News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Washington

Started by jakeroot, May 21, 2016, 01:56:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

sparker

Quote from: jakeroot on April 06, 2021, 12:24:25 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on April 05, 2021, 10:28:07 PM
So, is this basically going to be built as a freeway, or are there still going to be at-grade intersections? If so, that would be neat.

This PDF shows a bit more detail about each crossing. The plan seems to be freeway. With any luck, WSDOT will post a 70mph speed limit to all of US-12, from Burbank to Walla Walla, once all phases are complete.

Quote from: Bruce on April 03, 2021, 12:43:25 AM
Construction has started on the US 12 expansion from Nine Mile Hill to Frenchtown near Walla Walla. 11 miles and two interchanges near Touchet. (Project page; Paywalled news report)



The final phase to Wallula (including a new interchange for US 730) only has funding for planning and ROW acquisition.

I believe this is the first new-construction freeway-grade road WSDOT has built since the US-395 freeway in Spokane.

I wonder if this freeway segment might indicate that while new freeway mileage west of the Cascades might be politically infeasible, outflung sections that connect separate metro areas (in this instance Walla Walla with the Tri-Cities) may actually be capable of gaining traction.  It'll be interesting to see if all of US 12 east of US 395 is similarly upgraded in the next decade or so. 


compdude787

Quote from: sparker on April 06, 2021, 05:01:58 PM
I wonder if this freeway segment might indicate that while new freeway mileage west of the Cascades might be politically infeasible, outflung sections that connect separate metro areas (in this instance Walla Walla with the Tri-Cities) may actually be capable of gaining traction.  It'll be interesting to see if all of US 12 east of US 395 is similarly upgraded in the next decade or so.
Well, there are two new freeways being built in the Puget Sound metro area as part of the Puget Sound Gateway project: the SR 509 extension to I-5 south of SeaTac Airport, and the SR 167 extension from Puyallup to I-5 and SR 509 in Fife. I think it's only people in Seattle proper that are anti-freeway and pro-transit; many people in the suburbs are more supportive of investing in freeways and roads.

Bruce

Those pro-freeway folks turn anti-freeway if you suggest anything done within a few miles of their homes. YIOPBY (Yes in Other People's Backyards) is definitely more common.

But the opposition to freeways is more widespread than just Seattle proper, especially in closer-in suburbs. Expect to see some opposition to extra work on I-405 in Bellevue, for example, as there are rumblings about yet another megaproject there. And there's plenty in Tacoma who have opposed expansion of I-5 during the never-ending HOV project.

jakeroot

Quote from: Bruce on April 07, 2021, 01:00:59 AM
Those pro-freeway folks turn anti-freeway if you suggest anything done within a few miles of their homes. YIOPBY (Yes in Other People's Backyards) is definitely more common.

But the opposition to freeways is more widespread than just Seattle proper, especially in closer-in suburbs. Expect to see some opposition to extra work on I-405 in Bellevue, for example, as there are rumblings about yet another megaproject there. And there's plenty in Tacoma who have opposed expansion of I-5 during the never-ending HOV project.

I don't think anyone here would suggest there's zero opposition (and I know you aren't suggesting that), but today's opposition pales in comparison to the very organized, almost militant opposition seen in the 60s and 70s. The average driver, today, never witnessed the destruction seen in the 60s and 70s, so it's likely they don't have that anti-freeway blood that may have been a serious "threat" to groups like WSDOT even 20 years ago (at least in the Seattle area -- this may not be the case elsewhere).

In terms of the 167 extension: some of those in the path were actually delighted by the news, as they wanted to sell, and this gave them a scapegoat. This doesn't describe everyone, but I don't think today's opposition is nearly as energized; it's not like demolishing some 70s suburban housing is really a big loss.

Here in Tacoma, there's definitely no opposition to freeway expansion. The opposition is to lengthy timelines. If there is any opposition, it's very isolated.

Joshua Whitman

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.4435723,-122.335317,19.57z
Google Maps seems to think US-99 still exists in Washington  :-|

sparker

Quote from: jakeroot on April 07, 2021, 01:52:34 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 07, 2021, 01:00:59 AM
Those pro-freeway folks turn anti-freeway if you suggest anything done within a few miles of their homes. YIOPBY (Yes in Other People's Backyards) is definitely more common.

