Here is a recent article from the Tacoma News Tribune on local leaders push to finish the 167 freeway to Tacoma:
Extending part of SR 167 that ends at Puyallup is a priority (http://ttp://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/12/03/1931413/extending-part-of-sr-167-that.html)
This is long overdue, but I'm not so sure about the tolling. That would catch the Port traffic and traffic to downtown, but with free alternatives both north and south (SR 167/SR 18 and SR 512), it would be very easy for most other traffic to other areas to avoid the tolls. Maybe someone living up there could speak better on this.
Also, wouldn't making this a SR 410 extension make more sense? That is the general route of old US 410.
I lived in Tacoma from 06-08. You can sort of get to Puyallup via 512 from downtown, but that does take a bit longer. The core of Tacoman population and where shopping is and things that Puyallupites would likely use on a regular basis is far enough away from downtown though that 512 is a realistic option. Puyallupites going north can still take the Valley Freeway up to I-405.
At least 3 years ago, I never found 167 to be total gridlock as it is now. The freeway will be nice, but I can see the argument for a toll facility.
So yes, there are free ways around it. With the exception of the 16 bridge though, that seems to be the MO (past and present) of WSDOT tolling- the toll roads aren't relied on to be self sufficient, so there isn't need to have a captive audience. Even the 16 bridge tolls are designed to be temporary, or were when the bridge was constructed.
Quote from: xonhulu on December 04, 2011, 09:58:34 PM
Also, wouldn't making this a SR 410 extension make more sense? That is the general route of old US 410.
Not really. I-405 would make more sense, especially if they could reroute the Renton interchange to a N/S 405/167 corridor. Hopefully it becomes I-82 in future decades.
Quote from: Landshark on December 14, 2011, 05:24:17 PM
Not really. I-405 would make more sense, especially if they could reroute the Renton interchange to a N/S 405/167 corridor. Hopefully it becomes I-82 in future decades.
I disagree. I-405 makes the most sense as it is: a bypass loop of Seattle, albeit a heavily-congested one.
However, if I-405 were extended down the existing SR 167, it would make more sense to also take it around the existing SR 512 freeway and also bypass Tacoma, instead of abruptly turning northwest as 167 does. Honestly, that routing really makes no sense for the existing SR 167, either. If the new freeway has to become an interstate, it should just receive another I-x05 number.
I'd be very surprised to ever see I-82 reach Tacoma. That being said, this would be the logical routing for its terminus.
I-82? I-82 ends at a logical endpoint, I-90 at Ellensburg. Are you advocating another all-winter freeway crossing of the Cascades? If so, why would we need one?
I think it's bizarre to have SR-167 make a fishhook shape. The Valley Freeway and the River Road Freeway should have separate numbers. What if we want to extend the Valley Freeway south to South Hill or Graham at some point in the future?
I'm not advocating anything. What the poster above was referencing is a long-standing (since the 40's) proposal for a highway across Naches Pass connecting Yakima and Tacoma; it's even on the books in Washington state as SR-168, but no attempts have been made to actually construct it. That hasn't stopped some roadgeeks to imagine it as a potential re-routing of I-82. I actually agree with you that it's unnecessary.
I like your description of SR-167's "fishhook shape." That's exactly what I was trying to say earlier but was too tired to come up with that analogy. It's an awkward turn for 167 to make, and kind of silly. It would've been a lot more sensible to have kept 410 on the River Road alignment as it's historical and lines up better with 410's routing east of there.
Thanks for the info about Naches Pass. I wasn't aware of it.
I've heard about it on the local news. It would be a great thing to have here in the Seattle/Tacoma area.
Quote from: xonhulu on December 14, 2011, 06:07:24 PM
I'd be very surprised to ever see I-82 reach Tacoma. That being said, this would be the logical routing for its terminus.
That would be Port Angeles, but that would be in a long, long time.
Quote from: kkt on December 15, 2011, 12:58:29 AM
I-82? I-82 ends at a logical endpoint, I-90 at Ellensburg. Are you advocating another all-winter freeway crossing of the Cascades? If so, why would we need one?
Yes, a Naches Pass tunnel. It would relieve Snoqualmie Pass, give fast growing South Central Washington a quicker link to the Puget Sound area, and to better link the Ports of Tacoma and Seattle to Eastern Washington. It is decades away from realization, but WSDOT should be working towards this goal. An extended I-82 will also link most of the state's major military installations: Fort Lewis, McChord AFB, Bangor Submarine Base, Bremerton Naval Shipyard and Navy Base, and the Yakima Training Center.
They should at least build a Naches Pass highway as that would be useful: it would be a direct link between Yakima and Puget Sound and would bypass Mt Rainier National Park.
Does this need to be built to interstate standards as a re-routing of I-82? Definitely not immediately, as constructing that freeway would be prohibitively expensive, but that possibility could be left open for the future. And while the WA 16/3 freeways extending out of Tacoma past Bremerton looks tempting as a further extension of I-82, does Port Angeles really need to have an interstate?
All in all, while the Naches Pass highway would be useful, I don't know that it's anywhere near the highest priority in Washington state. So I'm skeptical we'll ever see it built.
