Print

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

[compdude787]

Ouch, that bridge took a beating. I'm curious as to whether WSDOT will just slap some new girders in there and call it macaroni, or if they'll rebuild the whole entire span. I think they will just slap some new girders in there because that's cheaper. But that really was a nice bridge and frankly looked a lot better than later WSDOT overpass designs.

[Thunderbyrd316]

Ouch, that bridge took a beating. I'm curious as to whether WSDOT will just slap some new girders in there and call it macaroni, or if they'll rebuild the whole entire span. I think they will just slap some new girders in there because that's cheaper. But that really was a nice bridge and frankly looked a lot better than later WSDOT overpass designs.

   Washington really has not significantly changed the appearance of their standard highway structures since the late '70's and I have never really cared for the design they use. (For example, the structure for the on ramp to northbound I-205 from Mill Plain Blvd., dated 2009, as well as the structures built for the junction with S.R. 502 at I-5 dated 2008 or the S.R. 501 overpass at Rigdefield dated 2010 are pretty much identical in appearance to structures built on I-5 dated 1980, '81 and '82 in downtown Vancouver.)

   Personally, I really like the designs that Oregon used in the very late '60's and through the '70's. Oregon may have some seriously ****ed up highways thanks mostly to a complete lack of meaningful expansion since the 1970's but they did build some very nice looking structures for a little while there. I also like the appearance of Washington's '60's and early '70's structures. They were not fancy but looked nice just the same.

[compdude787]

Ouch, that bridge took a beating. I'm curious as to whether WSDOT will just slap some new girders in there and call it macaroni, or if they'll rebuild the whole entire span. I think they will just slap some new girders in there because that's cheaper. But that really was a nice bridge and frankly looked a lot better than later WSDOT overpass designs.

   Washington really has not significantly changed the appearance of their standard highway structures since the late '70's and I have never really cared for the design they use. (For example, the structure for the on ramp to northbound I-205 from Mill Plain Blvd., dated 2009, as well as the structures built for the junction with S.R. 502 at I-5 dated 2008 or the S.R. 501 overpass at Rigdefield dated 2010 are pretty much identical in appearance to structures built on I-5 dated 1980, '81 and '82 in downtown Vancouver.)

   Personally, I really like the designs that Oregon used in the very late '60's and through the '70's. Oregon may have some seriously ****ed up highways thanks mostly to a complete lack of meaningful expansion since the 1970's but they did build some very nice looking structures for a little while there. I also like the appearance of Washington's '60's and early '70's structures. They were not fancy but looked nice just the same.

I agree, most of Washington's highway overpasses from the mid-60s onwards look pretty utilitarian, but I always liked how the bridge support is cylindrical shaped, something you don't really see on newer bridges. The ones from the late-50s and early-60s are my second favorite design because it evokes so much of mid-century modern design. The ones used in the early to mid-50s with the tee-beam (i.e. the slightly curved arch) are hands down my favorite sort of design used in this state. My favorite sort of one-off overpass design is the one that carries 436th Avenue Southeast over I-90 is my favorite.

As for Oregon overpasses, what design are you referring to when you say late-60s to early-70s? As for me, these 70s-era overpasses like this one that carries SW Sagert Street over I-5 are some of my favorites. The I-5/I-205 interchange also has some overpasses designed like this. I've seen that style of overpass used in other places--including on WA 16 in Tacoma (example)--and I really like it. I can't decide which I like best: the ones from the 70s or the ones from the 50s. I once told my parents that I thought those overpasses were the only good thing to come out of the 70s and they thought that was really weird.

[jakeroot]

My favorite sort of one-off overpass design is the one that carries 436th Avenue Southeast over I-90 is my favorite.

The 436 Ave SE overpass is definitely one of my favorites as well. Having a single support structure in the center, instead of several on each side of each carriageway, is far more aesthetically pleasing to me. Though, I prefer narrower columns in urban areas, where wide medians are unnecessary. (necessary here due to wide support column).

[Thunderbyrd316]

   Personally, I really like the designs that Oregon used in the very late '60's and through the '70's. Oregon may have some seriously ****ed up highways thanks mostly to a complete lack of meaningful expansion since the 1970's but they did build some very nice looking structures for a little while there. I also like the appearance of Washington's '60's and early '70's structures. They were not fancy but looked nice just the same.
[/quote]

As for Oregon overpasses, what design are you referring to when you say late-60s to early-70s? As for me, these 70s-era overpasses like this one that carries SW Sagert Street over I-5 are some of my favorites. The I-5/I-205 interchange also has some overpasses designed like this. I've seen that style of overpass used in other places--including on WA 16 in Tacoma (example)--and I really like it. I can't decide which I like best: the ones from the 70s or the ones from the 50s. I once told my parents that I thought those overpasses were the only good thing to come out of the 70s and they thought that was really weird.
[/quote]

I was pretty much referring to any structure on I-5 between Salem Parkway and Oregon 217 as well as pretty much all of Oregon 217 and I-205. I-84 in eastern Oregon has a few nice looking structures as well.  There is one overpass in La Grande (N. 2nd Street) that is especially slick looking.

