Washington

[Bruce]

If you need a history of the Sunset Highway with citations, I wrote up quite a bit for the I-90 entry on Wikipedia. I'll have to look deeper for the first use, which was likely before the 1912 meeting of the good roads association.

[ErmineNotyours]

All Over The Map: Cruising with the ghosts of Sunset Highway

[Bruce]

WSDOT has selected a DDI for the I-90 / SR 18 interchange in Snoqualmie. Quite the downgrade from a full grade-separated interchange, but the traffic volumes really didn't justify such a thing.

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/news/2019/09/19/milestone-decisions-i-90-sr-18-interchange-improvement-project-near-snoqualmie

[jakeroot]

WSDOT has selected a DDI for the I-90 / SR 18 interchange in Snoqualmie. Quite the downgrade from a full grade-separated interchange, but the traffic volumes really didn't justify such a thing.

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/news/2019/09/19/milestone-decisions-i-90-sr-18-interchange-improvement-project-near-snoqualmie

IIRC, future plans do still call for a full three-level interchange at some point in the future. The DDI would be a relatively cheap upgrade that can be built fairly quickly and could seriously help with the off-ramp traffic in the near-term. But with Hwy 18 being upgraded to full-freeway at some point, a DDI probably wouldn't be advisable for such an important junction, although it would be far better than the current diamond interchange.

I see the westbound on-ramp will be receiving a ramp meter. This might end up being one of the most desolate ramp meters ever installed. Even where they're common (CA, UT, et al) they seem to be used in urban and suburban areas. This interchange is, without any doubt in my mind, very rural. Hard to believe there is so much traffic coming over the pass or from North Bend to warrant a meter here at all. Something tells me it won't be active very often.

[sparker]

WSDOT has selected a DDI for the I-90 / SR 18 interchange in Snoqualmie. Quite the downgrade from a full grade-separated interchange, but the traffic volumes really didn't justify such a thing.

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/news/2019/09/19/milestone-decisions-i-90-sr-18-interchange-improvement-project-near-snoqualmie

IIRC, future plans do still call for a full three-level interchange at some point in the future. The DDI would be a relatively cheap upgrade that can be built fairly quickly and could seriously help with the off-ramp traffic in the near-term. But with Hwy 18 being upgraded to full-freeway at some point, a DDI probably wouldn't be advisable for such an important junction, although it would be far better than the current diamond interchange.

I see the westbound on-ramp will be receiving a ramp meter. This might end up being one of the most desolate ramp meters ever installed. Even where they're common (CA, UT, et al) they seem to be used in urban and suburban areas. This interchange is, without any doubt in my mind, very rural. Hard to believe there is so much traffic coming over the pass or from North Bend to warrant a meter here at all. Something tells me it won't be active very often.

This seems to be a recurring design policy with WSDOT; the same sort of interchange is intended for the southern end of the WA 167 freeway at I-5 near Fife -- and it is clearly intended to be a "placeholder" until traffic volumes warrant a free-flow design.  It's more than likely current budgetary considerations (and this is a situation echoed in many DOT's these days) call for a "kick the expenditure can down the road" type of outlay.   And the DDI -- only a bit more costly than a basic diamond -- seems to be a way to address medium-high current and/or projected traffic flows with an economically favorable configuration.  Probably see more of this in the future unless there's state or local pressure for a full-freeway setup (not likely for greater Seattle -- at least for the time being).

[stevashe]

WSDOT has selected a DDI for the I-90 / SR 18 interchange in Snoqualmie. Quite the downgrade from a full grade-separated interchange, but the traffic volumes really didn't justify such a thing.

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/news/2019/09/19/milestone-decisions-i-90-sr-18-interchange-improvement-project-near-snoqualmie

IIRC, future plans do still call for a full three-level interchange at some point in the future. The DDI would be a relatively cheap upgrade that can be built fairly quickly and could seriously help with the off-ramp traffic in the near-term. But with Hwy 18 being upgraded to full-freeway at some point, a DDI probably wouldn't be advisable for such an important junction, although it would be far better than the current diamond interchange.