But the opposition to freeways is more widespread than just Seattle proper, especially in closer-in suburbs. Expect to see some opposition to extra work on I-405 in Bellevue, for example, as there are rumblings about yet another megaproject there. And there's plenty in Tacoma who have opposed expansion of I-5 during the never-ending HOV project.

I don't think anyone here would suggest there's zero opposition (and I know you aren't suggesting that), but today's opposition pales in comparison to the very organized, almost militant opposition seen in the 60s and 70s. The average driver, today, never witnessed the destruction seen in the 60s and 70s, so it's likely they don't have that anti-freeway blood that may have been a serious "threat" to groups like WSDOT even 20 years ago (at least in the Seattle area -- this may not be the case elsewhere).

In terms of the 167 extension: some of those in the path were actually delighted by the news, as they wanted to sell, and this gave them a scapegoat. This doesn't describe everyone, but I don't think today's opposition is nearly as energized; it's not like demolishing some 70s suburban housing is really a big loss.

Here in Tacoma, there's definitely no opposition to freeway expansion. The opposition is to lengthy timelines. If there is any opposition, it's very isolated.

Seems that in Pierce County the notion of free-flow connections between freeways has been largely discarded, particularly in terms of connecting state routes to I-5.  Granted, it was a series of relatively tight loops, but at least the I-5/WA 512 interchange was technically free-flow for decades until recently, when it was converted into a quasi-parclo.  And the new WA 167 interchange with I-5 is a DDI variant; both interchanges are signalized.   Now whether this is primarily a money-saving move or some sort of "shot across the bow" countering the notion of uninterrupted automotive traffic around the region might be a subject for discussion, given the regional sociopolitical proclivities.  But at least the I-5/WA 16 interchange was reconstructed with enhanced free-flow, so maybe WashDOT is simply scrimping with the other interchanges (IIRC, 5/167 may be upgraded as need arises -- which may be sooner than anticipated!).

jakeroot

Quote from: sparker on April 12, 2021, 03:51:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 07, 2021, 01:52:34 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 07, 2021, 01:00:59 AM
Those pro-freeway folks turn anti-freeway if you suggest anything done within a few miles of their homes. YIOPBY (Yes in Other People's Backyards) is definitely more common.

But the opposition to freeways is more widespread than just Seattle proper, especially in closer-in suburbs. Expect to see some opposition to extra work on I-405 in Bellevue, for example, as there are rumblings about yet another megaproject there. And there's plenty in Tacoma who have opposed expansion of I-5 during the never-ending HOV project.

I don't think anyone here would suggest there's zero opposition (and I know you aren't suggesting that), but today's opposition pales in comparison to the very organized, almost militant opposition seen in the 60s and 70s. The average driver, today, never witnessed the destruction seen in the 60s and 70s, so it's likely they don't have that anti-freeway blood that may have been a serious "threat" to groups like WSDOT even 20 years ago (at least in the Seattle area -- this may not be the case elsewhere).

In terms of the 167 extension: some of those in the path were actually delighted by the news, as they wanted to sell, and this gave them a scapegoat. This doesn't describe everyone, but I don't think today's opposition is nearly as energized; it's not like demolishing some 70s suburban housing is really a big loss.

Here in Tacoma, there's definitely no opposition to freeway expansion. The opposition is to lengthy timelines. If there is any opposition, it's very isolated.

Seems that in Pierce County the notion of free-flow connections between freeways has been largely discarded, particularly in terms of connecting state routes to I-5.  Granted, it was a series of relatively tight loops, but at least the I-5/WA 512 interchange was technically free-flow for decades until recently, when it was converted into a quasi-parclo.  And the new WA 167 interchange with I-5 is a DDI variant; both interchanges are signalized.   Now whether this is primarily a money-saving move or some sort of "shot across the bow" countering the notion of uninterrupted automotive traffic around the region might be a subject for discussion, given the regional sociopolitical proclivities.  But at least the I-5/WA 16 interchange was reconstructed with enhanced free-flow, so maybe WashDOT is simply scrimping with the other interchanges (IIRC, 5/167 may be upgraded as need arises -- which may be sooner than anticipated!).

In regards to the 512/I-5 interchange; it was rebuilt at least twenty years ago. "Recently" is certainly relative in this case. There are thousands around here who I'm sure have no idea there used to be a loop there. Still, you'd think that flyover would have been complete by now...guess not.