One thing Oregon has been doing in recent years I do NOT like at all is the "new/old" look they have tried to give some structures. They started with the Banfield reconstruction in the mid '80's but the worst abomination I can think of is the Oregon 99E viaduct connecting McGloughlin with the Union / Grand couplet. (Yes, Union was renamed MLK but it will always be Union Avenue to me.)

[jakeroot]

Roger Millar is now the permanent Secretary for Transportation:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/Roger-Millar-is-King-of-the-Road-9132813.php

[jakeroot]

I found a higher resolution render of the now-under-construction 167/405 HOV connector (see below). The ramp should be complete by 2019.

I wish WSDOT would explain how they plan to tie together the two routes. The 167 does not currently require HOV's to have a toll tag, but the 405 does. They've been talking about making the 405 and 167 freeways one long corridor for over a decade now, so my hope is that the flyover ramp isn't the transition point from one tolling system to the other. If it were up to me, I'd make the entire route similar to the 405's current tolling system (all cars need a tag, or pay $2 extra dollars for snail mail).

[Bruce]

Major Vision Zero announcement tomorrow in Seattle. Expecting city-wide speed limit lowerings.

This will be fun to watch. I'm grabbing popcorn and manning the twitter.

[jakeroot]

Major Vision Zero announcement tomorrow in Seattle. Expecting city-wide speed limit lowerings.

This will be fun to watch. I'm grabbing popcorn and manning the twitter.

Fuck it. We'll start right now.

SDOT's dashboard site shows the leading contributions being inattentiveness (distracted driving?), drunk driving, and failure to give way. How is lowering the speed limit going to change any of those?

P.S. where did you hear about this announcement?

[Bruce]

Major Vision Zero announcement tomorrow in Seattle. Expecting city-wide speed limit lowerings.

This will be fun to watch. I'm grabbing popcorn and manning the twitter.

Fuck it. We'll start right now.

SDOT's dashboard site shows the leading contributions being inattentiveness (distracted driving?), drunk driving, and failure to give way. How is lowering the speed limit going to change any of those?

P.S. where did you hear about this announcement?

Seattle Neighborhood Greenways posted a few notices on their social media accounts yesterday.

[kkt]

Yes, lowering speed limits will just promote even more texting and cell phone use.

[compdude787]

Here's an article from the Seattle Times about this:

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/city-could-reduce-downtown-residential-speed-limits/

Personally I think it's a terrible idea, and frankly anything slower than 30 is too slow for arterials IMO. Also, I used to live in Seattle and lived on a residential street that almost had enough traffic to qualify as a collector arterial, and I doubt anyone went 25. People are definitely not going to go 20 on residential streets, especially ones further away from downtown with no sidewalks or curbs to allow for two cars to more easily pass each other.

[Bruce]

Here's an article from the Seattle Times about this:

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/city-could-reduce-downtown-residential-speed-limits/

Personally I think it's a terrible idea, and frankly anything slower than 30 is too slow for arterials IMO. Also, I used to live in Seattle and lived on a residential street that almost had enough traffic to qualify as a collector arterial, and I doubt anyone went 25. People are definitely not going to go 20 on residential streets, especially ones further away from downtown with no sidewalks or curbs to allow for two cars to more easily pass each other.

I would hope under the new plan people would go down to 25, especially after getting a huge ticket in the mail. They deserve no pity for speeding recklessly through an urban environment where pedestrians and cyclists deserve priority over cars. Speed all you like on I-5 in Skagit County or somewhere else.

[jakeroot]

They deserve no pity for speeding recklessly through an urban environment

I have a really hard time believing that 30 is "speeding recklessly".

And like I already said upthread, the vast majority of collisions are not related to speed in this city. Impairment, distraction, and failure to give way are the three leading causes. None of those three have any connection to the speed limit. FWIW, my suspicion is that distraction will skyrocket under a lower limit, because drivers will, literally, get bored driving 20 or 25.

The other main issue here that lowering limits does nothing to slow drivers (and historically, it never does). People drive at a speed that they feel is reasonable and prudent, given the conditions of the roadway. If the city wants drivers to go slower, they ought to continue their focus on road diets as they already have been. There are some streets where 30 feels fast. That's how it ought to be.

