Washington

[Hurricane Rex]

Have connections from all major areas, then implement the toll. That is the best way to go.

[sparker]

It's likely any congestion "toll" will have to be very narrowly defined -- a small specific area of downtown and only during peak weekday hours.  Anything broader will in all likelihood have the unwanted effect of "scaring away" both tourist traffic and folks from outlying areas -- or even other sections of town, like Ballard or West Seattle -- from coming in to town to dine, shop, or other normative activity.  I know some more vehement activists will posit that these folks can simply leave their cars at transit stops and ride trains, buses, or LRT into town for such things -- but that's not going to happen on a large scale anytime soon; folks coming into town invariably want a simple "point A to point B" travel mode -- which is the raison d'etre of private automotive transport.  Placing arbitrary roadblocks in the process will simply cause a sizeable number of these people to elect not to patronize in-town businesses.  Congestion pricing is feasible -- if implemented to discourage very specific automotive movements in very particular areas at highly specified (and publicized) timeframes (or at least to suck $$ out of those who elect to come in anyway).  Casting a wider net will only result in hardship for businesses relying on a broad geographical base by choking off their customers.   

[jakeroot]

Really?  I thought after the Link is finished, the tunnel will be just for light rail, and all buses would be moved to the streets.  Not true?

The tunnel will become light rail only in 2019 or 2020, because Convention Place station is being demolished for a convention center expansion.

But, importantly, the Link trains are replacing more than a few heavily travelled bus routes, correct? Trains that reduce the load on roads like 3rd, for example. Or some of the bus lanes. Obviously there's still a shit-load of buses coming in and out of Center City, but the Link trains reduce the need for a bunch of 24-hour bus lanes (lanes that will be necessary until more of the Link extensions are built).

[jakeroot]

It's likely any congestion "toll" will have to be very narrowly defined -- a small specific area of downtown and only during peak weekday hours.  Anything broader will in all likelihood have the unwanted effect of "scaring away" both tourist traffic and folks from outlying areas -- or even other sections of town, like Ballard or West Seattle -- from coming in to town to dine, shop, or other normative activity.  I know some more vehement activists will posit that these folks can simply leave their cars at transit stops and ride trains, buses, or LRT into town for such things -- but that's not going to happen on a large scale anytime soon; folks coming into town invariably want a simple "point A to point B" travel mode -- which is the raison d'etre of private automotive transport.  Placing arbitrary roadblocks in the process will simply cause a sizeable number of these people to elect not to patronize in-town businesses.  Congestion pricing is feasible -- if implemented to discourage very specific automotive movements in very particular areas at highly specified (and publicized) timeframes (or at least to suck $$ out of those who elect to come in anyway).  Casting a wider net will only result in hardship for businesses relying on a broad geographical base by choking off their customers.

Ms Durkan's plea for a congestion charge zone seems to be more about pollution than curbing congestion. Seattle actually has a very efficient road network. I drive downtown all the time (much to the chagrin of Bruce, I'm sure), and honestly, minus a few points near freeway ramps, traffic downtown flows very well. The signals are well timed, there's little in the way of protected turns (most intersections just require yielding, reducing the number of phases), cars move very quickly (increasing the capacity of the road), etc.

As far as businesses, there doesn't seem to be much correlation between congestion (and access pricing, either by tolling the road or charging for parking) and whether those businesses are frequented. Suburban malls all across the country are dying left and right because they're boring. What people want are destinations. In the Seattle area, the three biggest (IMO) are Downtown Seattle, Downtown Bellevue, and Westfield Southcenter. If you're going to any of these three for one store, totally on a whim, you're wasting your time. Accessing them is too difficult for most quick jaunts to the store. Their popularity is more due to them having a whole bunch of stuff to see/do. Spending a day at/around any of these three places is easy. That's why the small downtown Seattle business doesn't die. Their income is not from that guy in Woodinville who desperately needs something from that shop (he'd probably order it on Amazon). It's from Joe Schmo wandering around.

FWIW, none of what I just wrote is factual. It's just my interpretation of what I've seen/read.

[Bruce]

Really?  I thought after the Link is finished, the tunnel will be just for light rail, and all buses would be moved to the streets.  Not true?

The tunnel will become light rail only in 2019 or 2020, because Convention Place station is being demolished for a convention center expansion.

