Washington

[Bruce]

WA Democrats unveiled their $16.8 billion, 16-year transportation package. Some highlights (sourced from The Seattle Times and the LEAP summaries):

Funded by a 6-cent tax on exported fuel and additional fees on vehicle registrations/tabs, as well as the existing Climate Commitment Act of 2021.

$3 billion for transit, mainly for local grants with some active capital projects, such as safety improvements for corridors like Aurora Avenue in Seattle. Free fares for people under 18, which could also apply to ferries and Amtrak. $150 million to kickstart a high-speed rail line too.

Plenty of suburban and rural multi-use trails, particularly in Bellevue, Whatcom County, Spokane, and Tacoma.

$1 billion towards the I-5 Columbia River Bridge Replacement
$1.4 billion to fill funding gaps for existing projects, including the I-405/SR 167 Corridor, I-90 expansion over Snoqualmie Pass, the Puget Sound Gateway, the SR 520 Rest of West program, and I-5 HOV lanes extended to Marysville.
$640 million for widening SR 18 from Issaquah-Hobart Road to Raging River Road
$210 million for the US 2 Westbound Trestle replacement in Everett
$244 million for the I-5 JBLM HOV expansion

[Bruce]

Also included in the package is a bit of the funding needed to eliminate some intersections on US 101 east of Sequim: https://engage.wsdot.wa.gov/us-101-east-sequim/

[Bruce]

Also, this package's main funding source will heavily affect Oregon, which sources 90 percent of its consumer gasoline and diesel from Washington refineries. https://www.opb.org/article/2022/02/09/washington-state-legislators-propose-tax-on-oregon-drivers-fuel/

[TEG24601]

WA Democrats unveiled their $16.8 billion, 16-year transportation package. Some highlights (sourced from The Seattle Times and the LEAP summaries):

Funded by a 6-cent tax on exported fuel and additional fees on vehicle registrations/tabs, as well as the existing Climate Commitment Act of 2021.

$3 billion for transit, mainly for local grants with some active capital projects, such as safety improvements for corridors like Aurora Avenue in Seattle. Free fares for people under 18, which could also apply to ferries and Amtrak. $150 million to kickstart a high-speed rail line too.

Plenty of suburban and rural multi-use trails, particularly in Bellevue, Whatcom County, Spokane, and Tacoma.

$1 billion towards the I-5 Columbia River Bridge Replacement
$1.4 billion to fill funding gaps for existing projects, including the I-405/SR 167 Corridor, I-90 expansion over Snoqualmie Pass, the Puget Sound Gateway, the SR 520 Rest of West program, and I-5 HOV lanes extended to Marysville.
$640 million for widening SR 18 from Issaquah-Hobart Road to Raging River Road
$210 million for the US 2 Westbound Trestle replacement in Everett
$244 million for the I-5 JBLM HOV expansion

Is WB 2 really in that need of replacement?  I just drove it recently, and it seemed to be in good shape, I just know there is too much traffic, but they won't fix that by adding more lanes adding a BRT, or light rail out to Lake Stevens.

[Bruce]

Is WB 2 really in that need of replacement?  I just drove it recently, and it seemed to be in good shape, I just know there is too much traffic, but they won't fix that by adding more lanes adding a BRT, or light rail out to Lake Stevens.

A decade ago, WSDOT had to make emergency repairs to deteriorating parts (described as "concrete falling off in chunks and rusting rebar"). It's nearing the end of its lifespan and was also poorly designed from the start: the merging of the 20th Street and SR 204 onramps don't provide enough space, the awkward way to reach Hewitt from WB US 2 (requiring two turns), and the lack of a shoulder. It also isn't seismically stable and since it goes over a delta that is primed for liquefaction, I can't think of another place in the county that I would feel less safe when the Big One hits.

I think a replacement keeping two GP lanes with better ramp geometry and a shoulder that can be used all-day by buses would be the best solution here. Toll it during peak periods and keep it free off-peak, and we've probably got enough funding to make it happen. Lake Stevens can't really support BRT yet, but better frequency on Route 280 is long overdue.

[duaneu2]

Can anyone explain why the ramps are all bulbous? That seems like it would be really awkward to navigate.

Overall, it seems so over the top and unnecessary.

They're roundabouts.

[jakeroot]

Can anyone explain why the ramps are all bulbous? That seems like it would be really awkward to navigate.

