AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Northwest => Topic started by: jakeroot on May 21, 2016, 01:56:31 PM

Title: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 21, 2016, 01:56:31 PM
This is an all-encompassing Washington State thread. Anything related to Washington, not likely needing its own thread, should go here.

The following users are knowledgeable with regards to Washington State's transport network:

- myself (jakeroot)
- Kacie Jane
- Bruce (AKA SounderBruce)
- kkt
- KEK, Inc
- thefraze_1020
- mcarling
- Bickendon
- corco
- Ace10
- TEG24601
- Tarkus
- JasonOfORoads
- Thunderbyrd316
- opspe
- Henry
- compdude787
- ErmineNotyours
- stevashe
- kwellada
- bubblewhale
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 21, 2016, 02:03:13 PM
WSDOT has been improving the I-5/SR-161/SR-18 triangle for several years, with more improvements expected once funding arrives: http://goo.gl/qihrdf

The two notable changes:

1) a roundabout for the I-5 off-ramp to SR-161/S 356 St -- this exit does not currently exist (only SR-18 can access 161 directly):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsdot.wa.gov%2FNR%2Frdonlyres%2FCA6F6B77-7278-46CA-9A58-3A6BCD7BD8BB%2F0%2FSR_161S_356throundabout_510px.jpg&hash=3ebd7ad09a6b9c3db6bb91c856787aadddc369cc)

2) The off-ramps from SB I-5 directly to SR-18 will be re-aligned into the mess below. Apparently, the loop ramp is too tight. I disagree but whatever. If it were me, I would have kept the loop ramp, and re-aligned the off-ramp towards SR-18 West so that the merge was closer to the overpass over 18 (currently it is aligned around the now non-existent cloverleaf ramp that was replaced by a flyover). The merge would be soon enough that I think they could remove the signal, which presently causes some pretty significant delays westbound along 18. A big reason for the signal is because of all the cars turning left onto 161. Once the new off-ramp to S 356 is constructed, there won't be as much traffic using that first off-ramp, so I think they could safely bring back the traditional merge that once existed:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsdot.wa.gov%2FNR%2Frdonlyres%2FE1524316-5966-45A0-B84C-C88B8A2603CB%2F0%2FI5_SB_to_SR_18_existingFI.jpg&hash=57ef84070acead32e052cb9c043d6052f661301d)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on May 21, 2016, 07:23:44 PM
For the past few weeks, WSDOT has been conducting weekend lane closures and reductions on Interstate 5 between Everett and Marysville as part of a project to repair 41 expansion joints on the bridges crossing sloughs in the area. It's been horrific, and some have even called it worse than the viaduct closure.

Worst part is that there was 0 mitigation. No shuttles, no encouragement to use transit (or extra service), nothing. It would've been wise to run a daily Sounder train to Marysville (using a temporary platform somewhere) to bypass the slowdowns on I-5 and SR 529 (where traffic spilled over, disrupting bus service to the train).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 21, 2016, 08:30:03 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 21, 2016, 07:23:44 PM
For the past few weeks, WSDOT has been conducting weekend lane closures and reductions on Interstate 5 between Everett and Marysville as part of a project to repair 41 expansion joints on the bridges crossing sloughs in the area. It's been horrific, and some have even called it worse than the viaduct closure.

Worst part is that there was 0 mitigation. No shuttles, no encouragement to use transit (or extra service), nothing. It would've been wise to run a daily Sounder train to Marysville (using a temporary platform somewhere) to bypass the slowdowns on I-5 and SR 529 (where traffic spilled over, disrupting bus service to the train).

I've been hearing about those closures on the news. I thought they would have finished the repairs by now? I'm glad I'm able to avoid it by, well, not living anywhere near Marysville or Everett. But it appears WSDOT spent all of their PR money on the viaduct closure.

Have temporary train platforms been used before? I've never heard of that happening, but it seems like a great idea.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on May 21, 2016, 09:13:38 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 21, 2016, 08:30:03 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 21, 2016, 07:23:44 PM
For the past few weeks, WSDOT has been conducting weekend lane closures and reductions on Interstate 5 between Everett and Marysville as part of a project to repair 41 expansion joints on the bridges crossing sloughs in the area. It's been horrific, and some have even called it worse than the viaduct closure.

Worst part is that there was 0 mitigation. No shuttles, no encouragement to use transit (or extra service), nothing. It would've been wise to run a daily Sounder train to Marysville (using a temporary platform somewhere) to bypass the slowdowns on I-5 and SR 529 (where traffic spilled over, disrupting bus service to the train).

I've been hearing about those closures on the news. I thought they would have finished the repairs by now? I'm glad I'm able to avoid it by, well, not living anywhere near Marysville or Everett. But it appears WSDOT spent all of their PR money on the viaduct closure.

Have temporary train platforms been used before? I've never heard of that happening, but it seems like a great idea.

The closures are supposed to last until June. There have been a few delays and cancelled work weekends because of weather, but it's been on-time overall thanks to that huge dry spell we had.

I don't think that ST has ever used temporary platforms for something like this. There's been "temporary" platforms that were built just like a permanent one and used in the early days of Sounder while stations were being prepared, but other than that it hasn't been seen around here.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: opspe on May 21, 2016, 09:21:25 PM
The old station in Tukwila seemed pretty temporary if I recall, lots of coated plywood.  There's some sidings in Marysville north of 4th that might have worked for that, but they're probably unusable due to lack of maintenance.

Very unrelated : does anyone remember an erroneous sign in downtown Port Angeles, where SR 112 was mistakenly signed as US 112?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Ace10 on May 22, 2016, 07:12:46 PM
Add me to the list of members having some connection to Washington. Though I live south of the Columbia now, I did live for a year in Vancouver and have driven a few times to Seattle and up to/in BC.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on May 23, 2016, 01:54:35 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 21, 2016, 07:23:44 PM
For the past few weeks, WSDOT has been conducting weekend lane closures and reductions on Interstate 5 between Everett and Marysville as part of a project to repair 41 expansion joints on the bridges crossing sloughs in the area. It's been horrific, and some have even called it worse than the viaduct closure.

Worst part is that there was 0 mitigation. No shuttles, no encouragement to use transit (or extra service), nothing. It would've been wise to run a daily Sounder train to Marysville (using a temporary platform somewhere) to bypass the slowdowns on I-5 and SR 529 (where traffic spilled over, disrupting bus service to the train).


Hell, I'd go so far as to say that the Sounder should be running, all the time, from Stanwood to Seattle, with a stop in Marysville.  Also, expand operational times to outside commute times, and add holiday runs.  If they did that, I'd be much more inclined to go to Seattle to "hang out".

Quote from: opspe on May 21, 2016, 09:21:25 PMThe old station in Tukwila seemed pretty temporary if I recall, lots of coated plywood.  There's some sidings in Marysville north of 4th that might have worked for that, but they're probably unusable due to lack of maintenance.


The Tukwilla station predated 9/11 and was still partially partially plywood until after 2012, if I recall.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on May 23, 2016, 03:09:53 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on May 23, 2016, 01:54:35 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 21, 2016, 07:23:44 PM
For the past few weeks, WSDOT has been conducting weekend lane closures and reductions on Interstate 5 between Everett and Marysville as part of a project to repair 41 expansion joints on the bridges crossing sloughs in the area. It's been horrific, and some have even called it worse than the viaduct closure.

Worst part is that there was 0 mitigation. No shuttles, no encouragement to use transit (or extra service), nothing. It would've been wise to run a daily Sounder train to Marysville (using a temporary platform somewhere) to bypass the slowdowns on I-5 and SR 529 (where traffic spilled over, disrupting bus service to the train).


Hell, I'd go so far as to say that the Sounder should be running, all the time, from Stanwood to Seattle, with a stop in Marysville.  Also, expand operational times to outside commute times, and add holiday runs.  If they did that, I'd be much more inclined to go to Seattle to "hang out".

Stanwood might be a bit much, given that there isn't much out there. Marysville at least has 70K potential commuters and is growing faster than any other city in the metro area.

As for extra runs, that's up to BNSF, especially on the North Line. The negotiations for extending existing runs to Marysville would take longer than Link to Everett.

The South Line is similarly hampered, but there's been nice proposals to switch all freight traffic to the UPRR and triple-track the mainline and transfer it to ST (which would allow for a lot more scheduled trains).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 23, 2016, 05:20:03 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 23, 2016, 03:09:53 PM
As for extra runs, that's up to BNSF, especially on the North Line. The negotiations for extending existing runs to Marysville would take longer than Link to Everett.

If they want extra runs, I think they need to build some sort of retaining wall between the tracks and the hillside north of Seattle. Seems like every other week during the winter, a slide closes the tracks.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on May 24, 2016, 12:15:08 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 23, 2016, 05:20:03 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 23, 2016, 03:09:53 PM
As for extra runs, that's up to BNSF, especially on the North Line. The negotiations for extending existing runs to Marysville would take longer than Link to Everett.

If they want extra runs, I think they need to build some sort of retaining wall between the tracks and the hillside north of Seattle. Seems like every other week during the winter, a slide closes the tracks.

WSDOT and BNSF spent most of last summer doing exactly that. Lots of mudslide mitigation work that seems to have worked, given the huge reduction in Sounder North cancellations this past winter (the wettest on record).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Tarkus on May 24, 2016, 02:09:48 AM
You can add me to the "connected to Washington" list.  Lived in Ellensburg from 2004 to 2006, and even had a Washington Driver's License during that time.  I'm more familiar with the eastern side of the state, plus Vancouver.  Oddly enough, I've only been "through" (but not "to") Seattle twice.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Kacie Jane on May 24, 2016, 03:19:41 AM
Quote from: Bruce on May 21, 2016, 09:13:38 PMI don't think that ST has ever used temporary platforms for something like this. There's been "temporary" platforms that were built just like a permanent one and used in the early days of Sounder while stations were being prepared, but other than that it hasn't been seen around here.

There were talks of putting a temporary platform in University Place for the U.S. Open at Chambers Bay, but they couldn't get contracts with BNSF (I think?) worked out in time.

Quote from: TEG24601 on May 23, 2016, 01:54:35 PMHell, I'd go so far as to say that the Sounder should be running, all the time, from Stanwood to Seattle, with a stop in Marysville.  Also, expand operational times to outside commute times, and add holiday runs.  If they did that, I'd be much more inclined to go to Seattle to "hang out".

The ridership on the "North Line" just isn't there to support pouring more money into it.  (The Mukilteo station improvements are somewhat of an exception, since it's part of a multimodal project with the ferry terminal.)  The South Line packs their trains, and there's some talk of running midday service there if they can afford to purchase slots, but no such talk north of Seattle.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on May 24, 2016, 09:51:10 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 24, 2016, 03:19:41 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on May 23, 2016, 01:54:35 PMHell, I'd go so far as to say that the Sounder should be running, all the time, from Stanwood to Seattle, with a stop in Marysville.  Also, expand operational times to outside commute times, and add holiday runs.  If they did that, I'd be much more inclined to go to Seattle to "hang out".

The ridership on the "North Line" just isn't there to support pouring more money into it.  (The Mukilteo station improvements are somewhat of an exception, since it's part of a multimodal project with the ferry terminal.)  The South Line packs their trains, and there's some talk of running midday service there if they can afford to purchase slots, but no such talk north of Seattle.

The South Line has the advantage of being a fast, relatively direct route for the Green River Valley, since the buses take a while to make the east-west connection to I-5. Ridership for Tacoma isn't as high, given the relatively direct buses from downtown and the Dome TC to Seattle.

The North Line has the reverse, with buses taking a fast, more direct route that ultimately ends up being a shorter commute for anyone who doesn't work at Union Station. The only possible time advantages for Sounder over express buses would lie north/east of Everett because of two key bottlenecks (I-5 and the US 2/Hewitt Avenue Trestle).

The south corridor could adopt some of the bus restructures that the north went through, mainly consolation of off-peak runs into a single, more frequent route (512) while retaining peak hour routes (510/511/513).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Kacie Jane on May 25, 2016, 02:56:46 AM
Quote from: Bruce on May 24, 2016, 09:51:10 PMThe South Line has the advantage of being a fast, relatively direct route for the Green River Valley, since the buses take a while to make the east-west connection to I-5. Ridership for Tacoma isn't as high, given the relatively direct buses from downtown and the Dome TC to Seattle.

The North Line has the reverse, with buses taking a fast, more direct route that ultimately ends up being a shorter commute for anyone who doesn't work at Union Station. The only possible time advantages for Sounder over express buses would lie north/east of Everett because of two key bottlenecks (I-5 and the US 2/Hewitt Avenue Trestle).

Right, which is exactly my point.  Rail may be able to get people from Marysville and Snohomish (and points beyond) to Everett faster, but it will still get them from Everett to Seattle inefficiently as it follows a bulge in the shoreline prone to landslides.

Quote from: Bruce on May 24, 2016, 09:51:10 PMThe south corridor could adopt some of the bus restructures that the north went through, mainly consolation of off-peak runs into a single, more frequent route (512) while retaining peak hour routes (510/511/513).

Tacoma/Lakewood service has run like that since before Sound Transit was a thing, with the 594 providing consolidated off-peak service, and the 590/592/595 (and previously the 591 and 593) providing peak hour service to specific areas.

Anywhere else, before Sound Transit was a thing, off-peak express service wasn't a thing, so there wasn't/isn't anything to restructure.  Sound Transit added the 577/578 to Federal Way*, Auburn, and Puyallup.  Kent meanwhile is still waiting for something better than the 150.  (I don't think taking the 566 and transferring in Renton counts, especially since it doesn't run weekends.)

(*Federal Way had the 194, but it wasn't quite an express on the same level its current service is, and around the same time the 577 came to be, it was consolidated thanks to Link anyway.)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on May 27, 2016, 04:35:46 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 24, 2016, 09:51:10 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 24, 2016, 03:19:41 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on May 23, 2016, 01:54:35 PMHell, I'd go so far as to say that the Sounder should be running, all the time, from Stanwood to Seattle, with a stop in Marysville.  Also, expand operational times to outside commute times, and add holiday runs.  If they did that, I'd be much more inclined to go to Seattle to "hang out".

The ridership on the "North Line" just isn't there to support pouring more money into it.  (The Mukilteo station improvements are somewhat of an exception, since it's part of a multimodal project with the ferry terminal.)  The South Line packs their trains, and there's some talk of running midday service there if they can afford to purchase slots, but no such talk north of Seattle.

The South Line has the advantage of being a fast, relatively direct route for the Green River Valley, since the buses take a while to make the east-west connection to I-5. Ridership for Tacoma isn't as high, given the relatively direct buses from downtown and the Dome TC to Seattle.

The North Line has the reverse, with buses taking a fast, more direct route that ultimately ends up being a shorter commute for anyone who doesn't work at Union Station. The only possible time advantages for Sounder over express buses would lie north/east of Everett because of two key bottlenecks (I-5 and the US 2/Hewitt Avenue Trestle).

The south corridor could adopt some of the bus restructures that the north went through, mainly consolation of off-peak runs into a single, more frequent route (512) while retaining peak hour routes (510/511/513).


The problem with the North Route is that it runs along the coast.  Most of the people North of Seattle live closer the I-5 and see the drive to Edmonds, Downtown Everett, or Mukliteo as either too far, or a major inconvenience.  If only the rail line that used to follow close by to I-5 had remained past the 70s (and currently part of the inner-urban trail, formerly the inner-urban rail) and could have been utilized, ridership would be much higher.


I will also add that some of the issues in the North have to deal with the sheer number of persons who work at Boeing, rather than downtown, coupled with people, at least from Whidbey, who purposely don't work 9-5 schedules to avoid traffic, and where a later series of trains (as well as more than one NB train in the morning) would be beneficial.  ST should actually study the need and desires of those they are supposed to serve, and not assume that what works south of Seattle can or will work north of Seattle.


As someone who does utilize transit when they can, I can say that there are also some issues with route planning, making it appear as though it is much more difficult to get around (at least in the north) than it really is.  There is no easy way to get from Mukilteo to Seattle or back, unless you take the Sounder, or actually look at the schedules on 3 different sites, since ST Bus isn't in Google Maps (only the Sounder), CT is only on CT's site or ST's site, and ET is only on ET's site.  So if you, like me, just use Google for your trip planning, because you were on vacation in Portland where everything is tied in together, and they only have one transit system, you could be forgiven for thinking you need a taxi or wait 4 hours for a train to get home, when in fact, you can take a bus to Everett Station, then transfer to an ET for 75¢ to get to your ferry, instead of $2+ on CT, which will take twice as long.  It is annoying.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on May 27, 2016, 05:16:31 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on May 27, 2016, 04:35:46 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 24, 2016, 09:51:10 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 24, 2016, 03:19:41 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on May 23, 2016, 01:54:35 PMHell, I'd go so far as to say that the Sounder should be running, all the time, from Stanwood to Seattle, with a stop in Marysville.  Also, expand operational times to outside commute times, and add holiday runs.  If they did that, I'd be much more inclined to go to Seattle to "hang out".

The ridership on the "North Line" just isn't there to support pouring more money into it.  (The Mukilteo station improvements are somewhat of an exception, since it's part of a multimodal project with the ferry terminal.)  The South Line packs their trains, and there's some talk of running midday service there if they can afford to purchase slots, but no such talk north of Seattle.

The South Line has the advantage of being a fast, relatively direct route for the Green River Valley, since the buses take a while to make the east-west connection to I-5. Ridership for Tacoma isn't as high, given the relatively direct buses from downtown and the Dome TC to Seattle.

The North Line has the reverse, with buses taking a fast, more direct route that ultimately ends up being a shorter commute for anyone who doesn't work at Union Station. The only possible time advantages for Sounder over express buses would lie north/east of Everett because of two key bottlenecks (I-5 and the US 2/Hewitt Avenue Trestle).

The south corridor could adopt some of the bus restructures that the north went through, mainly consolation of off-peak runs into a single, more frequent route (512) while retaining peak hour routes (510/511/513).


The problem with the North Route is that it runs along the coast.  Most of the people North of Seattle live closer the I-5 and see the drive to Edmonds, Downtown Everett, or Mukliteo as either too far, or a major inconvenience.  If only the rail line that used to follow close by to I-5 had remained past the 70s (and currently part of the inner-urban trail, formerly the inner-urban rail) and could have been utilized, ridership would be much higher.


I will also add that some of the issues in the North have to deal with the sheer number of persons who work at Boeing, rather than downtown, coupled with people, at least from Whidbey, who purposely don't work 9-5 schedules to avoid traffic, and where a later series of trains (as well as more than one NB train in the morning) would be beneficial.  ST should actually study the need and desires of those they are supposed to serve, and not assume that what works south of Seattle can or will work north of Seattle.