I would hope under the new plan people would go down to 25, especially after getting a huge ticket in the mail.

Huge ticket? 6-10 over the limit, which will soon be the norm, is $124 (when the limit is below 40). Is that a lot? Maybe for some, but SPD's lax enforcement, which is already strained due to various other budgeting issues, mean that very few drivers will ever be ticketed more than once; the vast majority, more than likely, will never get pulled over, because an officer will never see them speeding.

[Tarkus]

I would hope under the new plan people would go down to 25, especially after getting a huge ticket in the mail.

You inadvertently pointed out the real reason for Vision Zero schemes--more zeroes behind the dollar sign.  They're not about safety, but about revenue and control.  The politicians who support it are either extremely naive, egomaniacs, or are in bed with Xerox, Redflex, and their ilk--or some combination thereof.

Since getting on the Vision Zero bandwagon and reducing a crapton of speed limits (including multiple reductions on some streets in East Portland), in addition to letting Xerox put up fixed speed cameras, Portland went past the fatality mark for all of 2015 only about halfway through 2016.

Yes, lowering speed limits will just promote even more texting and cell phone use.

Indeed--it'll make the motorists bored, and/or give them a false sense of security.

It's also very possible that they could fixate on the speedo so heavily that they aren't paying attention to their surroundings.  Artificially low speed limits can really screw with your head.  Anyone who has driven through a speed trap town before knows that feeling.

[sparker]

........an urban environment where pedestrians and cyclists deserve priority over cars. .

Priority? -- no.  Parity/equal treatment and consideration? Certainly.  Unless time has rapidly passed me by in the last couple of days -- and driverless is the new norm -- the cars of which are spoken here have people driving them who are going about their business and lives the best they can.  Agreed, some of them might be able to avail themselves of whatever transit network is present in their particular areas, but not all have that luxury -- or option.  Transit is one of a number of methodologies to move people & goods around a given urban area -- but, as often is the case with such things, a methodology favored or preferred by some has been conflated into an ideology, which among some adherents devolves into a "if you're not for us then you're against us" diametric.

In this case, a war of attrition against individual automotive transport, carried on by the ostensibly well-meaning (often metro planners with an agenda developed in their academic years), often results in draconian/ridiculous measures -- virtual "speed bumps" if you will -- in the hopes that making driving in urban areas so onerous that the driving public simply surrenders.  That's unlikely to occur -- some route modification may occur, speed limits will be tested incrementally, and -- as is often the case -- facilities that were not congested before will see increased traffic as they become "alternate" corridors.  Planning efforts often occur within a vacuum, with opposition or objections from "outside" being dismissed as disruptive to the preferred agenda; it takes a literal storm of complaints (or even litigation) to get higher-level officials to overrule agency policy.  So -- it seems that in the eyes of anti-automotive activists in and out of official positions -- drivers are the new smokers!   

[kkt]

If it was selected downtown and neighborhood business district arterials they might have a point.  It doesn't need to be everywhere, though.  They should just sign lower speed limits where needed.
 

[compdude787]

If it was selected downtown and neighborhood business district arterials they might have a point.  It doesn't need to be everywhere, though.  They should just sign lower speed limits where needed.

I agree totally! I really wouldn't care if it was just streets in Downtown Seattle. If you want to get through downtown fast, take I-5 or the Alaskan Way Viaduct. (though, there are times of day where this just doesn't work)

I would hope under the new plan people would go down to 25, especially after getting a huge ticket in the mail.

You inadvertently pointed out the real reason for Vision Zero schemes--more zeroes behind the dollar sign.  They're not about safety, but about revenue and control.  The politicians who support it are either extremely naive, egomaniacs, or are in bed with Xerox, Redflex, and their ilk--or some combination thereof.

Since getting on the Vision Zero bandwagon and reducing a crapton of speed limits (including multiple reductions on some streets in East Portland), in addition to letting Xerox put up fixed speed cameras, Portland went past the fatality mark for all of 2015 only about halfway through 2016.

Yes, lowering speed limits will just promote even more texting and cell phone use.

Indeed--it'll make the motorists bored, and/or give them a false sense of security.

It's also very possible that they could fixate on the speedo so heavily that they aren't paying attention to their surroundings.  Artificially low speed limits can really screw with your head.  Anyone who has driven through a speed trap town before knows that feeling.

Totally agree with you. And I've never liked the idea of Vision Zero because it seems like nothing more than pie-in-the-sky idealism. And like many of those sort of ideas, it doesn't work. BTW I've always liked your "Speed 75 Or Bust" avatar.