I believe the second phase of the 167 project will include a full interchange at I-5. The original plan was to build everything at once, but the money is apparently phased in such a way that the options were either (a) partial interchange now, full interchange later, or (b) open the freeway five or so years later than predicted, but fully complete. I can certainly understand the desire for (b), particularly given how annoying and expensive construction is along already-opened roads (if not for the contractor, at least to drivers). Still, WSDOT considers 167 to be a critical link that is missing, and would rather open it ASAP and modify it later as needed.

Bruce

The Herald reports on widening SR 524 between Lynnwood and Bothell, an unfunded priority for Snohomish County. Personally, I think the road would function fine with just a turn lane, bike lanes, and sidewalks, as the traffic volumes aren't *that* high despite the sprawl happening further east. It would be nice to replace one of the traffic signals with another roundabout, though.

Also in the article:

QuoteOn the distant horizon, Lynnwood has designed a six-lane bridge from Poplar Way to 33rd Avenue W. It would cross over I-5 from from 196th Street SW, letting northbound drivers avoid the existing circuitous route to reach Alderwood mall and other destinations off of 33rd Avenue W.

This bridge would save a lot of time, especially for reaching northbound I-5 from Alderwood, but six lanes would be overkill. 33rd and Poplar are both four-lane roads and don't need to be any wider than that.

jakeroot

#983
Quote from: Bruce on April 13, 2021, 01:17:31 AM
QuoteOn the distant horizon, Lynnwood has designed a six-lane bridge from Poplar Way to 33rd Avenue W. It would cross over I-5 from from 196th Street SW, letting northbound drivers avoid the existing circuitous route to reach Alderwood mall and other destinations off of 33rd Avenue W.

This bridge would save a lot of time, especially for reaching northbound I-5 from Alderwood, but six lanes would be overkill. 33rd and Poplar are both four-lane roads and don't need to be any wider than that.

I suspect "six-lane bridge" refers to four through lanes with additional room for turn lanes. Perhaps a dedicated right turn lane to 196th westbound, in addition to a dedicated left turn lane to 196th eastbound, with two lanes continuing southbound onto Poplar Way. The bridge may narrow on its northern end.

Quote from: Bruce on April 13, 2021, 01:17:31 AM
The Herald reports on widening SR 524 between Lynnwood and Bothell, an unfunded priority for Snohomish County. Personally, I think the road would function fine with just a turn lane, bike lanes, and sidewalks, as the traffic volumes aren't *that* high despite the sprawl happening further east. It would be nice to replace one of the traffic signals with another roundabout, though.

The article does indicate a 22k AADT as it passes under I-5 I-405. That seems high for a two-lane road.

stevashe

Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2021, 01:41:11 AM
The article does indicate a 22k AADT as it passes under I-5. That seems high for a two-lane road.

Do you mean under I-405? SR 524 passes over I-5 with 5 lanes. And yeah, I think a widening is justified here, especially since the road already has 2 GP lanes per direction to the west and east. The two lane section is basically just a gap in the unincorporated area between cities. The article also mentions that the existing road is too narrow for bus operation, so widening to be able to provide a bus route along the corridor would be a nice benefit as well.

jakeroot

Quote from: stevashe on April 13, 2021, 11:14:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 13, 2021, 01:41:11 AM
The article does indicate a 22k AADT as it passes under I-5. That seems high for a two-lane road.

Do you mean under I-405? SR 524 passes over I-5 with 5 lanes. And yeah, I think a widening is justified here, especially since the road already has 2 GP lanes per direction to the west and east. The two lane section is basically just a gap in the unincorporated area between cities. The article also mentions that the existing road is too narrow for bus operation, so widening to be able to provide a bus route along the corridor would be a nice benefit as well.

Yeah, I meant to say 405.

I could see five lanes being a possibility too. It seems both ends of the five lane stretches were designed to accommodate future widening. It would require greater ROW, obviously, but both outer lanes could be designed as HOV or bus lanes.

Bruce

Arlington is planning a few more roundabouts because of the coming wave of industrial development near its airport (starting with Amazon), as reported in The Herald.

If the whole program is built out, SR 531 would have 6 roundabouts in 10 miles, compared to 8 traffic signals (of which 4 would be replaced with roundabouts).

Also, it'll be nice to have parallel streets to bypass the main jams on SR 531:


stevashe

That's great news, the roundabouts already in the area seem to work well so it'll be great to have some more.

My company actually does a lot of work for the Airport so that's good to hear a company is finally moving in to some of that vacant land nearby as well.