As someone who does utilize transit when they can, I can say that there are also some issues with route planning, making it appear as though it is much more difficult to get around (at least in the north) than it really is.  There is no easy way to get from Mukilteo to Seattle or back, unless you take the Sounder, or actually look at the schedules on 3 different sites, since ST Bus isn't in Google Maps (only the Sounder), CT is only on CT's site or ST's site, and ET is only on ET's site.  So if you, like me, just use Google for your trip planning, because you were on vacation in Portland where everything is tied in together, and they only have one transit system, you could be forgiven for thinking you need a taxi or wait 4 hours for a train to get home, when in fact, you can take a bus to Everett Station, then transfer to an ET for 75¢ to get to your ferry, instead of $2+ on CT, which will take twice as long.  It is annoying.

ST shouldn't bend over and accommodate some outliers who aren't even in their taxing district. That's the job of Island Transit to lobby the state government for.

Serving Boeing is a tough problem to solve, since most of its employees live outside of the ST district (in the northern and eastern suburbs of Snohomish County, and well beyond) and the campus being so spread out. Expanding the current commuter bus system, with a few extra milk runs to major transit centers like Lynnwood TC, might be the best option.

Google Maps has CT, ST Express and Sounder since last May, so you don't have to use the mediocre regional trip planner unless you're headed through Everett Transit's territory. Everett Transit is far behind the curve, though, so it's unlikely they will be able to get their GTFS online until it's too late.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: JasonOfORoads on June 01, 2016, 03:56:17 AM
Despite being from and currently living in Oregon, I did go to college in Washington for 4 years, so you can add me as well. I really wished I could've explored the unbuilt SR-7 freeway in Tacoma while I was up there.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 01, 2016, 08:59:29 AM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on June 01, 2016, 03:56:17 AM
Despite being from and currently living in Oregon, I did go to college in Washington for 4 years, so you can add me as well. I really wished I could've explored the unbuilt SR-7 freeway in Tacoma while I was up there.

I drive through it on a regular basis, while I-5 is being rebuilt through Tacoma (so as to avoid the lane closures). I can tell from old satellite imagery that quite a lot of pavement has been ripped up that wasn't needed (specifically, the on and off ramps to the south). I would love to have seen an original route map, but I've never been able to find one.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 01, 2016, 06:37:32 PM
What's the latest on the Highway 167 extension? Is it any closer to actually being constructed?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 01, 2016, 07:11:28 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 01, 2016, 06:37:32 PM
What's the latest on the Highway 167 extension? Is it any closer to actually being constructed?

Oh it's getting built. WSDOT is currently finishing design work. Construction is set to begin in 2019, and should be fully complete by the early 2030s.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 10, 2016, 02:44:20 PM
The contract for the 167/405 HOV flyover was awarded a few days ago to Renton-based Guy F Atkinson Construction. Construction should begin this summer:

http://wsdot.wa.gov/News/2016/06/405167DCaward.htm

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsdot.wa.gov%2FNR%2Frdonlyres%2F27AD3F35-6FD5-4DF1-92E2-E222734789A7%2F0%2FSR_167RTID_HOV_Flyover_WEB.jpg&hash=7771a652429e21d89cd75bacb087d6536cac8340)

This is one of the first steps in a much larger project to convert the 405's HOV lanes to express lanes south of Bellevue. When complete, there will be two continuous toll lanes from the 167 near Renton to the 522 near Bothell. For those interested, there are several PDFs on WSDOT's website which visualize the Renton to Bellevue plans:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I405/RentontoBellevue/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: 8.Lug on June 10, 2016, 03:12:46 PM
I only spent a week and a half there and only stayed west of the mountains, but I logged nearly 1,100 miles while exploring from Tumwater to Everett and I was pretty taken aback by the complete LACK of construction that I experienced. I'll just add that to the list of reasons why I'm trying to move there.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 10, 2016, 03:57:20 PM
Quote from: 8.Lug on June 10, 2016, 03:12:46 PM
I only spent a week and a half there and only stayed west of the mountains, but I logged nearly 1,100 miles while exploring from Tumwater to Everett and I was pretty taken aback by the complete LACK of construction that I experienced. I'll just add that to the list of reasons why I'm trying to move there.

There's very little construction in the winter, but once summer hits, all sorts of stuff starts happening. There are long stretches of freeway without any work, but there are some, like the 520, that have all sorts of work going on.

When were you here?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: 8.Lug on June 10, 2016, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 10, 2016, 03:57:20 PM
When were you here?
19th-28th of last month. Have a friend in Rochester, WA which was named for Rochester, MI which was named for Rochester, NY our home town lol
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 10, 2016, 06:51:45 PM
Quote from: 8.Lug on June 10, 2016, 05:51:13 PM
Have a friend in Rochester, WA which was named for Rochester, MI which was named for Rochester, NY our home town lol

lol indeed. Nice bit of a history I never knew.

Were you able to avoid some of the traffic? I'm sure the five north of Olympia (through JBLM) was a pain.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Thunderbyrd316 on June 10, 2016, 08:04:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 21, 2016, 01:56:31 PM
Why there hasn't been a thread specifically for Washington, or any other PNW state before, I don't know. So, I'm finally taking the liberty to create one. There are numerous road projects all throughout Washington State that do not need their own threads. Huge projects like the 520 bridge and Alaskan Way Tunnel are megaprojects deserving of their own thread.. But, smaller projects, such as interchange improvements, widening, or pavement rehab, while important, are hardly deserving of their own thread.

The main issue before was the overall lack of users from Washington to keep the thread moving. But I have noticed a few more users from this area lately. AFAICT, the following users have some connection to Washington:

- myself
- Kacie Janie
- Bruce
- kkt
- KEK, Inc
- thefraze_1020
- mcarling
- Bickendon (to an extent)
- corco, previously
- Ace10
- TEG24601
- Tarkus
- JasonOfORoads

I don't expect this thread to have a lot of activity -- maybe a whole page by the end of 2016. But at least there's somewhere to post about small projects now.

   You can probably add me to your list Jake. I drive through a big chunk of Washington just about every week during the Summer to get to various Demolition Derbies and Full Contact Oval and Figure 8 Stock Car races. (Thunderbird Stadium at the Kitsap County Fairgrounds in Silverdale is a favorite track.) Nevermind the fact that I live less than 15 miles from the state line and go over to Vancouver / Clark County more than once a week.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 10, 2016, 09:25:53 PM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on June 10, 2016, 08:04:16 PM
You can probably add me to your list Jake. I drive through a big chunk of Washington just about every week during the Summer to get to various Demolition Derbies and Full Contact Oval and Figure 8 Stock Car races. (Thunderbird Stadium at the Kitsap County Fairgrounds in Silverdale is a favorite track.) Nevermind the fact that I live less than 15 miles from the state line and go over to Vancouver / Clark County more than once a week.

Thanks for the info! I always like hearing about new race tracks. One of these days I'm gonna do a track day.

Anyways, consider yourself added.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: 8.Lug on June 10, 2016, 10:21:12 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 10, 2016, 06:51:45 PM
Were you able to avoid some of the traffic? I'm sure the five north of Olympia (through JBLM) was a pain.

It was stop-n-go but not a parking lot so it didn't bother me. I'm pretty good with my weaving and I picked up on which lanes to be in at which points to cover the most ground, like how the right-most lanes seem to move the best until there's a merge and you gotta get back over to the left or else you'll definitely be in a parking lot.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 10, 2016, 11:13:32 PM
Lack of construction?

Maybe on the highway side (for now, with the new transportation package), but every other area is booming. New skyscrapers in downtown and SLU; new light rail in North Seattle, SeaTac, and now Bellevue (with more to come for the next 25 years); new ferry terminals coming soon at Colman Dock and Mukilteo; etc.

Not a day goes by without me encountering a gaggle of orange vests going out for lunch. Heck, even my commute to school entirely contained within Everett and Marysville passes by at least 4 construction sites.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 10, 2016, 11:44:36 PM
Quote from: Bruce on June 10, 2016, 11:13:32 PM
Lack of construction?

Maybe on the highway side (for now, with the new transportation package), but every other area is booming. New skyscrapers in downtown and SLU; new light rail in North Seattle, SeaTac, and now Bellevue (with more to come for the next 25 years); new ferry terminals coming soon at Colman Dock and Mukilteo; etc.

Not a day goes by without me encountering a gaggle of orange vests going out for lunch. Heck, even my commute to school entirely contained within Everett and Marysville passes by at least 4 construction sites.

I'm sure he was talking about the roads. Driving around Seattle these days is like an obstacle course! Never seen so much building construction in my life.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: mcarling on June 18, 2016, 09:43:54 PM
The new exit from I-205 southbound to Mill Plain Blvd is now open (and the old one is now closed).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 18, 2016, 10:01:58 PM
Quote from: mcarling on June 18, 2016, 09:43:54 PM
The new exit from I-205 southbound to Mill Plain Blvd is now open (and the old one is now closed).

Just the 205 exit, correct? The entrance ramp is still under construction, yes?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: mcarling on June 18, 2016, 10:11:40 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 18, 2016, 10:01:58 PM
Just the 205 exit, correct? The entrance ramp is still under construction, yes?
I haven't driven that way to check it.  I can try to do so over the next few days.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: mcarling on June 20, 2016, 02:55:34 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 18, 2016, 10:01:58 PM
Quote from: mcarling on June 18, 2016, 09:43:54 PM
The new exit from I-205 southbound to Mill Plain Blvd is now open (and the old one is now closed).

Just the 205 exit, correct? The entrance ramp is still under construction, yes?
As of 11:00 today, the entrance ramp from NE 18th St onto southbound I-205 is not yet open.  Glimpsed from I-205 northbound, that ramp does look complete, so it might possibly open this week.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 20, 2016, 04:17:01 PM
Any updates on the North Spokane Corridor? Is the existing portion the only part of the highway that will ever be built?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 20, 2016, 05:28:53 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 20, 2016, 04:17:01 PM
Any updates on the North Spokane Corridor? Is the existing portion the only part of the highway that will ever be built?

The 2015 transportation package includes full funding for the entire corridor, to finish the freeway all the way to I-90. The southern segment will cost $879 million and be completed by 2027; work cannot start yet since the revenue isn't expected to kick into full gear for a few more years.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: mcarling on June 25, 2016, 10:56:37 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 18, 2016, 10:01:58 PM
The entrance ramp is still under construction, yes?
The entrance ramp from NE 18th St onto southbound I-205 is now open.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 28, 2016, 04:37:03 PM
Washington must fix salmon-blocking culverts, court says (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/appeals-court-washington-must-fix-salmon-blocking-culverts/)

For anyone pay-walled:

Quote
Federal appeals judges say the state of Washington has violated the treaty rights of tribes to fish by building and maintaining large pipes that allow streams to pass beneath roads but also block migrating salmon.

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday affirmed a lower-court ruling ordering Washington to replace hundreds of culverts – at a cost that officials peg at $2.4 billion.

The case stems from the landmark 1974 Boldt decision, which affirmed the rights of 21 Washington tribes to half the salmon harvest. The tribes, backed by the U.S. Justice Department, sued the state in 2001, trying to force the state to replace the culverts with structures that better allow fish to pass.

A federal judge in Seattle held that fish-blocking culverts contribute to diminished salmon runs, and in 2013 ordered the state to replace hundreds of culverts.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Henry on June 29, 2016, 10:51:28 AM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on June 10, 2016, 08:04:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 21, 2016, 01:56:31 PM
Why there hasn't been a thread specifically for Washington, or any other PNW state before, I don't know. So, I'm finally taking the liberty to create one. There are numerous road projects all throughout Washington State that do not need their own threads. Huge projects like the 520 bridge and Alaskan Way Tunnel are megaprojects deserving of their own thread.. But, smaller projects, such as interchange improvements, widening, or pavement rehab, while important, are hardly deserving of their own thread.

The main issue before was the overall lack of users from Washington to keep the thread moving. But I have noticed a few more users from this area lately. AFAICT, the following users have some connection to Washington:

- myself
- Kacie Janie
- Bruce
- kkt
- KEK, Inc
- thefraze_1020
- mcarling
- Bickendon (to an extent)
- corco, previously
- Ace10
- TEG24601
- Tarkus
- JasonOfORoads

I don't expect this thread to have a lot of activity -- maybe a whole page by the end of 2016. But at least there's somewhere to post about small projects now.

   You can probably add me to your list Jake. I drive through a big chunk of Washington just about every week during the Summer to get to various Demolition Derbies and Full Contact Oval and Figure 8 Stock Car races. (Thunderbird Stadium at the Kitsap County Fairgrounds in Silverdale is a favorite track.) Nevermind the fact that I live less than 15 miles from the state line and go over to Vancouver / Clark County more than once a week.
I should be on that list too! I've been living in Seattle since 2000, when I moved there from L.A.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 29, 2016, 12:09:40 PM
Quote from: Henry on June 29, 2016, 10:51:28 AM
I should be on that list too! I've been living in Seattle since 2000, when I moved there from L.A.

Sorry. Done. I knew I was missing someone else. I started to associate you with just the Chicago area, forgetting that you tagged Seattle as a location as well.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on July 06, 2016, 12:48:27 PM
New member here, but I've lived in Washington all my life and will probably be contributing a fair amount to this part of the forum, so add me to the list, please. Thanks!!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 06, 2016, 01:46:34 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on July 06, 2016, 12:48:27 PM
New member here, but I've lived in Washington all my life and will probably be contributing a fair amount to this part of the forum, so add me to the list, please. Thanks!!

Done! And again, welcome aboard. A potential roster for Seattle-area meetups grows by the day.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: mrsman on July 18, 2016, 10:47:02 PM
It's wonderful that you are able to find so many people from Washington and identified as local experts.  I have only been to Seattle once on a two week vacation many years ago, but my wife is a UW alum.  It'd be nice if similar lists are produced for the areas where I am most familliar (LA, NYC, and DC).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 22, 2016, 12:36:47 AM
Quote from: mrsman on July 18, 2016, 10:47:02 PM
It's wonderful that you are able to find so many people from Washington and identified as local experts.  I have only been to Seattle once on a two week vacation many years ago, but my wife is a UW alum.  It'd be nice if similar lists are produced for the areas where I am most familliar (LA, NYC, and DC).

I originally produced the list to prove to other users that there was actually a sizable base of users from the PNW. The original list was much shorter, but as you can see from previous posts, it keeps growing.

I, personally, would love a list for other areas as well, if only so I could see which areas have the most users (I suspect the midwest is first, followed by the northeast, followed by who knows).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Thunderbyrd316 on August 04, 2016, 10:24:02 PM
   I was passing through Chehalis on I-5 on Saturday and noticed that they have begun demolition of the Chamber Way overpass at Exit 79. Interestingly, I could find nothing about this project on the WSDOT website. I am presuming that a new structure will be constructed that will accommodate future widening of the freeway. If anybody has further info. please feel free to share. While it needs to happen, it is a bit sad to see another cool old '50's era overpass bite the dust.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 04, 2016, 10:48:33 PM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on August 04, 2016, 10:24:02 PM
   I was passing through Chehalis on I-5 on Saturday and noticed that they have begun demolition of the Chamber Way overpass at Exit 79. Interestingly, I could find nothing about this project on the WSDOT website. I am presuming that a new structure will be constructed that will accommodate future widening of the freeway. If anybody has further info. please feel free to share. While it needs to happen, it is a bit sad to see another cool old '50's era overpass bite the dust.

An over height semi crashed into the over pass last week, rendering it unusable. A new temporary span opened today. No idea what the plan is now, but I'd guess some funding will be allocated soon for a new bridge.

From WSDOT: http://wsdot.wa.gov/news/2016/08/04/chamber-way-overpass-reopen-thursday-aug-4

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8716/28481472952_f3685adbcf_k.jpg)

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8846/28440580030_311be10672_k.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 04, 2016, 11:02:05 PM
WSDOT seems to have its act together with regard to building temporary bridges. The aftermath of the Skagit River collapse was handled very well, and this one is progressing smoothly.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 04, 2016, 11:22:22 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 04, 2016, 11:02:05 PM
WSDOT seems to have its act together with regard to building temporary bridges. The aftermath of the Skagit River collapse was handled very well, and this one is progressing smoothly.

Amazingly, the damn thing's already open. They definitely have their shit together:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8644/28768111815_bcb45a3c9d_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on August 06, 2016, 11:36:00 AM
Great job with the temporary bridge.  I hope the permanent replacement is built for future six lanes of I-5.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on August 06, 2016, 01:05:18 PM
Ouch, that bridge took a beating. I'm curious as to whether WSDOT will just slap some new girders in there and call it macaroni, or if they'll rebuild the whole entire span. I think they will just slap some new girders in there because that's cheaper. But that really was a nice bridge and frankly looked a lot better than later WSDOT overpass designs.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Thunderbyrd316 on August 06, 2016, 06:28:17 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on August 06, 2016, 01:05:18 PM
Ouch, that bridge took a beating. I'm curious as to whether WSDOT will just slap some new girders in there and call it macaroni, or if they'll rebuild the whole entire span. I think they will just slap some new girders in there because that's cheaper. But that really was a nice bridge and frankly looked a lot better than later WSDOT overpass designs.

   Washington really has not significantly changed the appearance of their standard highway structures since the late '70's and I have never really cared for the design they use. (For example, the structure for the on ramp to northbound I-205 from Mill Plain Blvd., dated 2009, as well as the structures built for the junction with S.R. 502 at I-5 dated 2008 or the S.R. 501 overpass at Rigdefield dated 2010 are pretty much identical in appearance to structures built on I-5 dated 1980, '81 and '82 in downtown Vancouver.)

   Personally, I really like the designs that Oregon used in the very late '60's and through the '70's. Oregon may have some seriously ****ed up highways thanks mostly to a complete lack of meaningful expansion since the 1970's but they did build some very nice looking structures for a little while there. I also like the appearance of Washington's '60's and early '70's structures. They were not fancy but looked nice just the same.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on August 07, 2016, 02:22:54 AM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on August 06, 2016, 06:28:17 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on August 06, 2016, 01:05:18 PM
Ouch, that bridge took a beating. I'm curious as to whether WSDOT will just slap some new girders in there and call it macaroni, or if they'll rebuild the whole entire span. I think they will just slap some new girders in there because that's cheaper. But that really was a nice bridge and frankly looked a lot better than later WSDOT overpass designs.

   Washington really has not significantly changed the appearance of their standard highway structures since the late '70's and I have never really cared for the design they use. (For example, the structure for the on ramp to northbound I-205 from Mill Plain Blvd., dated 2009, as well as the structures built for the junction with S.R. 502 at I-5 dated 2008 or the S.R. 501 overpass at Rigdefield dated 2010 are pretty much identical in appearance to structures built on I-5 dated 1980, '81 and '82 in downtown Vancouver.)

   Personally, I really like the designs that Oregon used in the very late '60's and through the '70's. Oregon may have some seriously ****ed up highways thanks mostly to a complete lack of meaningful expansion since the 1970's but they did build some very nice looking structures for a little while there. I also like the appearance of Washington's '60's and early '70's structures. They were not fancy but looked nice just the same.

