AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)  (Read 10156 times)

Evan_Th

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 296
  • Location: United States
  • Last Login: Today at 01:30:32 AM
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #25 on: December 08, 2020, 06:53:59 PM »

How about extending 167 over 512, and giving all this new freeway a new number?

In that case, we could extend WA 410 over the new freeway and all the way over to Downtown Tacoma on WA 509.

That's exactly what I was proposing in my post just above: end 167 at 410 or 512, and use 410 for the new route and eliminate 509 west of Alexander Ave in Fife.

Do not get rid of 512. I'm telling you guys that it's way too heavily used to be dumped and then moved a few miles to the north. It would be very confusing.

But what if we just dump it without moving it?
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14697
  • Transportation Design

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Renton, WA / Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:58:28 PM
    • Flickr
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #26 on: December 08, 2020, 07:18:25 PM »

How about extending 167 over 512, and giving all this new freeway a new number?

In that case, we could extend WA 410 over the new freeway and all the way over to Downtown Tacoma on WA 509.

That's exactly what I was proposing in my post just above: end 167 at 410 or 512, and use 410 for the new route and eliminate 509 west of Alexander Ave in Fife.

Do not get rid of 512. I'm telling you guys that it's way too heavily used to be dumped and then moved a few miles to the north. It would be very confusing.

But what if we just dump it without moving it?

I don't really understand what we gain from doing so. If we re-route 167 onto 512, the cardinal directions along a very east-west freeway are now north-south. That's not helpful. We could re-route 410 onto 512, but that doesn't solve the issues around the number for the new freeway.

I still think ending 167 somewhere in Sumner or North Puyallup and extending 410 makes the most sense. It's what was originally planned anyways:

Logged
Check out my Flickr | Add me on Facebook!

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14697
  • Transportation Design

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Renton, WA / Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:58:28 PM
    • Flickr
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #27 on: December 09, 2020, 03:32:24 AM »

The first stage of the 509 project, between I-5 and 24th Ave S, has been awarded to Guy F Atkinson Construction. Design work to be completed within next year; construction starts early 2022. It will take about three years:

https://wsdot.wa.gov/news/2020/12/02/sr-509-completion-project-reaches-major-milestone-264-million-apparent-best-value

Project will include:

Quote from: WSDOT
* The first mile of a new SR 509 Expressway between I-5 and 24th Avenue South in SeaTac
* A new interchange at 24th Avenue South in SeaTac that connects to the new SR 509 Expressway
* A new, wider South 216th Street bridge with improved access over I-5 for people who drive, bike and walk
* New ramps along I-5 that connect to the new SR 509 Expressway
* A new I-5 underpass at Veterans Drive in Kent, which provides a direct connection to the manufacturing and warehousing area in the Kent Valley
* A reconfigured I-5/SR 516 interchange that improves mobility for people who drive, walk, bike, and use transit
« Last Edit: December 09, 2020, 03:38:27 AM by jakeroot »
Logged
Check out my Flickr | Add me on Facebook!

stevashe

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 335
  • Age: 26
  • Location: Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 08:52:47 PM
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #28 on: December 18, 2020, 01:37:51 AM »

How about extending 167 over 512, and giving all this new freeway a new number?

In that case, we could extend WA 410 over the new freeway and all the way over to Downtown Tacoma on WA 509.

That's exactly what I was proposing in my post just above: end 167 at 410 or 512, and use 410 for the new route and eliminate 509 west of Alexander Ave in Fife.

Do not get rid of 512. I'm telling you guys that it's way too heavily used to be dumped and then moved a few miles to the north. It would be very confusing.

This is what I proposed in a previous thread (or maybe the Washington thread), I think it's a good idea.

Also if we need a new route number for either freeway, there are some clear choices that fit in nicely and don't require stealing numbers from other routes: 511, 517, and 521, which are all currently unused. :P
I suspect the state would prefer 517 or 521, since I'm thinking 511 may have been skipped due to being the road information phone number.

At any rate, if I ever get to talk with some WSDOT folks that are involved with this project, I'll be sure to ask them about the numbering.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14697
  • Transportation Design

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Renton, WA / Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:58:28 PM
    • Flickr
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #29 on: December 30, 2020, 04:16:45 AM »

How about extending 167 over 512, and giving all this new freeway a new number?

In that case, we could extend WA 410 over the new freeway and all the way over to Downtown Tacoma on WA 509.

That's exactly what I was proposing in my post just above: end 167 at 410 or 512, and use 410 for the new route and eliminate 509 west of Alexander Ave in Fife.