Overall, it seems so over the top and unnecessary.

They're roundabouts.

Yes....I can see that. Doesn't explain the large curves approaching and leaving them. Both directions of NE 85th approach the roundabout at nearly a right angle, yet the freeway ramps have massive curves, especially to the north. My running guess right now is due to the ramps needing extra length to reach the 405 mainline, but then why not have the ramp splits occur a little further north? There's quite a while until NE 124th. I can understand the issue with NE 70th, though.

[jakeroot]

I think a replacement keeping two GP lanes with better ramp geometry and a shoulder that can be used all-day by buses would be the best solution here. Toll it during peak periods and keep it free off-peak, and we've probably got enough funding to make it happen. Lake Stevens can't really support BRT yet, but better frequency on Route 280 is long overdue.

My only concern with a bus shoulder lane would be conflicts with traffic accessing I-5 northbound.

How about an HOV lane on the left? You could design a direct-access ramp to the left lane of the westbound trestle from southbound SR-204, and then have all movements to I-5 occur on the right. The left HOV lane and another lane could be designed to directly access Hewitt Ave. You could even go mad, and install a direct access HOV ramp to southbound I-5!

[Bruce]

I think a replacement keeping two GP lanes with better ramp geometry and a shoulder that can be used all-day by buses would be the best solution here. Toll it during peak periods and keep it free off-peak, and we've probably got enough funding to make it happen. Lake Stevens can't really support BRT yet, but better frequency on Route 280 is long overdue.

My only concern with a bus shoulder lane would be conflicts with traffic accessing I-5 northbound.

How about an HOV lane on the left? You could design a direct-access ramp to the left lane of the westbound trestle from southbound SR-204, and then have all movements to I-5 occur on the right. The left HOV lane and another lane could be designed to directly access Hewitt Ave. You could even go mad, and install a direct access HOV ramp to southbound I-5!

A left ramp would conflict with the Ebey Island ramps, though they could be moved to the side if we're going for a full rebuild. Either way, I'd rather keep a similar setup to the eastbound trestle.

[jakeroot]

Could anyone here help me?

In parts of Everett, there are these very elaborate signal mast arm assemblies. They are the giant green ones along Evergreen Way and Everett Mall Way. There may be more as well.

The mast arm assemblies are certainly unique, they seem to have been constructed in the 1980s when many of the area roads were rebuilt. I would love to know more about what inspired these contraptions, if anyone knows.

One other things that really piques my curiosity are the 5-section signals on the far left corner of many of the intersections (particularly 4th Ave W and Everett Mall Way). Normally, 5-section signals are reserved for protective-permissive left turn displays, where the top three are red-amber-green orbs, and the bottom two are amber and green arrows. But these are all fully protected, with two unused signal faces (the third and second to the top). Does anyone know if these left turns were previously protected-permissive? Apart from dedicated left turn signals (protected-only or flashing yellow arrow signals), which are quite common on the far left corner of intersections, signals that display green orbs on the far left corner of intersections are quite unusual in Washington (apart from Spokane), reserved only for those situations where visibility is an issue; it would seem that Everett went and installed a bunch of them without worrying too much. UNLESS they were always protected left turns?


Unusual Left Turn Signal by Jacob Root, on Flickr

The unusual mast arm, also in question:


Unique Mast Arm Assembly by Jacob Root, on Flickr

[Alps]

Could anyone here help me?

The two yellow lenses look like what you would do for a Flashing Yellow setup. I wonder if the protected arrows fire GYR during normal operation, but then when you have a pedestrian call on the crosswalk it goes Flashing Yellow, Yellow, Red. I would expect an arrow instead of a ball in head 3 if that was the case though.

[Algorithm]

Yes....I can see that. Doesn't explain the large curves approaching and leaving them. Both directions of NE 85th approach the roundabout at nearly a right angle, yet the freeway ramps have massive curves, especially to the north. My running guess right now is due to the ramps needing extra length to reach the 405 mainline, but then why not have the ramp splits occur a little further north? There's quite a while until NE 124th. I can understand the issue with NE 70th, though.

Moving the splits further from the interchange would require property acquisition; the current design is entirely within the existing interchange's footprint.  As for why the ramps bow inwards, that's because they're being routed under the bridges from 85th to the HOV ramps.