Sort of bumping this thread, but I was looking at proposed projects by WSDOT, and 167 is on the drawing board.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR167/TacomaToEdgewood/designviz/i5interchange_viz.htm
I made a sign gantry of what could be on I-5 SB towards the intersection.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi205.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb153%2FKEK_INC%2FWA_I5_SB_138_zpsf2b819e4.png&hash=4ebd7d80861d2092cf072dd1eaf3d830cfb68115)
I think this will alleviate Puyallup/Sumner traffic stressed on SR-167, SR-512 and unnecessary traffic using I-5. This also practically extends I-405 down to Tacoma, so Federal Way could get relieved on I-5.
Next up, they need to link Renton and Maple Valley with a freeway.
It makes more sense to make the new freeway extension for WA 509 a spur. I never heard of a state highway in Washington being concurrent with any federal highway before. It is strange enough however to pair WA 509 with WA 516 and WA 99. In a state like Washington, that just seems downright unnatural.
Quote from: 707 on April 14, 2013, 02:57:28 PM
I never heard of a state highway in Washington being concurrent with any federal highway before.
US 97 and SR 20 from Okanogan to Tonasket
US 97 and SR 14 in Maryhill
US 197 and SR 14 from Dallesport to Maryhill (1964-2006)
I-182/US 12 and SR 240 in Richland
Just to name the few I know off the top of my head...
Quote from: Bruce on April 14, 2013, 05:35:20 PM
US 197 and SR 14 from Dallesport to Maryhill (1964-2006)
I know this concurrency existed on paper until 2006, but I don't think it was ever signed. I'm pretty sure the US 197 shields were removed along with the US 830's when the later was decommissioned in favor of SR 14.
As for other US/SR concurrencies in Washington, there are a few on US 2: SR 231, SR 25, SR 21, and SR 17. I can't think of any others besides yours.
Quote from: xonhulu on April 14, 2013, 09:53:30 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 14, 2013, 05:35:20 PM
US 197 and SR 14 from Dallesport to Maryhill (1964-2006)
I know this concurrency existed on paper until 2006, but I don't think it was ever signed. I'm pretty sure the US 197 shields were removed along with the US 830's when the later was decommissioned in favor of SR 14.
WSDOT had US 197 in its AADT logs traveling to Maryhill until 1980, so they did acknowledge it from 1952 to 1980.
Quote from: xonhulu on April 14, 2013, 09:53:30 PM
As for other US/SR concurrencies in Washington, there are a few on US 2: SR 231, SR 25, SR 21, and SR 17. I can't think of any others besides yours.
I completely forgot about those US 2 concurrencies (even after writing a long Wikipedia article on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_2_in_Washington)).
I hope me reviving this topic won't get me in trouble -- I can't really afford that being a "side road".
The SR 167 extension is currently awaiting funding at the capital. Gov. Inslee is pushing for a transportation package that would raise the gas tax 10 cents over the coming years. If this passes, as the design of the freeway extension is pretty much complete, construction would begin within the next year or so.
http://goo.gl/tX3ngz
I used to live in Puyallup, and I don't know anyone who didn't support the extension.
Earlier in this thread...
Quote from: Landshark on December 14, 2011, 05:24:17 PM
I-405 would make more sense, especially if they could reroute the Renton interchange to a N/S 405/167 corridor.
Good news! WSDOT is designing an HOV overpass between I-405 and SR 167 to make the transition less jarring for those traveling via HOV:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/i405/sr167icdirectconnector/
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsdot.wa.gov%2FNR%2Frdonlyres%2F27AD3F35-6FD5-4DF1-92E2-E222734789A7%2F0%2FSR_167RTID_HOV_Flyover_WEB.jpg&hash=7771a652429e21d89cd75bacb087d6536cac8340)
A complete 167-405 transition? Absolutely not. But with DOT constantly reffering to I-405 and SR 167 as a corridor, especially in terms of HOT lanes, they clearly want to see these two freeways as a straight corridor.
You can read more about the project on this factsheet: http://goo.gl/O2do8M
Quote from: jake on February 03, 2014, 01:52:56 AM
I hope me reviving this topic won't get me in trouble -- I can't really afford that being a "side road".
Damn side road, I'll knock you back to a Trail...You are
encouraged to post in an old topic, and in fact discouraged from creating a new duplicate topic, as long as you are adding new information to it. (If you have nothing new, don't create a new topic, obviously.)
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 08, 2013, 07:49:45 PM
Sort of bumping this thread, but I was looking at proposed projects by WSDOT, and 167 is on the drawing board.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR167/TacomaToEdgewood/designviz/i5interchange_viz.htm
I made a sign gantry of what could be on I-5 SB towards the intersection.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi205.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fbb153%2FKEK_INC%2FWA_I5_SB_138_zpsf2b819e4.png&hash=4ebd7d80861d2092cf072dd1eaf3d830cfb68115)
I think this will alleviate Puyallup/Sumner traffic stressed on SR-167, SR-512 and unnecessary traffic using I-5. This also practically extends I-405 down to Tacoma, so Federal Way could get relieved on I-5.
Next up, they need to link Renton and Maple Valley with a freeway.