I agree, most of Washington's highway overpasses from the mid-60s onwards look pretty utilitarian, but I always liked how the bridge support is cylindrical shaped, something you don't really see on newer bridges. The ones from the late-50s and early-60s are my second favorite design because it evokes so much of mid-century modern design. The ones used in the early to mid-50s with the tee-beam (i.e. the slightly curved arch) are hands down my favorite sort of design used in this state. My favorite sort of one-off overpass design is the one that carries 436th Avenue Southeast over I-90 is my favorite.

As for Oregon overpasses, what design are you referring to when you say late-60s to early-70s? As for me, these 70s-era overpasses like this one that carries SW Sagert Street over I-5 (https://goo.gl/maps/a7HjkjSXD7u) are some of my favorites. The I-5/I-205 interchange also has some overpasses designed like this. I've seen that style of overpass used in other places--including on WA 16 in Tacoma (example (https://goo.gl/maps/xzNfi3DDd1J2))--and I really like it. I can't decide which I like best: the ones from the 70s or the ones from the 50s. I once told my parents that I thought those overpasses were the only good thing to come out of the 70s and they thought that was really weird. :-D
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 07, 2016, 02:29:53 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on August 07, 2016, 02:22:54 AM
My favorite sort of one-off overpass design is the one that carries 436th Avenue Southeast over I-90 is my favorite.

The 436 Ave SE overpass is definitely one of my favorites as well. Having a single support structure in the center, instead of several on each side of each carriageway, is far more aesthetically pleasing to me. Though, I prefer narrower columns in urban areas, where wide medians are unnecessary. (necessary here due to wide support column).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Thunderbyrd316 on August 08, 2016, 08:16:17 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on August 06, 2016, 01:05:18 PM


   Personally, I really like the designs that Oregon used in the very late '60's and through the '70's. Oregon may have some seriously ****ed up highways thanks mostly to a complete lack of meaningful expansion since the 1970's but they did build some very nice looking structures for a little while there. I also like the appearance of Washington's '60's and early '70's structures. They were not fancy but looked nice just the same.
[/quote]

As for Oregon overpasses, what design are you referring to when you say late-60s to early-70s? As for me, these 70s-era overpasses like this one that carries SW Sagert Street over I-5 (https://goo.gl/maps/a7HjkjSXD7u) are some of my favorites. The I-5/I-205 interchange also has some overpasses designed like this. I've seen that style of overpass used in other places--including on WA 16 in Tacoma (example (https://goo.gl/maps/xzNfi3DDd1J2))--and I really like it. I can't decide which I like best: the ones from the 70s or the ones from the 50s. I once told my parents that I thought those overpasses were the only good thing to come out of the 70s and they thought that was really weird. :-D
[/quote]

I was pretty much referring to any structure on I-5 between Salem Parkway and Oregon 217 as well as pretty much all of Oregon 217 and I-205. I-84 in eastern Oregon has a few nice looking structures as well.  There is one overpass in La Grande (N. 2nd Street) that is especially slick looking.

One thing Oregon has been doing in recent years I do NOT like at all is the "new/old" look they have tried to give some structures. They started with the Banfield reconstruction in the mid '80's but the worst abomination I can think of is the Oregon 99E viaduct connecting McGloughlin with the Union / Grand couplet. (Yes, Union was renamed MLK but it will always be Union Avenue to me.)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 26, 2016, 08:09:28 PM
Roger Millar is now the permanent Secretary for Transportation:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/Roger-Millar-is-King-of-the-Road-9132813.php
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on September 12, 2016, 02:45:31 PM
I found a higher resolution render of the now-under-construction 167/405 HOV connector (see below). The ramp should be complete by 2019.

I wish WSDOT would explain how they plan to tie together the two routes. The 167 does not currently require HOV's to have a toll tag, but the 405 does. They've been talking about making the 405 and 167 freeways one long corridor for over a decade now, so my hope is that the flyover ramp isn't the transition point from one tolling system to the other. If it were up to me, I'd make the entire route similar to the 405's current tolling system (all cars need a tag, or pay $2 extra dollars for snail mail).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3VSszU2.png&hash=91cecb81d8a0a1a89c39c32dff41a8ccced694d2)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 13, 2016, 01:36:47 AM
Major Vision Zero announcement tomorrow in Seattle. Expecting city-wide speed limit lowerings.

This will be fun to watch. I'm grabbing popcorn and manning the twitter.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on September 13, 2016, 03:06:52 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 13, 2016, 01:36:47 AM
Major Vision Zero announcement tomorrow in Seattle. Expecting city-wide speed limit lowerings.

This will be fun to watch. I'm grabbing popcorn and manning the twitter.

Fuck it. We'll start right now.

SDOT's dashboard site (http://seattlevisionzero.azurewebsites.net/) shows the leading contributions being inattentiveness (distracted driving?), drunk driving, and failure to give way. How is lowering the speed limit going to change any of those?

P.S. where did you hear about this announcement?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 13, 2016, 04:31:51 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 13, 2016, 03:06:52 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 13, 2016, 01:36:47 AM
Major Vision Zero announcement tomorrow in Seattle. Expecting city-wide speed limit lowerings.

This will be fun to watch. I'm grabbing popcorn and manning the twitter.

Fuck it. We'll start right now.

SDOT's dashboard site (http://seattlevisionzero.azurewebsites.net/) shows the leading contributions being inattentiveness (distracted driving?), drunk driving, and failure to give way. How is lowering the speed limit going to change any of those?

P.S. where did you hear about this announcement?

Seattle Neighborhood Greenways posted a few notices on their social media accounts yesterday.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on September 13, 2016, 05:32:55 PM
Yes, lowering speed limits will just promote even more texting and cell phone use.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on September 15, 2016, 12:19:30 AM
Here's an article from the Seattle Times about this:

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/city-could-reduce-downtown-residential-speed-limits/

Personally I think it's a terrible idea, and frankly anything slower than 30 is too slow for arterials IMO. Also, I used to live in Seattle and lived on a residential street that almost had enough traffic to qualify as a collector arterial, and I doubt anyone went 25. People are definitely not going to go 20 on residential streets, especially ones further away from downtown with no sidewalks or curbs to allow for two cars to more easily pass each other.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 15, 2016, 01:10:12 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on September 15, 2016, 12:19:30 AM
Here's an article from the Seattle Times about this:

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/city-could-reduce-downtown-residential-speed-limits/

Personally I think it's a terrible idea, and frankly anything slower than 30 is too slow for arterials IMO. Also, I used to live in Seattle and lived on a residential street that almost had enough traffic to qualify as a collector arterial, and I doubt anyone went 25. People are definitely not going to go 20 on residential streets, especially ones further away from downtown with no sidewalks or curbs to allow for two cars to more easily pass each other.

I would hope under the new plan people would go down to 25, especially after getting a huge ticket in the mail. They deserve no pity for speeding recklessly through an urban environment where pedestrians and cyclists deserve priority over cars. Speed all you like on I-5 in Skagit County or somewhere else.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on September 15, 2016, 02:32:15 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 15, 2016, 01:10:12 AM
They deserve no pity for speeding recklessly through an urban environment

I have a really hard time believing that 30 is "speeding recklessly".

And like I already said upthread, the vast majority of collisions are not related to speed in this city. Impairment, distraction, and failure to give way are the three leading causes. None of those three have any connection to the speed limit. FWIW, my suspicion is that distraction will skyrocket under a lower limit, because drivers will, literally, get bored driving 20 or 25.

The other main issue here that lowering limits does nothing to slow drivers (and historically, it never does). People drive at a speed that they feel is reasonable and prudent, given the conditions of the roadway. If the city wants drivers to go slower, they ought to continue their focus on road diets as they already have been. There are some streets where 30 feels fast. That's how it ought to be.

Quote from: Bruce on September 15, 2016, 01:10:12 AM
I would hope under the new plan people would go down to 25, especially after getting a huge ticket in the mail.

Huge ticket? 6-10 over the limit, which will soon be the norm, is $124 (when the limit is below 40). Is that a lot? Maybe for some, but SPD's lax enforcement, which is already strained due to various other budgeting issues, mean that very few drivers will ever be ticketed more than once; the vast majority, more than likely, will never get pulled over, because an officer will never see them speeding.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Tarkus on September 15, 2016, 03:02:14 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 15, 2016, 01:10:12 AM
I would hope under the new plan people would go down to 25, especially after getting a huge ticket in the mail.

You inadvertently pointed out the real reason for Vision Zero schemes--more zeroes behind the dollar sign.  They're not about safety, but about revenue and control.  The politicians who support it are either extremely naive, egomaniacs, or are in bed with Xerox, Redflex, and their ilk--or some combination thereof.

Since getting on the Vision Zero bandwagon and reducing a crapton of speed limits (including multiple reductions on some streets in East Portland), in addition to letting Xerox put up fixed speed cameras, Portland went past the fatality mark for all of 2015 only about halfway through 2016.

Quote from: kkt on September 13, 2016, 05:32:55 PM
Yes, lowering speed limits will just promote even more texting and cell phone use.

Indeed--it'll make the motorists bored, and/or give them a false sense of security.

It's also very possible that they could fixate on the speedo so heavily that they aren't paying attention to their surroundings.  Artificially low speed limits can really screw with your head.  Anyone who has driven through a speed trap town before knows that feeling.

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on September 15, 2016, 03:51:33 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 15, 2016, 01:10:12 AM
........an urban environment where pedestrians and cyclists deserve priority over cars. .
Priority? -- no.  Parity/equal treatment and consideration? Certainly.  Unless time has rapidly passed me by in the last couple of days -- and driverless is the new norm -- the cars of which are spoken here have people driving them who are going about their business and lives the best they can.  Agreed, some of them might be able to avail themselves of whatever transit network is present in their particular areas, but not all have that luxury -- or option.  Transit is one of a number of methodologies to move people & goods around a given urban area -- but, as often is the case with such things, a methodology favored or preferred by some has been conflated into an ideology, which among some adherents devolves into a "if you're not for us then you're against us" diametric.

In this case, a war of attrition against individual automotive transport, carried on by the ostensibly well-meaning (often metro planners with an agenda developed in their academic years), often results in draconian/ridiculous measures -- virtual "speed bumps" if you will -- in the hopes that making driving in urban areas so onerous that the driving public simply surrenders.  That's unlikely to occur -- some route modification may occur, speed limits will be tested incrementally, and -- as is often the case -- facilities that were not congested before will see increased traffic as they become "alternate" corridors.  Planning efforts often occur within a vacuum, with opposition or objections from "outside" being dismissed as disruptive to the preferred agenda; it takes a literal storm of complaints (or even litigation) to get higher-level officials to overrule agency policy.  So -- it seems that in the eyes of anti-automotive activists in and out of official positions -- drivers are the new smokers!   
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on September 15, 2016, 03:58:46 PM
If it was selected downtown and neighborhood business district arterials they might have a point.  It doesn't need to be everywhere, though.  They should just sign lower speed limits where needed.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on September 15, 2016, 09:12:06 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 15, 2016, 03:58:46 PM
If it was selected downtown and neighborhood business district arterials they might have a point.  It doesn't need to be everywhere, though.  They should just sign lower speed limits where needed.

I agree totally! I really wouldn't care if it was just streets in Downtown Seattle. If you want to get through downtown fast, take I-5 or the Alaskan Way Viaduct. (though, there are times of day where this just doesn't work)

Quote from: Tarkus on September 15, 2016, 03:02:14 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 15, 2016, 01:10:12 AM
I would hope under the new plan people would go down to 25, especially after getting a huge ticket in the mail.

You inadvertently pointed out the real reason for Vision Zero schemes--more zeroes behind the dollar sign.  They're not about safety, but about revenue and control.  The politicians who support it are either extremely naive, egomaniacs, or are in bed with Xerox, Redflex, and their ilk--or some combination thereof.

Since getting on the Vision Zero bandwagon and reducing a crapton of speed limits (including multiple reductions on some streets in East Portland), in addition to letting Xerox put up fixed speed cameras, Portland went past the fatality mark for all of 2015 only about halfway through 2016.

Quote from: kkt on September 13, 2016, 05:32:55 PM
Yes, lowering speed limits will just promote even more texting and cell phone use.

Indeed--it'll make the motorists bored, and/or give them a false sense of security.

It's also very possible that they could fixate on the speedo so heavily that they aren't paying attention to their surroundings.  Artificially low speed limits can really screw with your head.  Anyone who has driven through a speed trap town before knows that feeling.



Totally agree with you. And I've never liked the idea of Vision Zero because it seems like nothing more than pie-in-the-sky idealism. And like many of those sort of ideas, it doesn't work. BTW I've always liked your "Speed 75 Or Bust" avatar. :thumbsup:

Quote from: Bruce on September 15, 2016, 01:10:12 AM
Speed all you like on I-5 in Skagit County or somewhere else.
Some of us want to get to our destinations in a reasonable amount of time in the city, and it's important to have reasonable speed limits. I really have a hard time going 25 on collector arterials, usually I go 30 on accident.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 15, 2016, 10:58:56 PM
New York City lowered their speed limits to the same range in 2014 and it reduced pedestrian and bicyclist deaths by a pretty large margin, according to the 2015 report (http://www.nyc.gov/html/visionzero/assets/downloads/pdf/vision-zero-1-year-report.pdf), but couldn't follow through with safe design (road diets, mostly) and the plan is in jeopardy (http://www.streetsblog.org/2016/07/26/crash-data-show-nyc-is-losing-ground-on-vision-zero/).

If the full Vision Zero package can be implemented, things would be a lot better for people who walk in the city. As it is, I have a tough time walking outside core neighborhoods, since the few safety features around are pedestrian-unfriendly (narrow sidewalks, beg buttons, etc.).

On a trip less than 30 miles (which the majority of drivers in the metro area are on), you only save 5 minutes (http://lifehacker.com/does-speeding-really-get-you-there-any-faster-1556767685) going up from 35 to 45 mph. I imagine a smaller margin exists for 30 vs 35. Is 5 minutes really worth killing people over?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on September 15, 2016, 11:44:41 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 15, 2016, 10:58:56 PM
New York City lowered their speed limits to the same range in 2014 and it reduced pedestrian and bicyclist deaths by a pretty large margin, according to the 2015 report (http://www.nyc.gov/html/visionzero/assets/downloads/pdf/vision-zero-1-year-report.pdf), but couldn't follow through with safe design (road diets, mostly) and the plan is in jeopardy (http://www.streetsblog.org/2016/07/26/crash-data-show-nyc-is-losing-ground-on-vision-zero/).

If the full Vision Zero package can be implemented, things would be a lot better for people who walk in the city. As it is, I have a tough time walking outside core neighborhoods, since the few safety features around are pedestrian-unfriendly (narrow sidewalks, beg buttons, etc.).

On a trip less than 30 miles (which the majority of drivers in the metro area are on), you only save 5 minutes (http://lifehacker.com/does-speeding-really-get-you-there-any-faster-1556767685) going up from 35 to 45 mph. I imagine a smaller margin exists for 30 vs 35. Is 5 minutes really worth killing people over?

You're cute. Who let you in a roads forum? Speed doesn't kill. Inattentiveness kills. Lowering speed limits without an engineering study is illegal in some states and should be everywhere. Road diets should be illegal as well, unless a road has actually experienced a decrease in traffic because it was bypassed.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on September 16, 2016, 07:51:09 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 15, 2016, 11:44:41 PM
Speed doesn't kill. Inattentiveness kills. Lowering speed limits without an engineering study is illegal in some states and should be everywhere. Road diets should be illegal as well, unless a road has actually experienced a decrease in traffic because it was bypassed.

Totally agree with all your points, and especially that road diets should be illegal! I can't stand road diets. If I was running for mayor of Seattle, I would promise to take all roads off of a diet (i.e. restoring them to four lanes) and then establish a bike route network using actual route numbers on side streets and bike trails.

Okay, I was going off on a tangent, but anyway, to get back on topic, I remember someone telling me that back when the NMSL was introduced in the early-70s, Washington lowered their freeway speed limits to 50 mph, but later increased them back up to 55 because drivers were falling asleep. Can someone confirm this?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 16, 2016, 08:03:04 PM
Making road diets illegal would be absurd. Some streets are in desperate need of a road diet because they were so poorly designed in the first place, unfit for the urban environment. Rainier was dangerous enough to see several instances of cars veering off and crashing into businesses every year, but since the road diet there hasn't been an instance of it.

A full cycletrack network with better signage would be a great idea. The city seems hesitant to actually build out its Bike Master Plan until after the current round of transit shakeups in downtown (complicated by the bus tunnel going full rail soon), so I doubt that they'll build out anything better than a few fragmented pieces of protected track.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on September 17, 2016, 12:35:03 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 16, 2016, 08:03:04 PM
Rainier was dangerous enough to see several instances of cars veering off and crashing into businesses every year, but since the road diet there hasn't been an instance of it.

Okay, well, Rainier is probably the rare example of a street where a road diet would make sense. But then again, I have not heard of this happening in Lake City, so maybe South Seattle just has really bad drivers or something.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: KEK Inc. on September 19, 2016, 08:02:40 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 12, 2016, 02:45:31 PM
I found a higher resolution render of the now-under-construction 167/405 HOV connector (see below). The ramp should be complete by 2019.

I wish WSDOT would explain how they plan to tie together the two routes. The 167 does not currently require HOV's to have a toll tag, but the 405 does. They've been talking about making the 405 and 167 freeways one long corridor for over a decade now, so my hope is that the flyover ramp isn't the transition point from one tolling system to the other. If it were up to me, I'd make the entire route similar to the 405's current tolling system (all cars need a tag, or pay $2 extra dollars for snail mail).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3VSszU2.png&hash=91cecb81d8a0a1a89c39c32dff41a8ccced694d2)

Why is it just an HOT ramp?  All of 405's freeway interchanges are nightmares, especially 167 and 520.  They need flyovers for GP lanes as well to replace the cloverleaf loops.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on September 20, 2016, 01:08:17 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on September 19, 2016, 08:02:40 PM
Why is it just an HOT ramp?  All of 405's freeway interchanges are nightmares, especially 167 and 520.  They need flyovers for GP lanes as well to replace the cloverleaf loops.

I don't suppose it would help to point out that the 405-520 interchange used to be much worse than it is now?  No, I thought not.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on September 20, 2016, 02:11:02 AM
Cloverleaf loops aren't like a horrible thing. But regardless, I-405 is just a nightmare period. It needs to be widened to be at least 8 lanes for its entire length. Unfortunately, that's going to mean that the I-405/SR-522 interchange is going to need to be rebuilt, because it's impossible to widen the freeway through there without hitting the pillars for the flyovers. Other than that issue, that interchange is not that bad, except that the offramp from I-405 NB to SR 522 EB should be widened to 2 lanes because it often backs up onto I-405 NB by 3:30 pm each weekday.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on September 20, 2016, 02:48:07 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on September 19, 2016, 08:02:40 PM
Why is it just an HOT ramp?  All of 405's freeway interchanges are nightmares, especially 167 and 520.  They need flyovers for GP lanes as well to replace the cloverleaf loops.

Renders have been produced in the past that show a radically reconfigured interchange with another flyover for SB to SB traffic, but current renders don't show this flyover.