But, importantly, the Link trains are replacing more than a few heavily travelled bus routes, correct? Trains that reduce the load on roads like 3rd, for example. Or some of the bus lanes. Obviously there's still a shit-load of buses coming in and out of Center City, but the Link trains reduce the need for a bunch of 24-hour bus lanes (lanes that will be necessary until more of the Link extensions are built).

Yes, but there's a gap in time between the kickout and the opening of Northgate Link (2021; replacing Route 41), East Link (2023; replacing Route 550), and Lynnwood Link (2024; replacing the 400-series, 800-series, and some 500s). The gap will also come during the traffic apocalypse formed by the viaduct/convention center projects, so having some temporary 24-hour bus lanes would be hugely beneficial.

Even after Link is built out, a few tunnel routes will continue running on city streets, mainly those from Renton and the south end. There's no real good plan for those routes, since a forced transfer to Link would be slow and the SODO Busway will be demolished for West Seattle Link beginning in the late 2020s.

[jakeroot]

WSDOT has started construction on the I-5 Mounts Road to Thorne Lane project, which extends the number four lane from Thorne lane in Lakewood (where it currently ends) to Mounts Road in Dupont. Part of this project is the rebuilding of the Thorne Lane, Berkeley St, and Steilacoom-Dupont Road junctions. Several variations were planned for S-D Road (unlike Thorne and Berkeley, which will be dumbell interchanges). The current design WSDOT has settled on is this split diamond design. It's actually pretty clever. The overpasses are two way, which allows traffic leaving the base to enter SB I-5 without interfering with Dupont traffic heading NB on I-5. All of the signals are two phases, and bypass lanes are likely going to be built, which would allow traffic destined for the second overpasses to skip the first signal.

Current junction: https://goo.gl/vAfa3x

My requests to WSDOT at the open house (held last night -- these are two of the posted boards) were...

- for a flashing yellow arrow to be used for the left turn onto Wilmington Drive (the new intersection west of the interchange);
- for the left turns onto the on-ramps to include "LEFT TURN ON RED OKAY AFTER STOP" signs (already legal given LTOR laws);
- and for the SB on-ramp to be a continuous green-T like the NB on-ramp (allowing the on-ramps to be steady movements, except for when pedestrians need to cross)

[Bruce]

That's a pretty elegant solution, but it would be nice for there to be a Clark Road/Barskdale connection for pedestrians and cyclists, to avoid looping around through Exist 119B. There's probably some people staying at those hotels who would want to walk onto JBLM.

[jakeroot]

That's a pretty elegant solution, but it would be nice for there to be a Clark Road/Barskdale connection for pedestrians and cyclists, to avoid looping around through Exist 119B. There's probably some people staying at those hotels who would want to walk onto JBLM.

More than likely cost prohibitive since it would require an additional crossing of the Amtrak railway. I do like the idea though!

[D-Dey65]

Some TV News website in North Carolina found out about this:
https://www.wsoctv.com/news/trending-now/u-suck-appears-on-i5-traffic-sign-in-washington/734221963

[jakeroot]

Some TV News website in North Carolina found out about this:
https://www.wsoctv.com/news/trending-now/u-suck-appears-on-i5-traffic-sign-in-washington/734221963

Did not expect to see this story that far east. Reddit and local news, sure. But not regional news in North Carolina!

[Bruce]

It's just a wire that KIRO sent out. Most TV news stations repost articles from stations under the same ownership, or from the same news umbrellas (national channels and agencies like AP or UPI).

[Bruce]

A BL I-5 sign has gone up in the collector-distributor lanes in Downtown Seattle. (source)

[jakeroot]

A BL I-5 sign has gone up in the collector-distributor lanes in Downtown Seattle. (source)

https://i.imgur.com/DUBvP6Z.jpg

That has to be a mistake. Aren't business loops written in RCWs?

[Bruce]

A BL I-5 sign has gone up in the collector-distributor lanes in Downtown Seattle. (source)

https://i.imgur.com/DUBvP6Z.jpg

That has to be a mistake. Aren't business loops written in RCWs?

Business routes aren't in the RCW, or in most state logs.

[mrsman]

Any idea why the order of streets was switced from Dearborn, James, Madison?

[jakeroot]

A BL I-5 sign has gone up in the collector-distributor lanes in Downtown Seattle. (source)

https://i.imgur.com/DUBvP6Z.jpg

That has to be a mistake. Aren't business loops written in RCWs?