I heard that WA 509 would not be a SPUR here but rather the mainline and Dash Point Rd would not be a state highway any longer once the freeway gets built. If this happened, then there would be a gap in WA 509 just like WA 99 in Tukwilla. IMO, the northern section of WA 509 could just be renumbered as WA 517 or WA 521 between I-5 (at S 210th where it MIGHT some year be built) and the 1st Ave So Bridge .....
Quote from: xonhulu on December 04, 2011, 09:58:34 PM
This is long overdue, but I'm not so sure about the tolling. That would catch the Port traffic and traffic to downtown, but with free alternatives both north and south (SR 167/SR 18 and SR 512), it would be very easy for most other traffic to other areas to avoid the tolls. Maybe someone living up there could speak better on this.
Also, wouldn't making this a SR 410 extension make more sense? That is the general route of old US 410.
Possibly. I had thought about the WA 410 number for this section of WA 167 as well. Before the widening of WA 167 in the late 1980's, WA 167 was even signed as an East-West highway between WA 410 and Meridian Ave on the Super-two freeway. I guess the point is that WA 167 is the main highway here and will connect to I-5 as a bypass of Federal Way serving the cities of Auburn, Kent, and Renton where WA 410 goes into the mountains .....
Technically WA-410 was supposed to be I-82.
iPhone
Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 22, 2014, 01:59:49 AM
Technically WA-410 was supposed to be I-82.
iPhone
Yes, true. However I-82 extending from Yakima to Sumner/Puyallup/Tacoma will probably realistically never happen despite being potentially a very useful freeway .....
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on August 22, 2014, 03:17:26 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 22, 2014, 01:59:49 AM
Technically WA-410 was supposed to be I-82.
iPhone
Yes, true. However I-82 extending from Yakima to Sumner/Puyallup/Tacoma will probably realistically never happen despite being potentially a very useful freeway .....
Not sure how it's very useful given its proximity with I-90
iPhone
Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 22, 2014, 03:18:15 AM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on August 22, 2014, 03:17:26 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 22, 2014, 01:59:49 AM
Technically WA-410 was supposed to be I-82.
iPhone
Yes, true. However I-82 extending from Yakima to Sumner/Puyallup/Tacoma will probably realistically never happen despite being potentially a very useful freeway .....
Not sure how it's very useful given its proximity with I-90
iPhone
Easier access to the Port of Tacoma, faster access to Olympia and Bremerton ..... Plenty useful, just not realistic at this time
Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 22, 2014, 01:59:49 AM
Technically WA-410 was supposed to be I-82.
iPhone
In some people's minds. However, there are already all-winter passes at I-90 and US 12. We don't need another one. Note also that commercial vehicles are not allowed in the national park.
Quote from: kkt on August 22, 2014, 01:27:42 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 22, 2014, 01:59:49 AM
Technically WA-410 was supposed to be I-82.
iPhone
In some people's minds. However, there are already all-winter passes at I-90 and US 12. We don't need another one. Note also that commercial vehicles are not allowed in the national park.
That was the point of WA 168 - to allow commercial traffic to get between the Port of Tacoma and Yakima without having to use Snoqualmie Pass. However with an improved WA 18 (potentially becoming I-605 in the future) and improvements to I-90 east of Snoqualmie Pass, I would highly doubt that WSDOT is going to even consider investing in a rerouted/extended I-82 into Tacoma any time in the near future
Quote from: xonhulu on April 14, 2013, 09:53:30 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 14, 2013, 05:35:20 PM
US 197 and SR 14 from Dallesport to Maryhill (1964-2006)
I know this concurrency existed on paper until 2006, but I don't think it was ever signed. I'm pretty sure the US 197 shields were removed along with the US 830's when the later was decommissioned in favor of SR 14.
*AHEM* SR 12.
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 24, 2014, 11:45:12 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on April 14, 2013, 09:53:30 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 14, 2013, 05:35:20 PM
US 197 and SR 14 from Dallesport to Maryhill (1964-2006)
I know this concurrency existed on paper until 2006, but I don't think it was ever signed. I'm pretty sure the US 197 shields were removed along with the US 830's when the later was decommissioned in favor of SR 14.
*AHEM* SR 12.
Huh? Sure about that?
Quote from: doorknob60 on August 24, 2014, 04:05:07 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 24, 2014, 11:45:12 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on April 14, 2013, 09:53:30 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 14, 2013, 05:35:20 PM
US 197 and SR 14 from Dallesport to Maryhill (1964-2006)
I know this concurrency existed on paper until 2006, but I don't think it was ever signed. I'm pretty sure the US 197 shields were removed along with the US 830's when the later was decommissioned in favor of SR 14.
*AHEM* SR 12.
Huh? Sure about that?
SR 14 and SR 12 switched numbers in 1967 during the extension of US 12 to Aberdeen.
Quote from: Bruce on August 24, 2014, 04:10:37 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on August 24, 2014, 04:05:07 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on August 24, 2014, 11:45:12 AM
Quote from: xonhulu on April 14, 2013, 09:53:30 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 14, 2013, 05:35:20 PM
US 197 and SR 14 from Dallesport to Maryhill (1964-2006)
I know this concurrency existed on paper until 2006, but I don't think it was ever signed. I'm pretty sure the US 197 shields were removed along with the US 830's when the later was decommissioned in favor of SR 14.