I see the westbound on-ramp will be receiving a ramp meter. This might end up being one of the most desolate ramp meters ever installed. Even where they're common (CA, UT, et al) they seem to be used in urban and suburban areas. This interchange is, without any doubt in my mind, very rural. Hard to believe there is so much traffic coming over the pass or from North Bend to warrant a meter here at all. Something tells me it won't be active very often.

While I agree that the interchange itself is quite rural if you drive a short distance down Snoqualmie Parkway it gets pretty suburban looking very quickly with a bunch of relatively recent development (which is probably why we're now seeing backups here in the first place). Certainly quite isolated from other Seattle-area ramp meters in any case as the next one down I-90 is at exit 18, some 7 miles away.

[jakeroot]

This seems to be a recurring design policy with WSDOT; the same sort of interchange is intended for the southern end of the WA 167 freeway at I-5 near Fife -- and it is clearly intended to be a "placeholder" until traffic volumes warrant a free-flow design.  It's more than likely current budgetary considerations (and this is a situation echoed in many DOT's these days) call for a "kick the expenditure can down the road" type of outlay.   And the DDI -- only a bit more costly than a basic diamond -- seems to be a way to address medium-high current and/or projected traffic flows with an economically favorable configuration.  Probably see more of this in the future unless there's state or local pressure for a full-freeway setup (not likely for greater Seattle -- at least for the time being).

I can't help but wonder if part of the reasoning, beyond lacking the budget to build the original design with a ton of flyover ramps, is a fear of backlash from the public, who have endured about a decade of construction at the 5/16 interchange just to the west. That interchange now features flyovers in all possible directions, for both regular and HOV traffic. It will be the first of its kind in the state. Clearly the state is ready and willing to build massive interchanges like that which was originally planned. But with those ramps not being necessary just yet (the initial phase of the 167 extension doesn't even include HOV lanes at the moment anyways), they decided to hold off 10+ years until it's absolutely necessary.

The other issue was the EIS, which in 2006 did include all those flyovers and HOV lanes, plus a bunch of different ramp configurations. The updated EIS from 2018, however, did away with that. Not sure if the downgraded setup was because of environmental issues, or traffic levels weren't quite as insane as they predicted, or what. Note that the image from 2018 (the latter link) does not show a dual carriageway setup; it will be built as four lanes from the beginning.

While I agree that the interchange itself is quite rural if you drive a short distance down Snoqualmie Parkway it gets pretty suburban looking very quickly with a bunch of relatively recent development (which is probably why we're now seeing backups here in the first place). Certainly quite isolated from other Seattle-area ramp meters in any case as the next one down I-90 is at exit 18, some 7 miles away.

Sure, that Snoqualmie development is pretty significant. I think that's part of the reason for the backups. Before all those homes, that off-ramp from westbound 90 could stay green for a really long time, as there was little demand from other directions. But with the eastbound off-ramp now serving all that Parkway traffic, there's some major overlap that needs untangling. A DDI should prove very helpful at this location, as both movements could occur simultaneously, and I'm willing to bet that most traffic at this junction isn't going directly between Snoqualmie Parkway and Hwy 18.

[Bruce]

Anyone got a story for this one? SR 173 in Bridgeport using a circle shield.



Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SR-173N.jpg

[corco]

Anyone got a story for this one? SR 173 in Bridgeport using a circle shield.



Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SR-173N.jpg

Whhattttt that's an awesome contractor error (I assume)

[Bruce]

Seattle City Council is opposed to building a parallel span to the Montlake Bridge (which would be funded by the state). Despite my stance on highway expansion, this is an easy gimme when it comes to improving the situation around the Montlake Cut...make the new bridge transit-only with a wide pathway for bicycles and pedestrians! The old one is a death trap.

http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2019/09/second-montlake-bridge/

[jakeroot]

Anyone got a story for this one? SR 173 in Bridgeport using a circle shield.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/SR-173N.jpg/1280px-SR-173N.jpg

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SR-173N.jpg

Whhattttt that's an awesome contractor error (I assume)

Yeah, no kidding! This kind of error makes accidental US/state route mix-ups look common. I'm tempted to drive over there this weekend just to get a photo! Before it disappears.

