we need to try to be more self sufficient, with adequate housing, employment, industry, and medical services.  And maybe a grocery store that is open until midnight, like they were 30 years ago.


Of course, on the north end, an alternate to Deception Pass is sorely needed.

On the Valley Freeway (WA-167), there was originally planned to be an interchange with 32nd St in Sumner, but it was dropped in the 70s when funds ran short. There was an intersection here originally, before the freeway was finished in the late 80s. The Sumner interchange was later built slightly to the north, at 24th, and as a partial cloverleaf instead.

You can still see the outline of where the diamond interchange was to be built; the state still owns the land: https://goo.gl/maps/cKfPz24FDGYptRBA7

Here is the News Tribune article:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51163218819_e5c1ffa02f_o.jpg)
Original 32nd St Interchange Plans (https://flic.kr/p/2kX7Ssp) by Jake Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr

I have an undated Kroll Atlas of South Seattle, though judging from the railroad infrastructure it must have come out shortly after the Burlington Northern merger of 1970.  Here they show the area of a 509 southern extension through Des Moines as if it were a done deal.  They are only now maybe making an extension that turns quickly to I-5 and runs on either side of that to Kent-Des Moines Road.  Parts of the right-of-way have turned into nature parks.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51175368834_5a2351866e_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kYc9eq)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51174576871_5807aee2c2_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kY85NT)(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51173901642_58d00056c2_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kY4C61)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51173900887_35e3f539c6_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kY4BRZ)(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51173901267_a0b302778a_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kY4BYx)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51174575426_e7e98d48fa_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kY85nY)

Great scans Arthur. Thanks for sharing.

It's interesting that, apart from this short on-ramp stub (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.4389498,-122.3228169,133m/data=!3m1!1e3) and visible ROW (definitely diamond-shaped, which I never noticed before!), there really is no evidence at Des Moines Memorial Drive that 509 was to ever go further south.

I am curious to know when they changed the design of that southern 509 interchange into a trumpet. Clearly it's superior to a diamond, which would have had two left turns rather than all-right turns as we have now. Still, most stubs usually take the design the original design, as they are meant to be finished eventually.

Interestingly enough, if you look at the aerial view in Google maps, you can see there actually is ROW for the SR 509 freeway cleared all the way down to SR 516.

I looked at the map more closely and noticed my school, Earlington Elementary School, is on the map.  That opened in 1972, so that helps contain the date.  The date stamped onto the Des Moines Memorial Drive overcrossing is 1979 (https://goo.gl/maps/ojvJNnxMQ865Nk856), so they had a few years to think about it.

That's a great find. I never realized that original SR 509 plan was to swing even further south...perhaps the connection with I-5 would have happened at the Midway Landfill then?

It might have bypassed I-5 entirely and headed straight for the Port of Tacoma.

Hey, you were right, it was planned to swing through the landfill.  Then later at Federal Way it was to tap on to the end of SR 18.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51178498559_827c36a9c6_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kYtbAc)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51177706901_ef52590a8b_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kYp8fV)

Woah, more cool maps!

I'm not sure I've ever seen a map showing the 509-18 connection. I've always heard that 509 was meant to traverse then-rural King County to an interchange with 18 at I-5; seems development simply occurred too quickly for them to capitalise on the open land.

I see from this document (https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1987c199.pdf?cite=1987%20c%20199%20%C2%A7%206) that the beginning of 18 was officially amended from 509 to 99 in the late 80s, yet I recall some discussion of that freeway still being built even into the 90s. Nevertheless, I still cannot picture how it would have descended down to port level. That's a hell of a drop.

EDIT: the top scan also shows a one-way couplet through downtown Des Moines. I don't recall that ever happening either. But I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong.

I'm surprised these haven't been posted before:




(The second one counts because of the never-built northern extension of Harbor Drive.)

And here's the book shown in the two videos:

Portland Improvement, by Robert Moses (https://www.portlandmercury.com/images/blogimages/2009/09/30/1254339381-portland_improvement_-_robert_moses_1943.pdf) (PDF)

I found both of those to be very well presented and as objective as possible in a topic that can get very very subjective.