The render below, which is printed in this PDF (https://goo.gl/i05N57) from May 2006, also deletes two loop ramps for traffic going to and from Rainier Ave. If they're going to remove two loop ramps, it should be the freeway-to-freeway loops, not the freeway-to-arterial (405 to Rainier) ramps. Then again, these are just renders.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fnthnfv0.png&hash=cc1aea66413e9ae81d1663baa99442197624e5d8)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 05, 2016, 05:00:09 PM
Tacoma's "arrow per lane" sign (5 SB at 16 West) is back up. It's very similar to the original, but the two left arrows aren't conjoined this time around. I suspect these are near-final signs. The pull-through sign has greened-out arrows (and until final configuration, they'll likely remain greened out).

Once this entire stretch is complete (HOV flyover and all), this will likely be one of the widest stretches of freeway in the Puget Sound (other contenders are the 5 through Seattle, and near the 405/518 interchange, as well as the 90 at Bellevue Way). My estimate is 14-15 lanes from one side to the other.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvGgPvGx.jpg&hash=17431297f8a4c31ecb3366f05222d783c2ffb1af)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 05, 2016, 10:14:24 PM
And yet it still will be congested...
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 06, 2016, 12:46:19 AM
Quote from: Bruce on October 05, 2016, 10:14:24 PM
And yet it still will be congested...

The tie-up through there is usually the result of 705 traffic swapping lanes with the traffic bound for 16. This isn't being fixed here, but the HOV flyover will relieve some of the traffic using that right-side ramp, potentially reducing the congestion.

In my experience (and trust me, it's plentiful), the 5 through Tacoma actually moves pretty well most of the day. From 0500 to 0730, and from 1400-1730, it's slow. But that's just normal rush hour congestion.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on October 08, 2016, 03:18:30 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on September 20, 2016, 02:11:02 AM
Cloverleaf loops aren't like a horrible thing. But regardless, I-405 is just a nightmare period. It needs to be widened to be at least 8 lanes for its entire length. Unfortunately, that's going to mean that the I-405/SR-522 interchange is going to need to be rebuilt, because it's impossible to widen the freeway through there without hitting the pillars for the flyovers. Other than that issue, that interchange is not that bad, except that the offramp from I-405 NB to SR 522 EB should be widened to 2 lanes because it often backs up onto I-405 NB by 3:30 pm each weekday.
As long as we're discussing I-405 interchanges -- and their inadequacies -- the south terminus at I-5 has been in dire need of revamping for -- well -- at least 30 years!  The south 405 to south 5 cloverleaf was obsolete decades ago, as was the single-lane ramp from 5 north to 405.  A flyover is sorely needed southbound, while an easing of the curvature -- along with another lane -- would work well for the northbound transition.  I don't know if there's any state or local political support for a revision of this interchange, but as it is presently configured it doesn't do much to position I-405 as a bypass of downtown Seattle -- and maybe that in itself has become a rationale for not addressing the interchange, considering the congestion along I-405 north of I-90.  In any case, the interchange, as a stand-alone facility, is effectively obsolete, and warrants attention. 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on October 08, 2016, 06:05:47 PM
I just hate Seattle sometimes.  The 520 bridge E-W is closed for inspection.  Why do you have to close a bridge the entire weekend to inspect it?  And it's only been open for a couple of months and it was fully inspected then.  Do other long-span bridges close for a weekend every couple of months, or is Seattle just lucky?

So of course there's a ton of traffic going north-south in Seattle.  What could we do to make it even worse?  I know!  We could close WA 99 too!  What, some people are still trying to get around the city?  We'll show them!  Close 23rd Ave. E too!  We'll leave I-5, but a couple of accidents will take care of it just fine.
"Expect delays!"
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: duaneu2 on October 08, 2016, 08:11:16 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 08, 2016, 06:05:47 PM
I just hate Seattle sometimes.  The 520 bridge E-W is closed for inspection.  Why do you have to close a bridge the entire weekend to inspect it?  And it's only been open for a couple of months and it was fully inspected then.  Do other long-span bridges close for a weekend every couple of months, or is Seattle just lucky?

So of course there's a ton of traffic going north-south in Seattle.  What could we do to make it even worse?  I know!  We could close WA 99 too!  What, some people are still trying to get around the city?  We'll show them!  Close 23rd Ave. E too!  We'll leave I-5, but a couple of accidents will take care of it just fine.
"Expect delays!"

The 520 closure isn't for inspections:

"Steve Peer with the Washington State Department of Transportation says 520 will be closed in both directions between Montlake and 92nd in Medina from 11 p.m. Friday to 5 a.m. on Monday. Crews will be striping, paving, and doing drainage and lighting work. Crews from the toll division will be installing new equipment.

Peer says most of the work can be completed, even if it rains.

"We've got a lot of work to be done and we just kind of wanted to rip off the Band-Aid and do it all."

If WSDOT didn't do the work this weekend, it could result in up to three weeks of overnight closures.

There will be two big changes drivers will notice on Monday. Workers will re-stripe the left lane across the 520 floating bridge, turning some of the HOV lane – about 2,000 feet of it – into a general purpose lane to give drivers more opportunity to merge on the west end.

"What that will do is allow vehicles to have a better chance to merge between the three lanes of the floating bridge and the two lanes of the existing structure,"  Peer said. This will allow for a smoother westbound commute, he added.

The other big change drivers will notice is a new set of tolling equipment over 520, closer to the water. When the state tied-in the new bridge to the system, it moved the tolling equipment to the east. The state is moving the equipment back to its permanent spot. Both tolling sites will flash blue when you go under them, but you will not be tolled twice."
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on October 09, 2016, 01:51:42 AM
Thank you.  Serves me right for listening to what the radio said.

Seattle-Issaquah midafternoon, 95 minutes.  Issaquah-Seattle 10 PM, 20 minutes.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Buffaboy on October 15, 2016, 11:39:27 PM
I wonder how that Spokane corridor was approved for construction. Looks like a useful highway, but if a similar project were proposed here in Buffalo I couldn't even imagine the amount of opposition that would come up. There would be a lot of it too.s
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 16, 2016, 12:09:23 AM
Quote from: Buffaboy on October 15, 2016, 11:39:27 PM
I wonder how that Spokane corridor was approved for construction. Looks like a useful highway, but if a similar project were proposed here in Buffalo I couldn't even imagine the amount of opposition that would come up. There would be a lot of it too.s

Part of me suspects that those who initially opposed the freeway are now dead (and their ancestors, who never saw the construction of any other freeways, simply don't care). It's also a pretty conservative part of Washington (cars are very much the rule in Spokane), so any project that might alleviate congestion downtown is met with wide acceptance.

Roughly 615 buildings will be demolished in total. That is pretty staggering: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1997/jun/01/north-south-freeway-exact-quite-toll/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 17, 2016, 05:05:23 PM
I suspect it will be awhile before the freeway reaches Interstate 90.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 17, 2016, 05:06:42 PM
I was right. A 2029 completion date is quite a while.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 17, 2016, 07:20:17 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 17, 2016, 05:05:23 PM
I suspect it will be awhile before the freeway reaches Interstate 90.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 17, 2016, 05:06:42 PM
I was right. A 2029 completion date is quite a while.

2029 has (roughly) been the plan since current plans came to fruition. Funding is simply slow to arrive, so construction advances relatively slowly.

The 167 and 509 freeway extensions won't be completed until the early 2030s (again, because funding is slow to arrive):

- http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr167/tacomatoedgewood/
- http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I5/SR509FreightCongestionRelief/default.htm
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 17, 2016, 11:03:36 PM
Speaking of the North Spokane Corridor, WSDOT seems to be re-evaluating the routing because of a contaminated area that could require extensive and expensive mitigation: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/news/2016/10/17/north-spokane-corridor-alignment-alternatives-be-presented-oct-27-public-meeting
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on October 18, 2016, 03:38:23 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 17, 2016, 11:03:36 PM
Speaking of the North Spokane Corridor, WSDOT seems to be re-evaluating the routing because of a contaminated area that could require extensive and expensive mitigation: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/news/2016/10/17/north-spokane-corridor-alignment-alternatives-be-presented-oct-27-public-meeting

Considering that the routing is through the old Great Northern Hilyard rail classification yard (which before its closing in the '70's was quite massive), environmentally-toxic waste issues are certainly not surprising.  A combination of old Bunker 2 oil, diesel fuel, coolant, and rusty water permeating the ground since early steam days doesn't make for pristine ground with which to work.  Similar if not identical issues were present when the old Southern Pacific yard in Roseville, CA was reconfigured 30 years ago; they're still finding traces of toxic waste in and around that area.  Especially troublesome are the areas where locomotives -- both steam and diesel -- were maintained and stored.   Safe bet -- they'll realign the North Spokane corridor around the perimeter of the old yard so as not to require significant digging in the more polluted areas.  If they stay along the path of the old main line (generally along one side or the other of the yard tracks) rather than go into the yard area itself, they should encounter less toxicity.  The issue will likely require a facility redesign, with an accompanying schedule delay; the corridor will eventually be built, but it's unlikely to look like the original plans.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on October 18, 2016, 03:55:36 PM
Hopefully, WSDOT can route it in such a way that won't require them to tear down any buildings. Part of the reason why they routed it through the railyard was to prevent this. The best solution I can think of is to move the freeway to the east part of the old railyard, but then you could potentially annoy the people living there, because they will then have a loud freeway closer to their houses.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 18, 2016, 05:11:13 PM
I've seen this image of the I-5 freeway after its completion (up to 72 St) on the Tacoma Public Library's image archive site several times, and I've noticed a couple of funny things about it:

First thing's first. The image description:

Quote from: Tacoma Public Library, bold bits added by jakeroot
Approximately 150 officials and onlookers watched in October of 1959 when Governor Albert D. Rosellini cut the bright red ribbon to open the first stretch of the Tacoma Freeway (I-5). The section ran from Gravelly Lake Dr. (near Ponders) to 72nd St.; the Highway 5G (south 104th St.) cloverleaf overpass is at top (present day SR 512). City, county and state dignitaries waited to tour, with the governor, the 6 lane stretch of highway, that cost $4,800,000 to construct. Gov. Rosellini is in the center of the picture, to the left of Rosellini is County Commissioner Fritz Geiger and to the left of him is Tacoma Mayor Ben Hanson. To the far right of the picture is Highways Director William A. Bugge. This is one of the least expensive segments of the freeway in Tacoma; the total cost of the freeway within the Tacoma city limits was 25 million dollars ($206 Mil in 2016). (TNT 10/1/1959, pg. 1)

1) Sprague Ave must have been the route that existed where I-5 is today. When the freeway was built as far as 72 St, it must have ended and become Sprague (the current off-ramp for Sprague is from another freeway entirely, several miles to the north).

2) The signs are rounded off. I've always thought this looked cleaner. Must have been standard procedure at one point. There are still some old, rounded signs scattered around the state, but they are increasingly hard to come by.

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 18, 2016, 05:26:20 PM
May have answered my own question, as usual.

Quote from: jakeroot on October 18, 2016, 05:11:13 PM
1) Sprague Ave must have been the route that existed where I-5 is today. When the freeway was built as far as 72 St, it must have ended and become Sprague (the current off-ramp for Sprague is from another freeway entirely, several miles to the north).

Looks like modern-day Tacoma Mall Boulevard was called South Sprague all the way down to 84 St. When the freeway ended at 72 St, I assume you could make a left onto South Sprague. No idea what the "Seattle Tacoma" sign on the right is leading to, however.

This is another image, preceded by its description:

Quote from: Tacoma Public Library, bold bits added by jakeroot
1969 Richards stock footage. A new motor inn was being built in the summer of 1969 at 6802 So. Sprague Ave. (now 6802 Tacoma Mall Blvd), close to So. 72nd and the freeway. The Rodeway Inn of America was part of a large nationwide chain of motels. Its blue and white logo was a familiar sign to budget conscious travelers who could be assured of comfortable rooms and reasonable prices. Built at a cost of 1.25 million dollars, the 130-unit complex was managed by Johnny H. Lambert. It would offer a restaurant/lounge, heated swimming pool, convention and banquet facilities and meeting rooms. The luxury motel hotel would be open for business in early November, 1969. (TNT 11-2-69, D-14)

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 20, 2016, 05:11:10 PM
As a little side project, I've been trying to track down exactly when each freeway segment in the area opened, using newspaper archives and published books. So far, I've got a fair bit of Snohomish County, but not much else. https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1ILxw-86Y1JRTS1ZpEW0zFpF_YJ0
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on October 20, 2016, 06:06:57 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 20, 2016, 05:11:10 PM
As a little side project, I've been trying to track down exactly when each freeway segment in the area opened, using newspaper archives and published books. So far, I've got a fair bit of Snohomish County, but not much else. https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1ILxw-86Y1JRTS1ZpEW0zFpF_YJ0

Cool! Looks pretty interesting so far!!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 03, 2016, 06:26:38 PM
WSDOT is studying SR 162, which runs between Sumner and Orting, and ways to improve travel times and capacity, particularly in the event of volcano evacuation.

http://wsdot.wa.gov/planning/Studies/SR162Corridor.htm

My recommendation would be to bypass the current road with a new dual carriageway. There's plenty of open farmland surrounding the road. Build roundabouts at major crossing points. More free-flow, the better.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on November 16, 2016, 12:18:51 AM
WSDOT is going to replace the damaged Chamber Way overpass over I-5 with a new bridge that is going to have more clearance than the old one. According to the project webpage (http://wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I5/ChamberWay/), the bridge will be replaced next year.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on November 16, 2016, 01:15:52 PM
Good!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on January 31, 2017, 03:32:07 AM
Found this old image of Bellevue circa 1969. Can't help but notice the zebra crosswalk. They even have that small but noticeable tire gap (the gaps are larger than the painted bits). Besides the fact that Bellevue today uses transverse markings at most crosswalks (one of only a few cities in Washington to continue doing so), my impression has always been that piano/zebra markings only came into play in Washington starting in the 1990s. It'd be one thing if someone told me that they started showing up back in the early 80s (though still surprising), but 1969!? Wow.

I'd post a new shot of this location (103 Ave NE looking north/east from Main Street), but it looks virtually identical to this photo.

Props to Bellevue for continuing the stripes all the way to the last possible moment (far left edge of the photo, notice that tiny white bit of paint -- today's road crews would give up after that second-to-left marking).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FEK1SRwn.jpg&hash=0aacbf01a8ffb317a974ad95743491ed80b7d850)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on January 31, 2017, 01:00:47 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 31, 2017, 03:32:07 AM
Props to Bellevue for continuing the stripes all the way to the last possible moment (far left edge of the photo, notice that tiny white bit of paint -- today's road crews would give up after that second-to-left marking).

That's interesting.  I wonder if the crosswalk bulbs are newer than the painted crosswalk.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 03, 2017, 08:39:54 PM
Another interesting find on the Eastside Heritage Center's website. A 1969 freeway/expressway plan for the Puget Sound region (not just Seattle). The plan was drawn up by Preuss Jorgansen Architects of Seattle, for the city of Bellevue (see this link (https://goo.gl/Yfdnbi)). It would be cooler if it was drawn up by actual regional planners, but it's still a cool map.

One disclaimer before you read: this map very clearly shows lines that represent both freeways and expressways, but the map doesn't distinguish between the two, other than by having darker lines for recommended facilities. Now, the planned RH Thompson "Expressway" was a "freeway" by all accounts, so I'm not sure there's a distinguishable difference between the two anyway.

Some interesting notes:

* This is the first, and thus far only map that I've seen that actually shows a Highway 7 freeway running south from its current freeway terminus at S 38 St near Tacoma. This had apparently been the plan since the freeway junction between I-5 and the planned I-705 and Hwy 7 freeways was built in the mid-60s. I knew there had been some rumbling about the freeway being built all the way to at least the 512, but I had never seen any proof of it. If not for the S 38 St stub, this whole map could have been debunked as being some PE's fantasy plan that he drew in an afternoon. But seeing as that stub was built, it's fair to say that this map had some roots in reality.

* Some sort of Lakewood freeway was planned, which I have never heard of before. Looks like the southern terminus is near the I-5/Bridgeport Way junction, and the northern terminus is at the Hwy 16/Center St junction. It almost looks like Hwy 16 was meant to terminate at this interchange, and the Nalley Valley East/West freeway was to continue past that interchange, where it swooped south towards Lakewood. Perhaps that whole freeway could have become an even-numbered Tacoma Mall interstate bypass! I'm trying not to laugh here, but that's what it looks like to me. I can't find a higher res photo, unfortunately.

* A third, northern Lake Washington bridge was planned (as we all know), but there was planned to be an interchange after the 405 with some sort of Bellevue bypass, which originated way down south near Tukwila (where the 5 was apparently planned for a slightly different alignment). Weirdly, this freeway doesn't run all the way north, but if it had, it would have intersected some sort of Hwy 9 Everett bypass. Evidently, the Hwy 2 trestle's interchange with SR 204 was meant to be a full freeway interchange, where Hwy 204 became a freeway and intersected a Hwy 9 freeway.

* The layout of the planned freeways near the Port of Tacoma was wildly different from what was actually built. Hwy 18 was planned to continue through Federal Way, where it would swoop down into the Port of Tacoma, intersecting with Hwy 167's westerly leg (which intersected I-5 nowhere near where it's planned to today). At that point, it would cross over the Thea Foss waterway into downtown Tacoma.

* The 509's Seatac section was planned to parallel I-5 for much longer than it's planned to today, intersecting I-5 closer to 272nd, rather than just north of 516.

* There's a mysterious freeway jutting south from the 5/405 interchange near Lynnwood, that aims straight at the 522/Bothell freeway (a stub until a few years ago). I don't know anything about this.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkxzDyuW.jpg&hash=2bfd302b33162ee0b77f4024dfefd6b2ad59f951)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 03, 2017, 09:43:16 PM
I believe this is part of the 1967 Puget Sound Council of Governments study on regional transportation (see here (http://www.psrc.org/growth/planninghistorydocuments/)), whose map looks like this:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkdHxRuD.jpg&hash=cc170600d6f549ee1f21fa6f5212380e5fb33887)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 03, 2017, 09:45:30 PM
Speaking of great resources, I stumbled across something from the Dept. from Archeaology and Historic Preservation that may be of interest: a guide to historic roads in the Puget Sound region (link here, huge PDF warning (http://www.dahp.wa.gov/sites/default/files/Roads%20Historic%20Context.pdf)). Each profile in chapter 4 looks at individual state routes and some basic timeline entries using topographic maps and WSDOT data (mostly projects being approved) from the time. It also recommends a few highways be put on the National Register of Historic Places.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 03, 2017, 10:04:16 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 03, 2017, 09:43:16 PM
I believe this is part of the 1967 Puget Sound Council of Governments study on regional transportation (see here (http://www.psrc.org/growth/planninghistorydocuments/)), whose map looks like this:

http://i.imgur.com/kdHxRuD.jpg

Wow! Great map, Bruce. Never seen that one before.