Business routes aren't in the RCW, or in most state logs.

Hmmm. So, basically, WSDOT is free to post them whenever?

Any idea why the order of streets was switced from Dearborn, James, Madison?

Well, judging by the quality of the sign to begin with (never mind the business loop situation), it's an obvious error. I'm fairly certain streets are to be listed in the order they occur.

[jakeroot]

I was reading RCW 46.61.425, "Minimum speed regulation–Passing slow moving vehicle."

Section 1 includes this bit:

No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law: PROVIDED, That a person following a vehicle driving at less than the legal maximum speed and desiring to pass such vehicle may exceed the speed limit, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.120 on highways having only one lane of traffic in each direction, at only such a speed and for only such a distance as is necessary to complete the pass with a reasonable margin of safety.

RCW 46.61.120 just says that overtaking on the left must be done safely and without interfering with oncoming traffic.

My understanding was that, contrary to common practice, it technically wasn't legal to overtake at a speed above the limit.

[Bickendan]

I was reading RCW 46.61.425, "Minimum speed regulation–Passing slow moving vehicle."

Section 1 includes this bit:

No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law: PROVIDED, That a person following a vehicle driving at less than the legal maximum speed and desiring to pass such vehicle may exceed the speed limit, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.120 on highways having only one lane of traffic in each direction, at only such a speed and for only such a distance as is necessary to complete the pass with a reasonable margin of safety.

RCW 46.61.120 just says that overtaking on the left must be done safely and without interfering with oncoming traffic.

My understanding was that, contrary to common practice, it technically wasn't legal to overtake at a speed above the limit.

Good to know that for Washington. My understanding of Oregon law is it's not legal to overtake above the limit.

[sp_redelectric]

No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law: PROVIDED, That a person following a vehicle driving at less than the legal maximum speed and desiring to pass such vehicle may exceed the speed limit, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.120 on highways having only one lane of traffic in each direction, at only such a speed and for only such a distance as is necessary to complete the pass with a reasonable margin of safety.

In Montana you can exceed the speed limit by 10 MPH to overtake a vehicle.  Nice to know in Washington you can also push the speed limit in order to pass.

Oregon, of course, is in the boondocks...

[mrsman]

No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law: PROVIDED, That a person following a vehicle driving at less than the legal maximum speed and desiring to pass such vehicle may exceed the speed limit, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.120 on highways having only one lane of traffic in each direction, at only such a speed and for only such a distance as is necessary to complete the pass with a reasonable margin of safety.

In Montana you can exceed the speed limit by 10 MPH to overtake a vehicle.  Nice to know in Washington you can also push the speed limit in order to pass.

Oregon, of course, is in the boondocks...

The northwest (WA, OR, ID, MT, WY) tend to have much more flexible laws about driving then the rest of the country.  I wish other states would take note.

In my mind, this includes the Idaho stop for bicycles, left turn on red from a 2-way to a 1-way, wide open speed limits on rural interstates, and this rule discussed above.

[kkt]

No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law: PROVIDED, That a person following a vehicle driving at less than the legal maximum speed and desiring to pass such vehicle may exceed the speed limit, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.120 on highways having only one lane of traffic in each direction, at only such a speed and for only such a distance as is necessary to complete the pass with a reasonable margin of safety.

In Montana you can exceed the speed limit by 10 MPH to overtake a vehicle.  Nice to know in Washington you can also push the speed limit in order to pass.

Oregon, of course, is in the boondocks...

The northwest (WA, OR, ID, MT, WY) tend to have much more flexible laws about driving then the rest of the country.  I wish other states would take note.

In my mind, this includes the Idaho stop for bicycles, left turn on red from a 2-way to a 1-way, wide open speed limits on rural interstates, and this rule discussed above.

I don't know what the Idaho stop is, so I'm thinking it's not in Washington or Oregon. 

The higher speed limits are an intermountain west thing.  Oregon freeway speeds top out at 65 mph, and Washington at 70 mph.  However, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Texas certainly have higher limits, along with the northwest states you list.  (I'm not sure about New Mexico.)  It's more to do with long stretches of freeway in rural areas where traffic is freeflowing.  I can't think of stretches of interstate longer than 5-10 miles in the west coast states where it might be reasonable to post limits over 70.