I don't know if we could include this one, since it's far northwest in Alaska, the Highway to Highway aka H2H project who was supposed to link the freeways portions of Glenn Hwy with Seward Hwy. Is it still dormant or being cancelled?  I also found the old project site on the Wayback Machine. https://web.archive.org/web/20090114130517/http://www.highway2highway.com/

Less grand than some of the cancelled freeway proposals, but I saw something that Washington considered rerouting US 395 to WA-25 north of Kettle Falls. If completed, it would have linked US 395 to Trail and Castlegar, as opposed ending at BC-3 2.5 miles north of the border.

Quote from: dmuzika on June 18, 2021, 01:15:15 AM
Less grand than some of the cancelled freeway proposals, but I saw something that Washington considered rerouting US 395 to WA-25 north of Kettle Falls. If completed, it would have linked US 395 to Trail and Castlegar, as opposed ending at BC-3 2.5 miles north of the border.

It went even further than that: a few other non-SR 25 corridors were proposed.

This newspaper clipping has a map of them: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/79780710/highway-395-plan-controversial/

(https://i.imgur.com/Wdeo2Ys.png)

Quote from: Bruce on June 18, 2021, 02:32:02 AM

Quote from: dmuzika on June 18, 2021, 01:15:15 AM
Less grand than some of the cancelled freeway proposals, but I saw something that Washington considered rerouting US 395 to WA-25 north of Kettle Falls. If completed, it would have linked US 395 to Trail and Castlegar, as opposed ending at BC-3 2.5 miles north of the border.

It went even further than that: a few other non-SR 25 corridors were proposed.

This newspaper clipping has a map of them: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/79780710/highway-395-plan-controversial/

(https://i.imgur.com/Wdeo2Ys.png)

When was this reroute proposed; was it a WashDOT proposal or floated elsewhere; and what was the stated rationale behind the concept?  One would think that BC interests might have propagated the notion to put US 395's border crossing considerably closer to the resort/populated areas (i.e. Trail, Castlegar, and Nelson) in the Columbia watershed than the current crossing to the west. 

Does anyone have any insight as to why that alignment and border crossing was originally chosen?

Quote from: 1 on March 26, 2021, 11:37:48 AM
Kelowna BC is growing rapidly. Could there be a Spokane-Kelowna-Kamloops freeway connection in the near future?

Chelan and Wenatchee are growing; however, I don't see blewitt pass getting a freeway or expressway.

International travel in Osoyoos is still not justified.  Omak and okonagen are still tiny towns.  I could see an upgrade to US-97 alt between Wenatchee and chelan in the next few decades, and upgrades to WA-28 and a better link to I-90 in Grant county might happen.


iPhone

Quote from: 1 on March 26, 2021, 11:37:48 AM
Kelowna BC is growing rapidly. Could there be a Spokane-Kelowna-Kamloops freeway connection in the near future?

Maybe the first step could be a more direct two lane highway between Kelowna and Castlegar, from there traffic could head south to Spokane. I don't think the demand would be there for a 4 lane highway between the two cities.

Quote from: dmuzika on July 02, 2021, 04:24:21 PM

Quote from: 1 on March 26, 2021, 11:37:48 AM
Kelowna BC is growing rapidly. Could there be a Spokane-Kelowna-Kamloops freeway connection in the near future?

Maybe the first step could be a more direct two lane highway between Kelowna and Castlegar, from there traffic could head south to Spokane. I don't think the demand would be there for a 4 lane highway between the two cities.

Aside from some regional deliveries, including cross-border runs, US 395 north of Spokane isn't much of an interregional commercial corridor; the closest to that would be US 95 over in Idaho, which features more long-haul traffic, particularly from Seattle/Tacoma ports to Calgary and Edmonton.  There's a lot of LCL (less-than-carload) merchandise traffic that goes direct truck rather than a rail transfer, including a lot of higher-ticket electronics and other consumer merchandise (it tends to get to its destination sooner rather than dwell in a railyard); and 95/93 to either BC/AL 3 or even TC-1 over to Calgary (then up AL 2 to Edmonton as needed) is considerably shorter than schlepping through Montana.  There's a reason ID is gradually improving US 95 north of I-90, and it's cross-border commercial traffic.  Spokane isn't a major distribution hub at present; so there aren't too many large trucks heading NNW up US 395 to the smaller inland BC cities and towns.  A 4-lane facility probably isn't warranted there, and unlikely to be in the near term.  While Kelowna may be growing, it is likely to be adquately commercially served from the Vancouver distribution hub; traffic south to E. WA will be primarily recreational or incidental, which doesn't portend well for significant capacity increases.     