Do not get rid of 512. I'm telling you guys that it's way too heavily used to be dumped and then moved a few miles to the north. It would be very confusing.

This is what I proposed in a previous thread (or maybe the Washington thread), I think it's a good idea.

Also if we need a new route number for either freeway, there are some clear choices that fit in nicely and don't require stealing numbers from other routes: 511, 517, and 521, which are all currently unused. :P
I suspect the state would prefer 517 or 521, since I'm thinking 511 may have been skipped due to being the road information phone number.

At any rate, if I ever get to talk with some WSDOT folks that are involved with this project, I'll be sure to ask them about the numbering.

If you can actually get to and talk to some WSDOT folks, I would love to hear their reasoning. I expressed concern at a previous meeting and received a non-answer.

I would seriously think a 410 extension would be a good idea. Here's my thinking:

(1) end 167 at 410
(2) extend 410 to 509 in Fife
(3) end 512 at 410 using current trumpet
(4)(!) reconstruct interchange between 410, 512, and 167 so that there is no multiplexing (eg., direct access ramps from 512 to both 410 and 167 to avoid signing multiple routes for one movement).

Obviously part 4 would be 20+ years into the future and after an HOV extension to the south end, where it might tie into future HOV lanes on 512 and the new freeway.
Logged
Check out my Flickr | Add me on Facebook!

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4481
  • Last Login: Today at 10:20:45 AM
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #30 on: December 30, 2020, 06:17:17 PM »

Extending WA 410 on the new route would essentially restore the number along the former US 410 corridor, right?
Logged
Chris Sampang

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14697
  • Transportation Design

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Renton, WA / Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:58:28 PM
    • Flickr
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #31 on: December 30, 2020, 10:44:17 PM »

Extending WA 410 on the new route would essentially restore the number along the former US 410 corridor, right?

Sort of. 410 followed present-day 167 into Puyallup and then along the river to Tacoma, to an interchange with I-5 along a separate corridor. But original renderings for this freeway back in the 60s (posted on last page) envisioned a 410 number for this new freeway, so in a way, yes it would sort of restore the original number.

I think we can all blame planners in the early 70s: 167 took over 410's route in 1973, for no clear reason. The exit from I-5 onto River Road originally read "SR-410 EAST" (note the green-out on the old sign), which is exactly the direction it was, but was then changed to say "SR-167 NORTH", which it was definitely not (as the crow flies). What exactly we gained out of terminating 410 at 167 back in 1973, I do not know, but I do know a north-south number took over an east-west highway which makes zero sense. Now, we get to deal with funky new numbers and wrong-way cardinal directions. Yeeesh.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2020, 10:46:40 PM by jakeroot »
Logged
Check out my Flickr | Add me on Facebook!

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2818
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:02:10 PM
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #32 on: December 30, 2020, 11:31:41 PM »

Ive never been to the NW yet but looking at Google maps 410 should be upgraded to a freeway forming a loop with the 169 connecting to the 18. That would allow and accommodate more growth.
Logged

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4250
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:18:22 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #33 on: December 31, 2020, 02:09:33 AM »

Ive never been to the NW yet but looking at Google maps 410 should be upgraded to a freeway forming a loop with the 169 connecting to the 18. That would allow and accommodate more growth.

Not necessary at all. The Enumclaw Plateau should remain a protected agricultural area, and all residential development in the vicinity of one of the most dangerous volcanoes in the world should be extremely limited. We've got plenty of land to build densely on before we put more people in lahar zones.

The SR 169 corridor is also quite hilly, so building a freeway would be expensive and pointless. Traffic already flies through the rural sections.

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 9925
  • Last Login: Today at 02:10:09 PM
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #34 on: December 31, 2020, 08:28:47 AM »

Pfft.  If the Italians still live in the shadow of Vesuvius, there's little worry about living 50 miles from Rainier.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2020, 08:31:16 AM by Rothman »
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2818
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:02:10 PM
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #35 on: December 31, 2020, 01:33:34 PM »

Ive never been to the NW yet but looking at Google maps 410 should be upgraded to a freeway forming a loop with the 169 connecting to the 18. That would allow and accommodate more growth.

Not necessary at all. The Enumclaw Plateau should remain a protected agricultural area, and all residential development in the vicinity of one of the most dangerous volcanoes in the world should be extremely limited. We've got plenty of land to build densely on before we put more people in lahar zones.

The SR 169 corridor is also quite hilly, so building a freeway would be expensive and pointless. Traffic already flies through the rural sections.
Seems like the issue of a volcano erupting would only be loss of property not life since we have advanced warnings of such an event.