*AHEM* SR 12.
Huh? Sure about that?
SR 14 and SR 12 switched numbers in 1967 during the extension of US 12 to Aberdeen.
Interesting, although I though that it was 1968 when US-830 was decommissioned, so when that happened it went from US-830 to WA-14. Though correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm just going from knowledge on this forum and Wikipedia, I wasn't around at the time (though most members of this forum weren't).
You are correct. And so is Bruce. TEG, unfortunately, is not. Allow me to explain.
I can't be 100% sure whether US 830 was decommissioned in 1967 or 1968, though I too lean toward '68. It may have been at the same time as US 12 being extended in 1967, but it was certainly no earlier. (The most likely theory is that both changes were approved at the same meeting in 1967, but for whatever reason, changes in signage didn't take place until the following year for US 830.) So you are correct that regardless of exactly when, US 830 was renumbered directly to SR 14, and not to SR 12.
Where Bruce is correct, and where TEG is confused, is a bit further east. US 830 (and US 197) ended at US 97 in Maryhill, and did not continue east to what is now I-82. When the current SR numbering system was posted in 1964, a highway from Maryhill northeast to Kennewick* (which was part of the same old PSH that US 830 was) was numbered SR 12. Then three years later -- the date for US 12 being extended is firmly 1967 -- what was then SR 14 from Napavine to Naches became part of US 12, and SR 12 was renumbered to a new SR 14. Then, either at the same time or within the next year, US 830 was decommissioned and became an extension of that new SR 14.
So, slightly shorter version: yes, there was an SR 12 that "switched places" with SR 14 in 1967. But no, US 830 was not renumbered to SR 12, it went right to SR 14.
* Then in the 1980s when I-82 was built, SR 14 was rerouted to head due east rather than northeast out of Maryhill, and now ends near Paterson rather than Kennewick. But that's neither here nor there. :P
I noticed that on Google Maps that the WA 167 proposed freeway extension is showing up if you zoom in. Notice the stupid temporary half diamond interchange proposed with I-5 in the first phase! Also, the WA 509 extension in Burien and SeaTac also is on the map connection to I-5 at S. 210th
167 extension:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.2429755,-122.3375159,17z
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.2429755,-122.3375159,474m/data=!3m1!1e3
509 extension:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.412038,-122.2940699,17z
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.412038,-122.2940699,472m/data=!3m1!1e3
Quote from: Kacie Jane on August 26, 2014, 09:50:58 AM
You are correct. And so is Bruce. TEG, unfortunately, is not. Allow me to explain.
I can't be 100% sure whether US 830 was decommissioned in 1967 or 1968, though I too lean toward '68. It may have been at the same time as US 12 being extended in 1967, but it was certainly no earlier. (The most likely theory is that both changes were approved at the same meeting in 1967, but for whatever reason, changes in signage didn't take place until the following year for US 830.) So you are correct that regardless of exactly when, US 830 was renumbered directly to SR 14, and not to SR 12.
Where Bruce is correct, and where TEG is confused, is a bit further east. US 830 (and US 197) ended at US 97 in Maryhill, and did not continue east to what is now I-82. When the current SR numbering system was posted in 1964, a highway from Maryhill northeast to Kennewick* (which was part of the same old PSH that US 830 was) was numbered SR 12. Then three years later -- the date for US 12 being extended is firmly 1967 -- what was then SR 14 from Napavine to Naches became part of US 12, and SR 12 was renumbered to a new SR 14. Then, either at the same time or within the next year, US 830 was decommissioned and became an extension of that new SR 14.
So, slightly shorter version: yes, there was an SR 12 that "switched places" with SR 14 in 1967. But no, US 830 was not renumbered to SR 12, it went right to SR 14.
* Then in the 1980s when I-82 was built, SR 14 was rerouted to head due east rather than northeast out of Maryhill, and now ends near Paterson rather than Kennewick. But that's neither here nor there. :p
I think we are both right. While US 830 wasn't decommissioned until 1968 (according to US-Highways.com), what is now SR 141 was signed as SR 121 because Washington considered the entire portion of 830 East of Vancouver to be SR 12 (much in the same way that US 395 is considered SR 29 by WSDOT) in addition to the portion East of Maryhill.
As for the I-82 comment earlier, I have seen atlases from the 1960s that actually have the Snoqualmie Pass freeway designated as I-82 (unsure if it was ever posted that way) and several Atlases and Thomas Guides that show a proposed rerouting of I-82 along US 12, with the shield and everything. I only bring up the Thomas Guide, as I found one from the Early 80s and one from the Late 80s that show the proposed routing of SR 525 over SR 99 as a freeway, which was eventually constructed.
Of course, as I've stated in other portions of this forum, if the 167 Freeway is completed, I feel that the E-W portion should be tacked on to SR 16, simply so we don't have another US 101 situation, where the Southern Terminus of a State Route is reached by traveling Northbound.