Interesting to see that the 167 and 18 were only proposed for their southern and western segments, respectively (and not budgeted). They seem to be the only orange lines on the map that were built. Nevermind that hundreds of miles of green routes that weren't.

By the way, unlike most folks, I don't think all these freeways would have destroyed our city. The fact is, today's Seattle developed around the type of activism that put an end to freeway building to begin with. If the activism hadn't worked, perhaps today's Seattle would be more conservative, and car-centric. Perhaps the city centers of our regions would be a lot smaller. Maybe Monroe would just be a sea of housing developments? Perhaps Southworth would be this bustling city? Who knows, but I do know that today's Seattle wouldn't exist, so we wouldn't know what we were missing.

Regardless, I think today's Seattle turned out very nicely, and I don't think I'd change it for anything.

Quote from: Bruce on February 03, 2017, 09:45:30 PM
Speaking of great resources, I stumbled across something from the Dept. from Archeaology and Historic Preservation that may be of interest: a guide to historic roads in the Puget Sound region (link here, huge PDF warning (http://www.dahp.wa.gov/sites/default/files/Roads%20Historic%20Context.pdf)). Each profile in chapter 4 looks at individual state routes and some basic timeline entries using topographic maps and WSDOT data (mostly projects being approved) from the time. It also recommends a few highways be put on the National Register of Historic Places.

Nice find! I'll post back here once I read through it.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: JasonOfORoads on February 04, 2017, 12:18:03 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 03, 2017, 08:39:54 PM
* This is the first, and thus far only map that I've seen that actually shows a Highway 7 freeway running south from its current freeway terminus at S 38 St near Tacoma. This had apparently been the plan since the freeway junction between I-5 and the planned I-705 and Hwy 7 freeways was built in the mid-60s. I knew there had been some rumbling about the freeway being built all the way to at least the 512, but I had never seen any proof of it. If not for the S 38 St stub, this whole map could have been debunked as being some PE's fantasy plan that he drew in an afternoon. But seeing as that stub was built, it's fair to say that this map had some roots in reality.

There's also this grove of trees (https://goo.gl/maps/AUQXukKDiSS2) to the east of the current SR-7 interchange on land set aside for a cloverleaf with the SR-7 freeway, as shown in a 1977 Rand McNally Texaco map of Tacoma:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oroads.com%2Faaroads%2Fwa-sr7-cloverleaf.jpg&hash=9a5732ebccf92ab8fe280f3935d0e49d5e84ab44)

Unfortunately that map doesn't show a route between there and the northern stub.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 04, 2017, 01:21:06 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 03, 2017, 10:04:16 PM
By the way, unlike most folks, I don't think all these freeways would have destroyed our city. The fact is, today's Seattle developed around the type of activism that put an end to freeway building to begin with. If the activism hadn't worked, perhaps today's Seattle would be more conservative, and car-centric. Perhaps the city centers of our regions would be a lot smaller. Maybe Monroe would just be a sea of housing developments? Perhaps Southworth would be this bustling city? Who knows, but I do know that today's Seattle wouldn't exist, so we wouldn't know what we were missing.

Regardless, I think today's Seattle turned out very nicely, and I don't think I'd change it for anything.

I wouldn't give our car-hostile Seattle for anything else. I disagree with your statement, as any one of these freeways would have ruined Seattle just by purely being there, not to mention the car-centric sprawl that would follow in a pre-GMA Washington. For example:

The RH Thomson Expressway would have permanently ruined MLK Way through the Rainier Valley and Central District, where decent housing options have allowed non-whites to settle before moving on to other areas of the region. Without that kind of nurturing landing pad (that isn't set against the roar of a freeway), Seattle would not have looked so attractive to some immigrants.

The freeway on SR 522 would have cut off the lakefront for a number of communities, which the highway still does today but is at least crossable and usable for bus service.

And opening up Kitsap County to that much Seattle-centric development would have ruined quite a bit more of the Sound. The striking difference in tree density between the two sides of the Sound is very noticeable on satellite images.

Maybe some of these freeways out in the rural areas would have done fine with GMA-like provisions that heavily restrict or outright ban development near them (and further limiting the number of developable-exits and such). But they won't really be needed going forward, since road capacity isn't a good investment for a region like ours.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 04, 2017, 01:22:16 AM
In non-car hostile news (or is it?), Mercer Island is losing its special, privileged access to the I-90 express lanes in June and won't be getting much of a replacement (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/eastside/state-says-no-to-special-i-90-hov-access-for-mercer-island-solo-drivers/). Despite howling from Mercer Island, the FHWA ruled that it was illegal to begin with, so they should shut up and wait for their train to come.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 04, 2017, 01:24:13 AM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on February 04, 2017, 12:18:03 AM
There's also this grove of trees (https://goo.gl/maps/AUQXukKDiSS2) to the east of the current SR-7 interchange on land set aside for a cloverleaf with the SR-7 freeway, as shown in a 1977 Rand McNally Texaco map of Tacoma:

http://www.oroads.com/aaroads/wa-sr7-cloverleaf.jpg

Unfortunately that map doesn't show a route between there and the northern stub.

That's fantastic, Jason! Great image, and great reference there with the mysteriously diamond-shaped forested area. I drive that freeway damn near every day, and I never noticed that before. Granted, I'm only seeing what I see from the road, but I've viewed overhead satellite imagery of the area a great many times, and never noticed that before.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on February 04, 2017, 01:47:37 AM
I've seen that patch of forest on Satellite View and wondered if it would be a workable route for a freeway.  Love visiting Mt. Rainier, hate the couple of miles of speed trap stop & go along either 161 or 7.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: JasonOfORoads on February 04, 2017, 05:28:35 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 04, 2017, 01:24:13 AM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on February 04, 2017, 12:18:03 AM
There's also this grove of trees (https://goo.gl/maps/AUQXukKDiSS2) to the east of the current SR-7 interchange on land set aside for a cloverleaf with the SR-7 freeway, as shown in a 1977 Rand McNally Texaco map of Tacoma:

http://www.oroads.com/aaroads/wa-sr7-cloverleaf.jpg

Unfortunately that map doesn't show a route between there and the northern stub.

That's fantastic, Jason! Great image, and great reference there with the mysteriously diamond-shaped forested area. I drive that freeway damn near every day, and I never noticed that before. Granted, I'm only seeing what I see from the road, but I've viewed overhead satellite imagery of the area a great many times, and never noticed that before.

Thanks! I went to college in the area about a decade ago and would often explore old and current alignments. Had a nice amount of potato-quality photos of I-705, SR-16 before the second Narrows Bridge, the SR-7 stub, etc. before hard drive issues wiped them from existence (unless someone knows a cheap drive recovery service that can perform miracles). Fond roadgeeking memories for sure. However, I'm bummed that the old SR-7 sign on Pacific (https://goo.gl/maps/ym3eRc6ZK8H2) was recently removed (https://goo.gl/maps/9jWyUS9iztw). Another little bit of Washington roadgeek history bites the dust I suppose.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: JasonOfORoads on February 04, 2017, 05:32:27 AM
Quote from: kkt on February 04, 2017, 01:47:37 AM
I've seen that patch of forest on Satellite View and wondered if it would be a workable route for a freeway.

Maybe in the 1960s, but it looks too heavily developed now.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Henry on February 06, 2017, 10:15:59 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 03, 2016, 06:26:38 PM
WSDOT is studying SR 162, which runs between Sumner and Orting, and ways to improve travel times and capacity, particularly in the event of volcano evacuation.

http://wsdot.wa.gov/planning/Studies/SR162Corridor.htm

My recommendation would be to bypass the current road with a new dual carriageway. There's plenty of open farmland surrounding the road. Build roundabouts at major crossing points. More free-flow, the better.
My guess is that Mt. St. Helens will erupt again like it did 37 years ago?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on February 06, 2017, 12:37:59 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 06, 2017, 10:15:59 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 03, 2016, 06:26:38 PM
WSDOT is studying SR 162, which runs between Sumner and Orting, and ways to improve travel times and capacity, particularly in the event of volcano evacuation.

http://wsdot.wa.gov/planning/Studies/SR162Corridor.htm

My recommendation would be to bypass the current road with a new dual carriageway. There's plenty of open farmland surrounding the road. Build roundabouts at major crossing points. More free-flow, the better.
My guess is that Mt. St. Helens will erupt again like it did 37 years ago?

Or a hot vent opening underneath Mt. Rainier's glaciers.  If they melted suddenly it would cause a big flood and mudflow, making for a bad day for people in towns downstream.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 08, 2017, 07:39:28 PM
Was reading the SR-99 Wikipedia page, and I came to the bit where it talks about the history. There's a reference to the RCW where 99 is defined. Check it out:

Quote from: RCW RCW 47.17.160
A state highway to be known as state route number 99 is established as follows:
- Beginning at a junction with state route number 18 in the vicinity of Federal Way, thence northerly by way of Midway, to a junction with state route 518 in Tukwila; also
- Beginning at a junction with state route number 599 in the vicinity of Tukwila, thence northerly by way of Seattle, Edmonds, and Lynnwood to a junction with state route number 5 in Everett:
--> PROVIDED, That until state route number 509 is constructed and opened to traffic on an anticipated ultimate alignment from a junction with state route number 705 in Tacoma via the Port of Tacoma industrial area to a junction with state route number 18 in the vicinity of Federal Way that portion of state route number 99 between state route number 5 at Fife and state route number 18 in the vicinity of Federal Way shall remain on the state highway system.

The last part is the interesting bit. I'm not aware of any plans to complete the 509 to Hwy 18 in Federal Way. I can see from the map several posts up that, back in the 1970s, that was in fact the plan, but I think that plan has long since been abandoned.

I'm surprised that a revision wasn't made to the RCW when the route was made discontinuous in 2004 (when part of the route in Tukwila was turned over to said city). Lest there's still an un-published plan to build this freeway?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on February 09, 2017, 12:09:39 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 08, 2017, 07:39:28 PM
Was reading the SR-99 Wikipedia page, and I came to the bit where it talks about the history. There's a reference to the RCW where 99 is defined. Check it out:

Quote from: RCW RCW 47.17.160
A state highway to be known as state route number 99 is established as follows:
- Beginning at a junction with state route number 18 in the vicinity of Federal Way, thence northerly by way of Midway, to a junction with state route 518 in Tukwila; also
- Beginning at a junction with state route number 599 in the vicinity of Tukwila, thence northerly by way of Seattle, Edmonds, and Lynnwood to a junction with state route number 5 in Everett:
--> PROVIDED, That until state route number 509 is constructed and opened to traffic on an anticipated ultimate alignment from a junction with state route number 705 in Tacoma via the Port of Tacoma industrial area to a junction with state route number 18 in the vicinity of Federal Way that portion of state route number 99 between state route number 5 at Fife and state route number 18 in the vicinity of Federal Way shall remain on the state highway system.

The last part is the interesting bit. I'm not aware of any plans to complete the 509 to Hwy 18 in Federal Way. I can see from the map several posts up that, back in the 1970s, that was in fact the plan, but I think that plan has long since been abandoned.

I'm surprised that a revision wasn't made to the RCW when the route was made discontinuous in 2004 (when part of the route in Tukwila was turned over to said city). Lest there's still an un-published plan to build this freeway?
I thought it was never actually killed off to extend 509.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 09, 2017, 01:52:18 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 09, 2017, 12:09:39 AM
I thought it was never actually killed off to extend 509.

The 509 is planned to be extended to I-5 near 516 at Des Moines, and a Spur Route is to be constructed to connect the 509 near the Port of Tacoma to the 167 east of Fife. But the RCW's definition describes a route (freeway?) that ascends from sea level near the Port of Tacoma, up through Federal Way to Hwy 18. I'm not aware of any plans even remotely resembling a route like that. Like I said before, the only real reference to this route seems to be those Regional Council maps from the 60s and 70s which, in the case of the above map, simply show an orange line running from present-day Hwy 18 towards downtown Tacoma via the former 509 route, which ran directly through the port, before being rebuilt as a freeway in the 90s south of the port proper.

Building such a route is still possible, but Federal Way has grown substantially since the 60s, and I suspect any new freeway would require the demolition of a substantial number of homes.

FWIW, I'm taking Bruce's map above to be a literal representation of the possible route, give or a take a few modern-day differences (such as the 509 running south of the Port instead of through it these days).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 16, 2017, 01:12:24 AM
Was out doing my thang the other day, and I stumbled upon this four way stop in Seattle. Unlike most four-way stops, this is with a trail (specifically the Burke Gilman Trail (BGT) at NE 65 St). Never seen anything like this before.

While I don't necessarily agree with everything that Seattle's chief traffic engineer Dongho Chang has done (removing corner signals along 2nd Ave mostly), this is actually pretty cool. A Hawk signal could have worked here, but signals and trails don't always mix well, because people are spread out, which means that the Hawk would always be activated, or alternatively, it wouldn't be and you'd get a lot of people just crossing against their signal. I don't expect traffic along NE 65 St to grow anytime soon, so I suppose this setup will work for a while. But I'm a staunch critic of four way stops in general, and would prefer to see less of them.

https://twitter.com/jakeroot/status/832109863425626112
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on February 16, 2017, 02:03:08 AM
Bad idea. Four way stops are terrible. They should have put in a crosswalk traffic signal like what they have on NE 125th St and 25th Ave NE (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.7193327,-122.3021704,3a,75y,102.1h,94.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKqyHIhodvlZ3gt_dV7lv4Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 16, 2017, 02:51:04 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on February 16, 2017, 02:03:08 AM
Bad idea. Four way stops are terrible. They should have put in a crosswalk traffic signal like what they have on NE 125th St and 25th Ave NE (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.7193327,-122.3021704,3a,75y,102.1h,94.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKqyHIhodvlZ3gt_dV7lv4Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en).

RYG pedestrian signals often have poor compliance rates. My guess is that the area is quiet enough that a four way stop isn't detrimental to traffic flow, plus it keeps trail users from being tempted to cross against a red signal (because there isn't one). I just wish they'd install a "four way" plaque below each stop sign.

To be plain, I also don't like four way stops. They can be debunked almost every time they're installed. This is one of only a very few that I think work fine.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Henry on February 16, 2017, 10:27:06 AM
Never cared much for four-way stops; too confusing as to who should get the right-of-way when there are cars from all directions of travel. I like it better when only one street has a set of stop signs and the other has a free-flowing (no stopping) setup through the intersection.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on February 16, 2017, 11:04:50 AM
Most days there's more traffic along the trail than there is on the street.  Overall volume is low enough that the 4-way stop doesn't create much delay.  The 4-way stop was put in pretty recently, and it was a spot where there significant number of accidents before.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 18, 2017, 01:00:31 PM
Attn: Link Light Rail not likely to run along US-99 between Angle Lake and Federal Way (according to today's Tacoma News Tribune).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGuMrN16.jpg&hash=07d9f5d29df36966ee29f8de1dc66118a18c8a93)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on February 18, 2017, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2017, 01:00:31 PM
Attn: Link Light Rail not likely to run along US-99 between Angle Lake and Federal Way (according to today's Tacoma News Tribune).

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGuMrN16.jpg&hash=07d9f5d29df36966ee29f8de1dc66118a18c8a93)

Any way a link to the article itself could be supplied? -- would like to see the (supplied) reasoning behind the I-5 alignment choice.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 18, 2017, 02:13:24 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 18, 2017, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2017, 01:00:31 PM
Attn: Link Light Rail not likely to run along US-99 between Angle Lake and Federal Way (according to today's Tacoma News Tribune).

http://i.imgur.com/GuMrN16.jpg

Any way a link to the article itself could be supplied? -- would like to see the (supplied) reasoning behind the I-5 alignment choice.

Here you go:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/traffic/article133022569.html
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on February 18, 2017, 03:16:49 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2017, 02:13:24 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 18, 2017, 02:11:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2017, 01:00:31 PM
Attn: Link Light Rail not likely to run along US-99 between Angle Lake and Federal Way (according to today's Tacoma News Tribune).

http://i.imgur.com/GuMrN16.jpg

Any way a link to the article itself could be supplied? -- would like to see the (supplied) reasoning behind the I-5 alignment choice.

Here you go:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/traffic/article133022569.html

Interesting to see that they're combining this LR effort with the WA 509 freeway extension -- that particular freeway alignment most likely had a good deal of influence regarding the decision to deploy the LR line adjacent to I-5 rather than straight down WA 99 -- there was a "ready-made" location in which the shunt the line over to I-5 requiring little or no additional property acquisition.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 18, 2017, 06:33:30 PM
This was decided way back in 2015 (https://www.seattletransitblog.com/2015/07/24/sound-transit-chooses-i5-fed-way/), after requests from city leaders in the area to not disrupt business on Pacific Highway South. They may have shot themselves in the foot by not placing the stations on 99 proper to take advantage of development potential (which brings in tons of tax revenue), now that the stations placed mid-way between I-5 and SR 99 will have a lot of walkshed eaten up by ramps.

The new development (from the board meeting before last...quite old news, TNT?) is at the request of the Federal Way School District because they don't want a light rail trench near their school. It's a win-win, though, if the property swap can go through: Sound Transit can have a closer P&R and TOD parcel to their station and off-load what would become surplus land anyway once the Redondo P&R closes.

The SR 509 freeway alignment was not a huge consideration in the design process, given that it would only necessitate a long overhead span with a central column or some other sort of solution that ST has already done before.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 18, 2017, 10:34:17 PM
Before this goes on further, I would like to point out that the article names Hwy 99 as "US 99". That's the only reason I posted the photo.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 18, 2017, 11:27:07 PM
And speaking of Sound Transit, the City of Mercer Island is suing them and WSDOT over the loss of single-occupant access to the HOV lanes on I-90 after June, when the express lanes close for light rail construction. They allege that the 1976 memorandum that was signed to get I-90 built across the island has been broken by ST, but the FHWA ruled that this kind of access was illegal and could require them to cut federal funds.

If this actually goes to court and gets drawn out, light rail construction could be set back by years. And this is on top of what Mercer Island did to delay planning of the line in the first place.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on February 19, 2017, 12:30:43 AM
Quote from: Bruce on February 18, 2017, 06:33:30 PM
The SR 509 freeway alignment was not a huge consideration in the design process, given that it would only necessitate a long overhead span with a central column or some other sort of solution that ST has already done before.

I wasn't thinking so much about the design process as with the aspect of acquiring the property/parcels necessary to shift the LR pathway from Pacific Highway/WA 99 to the I-5 easement.  Generally, it's much easier to "bundle" projects in an area such as the 509 extension with the LR extension -- acquire the necessary property for both projects in one fell swoop rather than expending the time & expense endemic to two separate albeit adjacent transportation endeavors, developed for different purposes -- the 509 freeway to provide enhanced automotive access to the airport as well as the Burien/White Center area, and the Link LR to potentially reduce commuter traffic.   
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on February 19, 2017, 12:23:13 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 18, 2017, 10:34:17 PM
Before this goes on further, I would like to point out that the article names Hwy 99 as "US 99". That's the only reason I posted the photo.
I caught that.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 19, 2017, 12:27:26 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 19, 2017, 12:30:43 AM
Quote from: Bruce on February 18, 2017, 06:33:30 PM
The SR 509 freeway alignment was not a huge consideration in the design process, given that it would only necessitate a long overhead span with a central column or some other sort of solution that ST has already done before.