Now you know more than more here when it comes to this area but looking at a Google maps I didnt THAT much agricultural land usage it looked more like rural estate dwellings in acreages.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14697
  • Transportation Design

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Renton, WA / Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:58:28 PM
    • Flickr
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #36 on: December 31, 2020, 01:46:34 PM »

Pfft.  If the Italians still live in the shadow of Vesuvius, there's little worry about living 50 miles from Rainier.

Ehhh, not sure I agree. The primary argument is that both "shadows" should be reserved for agricultural use; land around volcanoes is very fertile.

The Italians have managed to maintain some pretty intense density around Vesuvius to preserve land for agriculture usage. But then Italy is the size of Arizona, so it's not like they were able to pack up and leave Vesuvius' shadow overnight.

Seems like the issue of a volcano erupting would only be loss of property not life since we have advanced warnings of such an event.

It becomes more difficult to move people out of an area the more people that are in that area. Orting residents were fine for years, as there wasn't that many people in the Orting Valley. Now there's hundreds, maybe thousands of new homes and they're all competing for the few roads leaving town. Most residents' best bets are using ATVs or other off-roaders.

But then we shouldn't discount the loss of property either. The average acre of land with no built improvements should be cheaper than land with improvements. If the Enumclaw Plateau could be destroyed, it would be more desirable for the destruction to primarily be barns and farmhouses than entire housing estates.
Logged
Check out my Flickr | Add me on Facebook!

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2818
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:02:10 PM
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #37 on: December 31, 2020, 02:03:50 PM »

Even if not used for development expansion purposes, this could be a rather useful segment of a Eastern Seattle Bypass(that will never be built lol), no?
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14697
  • Transportation Design

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Renton, WA / Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:58:28 PM
    • Flickr
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #38 on: December 31, 2020, 02:29:00 PM »

Even if not used for development expansion purposes, this could be a rather useful segment of a Eastern Seattle Bypass(that will never be built lol), no?

I wouldn't mind seeing some improvements to WA-169. Possibly a divided highway with a one-way couplet in Enumclaw, with a bypass around the north edge of Buckley and the west edge of Black Diamond.

Overall, the 410-169 corridor wouldn't really be any more useful of a bypass than improvements to 18, which I think are more in the books right now anyways.
Logged
Check out my Flickr | Add me on Facebook!

thefraze_1020

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 230
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Burlington, WA
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 07:36:43 PM
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #39 on: December 31, 2020, 08:02:42 PM »

I'm sure we've touched on this before, but I think the portion of SR-509 from Port of Tacoma Road up to SR-99 in Federal Way is pointless. The only good it serves is to lead to the state park. But this doesn't seem to be a necessity anymore (i.e. Saltwater State Park in Des Moines). This whole section is a circuitous route and sporadically signed. I don't think it even is maintained by WSDOT; it looks more like county signage and maintenance. Likewise, the portion of 509 that doglegs up to 1st Ave S at the end of the freeway in Burien and winds down to Des Moines is pointless as well. That could go bye-bye, especially when the freeway is extended to I-5. If that were the case, SR-516 would end all alone. So either leave that, or extend it up Des Moines Memorial Drive to the 509 freeway.
Logged
Alright, this is how it's gonna be!

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2818
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:02:10 PM
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #40 on: May 05, 2021, 03:54:30 PM »

Progress is being made on the SR-167 project:

Quote
The new bridge and nearby roundabout to SR 99 being constructed by Guy F. Atkinson crews are essential steps for the SR 167 Completion Project, which will build 6 mi. of highway and complete the unfinished SR 167 corridor near Tacoma.

The SR 167 Completion Project is part of the estimated $2 billion Puget Sound Gateway Program that includes the SR 509 Completion Project near Seattle. Both projects complete two crucial unfinished links in Washington State's highway and freight network.

Full article which is free and photos here: https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/sr-167-completion-project-gaining-momentum/52058

Logged

ErmineNotyours

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1006
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Renton, Washington
  • Last Login: May 18, 2022, 07:10:46 AM
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #41 on: May 14, 2021, 12:47:00 AM »

When I posted the old SR 509 plans on the Never Built thread, CompDude mentioned that you could see the undeveloped path of the freeway on Google Satellite View.  I noticed that on the overlay of current streets I could see SR 99 was swinging out of the way where 509 is going to cross under it, so that meant they were working on the undercrossing.  They are building Link Light Rail along here too, which is crossing above 99 while the new freeway is crossing  under.  These posts you see here are the only new supports put up around here.  The path a few blocks behind the photo to the end of the line is still unpopulated.  They're also digging a trench along I-5 to the south, but I don't know if that's for this freeway yet or just for the light rail.