[stevashe]

Yes....I can see that. Doesn't explain the large curves approaching and leaving them. Both directions of NE 85th approach the roundabout at nearly a right angle, yet the freeway ramps have massive curves, especially to the north. My running guess right now is due to the ramps needing extra length to reach the 405 mainline, but then why not have the ramp splits occur a little further north? There's quite a while until NE 124th. I can understand the issue with NE 70th, though.

Moving the splits further from the interchange would require property acquisition; the current design is entirely within the existing interchange's footprint.  As for why the ramps bow inwards, that's because they're being routed under the bridges from 85th to the HOV ramps.

I think it's important to realize that this is just a graphic that the newspaper did up themselves, so it's likely not completely accurate on these kinds of details. I looks to me like the ramps, especially on the north side, are bowing out to the location of the existing ramps, which are way out there because of the cloverleaf that is present now, so it's possible that this graphic was created by taking the existing cloverleaf, erasing most of the interchange, and then just drawing lines to connect to the north and south, creating the strange looking bulb-out ramps.

[jakeroot]

Yes....I can see that. Doesn't explain the large curves approaching and leaving them. Both directions of NE 85th approach the roundabout at nearly a right angle, yet the freeway ramps have massive curves, especially to the north. My running guess right now is due to the ramps needing extra length to reach the 405 mainline, but then why not have the ramp splits occur a little further north? There's quite a while until NE 124th. I can understand the issue with NE 70th, though.

Moving the splits further from the interchange would require property acquisition; the current design is entirely within the existing interchange's footprint.  As for why the ramps bow inwards, that's because they're being routed under the bridges from 85th to the HOV ramps.

I think it's important to realize that this is just a graphic that the newspaper did up themselves, so it's likely not completely accurate on these kinds of details. I looks to me like the ramps, especially on the north side, are bowing out to the location of the existing ramps, which are way out there because of the cloverleaf that is present now, so it's possible that this graphic was created by taking the existing cloverleaf, erasing most of the interchange, and then just drawing lines to connect to the north and south, creating the strange looking bulb-out ramps.

More or less, this is actually the right answer. Other visuals from more "official" sources show far less curvy ramps:


NE 85th Interchange Concept by Jacob Root, on Flickr

From: https://www.kirklandwa.gov/files/sharedassets/public/boards-and-commissions/i-405-ne-85th-st-interchange-inline-brt-station-and-interchange.pdf

[jakeroot]

Could anyone here help me?

The two yellow lenses look like what you would do for a Flashing Yellow setup. I wonder if the protected arrows fire GYR during normal operation, but then when you have a pedestrian call on the crosswalk it goes Flashing Yellow, Yellow, Red. I would expect an arrow instead of a ball in head 3 if that was the case though.

I can see that, although the left turn is already fully-protected.

I think my best bet is to reach out to the City of Everett and see if I can get in touch with whoever had a hand in the original project.

[jay8g]

The red-yellow-yellow-yellow-green configuration of the side-mounted signals is certainly rather strange. My best guess is that they were protected-permissive signals using a version of the old Seattle configuration without a bimodal yellow/green arrow. Of course, if that was the case, that means the overhead left turn signals would have been replaced at some point, and those 3Ms look very old themselves, so who knows...

[jakeroot]

The red-yellow-yellow-yellow-green configuration of the side-mounted signals is certainly rather strange. My best guess is that they were protected-permissive signals using a version of the old Seattle configuration without a bimodal yellow/green arrow. Of course, if that was the case, that means the overhead left turn signals would have been replaced at some point, and those 3Ms look very old themselves, so who knows...

That's actually quite a good theory, and would explain why the signals appear old enough to have not been retrofitted (thus as they were originally installed, apart from the red arrow). Still, yeah, doesn't quite explain the also-old three-section signals overhead, and also the three-section signals post mounted at some of the intersection (Evergreen @ 4th Ave W has a 5-section signal for the westbound left turn, but a three section signal for the eastbound left turn...could be that only one of the directions was permissive...)

As a side note, as long as we're talking about Snohomish County, does anyone know why so many signals up there have orange beacons on the signal masts? Example here (small orange light below the street blade).

[jay8g]

As a side note, as long as we're talking about Snohomish County, does anyone know why so many signals up there have orange beacons on the signal masts? Example here (small orange light below the street blade).