[Hurricane Rex]

No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law: PROVIDED, That a person following a vehicle driving at less than the legal maximum speed and desiring to pass such vehicle may exceed the speed limit, subject to the provisions of RCW 46.61.120 on highways having only one lane of traffic in each direction, at only such a speed and for only such a distance as is necessary to complete the pass with a reasonable margin of safety.

In Montana you can exceed the speed limit by 10 MPH to overtake a vehicle.  Nice to know in Washington you can also push the speed limit in order to pass.

Oregon, of course, is in the boondocks...

The northwest (WA, OR, ID, MT, WY) tend to have much more flexible laws about driving then the rest of the country.  I wish other states would take note.

In my mind, this includes the Idaho stop for bicycles, left turn on red from a 2-way to a 1-way, wide open speed limits on rural interstates, and this rule discussed above.

I don't know what the Idaho stop is, so I'm thinking it's not in Washington or Oregon. 

The higher speed limits are an intermountain west thing.  Oregon freeway speeds top out at 65 mph, and Washington at 70 mph.  However, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Texas certainly have higher limits, along with the northwest states you list.  (I'm not sure about New Mexico.)  It's more to do with long stretches of freeway in rural areas where traffic is freeflowing.  I can't think of stretches of interstate longer than 5-10 miles in the west coast states where it might be reasonable to post limits over 70.

Oregon's top speed is 70T65 on I-84 east of The Dalles, I-82 and US 95. At a minimum, I-90 between George and the Spokane County line would like to disagree with you on a stretch where it shouldn't be 70 (average 73, 85% not disclosed, guessing 79 mph). 80 is fine east of the Cascades defiantly on sections of interstate (data for Washington/IMO for Oregon) I could be wrong, but I have not found anything for Oregon but then again, I was wrong about Washington so please prove me wrong if anything is found.

LG-TP260

[jakeroot]

Speed limits along the west coast may not be the highest in the country, but they're still not painfully low (except in Oregon).

The PNW still has some very liberal laws otherwise. Left turns on red everywhere except two way-to-two way. U-turns being legal in most areas (might not be the law in Oregon though), red arrows allowing turns on red. The list goes on.

[thefraze_1020]

A BL I-5 sign has gone up in the collector-distributor lanes in Downtown Seattle. (source)

Another one has gone up before the exit. A sign with both I-90 and BL-5 on it. I have no idea if this a legit business loop or not (I doubt it), but if it is, this is the first business loop in Washington for years. The only other extant BL is BL I-5 in Castle Rock (to my knowledge).
This situation in downtown Seattle is unusual, because by default, BL's in Washington are not maintained by the state. However, since this one is the northbound C/D lanes, it is state maintained.
I have no idea why suddenly WSDOT put this up. The only thought I have is maybe they want to encourage traffic to use the C/D lanes, to take pressure off the NB mainline? Maybe drivers from out of town aren't aware that the exit to Dearborn/ James/ Madison does in fact return to I-5.

[sparker]

A BL I-5 sign has gone up in the collector-distributor lanes in Downtown Seattle. (source)

Another one has gone up before the exit. A sign with both I-90 and BL-5 on it. I have no idea if this a legit business loop or not (I doubt it), but if it is, this is the first business loop in Washington for years. The only other extant BL is BL I-5 in Castle Rock (to my knowledge).
This situation in downtown Seattle is unusual, because by default, BL's in Washington are not maintained by the state. However, since this one is the northbound C/D lanes, it is state maintained.
I have no idea why suddenly WSDOT put this up. The only thought I have is maybe they want to encourage traffic to use the C/D lanes, to take pressure off the NB mainline? Maybe drivers from out of town aren't aware that the exit to Dearborn/ James/ Madison does in fact return to I-5.

If the C/D lanes are in fact signed as a unique Business 5 loop, then that would be the first instance of such signage (or formal designation, which I doubt) on that particular freeway configuration -- and the first time such methodology has been applied.  I take it from what the posts have indicated that the business loop does not leave the freeway lanes and proceed onto city streets.  And I'm guessing that the signage from WB I-90 to NB I-5, which empties out onto that C/D lane, makes no mention of the business loop (now that would be quite confusing -- to have both I-5 and Biz 5 signed as the destination routes!).  It seems that what WDOT is attempting to accomplish with this signage is simply indicating that the C/D lane is the only way to access the series of downtown exits; I suppose we'll know soon enough if it's effective.