Speed all you like on I-5 in Skagit County or somewhere else.

Some of us want to get to our destinations in a reasonable amount of time in the city, and it's important to have reasonable speed limits. I really have a hard time going 25 on collector arterials, usually I go 30 on accident.

[Bruce]

New York City lowered their speed limits to the same range in 2014 and it reduced pedestrian and bicyclist deaths by a pretty large margin, according to the 2015 report, but couldn't follow through with safe design (road diets, mostly) and the plan is in jeopardy.

If the full Vision Zero package can be implemented, things would be a lot better for people who walk in the city. As it is, I have a tough time walking outside core neighborhoods, since the few safety features around are pedestrian-unfriendly (narrow sidewalks, beg buttons, etc.).

On a trip less than 30 miles (which the majority of drivers in the metro area are on), you only save 5 minutes going up from 35 to 45 mph. I imagine a smaller margin exists for 30 vs 35. Is 5 minutes really worth killing people over?

[Alps]

New York City lowered their speed limits to the same range in 2014 and it reduced pedestrian and bicyclist deaths by a pretty large margin, according to the 2015 report, but couldn't follow through with safe design (road diets, mostly) and the plan is in jeopardy.

If the full Vision Zero package can be implemented, things would be a lot better for people who walk in the city. As it is, I have a tough time walking outside core neighborhoods, since the few safety features around are pedestrian-unfriendly (narrow sidewalks, beg buttons, etc.).

On a trip less than 30 miles (which the majority of drivers in the metro area are on), you only save 5 minutes going up from 35 to 45 mph. I imagine a smaller margin exists for 30 vs 35. Is 5 minutes really worth killing people over?

You're cute. Who let you in a roads forum? Speed doesn't kill. Inattentiveness kills. Lowering speed limits without an engineering study is illegal in some states and should be everywhere. Road diets should be illegal as well, unless a road has actually experienced a decrease in traffic because it was bypassed.

[compdude787]

Speed doesn't kill. Inattentiveness kills. Lowering speed limits without an engineering study is illegal in some states and should be everywhere. Road diets should be illegal as well, unless a road has actually experienced a decrease in traffic because it was bypassed.

Totally agree with all your points, and especially that road diets should be illegal! I can't stand road diets. If I was running for mayor of Seattle, I would promise to take all roads off of a diet (i.e. restoring them to four lanes) and then establish a bike route network using actual route numbers on side streets and bike trails.

Okay, I was going off on a tangent, but anyway, to get back on topic, I remember someone telling me that back when the NMSL was introduced in the early-70s, Washington lowered their freeway speed limits to 50 mph, but later increased them back up to 55 because drivers were falling asleep. Can someone confirm this?

[Bruce]

Making road diets illegal would be absurd. Some streets are in desperate need of a road diet because they were so poorly designed in the first place, unfit for the urban environment. Rainier was dangerous enough to see several instances of cars veering off and crashing into businesses every year, but since the road diet there hasn't been an instance of it.

A full cycletrack network with better signage would be a great idea. The city seems hesitant to actually build out its Bike Master Plan until after the current round of transit shakeups in downtown (complicated by the bus tunnel going full rail soon), so I doubt that they'll build out anything better than a few fragmented pieces of protected track.

[compdude787]

Rainier was dangerous enough to see several instances of cars veering off and crashing into businesses every year, but since the road diet there hasn't been an instance of it.

Okay, well, Rainier is probably the rare example of a street where a road diet would make sense. But then again, I have not heard of this happening in Lake City, so maybe South Seattle just has really bad drivers or something.

[KEK Inc.]

I found a higher resolution render of the now-under-construction 167/405 HOV connector (see below). The ramp should be complete by 2019.

I wish WSDOT would explain how they plan to tie together the two routes. The 167 does not currently require HOV's to have a toll tag, but the 405 does. They've been talking about making the 405 and 167 freeways one long corridor for over a decade now, so my hope is that the flyover ramp isn't the transition point from one tolling system to the other. If it were up to me, I'd make the entire route similar to the 405's current tolling system (all cars need a tag, or pay $2 extra dollars for snail mail).

Why is it just an HOT ramp?  All of 405's freeway interchanges are nightmares, especially 167 and 520.  They need flyovers for GP lanes as well to replace the cloverleaf loops.

[kkt]

Why is it just an HOT ramp?  All of 405's freeway interchanges are nightmares, especially 167 and 520.  They need flyovers for GP lanes as well to replace the cloverleaf loops.

I don't suppose it would help to point out that the 405-520 interchange used to be much worse than it is now?  No, I thought not.