Seattle City Council is opposed to building a parallel span to the Montlake Bridge (which would be funded by the state). Despite my stance on highway expansion, this is an easy gimme when it comes to improving the situation around the Montlake Cut...make the new bridge transit-only with a wide pathway for bicycles and pedestrians! The old one is a death trap.

http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2019/09/second-montlake-bridge/

If they built a second bridge, it would almost certainly be designed to carry two GP lanes northbound, a bus lane, and a proper cycle track. I assume Montlake would be redesigned to allow three southbound GP lanes with one bus lane over the current bridge, or two southbound GP lanes and two bus lanes.

[kkt]

Seattle City Council is opposed to building a parallel span to the Montlake Bridge (which would be funded by the state). Despite my stance on highway expansion, this is an easy gimme when it comes to improving the situation around the Montlake Cut...make the new bridge transit-only with a wide pathway for bicycles and pedestrians! The old one is a death trap.

http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2019/09/second-montlake-bridge/

The Link Light Rail tunnel passes underneath the Montlake Cut.  Perhaps the Council thinks that's enough transit capacity.

[Bruce]

Seattle City Council is opposed to building a parallel span to the Montlake Bridge (which would be funded by the state). Despite my stance on highway expansion, this is an easy gimme when it comes to improving the situation around the Montlake Cut...make the new bridge transit-only with a wide pathway for bicycles and pedestrians! The old one is a death trap.

http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2019/09/second-montlake-bridge/

The Link Light Rail tunnel passes underneath the Montlake Cut.  Perhaps the Council thinks that's enough transit capacity.

UW Station is supposed to be where a few Eastside routes truncate (given that the slog on SR 520 and I-5 to downtown takes a long time to clear), but there isn't a clear pathway once they leave SR 520. The temporary bus bypass lane on the westbound offramp just got removed for construction, which makes this even worse.

Ideally, Routes 255 and 545 would be terminating at UW Station (with more frequent service to compensate for the forced transfer), but it's hard to do so without dedicated transit lanes on the Montlake Bridge.

[jakeroot]

I'm guessing the Pacific Street Bridge alternative is no longer on the table?

[Kacie Jane]

Anyone got a story for this one? SR 173 in Bridgeport using a circle shield.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/SR-173N.jpg/1280px-SR-173N.jpg

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SR-173N.jpg

Whhattttt that's an awesome contractor error (I assume)

Yeah, no kidding! This kind of error makes accidental US/state route mix-ups look common. I'm tempted to drive over there this weekend just to get a photo! Before it disappears.

It's the same as the photo a few years back of the Alabama shield in Massachusetts.

Basically if you don't specify which state route shield you need when you put out the order, you get either a circle (because it's most common) or Alabama (because it's first alphabetically).  But it actually doesn't happen too often as an error because (1) in most contexts, it's absurd to actually have to specify the state, and (2) if you do end up with the wrong sign, you'd have to be an idiot to put it up without sending it back.

[sparker]

Anyone got a story for this one? SR 173 in Bridgeport using a circle shield.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/SR-173N.jpg/1280px-SR-173N.jpg

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SR-173N.jpg

Whhattttt that's an awesome contractor error (I assume)

Yeah, no kidding! This kind of error makes accidental US/state route mix-ups look common. I'm tempted to drive over there this weekend just to get a photo! Before it disappears.

It's the same as the photo a few years back of the Alabama shield in Massachusetts.

Basically if you don't specify which state route shield you need when you put out the order, you get either a circle (because it's most common) or Alabama (because it's first alphabetically).  But it actually doesn't happen too often as an error because (1) in most contexts, it's absurd to actually have to specify the state, and (2) if you do end up with the wrong sign, you'd have to be an idiot to put it up without sending it back.

Most Caltrans districts stock a number of blank (green) state highway shields in both narrow and wide formats; adhesive reflective white numbers are applied as needed (unfortunately often with little attention paid to such things as consistency of level or kerning).  I'm guessing that's not the situation with WSDOT if their practice is to use outside (and maybe even out-of-state) subcontractors for their signage.  They may get detail consistency (the "173" numbers look fine if one disregards the "big" error!) but larger-scale (and, in this case, somewhat laughable) errors become a bit harder to correct without what's likely a time-consuming replacement process -- and those may occur a bit more regularly simply due to communication failures. 

[jakeroot]

It's the same as the photo a few years back of the Alabama shield in Massachusetts.