Quote from: TEG24601 on October 05, 2014, 12:40:31 PM
I think we are both right. While US 830 wasn't decommissioned until 1968 (according to US-Highways.com), what is now SR 141 was signed as SR 121 because Washington considered the entire portion of 830 East of Vancouver to be SR 12 (much in the same way that US 395 is considered SR 29 by WSDOT) in addition to the portion East of Maryhill.
Nah. Yes, 3-digit routes are sometimes numbered according to the 2-digit route's spot in the grid rather than its actual route number. But it's way too much of a stretch to say that WSDOT "considers" US 395 to be SR 29.
Besides, even by your logic, if you agree that US 830 wasn't decommissioned until 1968, by then the road on the Columbia had already been "considered" SR 14 for a year. So xonhulu (sorry I got the author wrong in my last post) is still entirely correct when they say "
when the later was decommissioned in favor of SR 14," and your "correction" would still be a year out of date.
Quote from: TEG24601 on October 05, 2014, 12:40:31 PMOf course, as I've stated in other portions of this forum, if the 167 Freeway is completed, I feel that the E-W portion should be tacked on to SR 16, simply so we don't have another US 101 situation, where the Southern Terminus of a State Route is reached by traveling Northbound.
Meanwhile, this ignores that SR 167's southern terminus is
already in Tacoma, and you already have to go slightly north out of Puyallup to get to it.
They're building an extension of the freeway, yes. But it's not an extension of SR 167, it's a realignment. (In fact, I think if anything, it's a truncation. I think the mileage will be slightly shorter to its new terminus further east.)
Quick update: the 2015 transportation package passed by the Senate (and pending approval from the House) includes funding for the Puget Sound Gateway project, which extends the SR 167 freeway from Puyallup to the Port of Tacoma and the SR 509 freeway from Burien to Federal Way.
There's tons of other projects in there (finishing SR 520, new interchanges on I-5 in Marysville, removing the final traffic light on SR 522 between Bothell and Monroe...), but the gateway is the biggest and most controversial.
Quote from: Bruce on June 30, 2015, 09:56:42 PM
the gateway is the biggest and most controversial.
I think it's getting less and less controversial by the day. Most of the controversy does seem to be limited to King County, however. Down here in the Puyallup area, I haven't met one person who doesn't support an extension of the 167.
Is the 167 extension only in Pierce County or is it straddling the county lines between Pierce and King?
Quote from: Bickendan on July 01, 2015, 11:05:13 AM
Is the 167 extension only in Pierce County or is it straddling the county lines between Pierce and King?
The whole of the 167 lies in both King and Pierce Counties, but the extension is just in Pierce County.
The 509 extension, on the other hand, lies entirely within King County.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 01, 2015, 04:17:59 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 30, 2015, 09:56:42 PM
the gateway is the biggest and most controversial.
I think it's getting less and less controversial by the day. Most of the controversy does seem to be limited to King County, however. Down here in the Puyallup area, I haven't met one person who doesn't support an extension of the 167.
Along with the extention, 167 should be widened between Puyallup and Renton. And WSDOT desperately needs to modernize the intersection with 167 and 18.
Also, 18 and 90 is pits. On the way home from many of the hikes along I-90, I notice a mass of cars backed up on I-90 trying to exit on SR-18.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on July 02, 2015, 01:23:45 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 01, 2015, 04:17:59 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 30, 2015, 09:56:42 PM
the gateway is the biggest and most controversial.
I think it's getting less and less controversial by the day. Most of the controversy does seem to be limited to King County, however. Down here in the Puyallup area, I haven't met one person who doesn't support an extension of the 167.
Along with the extention, 167 should be widened between Puyallup and Renton. And WSDOT desperately needs to modernize the intersection with 167 and 18.
Also, 18 and 90 is pits. On the way home from many of the hikes along I-90, I notice a mass of cars backed up on I-90 trying to exit on SR-18.
Well, at least the latter is in the works (http://goo.gl/kKWCC0). The former, I'm not so sure of. I too would love to see that interchange re-worked (at least by adding the missing movements, even if it required removing the old interchange with West Valley Highway, which should have been removed to begin with), but I'm not sure as to what style of intechange would work better there. Some flyover from 18(W) to 167(S) seems like a good start, but there'd have to be some C/D lanes because of the proximity to the Supermall/15th Street exit. A loop ramp from 167(N) to 18(W) would also be a good idea, but it would require the removal of the warehouse in the NE corner of the interchange. 18(E) to 167(N) should probably be a flyover as well, and the 167(S) to 18(E) should remain a loop but should be rebuilt to make it less awkward (I hate non-perfect clovers) as well as larger to keep a high speed. I would suggest another flyover but I don't want anymore than three levels.
A flyover from 167(s) to 18(e) looks like it could be built sharing the same exit from 167(s) as the ramp to 18(w), then flyover and merge with the 167(n) to 18(e) ramp, taking few if any parking spaces from the Sam's Club lot. That would allow removing the irregular 167(s) to 18(e) loop, and remove the short weaves in 167(s) and 18(e).
The 167(n) to 18(w) move could be done by flyover, or it's probably low volume enough to do by loop if that would be a lot cheaper. It's just a warehouse, not the Taj Mahal, and it looks like it belongs to the school district so it should be easy to relocate them without eminent domain.