Logged

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4250
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:18:22 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #42 on: November 22, 2021, 01:54:00 AM »

A new video of the conceptual design of "SR 509 Spur" between I-5 and the Port of Tacoma:


One of the interchanges looks to be a single-point urban roundabout, which looks fun.


New shared-use path to walk, bike, roll by Washington State Dept of Transportation, on Flickr

duaneu2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 21
  • Location: Bellevue, WA
  • Last Login: May 15, 2022, 02:25:08 PM
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #43 on: December 02, 2021, 08:23:03 PM »

I'm sure we've touched on this before, but I think the portion of SR-509 from Port of Tacoma Road up to SR-99 in Federal Way is pointless. The only good it serves is to lead to the state park. But this doesn't seem to be a necessity anymore (i.e. Saltwater State Park in Des Moines). This whole section is a circuitous route and sporadically signed. I don't think it even is maintained by WSDOT; it looks more like county signage and maintenance. Likewise, the portion of 509 that doglegs up to 1st Ave S at the end of the freeway in Burien and winds down to Des Moines is pointless as well. That could go bye-bye, especially when the freeway is extended to I-5. If that were the case, SR-516 would end all alone. So either leave that, or extend it up Des Moines Memorial Drive to the 509 freeway.

I've thought for a while now that the two sections of SR 509 should be severed and the northern part renumbered as either 511 or 517.
Logged

SkyPesos

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4419
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Cincinnati, OH/Lafayette, IN
  • Last Login: Today at 11:39:01 AM
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #44 on: December 02, 2021, 08:34:27 PM »

One of the interchanges looks to be a single-point urban roundabout, which looks fun.
They're pretty common in the UK. Maybe they'll gradually get more popular here, like traditional roundabouts (excluding dogbone interchanges, since those are a bit different in geometry)?
Logged
My Fictional Highways

Fundamental Theorem of AARoads - Let "y" represent the elevation above sea level in a certain area. If "Δy" between the highest and lowest values of y equals to 0, it's Illinois.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14697
  • Transportation Design

  • Age: 26
  • Location: Renton, WA / Vancouver, BC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:58:28 PM
    • Flickr
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #45 on: December 03, 2021, 12:05:22 PM »

I'm already thinking there's going to be quite a lot of backups approaching that roundabout. The new roundabout at Pacific Hwy and Wapato Way (built as part of the same project) is already not operating optimally, with trucks having to split the lanes well ahead of the roundabout due to the excessive amount of chicanes. It would seem that this roundabout is going to be designed similarly.

Personally, I would have just used a half diamond. It could have been a simple two-phase signal, would have been much friendlier to pedestrians and trucks, and would have taken a lot less land.
Logged
Check out my Flickr | Add me on Facebook!

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7050
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: May 22, 2022, 10:04:33 AM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #46 on: December 09, 2021, 10:55:13 AM »

If there's one thing I hate, it's incomplete freeways that end at a random point, so it's great to hear that WA 167 will be extended to I-5!
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14929
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: May 22, 2022, 10:45:05 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #47 on: December 09, 2021, 11:52:35 PM »

If there's one thing I hate, it's incomplete posts th

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2818
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 12:02:10 PM
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #48 on: April 07, 2022, 01:49:11 PM »

I was wondering how long itd take for an article to come out bitching about these projects lol

https://www.kuow.org/stories/new-highways-headed-to-seattle-area-despite-drive-to-fight-climate-change
Logged

stevashe

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 335
  • Age: 26
  • Location: Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: May 16, 2022, 08:52:47 PM
Re: Puget Sound Gateway Program (WA-167 and WA-509 Extensions)
« Reply #49 on: April 07, 2022, 07:19:57 PM »

I was wondering how long itd take for an article to come out bitching about these projects lol

https://www.kuow.org/stories/new-highways-headed-to-seattle-area-despite-drive-to-fight-climate-change

Hmm... well at first I was going to say that this actually is not the first article to criticize these projects, but it doesn't seem like you read the actual article past the first few paragraphs at most. If you had, you'd see that it's just a collection of interviews from people with different viewpoints, some for the new highways and some against. I'm actually quite impressed that it's fairly balanced. In fact you'd only have needed to read to the second section to get to someone who is very much not "bitching about these projects":

Quote from: John Ryan/KUOW
Kristin Kershaw with Superfresh Growers in Yakima says shes excited about the Puget Sound Gateway.

We export about 2530% of our apple crop and even more of our cherry crop, Kershaw said. So access to ports and air cargo its really important.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.