Basically if you don't specify which state route shield you need when you put out the order, you get either a circle (because it's most common) or Alabama (because it's first alphabetically).  But it actually doesn't happen too often as an error because (1) in most contexts, it's absurd to actually have to specify the state, and (2) if you do end up with the wrong sign, you'd have to be an idiot to put it up without sending it back.

I was just thinking locally. I seem to recall having seen some WA state routes marked with US route shields, and vice-versa, but I can't recall seeing a WA state route shield being accidentally swapped for anything else (like a circle).

Nevertheless, I'm sure it's rare nationally as well, since (as you indicate) not knowing which state the SR shield represents seems unlikely. Too many boneheads involved with this Bridgeport install, apparently.

They may get detail consistency (the "173" numbers look fine if one disregards the "big" error!) but larger-scale (and, in this case, somewhat laughable) errors become a bit harder to correct without what's likely a time-consuming replacement process -- and those may occur a bit more regularly simply due to communication failures. 

I was thinking that as well. The "173" seems fine, although I think the equivalent WA state route shield (disregarding it being a bust) would have smaller numbers relative to the amount of white space, although they got the font right (Series D seems common, at least from what I've seen around Pierce County, despite the more vertical alignment of the bust).

[ErmineNotyours]

Yeah, no kidding! This kind of error makes accidental US/state route mix-ups look common. I'm tempted to drive over there this weekend just to get a photo! Before it disappears.

It's been up for at least a year according to WSDOT-SR WEB.

[Kacie Jane]

(Series D seems common, at least from what I've seen around Pierce County, despite the more vertical alignment of the bust).

?????????

3-digit routes are virtually always series C. 1 and 2 digit routes occasionally get a wider font, but even most 16 and 99 signs I see are C.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/WRvLnqrcGGwS8KE47

ETA: https://maps.app.goo.gl/tS93HYT7MTbktsdH6 < better example since we're taking about reassurance shields

[jakeroot]

(Series D seems common, at least from what I've seen around Pierce County, despite the more vertical alignment of the bust).

?????????

3-digit routes are virtually always series C. 1 and 2 digit routes occasionally get a wider font, but even most 16 and 99 signs I see are C.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/WRvLnqrcGGwS8KE47

ETA: https://maps.app.goo.gl/tS93HYT7MTbktsdH6 < better example since we're taking about reassurance shields

hahaha fuck man I don't know. I was thinking of this one that I see all the time; thought it was more normal:

https://goo.gl/maps/QDjHcDwZ2GJ8K95D8

[Kacie Jane]

Anytime I see D on a 3-digit sign, I think it's hideous and assume it's an error, but I could be wrong. It's certainly not common though.

[jakeroot]

Anytime I see D on a 3-digit sign, I think it's hideous and assume it's an error, but I could be wrong. It's certainly not common though.

On all 3-digit signs or just 3-digit Washington busts? I can understand the distaste on the bust, as it's really designed for a narrower series, but on 3DI's, I think Series D (or what I think is Series D) looks better. Series C on 3DI's always look like an attempt to fill all the blue space, which is particularly annoying since the blue space (depending on the digits) tends to be more horizontally forgiving.

Here's an example of what I believe to be an ideal 3DI shield (on I-705 in Tacoma): https://goo.gl/maps/pqD7Ld4UsFznRYSU6  ---  decent blue space, not pushed to the edge.

[Kacie Jane]

Specifically Washington busts. I do still tend to prefer C on interstates as well, but don't think D is hideous (and would even agree that your 705 is in fact gorgeous).

[jakeroot]

Specifically Washington busts. I do still tend to prefer C on interstates as well, but don't think D is hideous (and would even agree that your 705 is in fact gorgeous).

I gotcha. I don't remember what the standard is for 3DIs, although I know I prefer Series D; more specifically, the California standard (with its custom shield), although I'll take any shield with Series D.

In the past, I've experimented with custom WA shields that would allow Series D for all shields, with one letter height. Tough to do but there's something very satisfying about consistency.

[compdude787]

Anytime I see D on a 3-digit sign, I think it's hideous and assume it's an error, but I could be wrong. It's certainly not common though.

I agree, when it comes to state route shields. Series D numbers don't fill up the whole shield the way that the series C numbers do, and also they're smaller and harder to read.