Looking at it, I'm kind of surprised it hasn't been done already.
Finally money is being earmarked for this project, as well as replacing the I-5 Bridges to Fife. 12¢/gal Gas Tax is fine with me, so long as they don't start trying to charge tolls on these roads.
I'd much rather have tolls than GPS trackers.
Quote from: KEK Inc. on July 03, 2015, 01:22:44 AM
I'd much rather have tolls than GPS trackers.
Well, that is Oregon.
I'm still convinced that Washington would be much better off assigning each vehicle type a number of points based on size, weight, and fuel type, and that the total amount of money desired from gas taxes divided evenly over these points, then add the cost to the yearly tabs. It wouldn't be a significant cost for most people, but Hybrids would pay their fair share, same for electrics. I figured it out at one point, and for most single family, petrol powered vehicles, it would be between $10 and $20 a year. You could then add an additional $5 for everyone, and we wouldn't need discover passes either. We could then drop all the state fuel taxes, and everyone would be happy, and we wouldn't use those GPS system that other states are proposing.
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 03, 2015, 10:55:39 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on July 03, 2015, 01:22:44 AM
I'd much rather have tolls than GPS trackers.
Well, that is Oregon.
I'm still convinced that Washington would be much better off assigning each vehicle type a number of points based on size, weight, and fuel type, and that the total amount of money desired from gas taxes divided evenly over these points, then add the cost to the yearly tabs. It wouldn't be a significant cost for most people, but Hybrids would pay their fair share, same for electrics. I figured it out at one point, and for most single family, petrol powered vehicles, it would be between $10 and $20 a year. You could then add an additional $5 for everyone, and we wouldn't need discover passes either. We could then drop all the state fuel taxes, and everyone would be happy, and we wouldn't use those GPS system that other states are proposing.
So then you like the idea of the little old lady who only drives to church on Sundays subsidizing the traveling salesguy?
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on July 04, 2015, 01:06:20 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 03, 2015, 10:55:39 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on July 03, 2015, 01:22:44 AM
I'd much rather have tolls than GPS trackers.
Well, that is Oregon.
I'm still convinced that Washington would be much better off assigning each vehicle type a number of points based on size, weight, and fuel type, and that the total amount of money desired from gas taxes divided evenly over these points, then add the cost to the yearly tabs. It wouldn't be a significant cost for most people, but Hybrids would pay their fair share, same for electrics. I figured it out at one point, and for most single family, petrol powered vehicles, it would be between $10 and $20 a year. You could then add an additional $5 for everyone, and we wouldn't need discover passes either. We could then drop all the state fuel taxes, and everyone would be happy, and we wouldn't use those GPS system that other states are proposing.
So then you like the idea of the little old lady who only drives to church on Sundays subsidizing the traveling salesguy?
Mike
They already do for Water, sewer, and power. Plus, it is the only way to get the people in their smugmobiles to pay their fair share, without compromising personal liberty, that I can figure out. Also, the traveling sales guy would have a Commercially registered vehicle, which would have a higher yearly charge.
Slight thread revival here.
This sign was recently posted near the end of the 167 at Meridian, in Puyallup. WSDOT doesn't usually post things like this, but I would guess that the local representatives may have asked WSDOT to display it (last year, I had someone come to my door to ask me to vote for them (she got elected) -- her pamphlet had a picture of the 167 Freeway on it; district representatives were very forthcoming about their support for the extension, and I assume they are now beaming as the monies are finally rolling in).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkhlDwNhh.jpg&hash=c2a8a8379edc819489c2aa4a59a61c912a8d88fb)
Quote from: jakeroot on February 09, 2016, 02:03:27 AM
Slight thread revival here.
This sign was recently posted near the end of the 167 at Meridian, in Puyallup. WSDOT doesn't usually post things like this, but I would guess that the local representatives may have asked WSDOT to display it (last year, I had someone come to my door to ask me to vote for them (she got elected) -- her pamphlet had a picture of the 167 Freeway on it; district representatives were very forthcoming about their support for the extension, and I assume they are now beaming as the monies are finally rolling in).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkhlDwNhh.jpg&hash=c2a8a8379edc819489c2aa4a59a61c912a8d88fb)
WSDOT has made quite a few of the Connecting WA signs for various projects, paraded at events across the state. I'd love to see more posted like this to give people a sense of where things are going to undergo major change.
---
Back on topic:
I wonder how this project will interface with the planned light rail extension to Tacoma in the ST3 package. I imagine a nice tall flyover for trains (similar to the SR 518 canyon) will be required. I hope HOV lanes from SR 167 will link up with a Link station, direct access ramps and all.
Quote from: Bruce on February 10, 2016, 02:02:18 AM
I wonder how this project will interface with the planned light rail extension to Tacoma in the ST3 package. I imagine a nice tall flyover for trains (similar to the SR 518 canyon) will be required. I hope HOV lanes from SR 167 will link up with a Link station, direct access ramps and all.
That's a very interesting concept, one that I wish WSDOT would embrace. They just need to make sure they provide enough parking. For example, I'm 99% sure that the Sounder's capacity is being limited by the parking availability in Puyallup, which is full by basically 0600.