I wasn't thinking so much about the design process as with the aspect of acquiring the property/parcels necessary to shift the LR pathway from Pacific Highway/WA 99 to the I-5 easement.  Generally, it's much easier to "bundle" projects in an area such as the 509 extension with the LR extension -- acquire the necessary property for both projects in one fell swoop rather than expending the time & expense endemic to two separate albeit adjacent transportation endeavors, developed for different purposes -- the 509 freeway to provide enhanced automotive access to the airport as well as the Burien/White Center area, and the Link LR to potentially reduce commuter traffic.   


The 509 project is more about linking the Port of Seattle to the south, mainly the Port of Tacoma (both are merged under the Northwest Seaport Alliance for cargo operations). The Port of Seattle would still need to build a new southern approach freeway from 509 in order to make it useful to the airport, otherwise truckers will still use the old S 188th exit.

As for property acquisition, it's actually easier to do so separately, given that Sound Transit would have to sign yet another agreement with WSDOT for the land swap and then engineer around whatever they do to SR 509.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on February 19, 2017, 08:58:32 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 19, 2017, 12:27:26 PM
The 509 project is more about linking the Port of Seattle to the south, mainly the Port of Tacoma (both are merged under the Northwest Seaport Alliance for cargo operations). The Port of Seattle would still need to build a new southern approach freeway from 509 in order to make it useful to the airport, otherwise truckers will still use the old S 188th exit.

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but IIRC the plans I've seen show some sort of connection (possibly not a spur freeway facility but at least some type of direct roadway) from the 509 extension to the south side of the airport, putting airport access into the mix.  If this exists, it ostensibly is to divert traffic coming from the south from using existing surface streets such as 188th -- or even the "long way around" via WA 518 -- to gain access to Seatac. 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 19, 2017, 09:27:55 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 19, 2017, 08:58:32 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 19, 2017, 12:27:26 PM
The 509 project is more about linking the Port of Seattle to the south, mainly the Port of Tacoma (both are merged under the Northwest Seaport Alliance for cargo operations). The Port of Seattle would still need to build a new southern approach freeway from 509 in order to make it useful to the airport, otherwise truckers will still use the old S 188th exit.

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but IIRC the plans I've seen show some sort of connection (possibly not a spur freeway facility but at least some type of direct roadway) from the 509 extension to the south side of the airport, putting airport access into the mix.  If this exists, it ostensibly is to divert traffic coming from the south from using existing surface streets such as 188th -- or even the "long way around" via WA 518 -- to gain access to Seatac. 

Yes, the Port of Seattle has plans for that in their Airport Master Plan (being updated right now), but there's no funding for it as of right now. They have to get the ball rolling now if they want to open it by 2030.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on February 19, 2017, 09:49:48 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 19, 2017, 09:27:55 PM
Yes, the Port of Seattle has plans for that in their Airport Master Plan (being updated right now), but there's no funding for it as of right now. They have to get the ball rolling now if they want to open it by 2030.

Thanks for the update re the airport/port plans.  Real-time info is always appreciated!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on April 03, 2017, 11:05:18 PM
So, I saw an article in the Everett Herald (http://www.heraldnet.com/news/survey-of-trestle-commuters-will-help-guide-future-fix/) today that WSDOT is beginning to study (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/studies/us-2-sr-204-interchange-study) how to improve the congested interchange between US 2, WA 204 and 20th Street SE on the east end of the US 2 trestle.

I'll offer my two cents: At the very minimum, there needs to be some safety improvements where the ramps from WB 204 and 20th Street SE meet. There is virtually no space to merge, even though the WB trestle was built in the late-60s, so you'd expect it to be designed better than that. Every time I come that way, I pretty much turn my head to the left and look at the onramp from 20th Street to be absolutely sure that there is no one coming down the hill really fast, lest I have to slam on my brakes to avoid hitting them. So at minimum, there needs to be a longer merge lane there, and they need to completely repave the WB trestle. It's in bad shape!

Ideally, the trestle needs to be widened to three lanes in each direction. But that's gonna cost a lot more money, but it might be worth it to accommodate expected population growth in the area.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 19, 2017, 05:59:30 PM
Went to the Open House for the Puget Sound Gateway Program in Fife last night. This one focused more on 167 (I missed last week's 509 open house in Seatac). The visualizations will be online within the next two weeks, but there are a few things that I saw that have changed from the previous phase one design:

- Ramps to and from the west at Meridian (where 167 currently ends) have been shelved. There's a $15mil budget gap
- The phase one interchange where the 5/167/509-Spur meet will be a partial diverging diamond instead of half diamond. It's hard to explain the design -- the visualizations make better sense.
- The entire route will be four lanes. WSDOT's Craig Stone said that "lanes are cheap, interchanges are not". I guess they found the money to have four lanes, but couldn't afford fancy interchanges.
- North Levee EB will turn into a on-ramp towards 167 NB (as it does now), but will instead utilise the old on-ramp that was never torn up.
- The oddly-shaped on-ramp from Meridian (the current one) was built in that manner due to a historic tree. One of the interns suggested that I cut it down for them.

I also learned that the stub-ramp at the end of the departures deck at Seatac was built for a south access road. According to Craig Stone, the 509's phase one design will include provisions for a future south access road. The South Access Road has been planned for some time, but always shelved due to funding and lack of a proper place to dump all the traffic. The southern extension of the 509 will finally provide a good place for the end of the access road.

This is the stub ramp in question:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVZp2LFz.png&hash=f7a6b0452ce62b70d65c2dfdc525a778c345f9e2)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on April 22, 2017, 01:03:11 AM
That's cool! I'm glad you got the chance to go to it. Hopefully they have updated design drawings on their website.

In other news, today was probably the last day that the I-90 express lanes were open, because this weekend, WSDOT is planning on restriping I-90 to include an HOV lane the whole length of the main lines so that the express lanes can be converted to the light rail line. But considering that it's going to be raining all weekend, that might not actually happen.

Either way, I just went down there earlier today and filmed I-90 in both directions.  I Was planning to drive in the express lanes, but they were clearly marked for HOVs only, so unfortunately, I had to stay out of them. :( Why is it that I-90's express lanes are HOV only, but I-5's are not? I wasn't aware of this and was pretty disappointed that I couldn't get to drive in them one last time. :(
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 22, 2017, 11:15:55 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on April 22, 2017, 01:03:11 AM
That's cool! I'm glad you got the chance to go to it. Hopefully they have updated design drawings on their website.

In other news, today was probably the last day that the I-90 express lanes were open, because this weekend, WSDOT is planning on restriping I-90 to include an HOV lane the whole length of the main lines so that the express lanes can be converted to the light rail line. But considering that it's going to be raining all weekend, that might not actually happen.

Either way, I just went down there earlier today and filmed I-90 in both directions.  I Was planning to drive in the express lanes, but they were clearly marked for HOVs only, so unfortunately, I had to stay out of them. :( Why is it that I-90's express lanes are HOV only, but I-5's are not? I wasn't aware of this and was pretty disappointed that I couldn't get to drive in them one last time. :(

During a full shutdown of either direction of I-90, the lanes are usually open to all traffic (HOV or not).

You can always take the 550 bus during rush hour and experience the lanes that way.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 26, 2017, 07:22:54 PM
Here's some updated visuals of the 167 and 509 extensions.

First, Fife is planning new interchanges for the Port of Tacoma and 54 Ave interchanges. Split diamond and a very California-esque Parclo setup, respectively. Don't expect any permissive left turns in any of these setups. I talked to Fife's chief engineer. He doesn't believe in FYA's across more than one lane. I tried to tell him that was why traffic blows in Fife despite not being a big city. He said safety first. Last I checked, protected left turns don't automatically improve safety. They often increase driver frustration and impatience, resulting in more red light running.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJIEwNKD.png&hash=2b3bcb93875d19bb71f4a633aeb65ac3245ef639)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8phNMhT.png&hash=2529e1238742d9e12e3f7a4eb25ccd58dbf92eac)

Second, some visualisations of the current 167 plans:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIJjvkvZ.png&hash=0d42026cfdf9b8803f6a72a54ec04ef7e87f689f)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfnPdnEJ.jpg&hash=6f4f9a734ee7290d2e08635b305f07196a57739b)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLetGYCI.png&hash=cb066732f9b6b31eaf58d783d9b51b61273a0abf)

Last, some 509 visualisations:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNKIRGbj.png&hash=1410f320c62cca7b32e505e83c073907eef396e2)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fz22wVW9.png&hash=a1ac282d816106843fce724abf6e9692260cdbaf)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on April 27, 2017, 12:22:00 AM
From the looks of it, the new 5/167 interchange could be upgraded to a directional freeway-to-freeway facility by the addition (obviously well down the line considering their budgetary woes) of a flyover from WB 167 to SB 5, diverging prior to the DDI lane crossover.  I guess the interchange selection was indeed a compromise; otherwise a surface-road type facility wouldn't be considered appropriate for the end of a lengthy limited-access route such as 167.  I hope WashDOT knows what they're getting into; I can see rush-hour backups occurring regularly in both directions on 167/ Spur 509.  Hopefully those needing to access Lakewood or points south of there along I-5 will have the good sense to continue using 512 to avoid this potential chokepoint.     
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 27, 2017, 03:30:43 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 27, 2017, 12:22:00 AM
From the looks of it, the new 5/167 interchange could be upgraded to a directional freeway-to-freeway facility by the addition (obviously well down the line considering their budgetary woes) of a flyover from WB 167 to SB 5, diverging prior to the DDI lane crossover.  I guess the interchange selection was indeed a compromise; otherwise a surface-road type facility wouldn't be considered appropriate for the end of a lengthy limited-access route such as 167.  I hope WashDOT knows what they're getting into; I can see rush-hour backups occurring regularly in both directions on 167/ Spur 509.  Hopefully those needing to access Lakewood or points south of there along I-5 will have the good sense to continue using 512 to avoid this potential chokepoint.     

Phase 2 of the interchange does call for a much more complete setup. No design has been finalized, and I don't expect a final design to show up for several years. But there are a couple variations that have been posted online in the past, that may or may not indicate some final configuration. Note the top two are the same design. The bottom one is different.

(https://web.archive.org/web/20061212173626im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/37D38D2C-677C-4D03-A3DA-747417CD8F69/0/I5_SR167_oblique.jpg)
(https://web.archive.org/web/20080804080629im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/CB224CBB-FB06-487F-AF24-22EA98DE105F/5808/view3prop.jpg)
(https://web.archive.org/web/20080918075009im_/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/BBA727A2-B92A-4048-AE02-8AF021C18FB9/0/I5_DVA_08.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on April 27, 2017, 09:02:55 PM
Good! I'm glad to see that the I-5/ 167 interchange has access from SB 167 to SB I-5. That was something that  was sadly absent from the original half diamond interchange configuration, so I'm glad that changing the design to a DDI allowed for those missing movements to be added.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on April 28, 2017, 04:53:20 AM
The addition of HOV (HOT?) lanes on the long-range plans for both 5 and 167 make the eventual expanded interchange look at initial viewing more complicated than it really is (except for that last version, which does look a bit complex if not convoluted!).  Glad to see that the DDI isn't the last word regarding this junction -- just an interim plan (which, given ongoing financial issues, may end up being at least semi-permanent).   
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Kacie Jane on May 03, 2017, 02:56:44 AM
I'm really curious about the numbering.  I think the segment between current SR 509 and I-5 is supposed to be SR 509 Spur, which IMHO is absurd.  But in Jake's past two posts, I see it labeled SR 509 Spur once, SR 167 twice, and SR 509 (no banner) once, though the last one is probably an error.

---------

On an unrelated topic, I'd been meaning to post this for a while but kept forgetting... the button copy sign on I-5 NB for the SR 167 exit has bitten the dust.  I noticed it gone on March 27, I believe; Jake may be able to pinpoint if it was earlier than that.  (I didn't see anything posted about it here though.)

----

Further unrelated, there is an upside down traffic signal sign on the SR 167 NB ramp to 15th St SW in Auburn.  I feel like I've noticed another one recently as well (similarly in a construction zone), but I can't remember its location.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 03, 2017, 04:00:06 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 03, 2017, 02:56:44 AM
On an unrelated topic, I'd been meaning to post this for a while but kept forgetting... the button copy sign on I-5 NB for the SR 167 exit has bitten the dust.  I noticed it gone on March 27, I believe; Jake may be able to pinpoint if it was earlier than that.  (I didn't see anything posted about it here though.)

Yeah, I also meant to post about it, but I too kept forgetting (by the way, welcome back). FWIW, the button copy sign was for Portland Ave. But the 167 sign was still pretty cool, because of the greened-out 410 shield. The 167 sign lasted quite a bit longer. It was only removed when the new 167 NB ramp opened (because the new exit was much sooner than the older sign indicated).

The Portland Ave sign came down quite a while before the new ramp opened. The new retroreflective sign was installed some time in January. Here's a screenshot of my dashcam from the 6th of February (during that snowstorm). You can see the new sign (much narrower than the old sign) posted in the opposite direction:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fhzr626B.png&hash=e574c4bed904ab6444f14fa15af3400384fdacec)



Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 03, 2017, 02:56:44 AM
I'm really curious about the numbering.  I think the segment between current SR 509 and I-5 is supposed to be SR 509 Spur, which IMHO is absurd.  But in Jake's past two posts, I see it labeled SR 509 Spur once, SR 167 twice, and SR 509 (no banner) once, though the last one is probably an error.

The former post has much newer renderings. The other renderings (the latter post) were much, much earlier and not much detail was being paid to the numbering when they rendered it (evidently). WSDOT has been pretty clear in their recent open houses that the extension between the 509 and 5 will be labelled "509 Spur" (though I too dislike this choice).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Kacie Jane on May 04, 2017, 01:23:29 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 03, 2017, 04:00:06 AMYeah, I also meant to post about it, but I too kept forgetting (by the way, welcome back). FWIW, the button copy sign was for Portland Ave.

I've always been reading, just haven't been my normal verbose self I suppose.  (I've been slightly more active at seattletransitblog.org, if you have any interest.)  And that is at least the third time on these boards I've called the button copy sign "the 167 sign" even though I know better.  At least I won't have to make that mistake anymore. :(

At the risk of taking this into Fictional territory, what would make the most sense to me is to extend 167 all the way to I-705 (along the new roadway and current 509 near the port), decommission or renumber the discontinuous surface street sections of 509 in Dash Point and Des Moines, and truncate 509 so it's just the freeway from its new junction with I-5 near KDM to its northern terminus.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on May 04, 2017, 04:05:50 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 04, 2017, 01:23:29 AM
At the risk of taking this into Fictional territory, what would make the most sense to me is to extend 167 all the way to I-705 (along the new roadway and current 509 near the port), decommission or renumber the discontinuous surface street sections of 509 in Dash Point and Des Moines, and truncate 509 so it's just the freeway from its new junction with I-5 near KDM to its northern terminus.

In full agreement on this.  There's no need to have two discontinuous segments of 509 just to satisfy a legislative glitch or oversight.  As 167's ostensible purpose is to provide an alternative Seattle-Tacoma limited-access route, it may as well reach Tacoma under a single designation.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 04, 2017, 05:15:54 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 04, 2017, 04:05:50 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 04, 2017, 01:23:29 AM
At the risk of taking this into Fictional territory, what would make the most sense to me is to extend 167 all the way to I-705 (along the new roadway and current 509 near the port), decommission or renumber the discontinuous surface street sections of 509 in Dash Point and Des Moines, and truncate 509 so it's just the freeway from its new junction with I-5 near KDM to its northern terminus.

In full agreement on this.  There's no need to have two discontinuous segments of 509 just to satisfy a legislative glitch or oversight.  As 167's ostensible purpose is to provide an alternative Seattle-Tacoma limited-access route, it may as well reach Tacoma under a single designation.

I'd rather see a new number from I-705 to 512, picking up the 167 designation after that (it's basically north-south from that point to the 405). Perhaps resurrect the "514" designation?

Having 167 the entire route, you'd have a lot of misleading cardinal directions. Hwy 514 could run east-west, 167 north-south. It would make signage easier to understand, especially if you were entering the freeway anywhere west of 512. With 167, to go towards Tacoma, you'd need to take 167 South. To go to Puyallup, you'd need to take 167 North. With a Hwy 514 designation, you'd go west to Tacoma, or east to Puyallup (more or less the actual direction). You would lose that awesome 167/161 wrong-way concurrency, but I don't think that would harm anyone except us.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on May 04, 2017, 06:06:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 04, 2017, 05:15:54 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 04, 2017, 04:05:50 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 04, 2017, 01:23:29 AM
At the risk of taking this into Fictional territory, what would make the most sense to me is to extend 167 all the way to I-705 (along the new roadway and current 509 near the port), decommission or renumber the discontinuous surface street sections of 509 in Dash Point and Des Moines, and truncate 509 so it's just the freeway from its new junction with I-5 near KDM to its northern terminus.

In full agreement on this.  There's no need to have two discontinuous segments of 509 just to satisfy a legislative glitch or oversight.  As 167's ostensible purpose is to provide an alternative Seattle-Tacoma limited-access route, it may as well reach Tacoma under a single designation.

I'd rather see a new number from I-705 to 512, picking up the 167 designation after that (it's basically north-south from that point to the 405). Perhaps resurrect the "514" designation?

Having 167 the entire route, you'd have a lot of misleading cardinal directions. Hwy 514 could run east-west, 167 north-south. It would make signage easier to understand, especially if you were entering the freeway anywhere west of 512. With 167, to go towards Tacoma, you'd need to take 167 South. To go to Puyallup, you'd need to take 167 North. With a Hwy 514 designation, you'd go west to Tacoma, or east to Puyallup (more or less the actual direction). You would lose that awesome 167/161 wrong-way concurrency, but I don't think that would harm anyone except us.

Actually, a reasonably good point.  Since 167 hasn't actually entered Seattle proper for many years (Tukwila says hello!), there's really no good reason to consider it a continuous Seattle-Tacoma facility; may as well have it disperse onto 512 and whatever the "south" end of 167 ends up being (your 514 idea is as good as any!).  I for one certainly have no affinity for J-shaped routes that turn northwest after proceeding south for most of their length -- unless some sort of continuity of purpose is involved -- but "suburb-to-exurb" doesn't really fit that particular bill!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Kacie Jane on May 04, 2017, 10:02:35 PM
You're overthinking it.  If you're going to give it an east-west number, then make it 410, which is what it was before the freeways were built and back when 410 was a US highway.