Bruce

The transportation package is out for the year, so no US 2 replacement as of yet. The normal two-year, $12B budget includes funding for existing projects: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/washington-state-lawmakers-keep-new-highways-on-cruise-control/

Also, an earmark to build a memorial to the RH Thomson Expressway ramps in the arboretum.

kkt

Quote from: Bruce on April 28, 2021, 12:39:55 AM
The transportation package is out for the year, so no US 2 replacement as of yet. The normal two-year, $12B budget includes funding for existing projects: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/washington-state-lawmakers-keep-new-highways-on-cruise-control/

Also, an earmark to build a memorial to the RH Thomson Expressway ramps in the arboretum.

A memorial to some never-used ramps?    "Here lies the remains of the RH Thomson Expressway"?
That's right up there with holding a burial for a dead squirrel you find in the road.

jakeroot

I haven't been through the Arboretum for a while. Are there any remaining structures? I know the old never-opened ramp has long since been demolished, but I know there was the old mainline stub that could still be there.

There is something fascinating about abandoned infrastructure, even to regular people. I think there is some value in keeping a very small part of the remaining expressway (if any still stands) as a testament to the strong will of the people. That could be the memorial.

eg: keep a small part of the abandoned ramps, and put a small plaque in front to explain what this was and why it was never finished. Perhaps even an etched version of one of the many drawings we see online. I could see some serious ivy growing over it within a decade, and that would look really cool and would make for quite the spectacle.

stevashe

The ramp to EB 520 was still there as of last summer, being used as construction access, and the mainline stub used as storage. I doubt the ramp is still up since the approach bridge is mostly, if not all, gone now, but the stub very well might remain. I'll make a mental note to go check on it sometime soon, it's not that far for me.

jakeroot

I'm currently driving northbound on I-5, and shortly ago I passed beneath a VMS that read "COLLISION ON SR 18 JUST BEFORE SR 181 -- EXPECT DELAYS"

How old is the person that wrote that!?

roadfro

Quote from: jakeroot on May 06, 2021, 09:00:49 PM
I'm currently driving northbound on I-5, and shortly ago I passed beneath a VMS that read "COLLISION ON SR 18 JUST BEFORE SR 181 -- EXPECT DELAYS"

How old is the person that wrote that!?

I don't see any major issues with the statement. What's wrong with it?

Nevada DOT might have used "crash" instead of "collision", but otherwise it seems normal. Is there some local context I'm missing (like SR 181 doesn't exist anymore)?
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

jakeroot

#994
Quote from: roadfro on May 07, 2021, 04:14:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 06, 2021, 09:00:49 PM
I'm currently driving northbound on I-5, and shortly ago I passed beneath a VMS that read "COLLISION ON SR 18 JUST BEFORE SR 181 -- EXPECT DELAYS"

How old is the person that wrote that!?

I don't see any major issues with the statement. What's wrong with it?

Nevada DOT might have used "crash" instead of "collision", but otherwise it seems normal. Is there some local context I'm missing (like SR 181 doesn't exist anymore)?

Not enough context in my post; my bad.

WA-181 was removed from the highway system south of WA-516 in Kent in the early 90s. It is now simply known as "West Valley Highway" (as it was during its period as a state highway as well). The age joke was simply a reference to my confusion as to how anyone would know it was formerly WA-181 unless they grew up with that designation. I'm not aware of any maps that [erroneously] show this number. Frankly, even where WA-181 exists, it's known more by the name rather than designation (so it's not like a situation where the number has outlasted its legal existence).

jakeroot

#995
Construction on the northbound Valley Fwy HOV lane, from 410 to 18, began construction this week:

https://wsdot.wa.gov/news/2021/05/13/coming-soon-northbound-hov-lane-sr-167

Should be finished by next Spring. It'll open as HOV and then transition to express in the future (probably when the 405 express lanes are finished). They have to modify the 8th St overpass in Pacific, and the 410 overpass in Sumner. Other than that, it seems they are cramming it into existing structures, much like the southbound HOV project a few years ago.

Gotta say, I didn't see this one coming. I don't remember reading anything about it.

stevashe

Quote from: jakeroot on May 19, 2021, 03:11:22 PM
Construction on the northbound Valley Fwy HOV lane, from 410 to 18, began construction this week:

https://wsdot.wa.gov/news/2021/05/13/coming-soon-northbound-hov-lane-sr-167

Should be finished by next Spring. It'll open as HOV and then transition to express in the future (probably when the 405 express lanes are finished). They have to modify the 8th St overpass in Pacific, and the 410 overpass in Sumner. Other than that, it seems they are cramming it into existing structures, much like the southbound HOV project a few years ago.