All told though, something tells me that WSDOT hasn't even considered the light rail. So many of the plans were drawn up years ago. Hopefully new designs are in the works to incorporate the light rail, wherever it ends up getting built.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 10, 2016, 02:30:28 AM
Quote from: Bruce on February 10, 2016, 02:02:18 AM
I wonder how this project will interface with the planned light rail extension to Tacoma in the ST3 package. I imagine a nice tall flyover for trains (similar to the SR 518 canyon) will be required. I hope HOV lanes from SR 167 will link up with a Link station, direct access ramps and all.
That's a very interesting concept, one that I wish WSDOT would embrace. They just need to make sure they provide enough parking. For example, I'm 99% sure that the Sounder's capacity is being limited by the parking availability in Puyallup, which is full by basically 0600.
All told though, something tells me that WSDOT hasn't even considered the light rail. So many of the plans were drawn up years ago. Hopefully new designs are in the works to incorporate the light rail, wherever it ends up getting built.
I'm certain that WSDOT knew about the possibility of light rail, but didn't bother to include it because they're WSDOT. WSDOT does what WSDOT wants.
Sound Transit has been criticized (and rightly so) for building the amount of parking lots and garages that they already have, since it's getting expensive and is really hurting the chances of transit-oriented development. Personally, I'd rather have a "time-bomb park and ride", aka one that will close after a few years (with a set-in-stone date) and be redeveloped in a manner similar to South Kirkland P&R.
How long before construction might begin? Or don't they have a construction date, funding, or both?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 13, 2016, 02:25:36 PM
How long before construction might begin? Or don't they have a construction date, funding, or both?
Based on current income flow, WSDOT's project folio (http://goo.gl/A5dnr3) predicts phased construction to begin in 2019, and end in 2031. The next transportation package could include additional funding, which would complete the project sooner.
WSDOT has actively pursuing construction since the late 80s/early 90s, but only received an income source last summer. The freeway's future "path" has been "drawn out" since at least 1968, back when the freeway was numbered "410" (see here for current satellite view of lower-right interchange (https://goo.gl/c9GJXj)).
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.tacomapubliclibrary.org%2Fimages%2Fimages%2F66%2Ft1%2F31449.jpg&hash=7b01ba0246795c871dcf075a738e9f51f2791882)
Quote from: Bruce on February 10, 2016, 05:57:03 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 10, 2016, 02:30:28 AM
Quote from: Bruce on February 10, 2016, 02:02:18 AM
I wonder how this project will interface with the planned light rail extension to Tacoma in the ST3 package. I imagine a nice tall flyover for trains (similar to the SR 518 canyon) will be required. I hope HOV lanes from SR 167 will link up with a Link station, direct access ramps and all.
That's a very interesting concept, one that I wish WSDOT would embrace. They just need to make sure they provide enough parking. For example, I'm 99% sure that the Sounder's capacity is being limited by the parking availability in Puyallup, which is full by basically 0600.
All told though, something tells me that WSDOT hasn't even considered the light rail. So many of the plans were drawn up years ago. Hopefully new designs are in the works to incorporate the light rail, wherever it ends up getting built.
I'm certain that WSDOT knew about the possibility of light rail, but didn't bother to include it because they're WSDOT. WSDOT does what WSDOT wants.
I think Jake nailed it actually. The issue with trying to connect this freeway project with light rail is that the two projects are at two completely different phases of planning. SR 167 is essentially shovel-ready; they have the alignment finalized down to the individual ramps. Sound Transit has only just chosen the alignment to Federal Way (and I'm not certain even that is set in stone), south of there through Fife is still in the debate stage, and construction on it would probably be
at least seven years behind the freeway.
Trying to plan 167 around light rail would be the perfect example of the idiom "putting the cart before the horse". Let WSDOT build 167 as they will, let Sound Transit put their station in a location that makes sense given where the access (old and new) is. Then if they need to expand the nearest interchange, they can, but I'd be at least a little skeptical how many customers at a P&R in Fife would be using the 167 freeway. It's oriented mostly to get traffic to/from I-5 and Puyallup, while I'd wager most parkers would be coming locally via surface streets. They certainly won't be coming from I-5, though they might come from NE Tacoma via 509. You might get some customers from Puyallup during off-hours when Sounder isn't running, but during off-hours, traffic should be light enough that driving would be faster.
Building a few short stub ramps and leaving enough space for flyover columns to connect up to a potential bus station and HOV-accessible park-and-ride wouldn't hurt and probably won't make a dent in the SR 167 budget. The region has a problem of not planning even the slightest bit ahead, requiring half-assed solutions or massive retrofitting to make pieces work together.
I'd leave space for a pair of HOV ramps from SR 167 to the light rail station (probably in a greenfield) and also serving the Pacific Highway if possible.