But personally, I have zero problem with 167's J shape (current or future).  I-5 itself doesn't quite make a J, but definitely a backwards L as it goes around Puget Sound, and 167 is really just an outer beltway of I-5.  The continuity being served isn't all the way from Seattle to Tacoma, but from the Kent/Auburn area to Puyallup and the Port of Tacoma without having to zigzag over to I-5 via the steep hill on SR 18.  (P.S. The north end of 167 is in Renton, not Tukwila.)  Also, it's not suburb-to-exurb.  To get exurbs, you have to go out on 410, or down on the other side of 512.  Anything served by 167 is definitely suburban, not exurbs.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on May 05, 2017, 12:57:58 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 04, 2017, 10:02:35 PM
You're overthinking it.  If you're going to give it an east-west number, then make it 410, which is what it was before the freeways were built and back when 410 was a US highway.

But personally, I have zero problem with 167's J shape (current or future).  I-5 itself doesn't quite make a J, but definitely a backwards L as it goes around Puget Sound, and 167 is really just an outer beltway of I-5.  The continuity being served isn't all the way from Seattle to Tacoma, but from the Kent/Auburn area to Puyallup and the Port of Tacoma without having to zigzag over to I-5 via the steep hill on SR 18.  (P.S. The north end of 167 is in Renton, not Tukwila.)  Also, it's not suburb-to-exurb.  To get exurbs, you have to go out on 410, or down on the other side of 512.  Anything served by 167 is definitely suburban, not exurbs.

Once again, I stand corrected (and yes, I occasionally succumb to overthinking!).  In this instance, you're right; 410 would be the optimal number for this extension (it should have been designated over the surface-road section of 167 from the start).  And you're probably right about differentiating exurbs from suburbs -- but in a multiple-center area such as the composite SeaTac region, it can get a bit murky (is Lakewood a suburb of Tacoma -- but an exurb of Seattle?).  Finally, you're correct about the 405/167 interchange being in Renton, not Tukwila; my error (looked at the wrong color in the atlas insert -- my aging eyes aren't what they used to be!  Starting to feel like Arthur Carlson thinking that turkeys could fly (now that reference from 1978 dates me!)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 09, 2017, 04:06:48 AM
Watching some old Almost Live! episodes; came across this bit from one of their 90s episodes. Skip to 31:28 to see the I-90 Floating Bridge before it was finished in the 90s. The EB lanes were using the express lanes while the old bridge was rebuilt (after sinking):

https://youtu.be/xSiSclHEr70
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on May 09, 2017, 10:04:57 PM
Is that an HOV lane on the outside of the eastbound lanes? I'm guessing it functioned like the peak-only bus shoulders that I-405 has now.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 09, 2017, 11:43:21 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 09, 2017, 10:04:57 PM
Is that an HOV lane on the outside of the eastbound lanes? I'm guessing it functioned like the peak-only bus shoulders that I-405 has now.

Looks like it. Has a diamond symbol and everything. I don't know the history of HOV lanes in this area, but it may have been built as a bus lane (judging by the only vehicle in the lane), before being switched to a regular HOV lane. Or perhaps, it stayed as a bus lane until the express lanes opened.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: OCGuy81 on June 11, 2017, 11:17:59 AM
On a recent trip up to Tacoma, I noticed the concurrency of I-5 and US-12 has interesting signage I haven't seen elsewhere.  The shields are together on a large white sign (didn't get pictures).  The interstate shield is on the white background, not cut out.

Is that standard for concurrencies in Washington State, or is that just a particular WSDOT district?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 11, 2017, 03:49:59 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on June 11, 2017, 11:17:59 AM
On a recent trip up to Tacoma, I noticed the concurrency of I-5 and US-12 has interesting signage I haven't seen elsewhere.  The shields are together on a large white sign (didn't get pictures).  The interstate shield is on the white background, not cut out.

Is that standard for concurrencies in Washington State, or is that just a particular WSDOT district?

It seems to have been a one-off design. I haven't seen any others like it around the state.

Here's a photo I took 3+ years ago:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FMJ7oNWR.jpg&hash=17f1a3b498c37cfdfde58426e6dd82f8eed7e0fa)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: thefraze_1020 on June 12, 2017, 08:37:32 PM
Speaking of particular districts, does anyone know why WSDOT's Southwest division make their own unique exit signs, with separate exit tabs and the universal gore point signs?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Lancaster6 on June 16, 2017, 04:38:40 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on June 11, 2017, 11:17:59 AM
On a recent trip up to Tacoma, I noticed the concurrency of I-5 and US-12 has interesting signage I haven't seen elsewhere.  The shields are together on a large white sign (didn't get pictures).  The interstate shield is on the white background, not cut out.

Is that standard for concurrencies in Washington State, or is that just a particular WSDOT district?

I've only seen that weird signage in Lewis County. Concurrencies out by Tri-Cities are signed with individual signs.

GSV is a few years old but I know that those signs are still there.
Weird I-5/US-12 Signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@46.5803625,-122.8855334,3a,25.3y,177.98h,90.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sztbA561-SPO103uUxgdQ6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 16, 2017, 05:47:59 PM
Quote from: Lancaster6 on June 16, 2017, 04:38:40 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on June 11, 2017, 11:17:59 AM
On a recent trip up to Tacoma, I noticed the concurrency of I-5 and US-12 has interesting signage I haven't seen elsewhere.  The shields are together on a large white sign (didn't get pictures).  The interstate shield is on the white background, not cut out.

Is that standard for concurrencies in Washington State, or is that just a particular WSDOT district?

I've only seen that weird signage in Lewis County. Concurrencies out by Tri-Cities are signed with individual signs.

GSV is a few years old but I know that those signs are still there.
Weird I-5/US-12 Signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@46.5803625,-122.8855334,3a,25.3y,177.98h,90.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sztbA561-SPO103uUxgdQ6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

I don't think those signs are going anywhere. They're basically brand-new. They don't follow the typical MUTCD concurrency signage template, but they work fine.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on June 16, 2017, 06:37:23 PM
WSDOT's SW region does a few weird things with their signs. The most noticeable thing is how they sign exits at the gore point. Instead of saying "EXIT 44" on one sign, they have a sign that just says "EXIT" and then above that sign, they put another sign with the number "44." Really weird way to do it, and I haven't seen it anywhere else. Do they do this because they think it saves money or something?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on June 16, 2017, 06:53:15 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on June 16, 2017, 06:37:23 PM
WSDOT's SW region does a few weird things with their signs. The most noticeable thing is how they sign exits at the gore point. Instead of saying "EXIT 44" on one sign, they have a sign that just says "EXIT" and then above that sign, they put another sign with the number "44." Really weird way to do it, and I haven't seen it anywhere else. Do they do this because they think it saves money or something?

Were the exits not numbered before and the numbers added later?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Lancaster6 on June 16, 2017, 08:04:31 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 16, 2017, 05:47:59 PM
I don't think those signs are going anywhere. They're basically brand-new. They don't follow the typical MUTCD concurrency signage template, but they work fine.

They're definitely funky, but still get the point across just fine. WA state govt is big on the lean mentality, too, so two shields on one piece of metal is probably quicker and cheaper  :-D
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: thefraze_1020 on June 16, 2017, 08:09:38 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 16, 2017, 06:53:15 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on June 16, 2017, 06:37:23 PM
WSDOT's SW region does a few weird things with their signs. The most noticeable thing is how they sign exits at the gore point. Instead of saying "EXIT 44" on one sign, they have a sign that just says "EXIT" and then above that sign, they put another sign with the number "44." Really weird way to do it, and I haven't seen it anywhere else. Do they do this because they think it saves money or something?

Were the exits not numbered before and the numbers added later?

No, exits on Interstates have been numbered since the early 70's. These funky gore point signs have only been around within the last ten years.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Revive 755 on June 16, 2017, 09:43:25 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on June 16, 2017, 06:37:23 PM
WSDOT's SW region does a few weird things with their signs. The most noticeable thing is how they sign exits at the gore point. Instead of saying "EXIT 44" on one sign, they have a sign that just says "EXIT" and then above that sign, they put another sign with the number "44." Really weird way to do it, and I haven't seen it anywhere else. Do they do this because they think it saves money or something?

Assuming this gore sign on I-5 is an example of the gore sign setup you are referring to, (https://www.google.com/maps/@46.2820849,-122.9008248,3a,75y,0.12h,86.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYPH6EZm0hk_doNLOBjLt4w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) it looks similar to the old gore sign design used in Iowa (example) (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.630976,-91.5651316,3a,75y,315.24h,86.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBnLczmbwqhAxlwh0y5ElKw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en), Missouri (example) (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4888585,-90.2824794,3a,15.1y,303.16h,88.85t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6XMSlZ6gqSLPQvoWuCf8Mg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D6XMSlZ6gqSLPQvoWuCf8Mg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D100.309265%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en), Texas (example) (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.2938021,-96.5605781,3a,75y,330.6h,86.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3T5Bwqwe8HymII4u04czKw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en), or West Virginia (example). (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.507503,-81.6447488,3a,75y,170.71h,78.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHX6MlMUDf77pb1SdvxrEDQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)

IIRC it was in the minutes of one of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices meetings that gore signs with the number on a separate tab above the exit and arrow were preferred by some agencies as being faster to at least get the exit sign back in the field after being knocked down (apparently happening quite a bit), with the number tab being added later.

Now the exit gore signs of Nebraska (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0084484,-96.3104819,3a,75y,67.62h,86.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shQztnRe3JkfJI2wDaY75sw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) on the other hand . . .
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 16, 2017, 11:46:07 PM
The Ridgefield Junction (14), which was redesigned only a couple of years ago, uses the exit gore number tabs. So it's definitely not an old standard.

There are quite a lot of signs in Clark County with full-width exit tabs. It seems like the SW region only went rogue in the past decade or two. Not sure what changed internally.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: roadfro on June 17, 2017, 12:23:26 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on June 16, 2017, 09:43:25 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on June 16, 2017, 06:37:23 PM
WSDOT's SW region does a few weird things with their signs. The most noticeable thing is how they sign exits at the gore point. Instead of saying "EXIT 44" on one sign, they have a sign that just says "EXIT" and then above that sign, they put another sign with the number "44." Really weird way to do it, and I haven't seen it anywhere else. Do they do this because they think it saves money or something?

Assuming this gore sign on I-5 is an example of the gore sign setup you are referring to, (https://www.google.com/maps/@46.2820849,-122.9008248,3a,75y,0.12h,86.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYPH6EZm0hk_doNLOBjLt4w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) it looks similar to the old gore sign design used in Iowa (example) (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.630976,-91.5651316,3a,75y,315.24h,86.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBnLczmbwqhAxlwh0y5ElKw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en), Missouri (example) (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.4888585,-90.2824794,3a,15.1y,303.16h,88.85t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6XMSlZ6gqSLPQvoWuCf8Mg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D6XMSlZ6gqSLPQvoWuCf8Mg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D100.309265%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en), Texas (example) (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.2938021,-96.5605781,3a,75y,330.6h,86.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3T5Bwqwe8HymII4u04czKw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en), or West Virginia (example). (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.507503,-81.6447488,3a,75y,170.71h,78.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHX6MlMUDf77pb1SdvxrEDQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)

IIRC it was in the minutes of one of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices meetings that gore signs with the number on a separate tab above the exit and arrow were preferred by some agencies as being faster to at least get the exit sign back in the field after being knocked down (apparently happening quite a bit), with the number tab being added later.

The MUTCD allows this exit gore sign method as an option. However, the text makes it clear that it's really intended for when a highway without exit numbering is converted to numbered exits, so the number plaque can be placed on top of an existing exit gore sign.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: duaneu2 on June 24, 2017, 05:46:20 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 09, 2017, 10:04:57 PM
Is that an HOV lane on the outside of the eastbound lanes? I'm guessing it functioned like the peak-only bus shoulders that I-405 has now.

Those are the westbound lanes, but yes, there was an HOV lane on the bridge and through the tunnel when it first opened in 1989. It was just a regular 2+ HOV lane. I believe it remained until the replacement eastbound bridge was completed and the express lanes opened a few years later.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 24, 2017, 10:13:33 PM
Quote from: duaneu2 on June 24, 2017, 05:46:20 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 09, 2017, 10:04:57 PM
Is that an HOV lane on the outside of the eastbound lanes? I'm guessing it functioned like the peak-only bus shoulders that I-405 has now.

Those are the westbound lanes, but yes, there was an HOV lane on the bridge and through the tunnel when it first opened in 1989. It was just a regular 2+ HOV lane. I believe it remained until the replacement eastbound bridge was completed and the express lanes opened a few years later.

Thanks for the info, Duane. Have you lived in the area for a while? If so, I feel like I could pick your brain apart for a few hours.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: duaneu2 on June 25, 2017, 02:07:36 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 24, 2017, 10:13:33 PM
Quote from: duaneu2 on June 24, 2017, 05:46:20 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 09, 2017, 10:04:57 PM
Is that an HOV lane on the outside of the eastbound lanes? I'm guessing it functioned like the peak-only bus shoulders that I-405 has now.

Those are the westbound lanes, but yes, there was an HOV lane on the bridge and through the tunnel when it first opened in 1989. It was just a regular 2+ HOV lane. I believe it remained until the replacement eastbound bridge was completed and the express lanes opened a few years later.

Thanks for the info, Duane. Have you lived in the area for a while? If so, I feel like I could pick your brain apart for a few hours.

Yep, lived in Tacoma or Bellevue or someplace in between my whole life (almost 50 years). Pick away all you'd like. :-)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 25, 2017, 04:24:08 PM
Quote from: duaneu2 on June 25, 2017, 02:07:36 PM
Yep, lived in Tacoma or Bellevue or someplace in between my whole life (almost 50 years). Pick away all you'd like. :-)

Alright, I like it!

Did you ever get to drive in downtown Tacoma pre-I-705? I have family in the area, but no one remembers what it was like before the freeway. I'm more curious to know if it was hellish trying to get into the city proper from I-5.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: duaneu2 on June 29, 2017, 08:42:47 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 25, 2017, 04:24:08 PM
Quote from: duaneu2 on June 25, 2017, 02:07:36 PM
Yep, lived in Tacoma or Bellevue or someplace in between my whole life (almost 50 years). Pick away all you'd like. :-)

Alright, I like it!

Did you ever get to drive in downtown Tacoma pre-I-705? I have family in the area, but no one remembers what it was like before the freeway. I'm more curious to know if it was hellish trying to get into the city proper from I-5.

No, I don't recall it being particular difficult. Pacific Avenue was the main route into downtown from the freeway.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Thunderbyrd316 on June 29, 2017, 10:02:03 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 25, 2017, 04:24:08 PM
Quote from: duaneu2 on June 25, 2017, 02:07:36 PM
Yep, lived in Tacoma or Bellevue or someplace in between my whole life (almost 50 years). Pick away all you'd like. :-)

Alright, I like it!

Did you ever get to drive in downtown Tacoma pre-I-705? I have family in the area, but no one remembers what it was like before the freeway. I'm more curious to know if it was hellish trying to get into the city proper from I-5.

   Back in the mid '80's ('83 to '87 in particular) me and my dad were going to Spanaway Speedway pretty frequently and on MANY of those trips, especially the Sunday afternoon races, we would come up (from the PDX metro area, we lived in Oak Grove at the time) early in the morning and we drove all over the Seattle - Tacoma area. And we frequently drove into downtown Tacoma and would then follow Pacific Ave. all the way back out to Spanaway.

   Downtown Tacoma was a TOTAL third world Hell hole back then. It has recovered about 1,000,000% from how it was in those dark days. The SR 7 freeway was open between I-5 and So. 38th but north of I-5 there was nothing at all. The '60's era structures just dead ended into nothingness. Pacific Ave. from the south and Pacific Highway from Fife to Pacific Ave. were the main ways into downtown. As I recall SR 509 came in on the 11th St. Bridge. And no, it was not "Hellish" to try to get into downtown for the simple reason that almost nobody really had a reason to go there. It really was like a bombed out ghost town. That is probably why nobody in your family remembers it. Though there was a Salvation Army thrift store that used to have a LOTS of cool old maps that was on the side of the hill a few blocks west of Pacific in a particularly depressing neighborhood. (Among the gems I found in that particular store were a '50's era map of Europe that showed "Super Highways" and an Official 1959 Oregon State Centennial map that showed what is now I-5 through Salem as a "Super 2" called US 99 Bypass, the US 99 Baldock Freeway between Salem and Tigard and the US 30 Banfield Expressway between downtown and Fairview. Oh, how I wish I still had those!)

   I remember when they started building I-705. It was super exciting. Once in the late '80's when it was really beginning to take shape but not open yet, I even got to see it from the train tracks. (Me and my dad had ridden Amtrak up to Tacoma to pick up a car.) I also remember when they started converting SR 16 between the Nally Valley Viaduct and the Narrows Bridge to freeway. They did it in sections. And at first built just half of the freeway and crowded 4 lanes onto it. I remember that for what seemed like a long time after construction had begun there was still a signal near the stadium by the curve. The way I remember it, Highway 16 ran between the bridge and 6th Ave. by way of what Google Maps now calls Scott Pierson Trail. My memory is pretty foggy about the specific routing beyond 6th Ave. but I want to say that Pearl Street may have been used at least part way. (I would have to look at a map from back then though to know for sure.)

   One other thing I remember was how SR 167 was 2 lanes between SR 410 and SR 18. There were extra large Botts Dotts down the center with a solid yellow line on each side and passing was strictly prohibited.

   I could tell you a lot more stories about driving around the Puget Sound area in the '80's if you ever want to hear them. (But I got a LOT going on between now and the 4th so I probably will not be back online until the 5th, at least for any length of time.)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: duaneu2 on June 30, 2017, 08:31:45 PM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on June 29, 2017, 10:02:03 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 25, 2017, 04:24:08 PM
Quote from: duaneu2 on June 25, 2017, 02:07:36 PM
Yep, lived in Tacoma or Bellevue or someplace in between my whole life (almost 50 years). Pick away all you'd like. :-)

Alright, I like it!

Did you ever get to drive in downtown Tacoma pre-I-705? I have family in the area, but no one remembers what it was like before the freeway. I'm more curious to know if it was hellish trying to get into the city proper from I-5.

   I remember when they started building I-705. It was super exciting. Once in the late '80's when it was really beginning to take shape but not open yet, I even got to see it from the train tracks. (Me and my dad had ridden Amtrak up to Tacoma to pick up a car.) I also remember when they started converting SR 16 between the Nally Valley Viaduct and the Narrows Bridge to freeway. They did it in sections. And at first built just half of the freeway and crowded 4 lanes onto it. I remember that for what seemed like a long time after construction had begun there was still a signal near the stadium by the curve. The way I remember it, Highway 16 ran between the bridge and 6th Ave. by way of what Google Maps now calls Scott Pierson Trail. My memory is pretty foggy about the specific routing beyond 6th Ave. but I want to say that Pearl Street may have been used at least part way. (I would have to look at a map from back then though to know for sure.)