A new one I just unearthed while digging around newspaper archives in Lewiston: Will new bridge link highways, or streets? (https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XMFeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mjEMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5335%2C1886062) (Oct. 20, 1979)

The Washington Legislative Transportation Committee considered creating a "SR 130" for the road leading to the Southway Bridge between Clarkston and Lewiston. It describes a new road that would follow what is now Fleshman Way and then cut across to US 12.

Despite the number, it wouldn't be too far-fetched as a US 12 spur, as SR 131 was designated in 1991.

Bonus find: a relic of Idaho's attempted conversion to metric in 1977: Metrics: The conversion will be 'hard' indeed (https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ipRfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EjEMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4074%2C8054930) (May 22, 1977).

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

Quote from: TEG24601 on July 30, 2020, 01:09:57 PM

Quote from: Bruce on July 29, 2020, 09:17:13 PM

Quote from: nexus73 on July 29, 2020, 06:52:31 PM
I-82 was originally planned to go to Seattle.  I always wondered about the backstory on that one.

Rick

The original plan was Ellensburg to Pendelton, but Washington wanted to add the rest of the US 410 corridor to Tacoma and ultimately Aberdeen in 1959 (see this news report (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll1/id/3285)). A key part of the plan would have been a tunnel under Naches Pass, which obviously didn't pan out.

Similarly, Oregon threw out proposals to have I-80N (later I-84) extend up to Astoria.

When I was in middle school, the library had been donated an old, leather bound, road atlas from the 1960s. In it, the road over Snoqualmie Pass was designated I-82.  I also recall seeing images of plans to convert US-12, to I-82, all the way to Aberdeen.


It is too bad that Oregon doesn't have a safe way to get to the coast, as all the routes are massively undersized for the traffic that uses them.

I vacation to Oregon a lot, I don't live there, but US-20 seems pretty adequate to me. I just drove it a couple weeks ago and it's four lanes all the way to Philomath, and the speed limit is generally 55-60 or so. Compared to other crossings such as OR-126 or OR-34, it seems a lot better. But I'm barely seeing any real traffic patterns because I'm usually on there for a couple weeks at a time.

Quote from: Quillz on September 14, 2021, 03:37:40 AM

Quote from: TEG24601 on July 30, 2020, 01:09:57 PM

Quote from: Bruce on July 29, 2020, 09:17:13 PM

Quote from: nexus73 on July 29, 2020, 06:52:31 PM
I-82 was originally planned to go to Seattle.  I always wondered about the backstory on that one.

Rick

The original plan was Ellensburg to Pendelton, but Washington wanted to add the rest of the US 410 corridor to Tacoma and ultimately Aberdeen in 1959 (see this news report (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll1/id/3285)). A key part of the plan would have been a tunnel under Naches Pass, which obviously didn't pan out.

Similarly, Oregon threw out proposals to have I-80N (later I-84) extend up to Astoria.

When I was in middle school, the library had been donated an old, leather bound, road atlas from the 1960s. In it, the road over Snoqualmie Pass was designated I-82.  I also recall seeing images of plans to convert US-12, to I-82, all the way to Aberdeen.


It is too bad that Oregon doesn't have a safe way to get to the coast, as all the routes are massively undersized for the traffic that uses them.

I vacation to Oregon a lot, I don't live there, but US-20 seems pretty adequate to me. I just drove it a couple weeks ago and it's four lanes all the way to Philomath, and the speed limit is generally 55-60 or so. Compared to other crossings such as OR-126 or OR-34, it seems a lot better. But I'm barely seeing any real traffic patterns because I'm usually on there for a couple weeks at a time.

I like OR 126... once you clear Veneta. That's not a difficult Coastal crossing, in terms of driving or traffic. US 20 is better now with the Crystal Creek Loop bypass, but it's also busier.

Quote from: Bruce on September 14, 2021, 01:03:45 AM
A new one I just unearthed while digging around newspaper archives in Lewiston: Will new bridge link highways, or streets? (https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XMFeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mjEMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5335%2C1886062) (Oct. 20, 1979)

The Washington Legislative Transportation Committee considered creating a "SR 130" for the road leading to the Southway Bridge between Clarkston and Lewiston. It describes a new road that would follow what is now Fleshman Way and then cut across to US 12.

