AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: Kitsap and Surrounding Area  (Read 1011 times)

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7571
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 03:05:37 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Kitsap and Surrounding Area
« on: May 24, 2017, 08:46:49 PM »

I did a trip to the Kitsap Peninsula this week and got a decent chunk of road photos from the area.

-  Shield Pics

https://flic.kr/s/aHskW3Ea6w

So I'm gathering there is some sort of numbering convention with how Washington does state highways?  It seemed like everything in and around Kitsap was more or less in the 300 range with some exceptions like 3 and 104.  I also noticed that near the Tacoma Narrows bridge on WA 16 there was three digit state highways starting in 16X and with I-5 there was 5XX.  I guess that I just never noticed that was actually a thing on prior trips.

-  Hood Canal Bridge

https://flic.kr/s/aHskVKucfV

There really wasn't a good place for an overlook picture of the Hood Canal Bridge that I could find and I was running out of daylight by the time I got there.  I always thought it was a neat bridge although I've never seen any of the spans actually open.  I kind of find it odd there was never a true embedded structure to ever replace the float span.

-  Port Washington Narrows

https://flic.kr/s/aHskVKsGtD

Specifically I checked out the new Manette Bridge and the Warren Avenue Bridge on WA 303.  I didn't really like the design of the new Manette Bridge considering that the old span was a steel truss.  The Warren Avenue Bridge offered some decent old signage and better views of both Rainier and the Olympic Range.   I was supposed to take the ferry on WA 304 back towards Seatac but I ran out of time as what I was doing today took longer than I thought.

-  Tacoma Narrows Bridge

https://flic.kr/s/aHsm193dMN

The 1950 bridge is neat to look at and more interesting than the 2007 IMO.  I never picked up on it before about not being able to change lanes on the 1950 bridge on prior trips to the area.  I thought the bridge overlook view was really nice and I was something that I was really disappointed that my plane being late in 2015 prevented me from doing.

The weather was great and pretty much cloudless which was extremely odd for this time of year.  That being the case on a non-road side of the coin I did get some decent aerial photos of the Cascades and stopped in Port Gamble:

https://flic.kr/s/aHskVx5qwW

https://flic.kr/s/aHsm1mKczx


Some other road observations I made while in the area are as follows:

-  It is still a pain in the ass to get your rental car back to Seatac.  I didn't have much issue getting back I-5 coming from or returning to the airport which was nice for a change.  That whole 60 MPH on I-5 is kind of slow around Tacoma IMO.  The only bog down point was heading back to Seatac where the ramp between I-5 and I-705 where it was being reconstructed.

-  The toll for the 2007 Tacoma Narrows Bridge was still $6 dollars, I honestly expected it to increase.

-  The junction between 3 and 16 still isn't all that smooth near Port Orchard but at least it doesn't include any traffic lights.

-  3 is a pretty nice freeway but I"m not getting the drop to 50 MPH at 310.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2017, 11:44:00 PM by Bickendan »
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12033
  • Views expressed are my own, not my employer's.

  • Age: 35
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 12:30:14 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Kitsap and Surrounding Area
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2017, 10:52:57 PM »

Washington's 3-digit routes are spurs from the primary route given by the first 1 to 2 numbers. 5xx around Seattle are spurs of I-5. 3xx are spurs of WA 3 as you noted, and 16x are spurs of 16.

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2365
  • Last Login: Today at 06:23:37 AM
Re: Kitsap and Surrounding Area
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2017, 11:43:50 PM »

^5xx across the state are spurs of I-5, beginning with 500, 501, 502, and 504 in Clark County.

It's a pretty cool system overall.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7571
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 03:05:37 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Kitsap and Surrounding Area
« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2017, 02:39:00 AM »

So if I'm looking at the map the theme continues across the state.  I noticed the Rainier has a 706 connecting to 7 and a 123 connecting to US 12.  I'm assuming that the "1" in 101 is being treated as the first digit with all the 1xx routes in the western part of the state?  Interesting system to be sure, I'm surprised that I didn't catch onto it until this trip.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8820
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Seattle & Tacoma, Wash. Vancouver (BC) | Arlington (VA)
  • Last Login: December 09, 2018, 05:11:47 PM
Re: Kitsap and Surrounding Area
« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2017, 03:13:56 AM »

The "spur" route numbering scheme doesn't seem to be followed steadfastly. I can't verify each of the 500-series routes at the moment, but only three (of the ten) 16x route numbers actually connect with SR-16.
Logged

compdude787

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 415
  • Age: 23
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:23:59 PM
Re: Kitsap and Surrounding Area
« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2017, 12:34:15 PM »

The "spur" route numbering scheme doesn't seem to be followed steadfastly. I can't verify each of the 500-series routes at the moment, but only three (of the ten) 16x route numbers actually connect with SR-16.

I think 410 was considered as an extension of 16 when the routes were being numbered in 1964.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8820
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Seattle & Tacoma, Wash. Vancouver (BC) | Arlington (VA)
  • Last Login: December 09, 2018, 05:11:47 PM
Re: Kitsap and Surrounding Area
« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2017, 02:57:40 PM »

The "spur" route numbering scheme doesn't seem to be followed steadfastly. I can't verify each of the 500-series routes at the moment, but only three (of the ten) 16x route numbers actually connect with SR-16.

I think 410 was considered as an extension of 16 when the routes were being numbered in 1964.

That would explain the other seven, as they all interact with 410.

But, I'm curious if that "extension" was ever in writing. I've never seen any evidence of it, but I've also never much looked into it in-depth.
Logged

Kacie Jane

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1653
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Kent, WA
  • Last Login: December 09, 2018, 10:56:10 AM
Re: Kitsap and Surrounding Area
« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2017, 09:30:31 PM »

In writing, probably not. But the same idea is followed elsewhere.  The 4xx routes got their numbers before SR 4 was a thing; it was still US 830 back then, but the spurs were numbered in the 400s because it was 4's place in the grid geographically. (Which of course seemed prescient when 830 was decommissioned and 4 took its place.)  Similarly, while US 97 has a couple of 97x routes, it also has some 15x routes, because while SR 15 doesn't exist, US 97 is where it would be in the grid.  So yeah, most of the 16x routes don't actually connect to SR 16, but they're where they should be.

(US 830 also had some 83x routes, similar to how 97 had two different prefixes. That's why Longview has 432 and 433, because they only changed the first digit when they renumbered them.)

So I'd say the system is followed pretty steadfastly, but it's also a step or two more convoluted than it has to be. 
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8820
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Seattle & Tacoma, Wash. Vancouver (BC) | Arlington (VA)
  • Last Login: December 09, 2018, 05:11:47 PM
Re: Kitsap and Surrounding Area
« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2017, 09:51:33 PM »

Wow! That's...ridiculous (the state of things, not your explanation).

It actually makes pretty good sense. In the event that a US route or interstate ever becomes a state route, they don't need to modify all the route numbers. I'm not sure if that's the point or not, but it seems like a pretty good safeguard.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7571
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 03:05:37 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)
Re: Kitsap and Surrounding Area
« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2017, 10:06:18 PM »

Wow! That's...ridiculous (the state of things, not your explanation).

It actually makes pretty good sense. In the event that a US route or interstate ever becomes a state route, they don't need to modify all the route numbers. I'm not sure if that's the point or not, but it seems like a pretty good safeguard.

Florida does something like that with assigning State Road numbers to US and Interstate Routes so they fit into the grid.  Granted there aren't route families like Washington has.   That would certainly explain what I was getting at earlier with US 101 and the 1XX series of state highways.

 


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.