But my point is that it's impossible to do if they have no idea where the light rail station is going to be*. Also, there's probably not even space for an interchange -- definitely not @ Pacific Highway -- since the I-5 interchange is right there (and the I-5 interchange itself has to be shoehorned in between existing development). Also also, the freeway's only going to have two lanes in each direction (if that -- the section through the I-5 interchange might only have one to be expanded later) with no HOV lanes, so HOV ramps won't do much good. (Not zero good, but not much good either.) Also also also, like I said, I'm not sure you can convince me why anyone driving to a Fife P&R will be taking 167 anyway. If they're coming from the north, they'll come in on 54th, 70th, or SR 99 and won't save any time getting off surface streets. If they're coming from Milton or anywhere south of I-5, they can't use the new freeway without backtracking to Valley Avenue, which is probably way too far.
*Your complaint about WSDOT being shortsighted is totally valid, I'm not disputing that in the general case. But an equally valid complaint is that Sound Transit does too much to cater to Park & Ride customers, at the cost of those transferring from local buses or walking up to light rail. The best place for a light rail station would be at Pacific & 54th, or perhaps even further west than that, which is actually really far from the new 167 freeway. There may not be room for a Park & Ride there, but that's where the people are.
Using the WayBack Machine, I was able to access some old images from prior proposals of this extension. The big takeaway is the general scope of the project, which while still huge, is slightly less massive.
As for my preferences? They are listed below...
- The Alexander Road interchange should be a fly-over, because traffic coming from Fife will have to go to either Port of Tacoma Road (exceptionally busy as it's the main entrance to the port) or 54 Ave (really out of the way) to go east towards downtown Tacoma. The prior design, which incorporated the grading as it exists today (//http://), as well as the pre-existing frontage roads, keeps Alexander Ave as a third interchange. The current proposal makes Alexander Ave a RIRO.
- The 54 Ave interchange should be a half-SPUI, as proposed today.
- The 5/167/509 junction is not perfect in either scenario, but I prefer the prior design because the ramps were less curvy, and the 70 Ave bridge shoots north towards the current signal, instead of west towards the EQC, as proposed today (70 Ave is planned to be a super-corridor in Pierce County once Canyon Road is extended over the Puyallup River at some point in the future, so maintaining the route's relatively straight alignment should be important). With all of that said, however, the current design does have some things going for it: the proposal elevates the freeway over 20 St, to avoid redirecting that road altogether, and there is no left exit from 509 EB to 5 NB.
- The Valley Ave interchange should be the prior parclo design (the one that intersects with Valley Ave, not Freeman). Traffic from SB 167 towards Fife will be forced to wait for a left turn in the present-day proposal. I have a feeling that, given the large amount of warehouses in both Fife and the Kent/Auburn Valley, that particular movement will be quite popular, and keeping it as a free-flow movement would be the best.
- I have no opinion on the 161 junction, since the design has not changed in any of the modern proposals.
Oddly, WSDOT has removed the present-day design visualizations from their website. I swear not even last week they were up. VERY interesting!?!?
First, the 5/167/509 junction, before...
(https://web.archive.org/web/20061212173626im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/37D38D2C-677C-4D03-A3DA-747417CD8F69/0/I5_SR167_oblique.jpg)
(https://web.archive.org/web/20080804080629im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/CB224CBB-FB06-487F-AF24-22EA98DE105F/5808/view3prop.jpg)
after...
(https://web.archive.org/web/20080918075009im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/BBA727A2-B92A-4048-AE02-8AF021C18FB9/0/I5_DVA_08.jpg)
Second, the junction with present-day 509, before (which did include a ramp from 509 west towards Browns Point, though it is not as obvious on this map)...
(https://web.archive.org/web/20061003150851im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/ED7899B2-1AC3-4995-8DC9-0211ADF1C9AE/5826/view1prop.jpg)
after (the scope was lessened because Alexander Ave is no longer a through road into the port)...
(https://web.archive.org/web/20081003225131im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A479D729-DDAD-4079-861D-BC22160F03E1/0/509_DVA_08.jpg)
Third, the connection with Fife's 54 Ave, before (two proposals, half diamond or parclo)...
(https://web.archive.org/web/20061003150943im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/8A8B99C1-4DE0-46B0-B879-2B3D8D3C4470/5799/view2prop1.jpg)
(https://web.archive.org/web/20061003150943im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/8A8B99C1-4DE0-46B0-B879-2B3D8D3C4470/5800/view2prop2.jpg)
after (who thought this was a good angle?)...
(https://web.archive.org/web/20141023174244im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/74F32571-6167-4C30-AEEC-DF7FE3294EBE/0/54th_DVA_08.jpg)
Fourth, the Valley Ave interchange, before (three options)...
(https://web.archive.org/web/20080804113108im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/DBB7EFC4-912B-4DD0-A20C-B2BB22F8DE0B/5810/view4prop1.jpg)
(https://web.archive.org/web/20061003150933im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/DBB7EFC4-912B-4DD0-A20C-B2BB22F8DE0B/5811/view4prop2.jpg)
(https://web.archive.org/web/20061003150933im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/DBB7EFC4-912B-4DD0-A20C-B2BB22F8DE0B/5812/view4prop3.jpg)
after...
(https://web.archive.org/web/20081003225136im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6BBF6784-93AE-40D6-A783-189BBCC6AAD4/0/Valley_DVA_08.jpg)
Finally, the 161 junction has not changed. The extremely limited ROW has prevented them from proposing anything other than a SPUI.