Despite the number, it wouldn't be too far-fetched as a US 12 spur, as SR 131 was designated in 1991.

Bonus find: a relic of Idaho's attempted conversion to metric in 1977: Metrics: The conversion will be 'hard' indeed (https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ipRfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EjEMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4074%2C8054930) (May 22, 1977).

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

k/h? We don't talk about 40 m/h.

Quote from: Alps on September 14, 2021, 07:41:05 PM
k/h? We don't talk about 40 m/h.

I'm sure some of the Vision Zero anti-car new urbanists would if you gave them a chance.

A good map of the North Seattle/North Eastside plans of the late 1960s, found in a report on the Kenmore-Swamp Creek Freeway (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll20/id/3237/rec/3) (which was also never built).

(https://i.imgur.com/dmaPQ7C.png)

And from Portland: the 1964 plan for I-205, which would have been closer to the city and cut through Lake Oswego (who strongly opposed it).

(https://i.imgur.com/wKONFnh.jpeg)

Source: The Oregonian, June 11, 1964

Quote from: Bruce on October 17, 2021, 05:18:31 AM
And from Portland: the 1964 plan for I-205, which would have been closer to the city and cut through Lake Oswego (who strongly opposed it).

Looks like that tied directly into the end of OR 217?

Quote from: Alps on October 17, 2021, 01:10:06 PM

Quote from: Bruce on October 17, 2021, 05:18:31 AM
And from Portland: the 1964 plan for I-205, which would have been closer to the city and cut through Lake Oswego (who strongly opposed it).

Looks like that tied directly into the end of OR 217?

Not quite. The southern terminus would have been at where I-5 crosses under Bonita Road, just south of the OR 217 ramps.

Ah, the Laurelhurst Freeway alignment.

Another find: a 1962 Washington study (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll20/id/2054/rec/9) looking at a road along the Pacific coastline from Neah Bay on the Makah Reservation to Ruby Beach, basically destroying a good chunk of the shoreline. But heck, we gotta be able to drive to the westernmost point on the continental US!

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

Quote from: Bruce on October 29, 2021, 05:22:02 AM
But heck, we gotta be able to drive to the westernmost point on the continental US!

And yet the map clearly shows you could already do that with what was then SSH 9-A, the greedy road builders just wanted a second route!

I think Ocean shores is a pretty good example of why such a road was totally unnecessary: the Washington coast just isn't anywhere near as nice as the Oregon and California coasts. It's better just to leave it as we found it.

Quote from: stevashe on October 30, 2021, 01:59:30 PM

Quote from: Bruce on October 29, 2021, 05:22:02 AM
But heck, we gotta be able to drive to the westernmost point on the continental US!

And yet the map clearly shows you could already do that with what was then SSH 9-A, the greedy road builders just wanted a second route!

Cape Alava is actually further west than Cape Flattery and is not road accessible.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 30, 2021, 02:07:18 PM
I think Ocean shores is a pretty good example of why such a road was totally unnecessary: the Washington coast just isn't anywhere near as nice as the Oregon and California coasts. It's better just to leave it as we found it.

The lack of development makes it nicer than the Oregon Coast, in my opinion. Less traffic, easier access to secluded beaches, way more real nature.

I think Portland and Seattle's Freeway "Plans" from the 50s and 60s were just the result of state and local governments drawing lots of lines on maps to bilk the federal government for as much money as possible. As far as I can tell, in Portland, the Mount Hood Freeway was the only one that was seriously considered.

Quote from: Bruce on October 30, 2021, 05:13:37 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 30, 2021, 02:07:18 PM
I think Ocean shores is a pretty good example of why such a road was totally unnecessary: the Washington coast just isn't anywhere near as nice as the Oregon and California coasts. It's better just to leave it as we found it.

The lack of development makes it nicer than the Oregon Coast, in my opinion. Less traffic, easier access to secluded beaches, way more real nature.

It's kind of a catch-22: better because of the lack of development, but the lack of development makes it harder to "market" to the average seaside holiday-maker.