I've always assumed those are for emergency vehicle preemption, similar to the more common little white lights, but I can't be sure. (I see that intersection does have Opticom detectors, so that would be a reasonable guess.)

[jakeroot]

As a side note, as long as we're talking about Snohomish County, does anyone know why so many signals up there have orange beacons on the signal masts? Example here (small orange light below the street blade).

I've always assumed those are for emergency vehicle preemption, similar to the more common little white lights, but I can't be sure. (I see that intersection does have Opticom detectors, so that would be a reasonable guess.)

Any idea how they would work? Would they work in tandem with the Opticom system?

[jay8g]

The white lights I'm used to just light up/flash (depending on the signal) when an emergency vehicle is detected. Not sure about the orange beacons.

[jakeroot]

I spotted this relatively-ancient I-405 shield in SeaTac today. Dates to 1983. It's in the middle of a suburban neighborhood at S 170 St eastbound right before 51 Ave S.

https://goo.gl/maps/cKKqy51HwiweXSrX7

I followed 51 Ave S, didn't see any additional route guidance signs to the 405. If there were any, they're long gone.

Pictures are huge, click the links below for full-res.


"To I-405" shield, 1983-spec. SeaTac, WA. by Jacob Root, on Flickr


"To I-405" shield, 1983-spec. SeaTac, WA. by Jacob Root, on Flickr

[jakeroot]

Speaking of ancient shields, does anyone know what happened to the old state-named I-5 shield that was along Cedardale Road in Mount Vernon? It appears to have been 1957-spec.

https://goo.gl/maps/dWdCrTDiEmNuN6iy7

As far as I know, it was the last-remaining cut-out state-named shield in the state, and possibly the oldest route shield posted anywhere in Washington. Seems to have been removed in 2021.

Bit curious if anyone actually grabbed a picture of it. I only went past it about a thousand times and never grabbed a picture .

[kkt]

I spotted this relatively-ancient I-405 shield in SeaTac today. Dates to 1983. It's in the middle of a suburban neighborhood at S 170 St eastbound right before 51 Ave S.

https://goo.gl/maps/cKKqy51HwiweXSrX7

I followed 51 Ave S, didn't see any additional route guidance signs to the 405. If there were any, they're long gone.

Pictures are huge, click the links below for full-res.

Interesting!  Both I-405 and I-5 were completed well before 1983, yet now 51st Ave. S doesn't go very far and isn't a particularly good route to I-405.  I wonder if 51st Ave. S used to connect through what is now Crystal Springs Park to connect with the 51st Ave. S overpass over WA 518 for no longer existing access to I-405.

[kkt]

Speaking of ancient shields, does anyone know what happened to the old state-named I-5 shield that was along Cedardale Road in Mount Vernon? It appears to have been 1957-spec.

https://goo.gl/maps/dWdCrTDiEmNuN6iy7

As far as I know, it was the last-remaining cut-out state-named shield in the state, and possibly the oldest route shield posted anywhere in Washington. Seems to have been removed in 2021.

Bit curious if anyone actually grabbed a picture of it. I only went past it about a thousand times and never grabbed a picture .

When did they build the roundabout at Anderson Rd.?  Maybe they thought it would confuse people into turning left into the roundabout.

[jakeroot]

I spotted this relatively-ancient I-405 shield in SeaTac today. Dates to 1983. It's in the middle of a suburban neighborhood at S 170 St eastbound right before 51 Ave S.

https://goo.gl/maps/cKKqy51HwiweXSrX7

I followed 51 Ave S, didn't see any additional route guidance signs to the 405. If there were any, they're long gone.

Pictures are huge, click the links below for full-res.

Interesting!  Both I-405 and I-5 were completed well before 1983, yet now 51st Ave. S doesn't go very far and isn't a particularly good route to I-405.  I wonder if 51st Ave. S used to connect through what is now Crystal Springs Park to connect with the 51st Ave. S overpass over WA 518 for no longer existing access to I-405.

From what I can tell from historic aerial photography, 51st has always ended where it does today, at S 160 St.

Particularly bizarre is the route that one would actually have to take to reach the 405: north on 51st Ave S, right on S 160 St, left on 53 Ave S, right on Klickitat Drive, left on Southcenter Parkway, and then all the way around the curve going east, past the 61 Ave S overpass, and then a left onto the 405. 518 is certainly much easier to reach....but then there is no sign for that, that I knew/know of.