Gotta say, I didn't see this one coming. I don't remember reading anything about it.

I knew it was planned in the same program as the other Pierce County HOV projects, but didn't know it was coming so soon. Glad to hear it is happening now though!

I am surprised it is starting as a vanilla HOV lane though, I was sure I heard it would go straight to a HOT lane to match the rest of SR 167. I wonder if the plans changed in order to accelerate the project, especially since that southbound project does have them.

jakeroot

Quote from: stevashe on May 20, 2021, 03:33:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 19, 2021, 03:11:22 PM
Construction on the northbound Valley Fwy HOV lane, from 410 to 18, began construction this week:

https://wsdot.wa.gov/news/2021/05/13/coming-soon-northbound-hov-lane-sr-167

Should be finished by next Spring. It'll open as HOV and then transition to express in the future (probably when the 405 express lanes are finished). They have to modify the 8th St overpass in Pacific, and the 410 overpass in Sumner. Other than that, it seems they are cramming it into existing structures, much like the southbound HOV project a few years ago.

Gotta say, I didn't see this one coming. I don't remember reading anything about it.

I knew it was planned in the same program as the other Pierce County HOV projects, but didn't know it was coming so soon. Glad to hear it is happening now though!

I am surprised it is starting as a vanilla HOV lane though, I was sure I heard it would go straight to a HOT lane to match the rest of SR 167. I wonder if the plans changed in order to accelerate the project, especially since that southbound project does have them.

Certainly could be. $33M for a whole new lane over such a long distance seems like a bargain; I'm sure the overall cost would skyrocket if they had to install all of the relevant toll infrastructure.

What I do wonder is whether they will hold off until some sort of conversion to express lanes, like those on the 405, takes place. Although I've never seen any confirmation, my gut tells me the whole 167/405 corridor will operate as a single facility with the same rules. It just seems so odd to do it any other way, especially with that new flyover in Renton.

The problem, as I see it, are HOV traffic in the 167 HOT lane that cannot use the 405 express lanes without a tag. To go all the way from Sumner to Renton without a toll tag, but then require it from Renton to Bellevue, is...well, they're asking for violators.

jakeroot

Speaking of toll lanes:

WSDOT is updating GoodToGo with some new features. These are detailed on their blog site:

https://wsdotblog.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-next-generation-of-good-to-go.html

Some cool stuff (not everything):

* no longer need to put $30 into the account to open it (quite helpful for HOV-only traffic who ostensibly may never use that $30)
* negative balances are applied to the relevant account instead of sending out a mailed toll
* mailed tolls can be applied to a new account without a phone call
* online disputes

I'm still holding out hope for a pay-by-plate online option, to avoid mailed tolls. That is the best setup IMO, and was how the brief Port Mann Bridge toll worked (making it much easier for those like me without decals).

stevashe

Quote from: jakeroot on May 26, 2021, 01:31:26 PM
Certainly could be. $33M for a whole new lane over such a long distance seems like a bargain; I'm sure the overall cost would skyrocket if they had to install all of the relevant toll infrastructure.

If you read the whole project page, it says they're just adding the lane within the existing pavement footprint and narrowing the shoulders, that's why it's so cheap.

Quote from: jakeroot
What I do wonder is whether they will hold off until some sort of conversion to express lanes, like those on the 405, takes place. Although I've never seen any confirmation, my gut tells me the whole 167/405 corridor will operate as a single facility with the same rules. It just seems so odd to do it any other way, especially with that new flyover in Renton.

Yeah, I would expect a conversion to the same system from 405 on 167 at some point, especially since the flyover is supposed to be tolled as well once the Renton to Bellevue express lanes are completed, if I recall correctly. a similar thing just happened with the I-680 SB express lane in the Bay Area when the complimentary NB lane was built, since it wouldn't have made sense to have different rules for the same express lane in different directions.

Quote from: jakeroot
The problem, as I see it, are HOV traffic in the 167 HOT lane that cannot use the 405 express lanes without a tag. To go all the way from Sumner to Renton without a toll tag, but then require it from Renton to Bellevue, is...well, they're asking for violators.

Well, it wouldn't be a violation, really. They'd just get a surprise toll bill in the mail! :P



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.