Quote from: kernals12 on November 06, 2021, 07:39:25 PM
I think Portland and Seattle's Freeway "Plans" from the 50s and 60s were just the result of state and local governments drawing lots of lines on maps to bilk the federal government for as much money as possible. As far as I can tell, in Portland, the Mount Hood Freeway was the only one that was seriously considered.

That's incorrect. Seattle went very far with planning the Bay Freeway and RH Thomson Expressway before both were thankfully stopped before the property acquisition phase.

Portland made some accommodations for the Rose City Freeway (continuing off I-405's north end) and I-505 that are still visible today. The former involved demolishing blocks and blocks of a predominantly African American neighborhood (no coincidence, just malice) that was later turned over to expand the hospital.

Quote from: jakeroot on November 06, 2021, 10:02:09 PM

Quote from: Bruce on October 30, 2021, 05:13:37 PM

Quote from: jakeroot on October 30, 2021, 02:07:18 PM
I think Ocean shores is a pretty good example of why such a road was totally unnecessary: the Washington coast just isn't anywhere near as nice as the Oregon and California coasts. It's better just to leave it as we found it.

The lack of development makes it nicer than the Oregon Coast, in my opinion. Less traffic, easier access to secluded beaches, way more real nature.

It's kind of a catch-22: better because of the lack of development, but the lack of development makes it harder to "market" to the average seaside holiday-maker.

That's what makes it so much nicer. I'd rather send all the tourists to the crowded Oregon beaches while enjoying Washington as it was intended: alone and with few amenities.

The Vashon Island bridge proposal, 1959:

(https://i.imgur.com/PufZF77.png)

Of course, the later 1990s version of this one went down in flames with 2/9ths of the island population showing up to shout down the proposal at a public hearing.

Source: Vashon-Maury Island Beachcomber (https://www.vashonbeachcomber.com/news/time-s-unlikely-hero-the-man-who-prevented-the-building-of-a-bridge/) (2017)

Quote from: Bruce on November 18, 2021, 01:33:19 AM
The Vashon Island bridge proposal, 1959:

(https://i.imgur.com/PufZF77.png)

Of course, the later 1990s version of this one went down in flames with 2/9ths of the island population showing up to shout down the proposal at a public hearing.

Source: Vashon-Maury Island Beachcomber (https://www.vashonbeachcomber.com/news/time-s-unlikely-hero-the-man-who-prevented-the-building-of-a-bridge/) (2017)

Building that bridge would end Seattle's housing shortage in one fell swoop.

Quote from: kernals12 on November 18, 2021, 10:44:30 AM
Building that bridge would end Seattle's housing shortage in one fell swoop.

[citation needed]

The Kitsap Peninsula and Vashon Island both have rougher terrain than the rest of the suburban ring around Seattle, so that will limit the effectiveness of development. And not to mention adding more traffic that dumps into West Seattle, which is not exactly well connected to the rest of the region.

There's a fair amount of buildable land in Seattle.  The trouble is the building industry only wants to build flats for techies who can afford million dollar condos, not housing people with ordinary jobs could afford.

Not to mention there's only so much space where developers are allowed to build anything more than townhouses. The whole of the city proper should be zoned for duplexes at the minimum, and every 15-minute walkshed around transit for proper apartments.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 30, 2021, 02:07:18 PM
I think Ocean shores is a pretty good example of why such a road was totally unnecessary: the Washington coast just isn't anywhere near as nice as the Oregon and California coasts. It's better just to leave it as we found it.

You should backpack to Toleak Point.  Seabrook north to La Push has a pretty nice coastline that's comparable to Oregon.  I think the lack of development makes it even nicer (a lot of the coastline is also on tribal land). 

Quote from: kkt on November 18, 2021, 11:48:49 PM
There's a fair amount of buildable land in Seattle.  The trouble is the building industry only wants to build flats for techies who can afford million dollar condos, not housing people with ordinary jobs could afford.

Largely because of restrictions put on the developers/builders and the cost of land.  It isn't economical to build "normal" housing in cities.  They have to sell/rent them for a lot more to make their money back, and in order to sell them for those higher prices, they have to be desirable to people willing to pay that much.


I mean, I would love to see apartments with formica, linoleum, and carpet, but that won't happen, especially downtown, unless they can get 1000s of units in a building, which isn't feasible under current building codes.  Providing bonuses for providing more affordable apartments and condos is the only real way to get working-class housing downtown, but the politicians are so incapable of thinking that way, it won't happen.

Some interesting designs for the NE 4th Street interchange in Bellevue, particularly those trying to fit in access to Main Street.

https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll10/id/3649/rec/16

Quote from: Bruce on April 05, 2022, 03:21:24 AM
Some interesting designs for the NE 4th Street interchange in Bellevue, particularly those trying to fit in access to Main Street.

https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll10/id/3649/rec/16

Very intriguing. I suppose a lot of these plans made more sense back when 114 Ave SE was one-way.

When I lived in Portland, I was always fascinated with the ramps to nowhere.  So much so that I went digging through the archives, and found several interesting things, including connecting US 26 through downtown to the old Harbor Freeway, a new bridge and expressway north of St. Johns, the Prescott and Mt. Hood Freeways, and the original route for I-5, which was actually going to be either at Grand/MLK, or around 10th/11th, and be a covered freeway, instead of along the waterfront.

Quote from: Bruce on October 17, 2021, 05:18:31 AM
And from Portland: the 1964 plan for I-205, which would have been closer to the city and cut through Lake Oswego (who strongly opposed it).

(https://i.imgur.com/wKONFnh.jpeg)

Source: The Oregonian, June 11, 1964

Another short and relatively unknown project: the Michigan Street Connector. Would have linked SR 509 to I-5 via a new bridge over the Duwamish River with options to continue to the R. H. Thomson Expressway. The Seattle Times drew this map in 1967:

(https://i.imgur.com/6DVUqgW.jpeg)

The article describes it as an alternative to the Connecticut Street Viaduct, another cancelled project that would have extended I-90 to the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Quote from: Bruce on November 18, 2022, 01:00:29 AM
Another short and relatively unknown project: the Michigan Street Connector. Would have linked SR 509 to I-5 via a new bridge over the Duwamish River with options to continue to the R. H. Thomson Expressway. The Seattle Times drew this map in 1967:

(https://i.imgur.com/6DVUqgW.jpeg)

The article describes it as an alternative to the Connecticut Street Viaduct, another cancelled project that would have extended I-90 to the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

That sure explains the giant long ramps right there

That's... one way to deal with a interchange in an urban environment I suppose...

Quote from: Bruce on November 18, 2022, 01:00:29 AM
Another short and relatively unknown project: the Michigan Street Connector. Would have linked SR 509 to I-5 via a new bridge over the Duwamish River with options to continue to the R. H. Thomson Expressway. The Seattle Times drew this map in 1967:

(https://i.imgur.com/6DVUqgW.jpeg)

The article describes it as an alternative to the Connecticut Street Viaduct, another cancelled project that would have extended I-90 to the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

This sure would have come in handy during the West Seattle bridge closure!

..although dumping a bunch more traffic onto I-5 right there would likely cause excess traffic so not sure it would be worth it overall.

Quote from: Alps on November 18, 2022, 03:29:16 PM
That sure explains the giant long ramps right there

Funny you'd mention that, I always thought the giant ramps were just because of the elevation difference between I-5 and Michigan St. Never occurred to me there was anything more behind it.

Quote from: Alps on November 18, 2022, 03:29:16 PM
That sure explains the giant long ramps right there

That was my first thought, but on second look it seems rather awkwardly tacked onto those ramps, so I'm not sure if that was ever intended. The current offramp ties in quite nicely to Corson Ave S and trying to connect it to a new elevated freeway would have required quite a bit of reconstruction.

I read about a possible Anchorage freeway that would connect the two freeway segments of AK-1, to provide a full freeway connection from the southern city limits to the AK-1/AK-3 junction near the Palmer/Wasilla area, and avoiding the downtown area entirely. It has been mentioned on Wikipedia and a few other sources. Does anyone know if this is still going to be built, or was it a proposal that will never happen? Because if the latter, seems appropriate for this thread.

WSDOT has added a series of county maps to their online collections, including this 1982 sheet of Snohomish County (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll18/id/734/rec/304) that shows the Monroe bypass. A windmill interchange with SR 522 is quite intriguing, I would've thought a standard trumpet would have been the preference.

(https://i.imgur.com/N9LTwWI.png)

EDIT: Another one, with SR 509 cutting through Des Moines as mentioned earlier.

(https://i.imgur.com/z4R3AXc.png)