Speaking of Amtrak, I-705 spelled the end of Union Station as train depot, as it cut off the station from the railroad tracks. You'll notice how the freeway dips down as it passes the station. Originally the roadway was supposed to be elevated all the way, but it was redesigned so as not to block the views to/from the station.

As far as SR-16 goes, the diagonal part between Cheney Stadium and 6th Avenue was called Bantz Blvd. There were stoplights at Center Street, South 19th Street and South 12th Street. From Bantz, 6th Avenue was SR-16 until it turned toward the bridge on what was then called Olympic Blvd. During the mid to late 80's, Bantz was upgraded to a freeway and the new freeway alignment north of 6th on Highland Hill was built. The last stoplight was removed with the opening of the 19th/Orchard interchange in 1991.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sp_redelectric on June 30, 2017, 09:01:13 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on June 11, 2017, 11:17:59 AM
On a recent trip up to Tacoma, I noticed the concurrency of I-5 and US-12 has interesting signage I haven't seen elsewhere.  The shields are together on a large white sign (didn't get pictures).  The interstate shield is on the white background, not cut out.

Those signs replaced even more interesting signs, that had both the Interstate 5 and U.S. 12 shields against a BLUE (!!!) background.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: nexus73 on June 30, 2017, 09:44:19 PM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on June 29, 2017, 10:02:03 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 25, 2017, 04:24:08 PM
Quote from: duaneu2 on June 25, 2017, 02:07:36 PM
Yep, lived in Tacoma or Bellevue or someplace in between my whole life (almost 50 years). Pick away all you'd like. :-)

Alright, I like it!

Did you ever get to drive in downtown Tacoma pre-I-705? I have family in the area, but no one remembers what it was like before the freeway. I'm more curious to know if it was hellish trying to get into the city proper from I-5.

   Back in the mid '80's ('83 to '87 in particular) me and my dad were going to Spanaway Speedway pretty frequently and on MANY of those trips, especially the Sunday afternoon races, we would come up (from the PDX metro area, we lived in Oak Grove at the time) early in the morning and we drove all over the Seattle - Tacoma area. And we frequently drove into downtown Tacoma and would then follow Pacific Ave. all the way back out to Spanaway.

   Downtown Tacoma was a TOTAL third world Hell hole back then. It has recovered about 1,000,000% from how it was in those dark days. The SR 7 freeway was open between I-5 and So. 38th but north of I-5 there was nothing at all. The '60's era structures just dead ended into nothingness. Pacific Ave. from the south and Pacific Highway from Fife to Pacific Ave. were the main ways into downtown. As I recall SR 509 came in on the 11th St. Bridge. And no, it was not "Hellish" to try to get into downtown for the simple reason that almost nobody really had a reason to go there. It really was like a bombed out ghost town. That is probably why nobody in your family remembers it. Though there was a Salvation Army thrift store that used to have a LOTS of cool old maps that was on the side of the hill a few blocks west of Pacific in a particularly depressing neighborhood. (Among the gems I found in that particular store were a '50's era map of Europe that showed "Super Highways" and an Official 1959 Oregon State Centennial map that showed what is now I-5 through Salem as a "Super 2" called US 99 Bypass, the US 99 Baldock Freeway between Salem and Tigard and the US 30 Banfield Expressway between downtown and Fairview. Oh, how I wish I still had those!)

   I remember when they started building I-705. It was super exciting. Once in the late '80's when it was really beginning to take shape but not open yet, I even got to see it from the train tracks. (Me and my dad had ridden Amtrak up to Tacoma to pick up a car.) I also remember when they started converting SR 16 between the Nally Valley Viaduct and the Narrows Bridge to freeway. They did it in sections. And at first built just half of the freeway and crowded 4 lanes onto it. I remember that for what seemed like a long time after construction had begun there was still a signal near the stadium by the curve. The way I remember it, Highway 16 ran between the bridge and 6th Ave. by way of what Google Maps now calls Scott Pierson Trail. My memory is pretty foggy about the specific routing beyond 6th Ave. but I want to say that Pearl Street may have been used at least part way. (I would have to look at a map from back then though to know for sure.)

   One other thing I remember was how SR 167 was 2 lanes between SR 410 and SR 18. There were extra large Botts Dotts down the center with a solid yellow line on each side and passing was strictly prohibited.

   I could tell you a lot more stories about driving around the Puget Sound area in the '80's if you ever want to hear them. (But I got a LOT going on between now and the 4th so I probably will not be back online until the 5th, at least for any length of time.)

You can still find older maps online through eBay.  I have picked up a few at reasonable cost on that site.

Rick
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on July 01, 2017, 12:16:40 AM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on June 29, 2017, 10:02:03 PM

   Downtown Tacoma was a TOTAL third world Hell hole back then. It has recovered about 1,000,000% from how it was in those dark days. The SR 7 freeway was open between I-5 and So. 38th but north of I-5 there was nothing at all. The '60's era structures just dead ended into nothingness. Pacific Ave. from the south and Pacific Highway from Fife to Pacific Ave. were the main ways into downtown. As I recall SR 509 came in on the 11th St. Bridge. And no, it was not "Hellish" to try to get into downtown for the simple reason that almost nobody really had a reason to go there. It really was like a bombed out ghost town. That is probably why nobody in your family remembers it.

Wow, I didn't know downtown Tacoma was such a hellhole back then. I do know that there used to be an Asarco smelter that really made the place smell terrible. Downtown Tacoma seems like a much more desirable place to go to now, simply because of things like the Tacoma Dome, the Chihuly Museum of Glass, and the LeMay car museum.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 01, 2017, 01:09:57 AM
Quote from: duaneu2 on June 29, 2017, 08:42:47 PM
No, I don't recall it being particular difficult. Pacific Avenue was the main route into downtown from the freeway.
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on June 29, 2017, 10:02:03 PM
The SR 7 freeway was open between I-5 and So. 38th but north of I-5 there was nothing at all. The '60's era structures just dead ended into nothingness. Pacific Ave. from the south and Pacific Highway from Fife to Pacific Ave. were the main ways into downtown.

That was the impression I got from the various satellite images I could find online. It also looked like there was some one-way tomfoolery happening at the confluence of Pac Ave, S Tacoma Way, and S 26 St (with what appears to be either a triple or quadruple left turn):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FjhVNFDf.png&hash=59fd844789a9f957f1e75370991dec68b0a1b364)

Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on June 29, 2017, 10:02:03 PM
I remember when they started building I-705. It was super exciting. Once in the late '80's when it was really beginning to take shape but not open yet, I even got to see it from the train tracks. (Me and my dad had ridden Amtrak up to Tacoma to pick up a car.)

You can actually see the construction of the 705 progressing on this new Google Earth time-lapse engine here: https://goo.gl/GE64Uk. Formerly, there was a gigantic aerial gap between 1980 and 1990. Only now can I actually see how and when work progressed (I get most of my info from aerial imagery).

It looks like clearing was finished by 1984, and construction started in 1985. The roadway appears to be mostly finished by 1988, though I don't believe the freeway actually opened until 1990. I can't even begin to imagine how imposing it must have looked, compared to what used to be there (nothing except hillside and train tracks, I believe). Nonetheless, I do believe the freeway has been a boon for the city (particularly parts north), and I'm glad the money for its construction was eventually secured.

Quote from: compdude787 on July 01, 2017, 12:16:40 AM
I do know that there used to be an Asarco smelter that really made the place smell terrible.

You still get a smell from time to time, but it originates at the pulp mill in the port. I'm not sure that the smelter had much of a smell (though it certainly left its mark in other ways (ground and water pollution chiefly)).

Quote from: duaneu2 on June 30, 2017, 08:31:45 PM
As far as SR-16 goes, the diagonal part between Cheney Stadium and 6th Avenue was called Bantz Blvd. There were stoplights at Center Street, South 19th Street and South 12th Street. From Bantz, 6th Avenue was SR-16 until it turned toward the bridge on what was then called Olympic Blvd. During the mid to late 80's, Bantz was upgraded to a freeway and the new freeway alignment north of 6th on Highland Hill was built. The last stoplight was removed with the opening of the 19th/Orchard interchange in 1991.

There's some pretty good imagery of that routing on Historic Aerials: https://goo.gl/mVQhDJ

Until the freeway alignment, it looks like there was quite a few odd intersections. A couple of five-way intersections, a couple wye's...doesn't look like fun trying to get to the bridge.

Any idea how did that intersection at 19th/Orchard operated? The images from later years seem to indicate that lefts were permitted off of 16, but not 19th.

Here's an image from 1959 (courtesy Tacoma Public Library) of Olympic Blvd from the Narrows to 6th Ave. Looks like the major movement was definitely between the bridge and 6th Ave:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fu4ko1KU.png&hash=881994a31b3b36801a7f1986d1477f8a474db5d4)

Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on June 29, 2017, 10:02:03 PM
One other thing I remember was how SR 167 was 2 lanes between SR 410 and SR 18. There were extra large Botts Dotts down the center with a solid yellow line on each side and passing was strictly prohibited.

That's a stretch I drive with alarming regularity, and it's also a stretch that I can't imagine ever being two lanes. It's crazy how busy it is now. It must have been wicked busy for WSDOT not to allow passing. What was the speed limit?

I can tell from old images that an at-grade intersection existed at 32 St E (north of Sumner), which connected 167 to West Valley Hwy (old pavement still exists (https://goo.gl/ShRBLA)). Looks like it was quickly closed off when traffic become a burden. Surely, it was the last at-grade intersection, short of some odd movements in the 167/410/512 interchange area until the late 80s.

Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on June 29, 2017, 10:02:03 PM
I could tell you a lot more stories about driving around the Puget Sound area in the '80's if you ever want to hear them. (But I got a LOT going on between now and the 4th so I probably will not be back online until the 5th, at least for any length of time.)

Do tell! But take your time. :)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: duaneu2 on July 01, 2017, 12:46:55 PM


Any idea how did that intersection at 19th/Orchard operated? The images from later years seem to indicate that lefts were permitted off of 16, but not 19th.


[/quote]


Coming from the west, 19th turned to the right and continued south as Orchard Street. To continue east on 19th, you had to make a left turn onto a short segment between Orchard and Bantz. Left turns were allowed in all directions at the 19th & Bantz intersection. Orchard Street north of that intersection was only accessible from the highway westbound.



I can tell from old images that an at-grade intersection existed at 32 St E (north of Sumner), which connected 167 to West Valley Hwy (old pavement still exists (https://goo.gl/ShRBLA)). Looks like it was quickly closed off when traffic become a burden. Surely, it was the last at-grade intersection, short of some odd movements in the 167/410/512 interchange area until the late 80s.
[/quote]

In the 1970s, that was the end of the freeway coming north from Puyallup. The road suddenly made a 90 degree turn to the left and headed over to West Valley Highway. You then continued north on West Valley Highway and the freeway picked up again when you got to Auburn.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 02, 2017, 01:35:20 AM
Quote from: duaneu2 on July 01, 2017, 12:46:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 01, 2017, 01:09:57 AM
Any idea how did that intersection at 19th/Orchard operated? The images from later years seem to indicate that lefts were permitted off of 16, but not 19th.

Coming from the west, 19th turned to the right and continued south as Orchard Street. To continue east on 19th, you had to make a left turn onto a short segment between Orchard and Bantz. Left turns were allowed in all directions at the 19th & Bantz intersection. Orchard Street north of that intersection was only accessible from the highway westbound.

I'm sure that signal operated well... :-D WSDOT can't signalize a busy junction to save their lives. I'm glad I was born after the interchange was built.

Quote from: duaneu2 on July 01, 2017, 12:46:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 01, 2017, 01:09:57 AM
I can tell from old images that an at-grade intersection existed at 32 St E (north of Sumner), which connected 167 to West Valley Hwy (old pavement still exists (https://goo.gl/ShRBLA)). Looks like it was quickly closed off when traffic become a burden. Surely, it was the last at-grade intersection, short of some odd movements in the 167/410/512 interchange area until the late 80s.

In the 1970s, that was the end of the freeway coming north from Puyallup. The road suddenly made a 90 degree turn to the left and headed over to West Valley Highway. You then continued north on West Valley Highway and the freeway picked up again when you got to Auburn.

End of the freeway, or end of the highway? From looking at historic aerials (unless the dates are wrong), the freeway segment only existed from the 512 interchange to the 410 interchange, even by 1980. On either side of those two interchanges, 167 was a two lane highway. Looking at the dirt in the 1980 aerials, it looks like the highway curved to the left at 32 St, where it would have connected into West Valley Highway (as you suggest).

By 1985, the freeway was built (from the north) all the way to just north of the Ellingson interchange (again, at least from what I can tell, assuming the aerial photos are correctly dated).

By 1990, the entire route from 512 to the 405 was freeway (the section west of 512 remained two lane until the late 90s, AFAICT).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: duaneu2 on July 02, 2017, 12:47:12 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 02, 2017, 01:35:20 AM



Quote from: duaneu2 on July 01, 2017, 12:46:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 01, 2017, 01:09:57 AM
I can tell from old images that an at-grade intersection existed at 32 St E (north of Sumner), which connected 167 to West Valley Hwy (old pavement still exists (https://goo.gl/ShRBLA)). Looks like it was quickly closed off when traffic become a burden. Surely, it was the last at-grade intersection, short of some odd movements in the 167/410/512 interchange area until the late 80s.

In the 1970s, that was the end of the freeway coming north from Puyallup. The road suddenly made a 90 degree turn to the left and headed over to West Valley Highway. You then continued north on West Valley Highway and the freeway picked up again when you got to Auburn.

End of the freeway, or end of the highway? From looking at historic aerials (unless the dates are wrong), the freeway segment only existed from the 512 interchange to the 410 interchange, even by 1980. On either side of those two interchanges, 167 was a two lane highway. Looking at the dirt in the 1980 aerials, it looks like the highway curved to the left at 32 St, where it would have connected into West Valley Highway (as you suggest).

By 1985, the freeway was built (from the north) all the way to just north of the Ellingson interchange (again, at least from what I can tell, assuming the aerial photos are correctly dated).

By 1990, the entire route from 512 to the 405 was freeway (the section west of 512 remained two lane until the late 90s, AFAICT).

Not just suggesting, we drove it every week traveling from our home in Puyallup to my grandparents' in Bellevue. I believe it was just two lanes at the time.

We moved from Puyallup to Tacoma in 1977, so we didn't travel that section of road regularly after that.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 03, 2017, 02:46:14 AM
To help with research, I suggest using a Seattle Public Library card and accessing the Seattle Times Archive (http://infoweb.newsbank.com.ezproxy.spl.org/resources/search/nb?p=AMNEWS&t=state%3AWA%21USA%2B-%2BWashington), which includes articles from 1895 to 2017 (including full pages until 1985; and full text without images after that). The Times covered a lot of highway planning and construction, so if you can narrow down the year it's quite easy to get an exact result.

For example, this 1967 map of South Sound freeway proposals.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FLLhWtSP.png&hash=d7b775c33d5a175dcc0adc9f549aade6183f1a6d)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 03, 2017, 01:01:50 PM
^^ thanks for the tip, Bruce. With the card, does that then allow you to access the Times archive online, or do you use the card to access the physical copies somewhere IRL? I assume the former, but I want to make sure.

It's funny to look at that map. It doesn't even seem like half of those routes make any sense. That E/W freeway through Kent seems to go straight up a hill, and the 99 Freeway seems to run right through an area that I recall being extremely hilly.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 03, 2017, 04:07:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 03, 2017, 01:01:50 PM
^^ thanks for the tip, Bruce. With the card, does that then allow you to access the Times archive online, or do you use the card to access the physical copies somewhere IRL? I assume the former, but I want to make sure.

With the card, you can access it online. The physical copies are also at the library in microfilm format, but I've never bothered to check on them because the online archive is really good.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 11, 2017, 08:30:37 PM
Part of the SR 520 West Approach Bridge North will open on Monday, mostly for traffic exiting at Lake Washington Blvd and Montlake Blvd. http://q13fox.com/2017/07/11/big-changes-to-520-bridge-arrive-monday/

New sign on SR 520, featuring the UW logo:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FoGUkk9z.png&hash=0b3ea2e0901433f64d167bfdc00276d341f65d9b)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on July 12, 2017, 01:52:21 AM
I hate that UW Logo.  Fine for the intercollegiate sports teams, but it just doesn't say "college" to me.  And it's ambiguous.  There are any number of colleges that begin with W.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 12, 2017, 10:09:45 AM
Quote from: kkt on July 12, 2017, 01:52:21 AM
I hate that UW Logo.  Fine for the intercollegiate sports teams, but it just doesn't say "college" to me.  And it's ambiguous.  There are any number of colleges that begin with W.

I had the same thought. If they just put up the husky logo, it would be too ambiguous. But, if they combined the husky logo with the W, it would look good.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: KEK Inc. on July 21, 2017, 02:40:24 PM
lol I haven't taken the 520 bridge since they raised the toll so it's no longer free between 11PM and 5AM. 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 21, 2017, 08:22:38 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on July 21, 2017, 02:40:24 PM
lol I haven't taken the 520 bridge since they raised the toll so it's no longer free between 11PM and 5AM.

It does surprise me that it was ever free at night. AFAIK, it's not a congestion charge/toll (although it seems work like that sometimes). It's a "bridge payoff" toll.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sp_redelectric on July 25, 2017, 09:25:26 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 11, 2017, 08:30:37 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FoGUkk9z.png&hash=0b3ea2e0901433f64d167bfdc00276d341f65d9b)

What is with WSDOT's fascination with ending lanes after an exit - why not an exit only lane?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on July 25, 2017, 10:09:02 PM
Supposedly they cause congestion as drivers merge left sooner than needed.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: mrsman on July 26, 2017, 12:39:15 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 25, 2017, 10:09:02 PM
Supposedly they cause congestion as drivers merge left sooner than needed.

But I would think that doing this would cause more problems because people who can move over early will not do so and wait till later.  I would think that it will also make it harder for incoming traffic.  Presumably, right after an exit comes an entrance and then that lane ends.  So entering traffic will have to merge into a lane that ends and then merge again into the narrower freeway.  2 quick lane changes are more difficult than one.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 26, 2017, 02:04:22 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 26, 2017, 12:39:15 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on July 25, 2017, 10:09:02 PM
Supposedly they cause congestion as drivers merge left sooner than needed.

But I would think that doing this would cause more problems because people who can move over early will not do so and wait till later.  I would think that it will also make it harder for incoming traffic.  Presumably, right after an exit comes an entrance and then that lane ends.  So entering traffic will have to merge into a lane that ends and then merge again into the narrower freeway.  2 quick lane changes are more difficult than one.

In my experience, exit-only lanes work best when there's two closely spaced entrance and exit ramps. Drivers use the lane to weave. This is not the case here. The right lane that would become an exit-only for Montlake (in the above image) has been a lane for many, many miles. Drivers would naturally avoid driving in the right lane if they are not exiting, in order to avoid getting stuck if through traffic suddenly slowed down. This is why merge lanes work so great. Traffic that does not merge early won't need to stop in the exit-only lane in order to merge in, if traffic is moving slowly. With a merge lane, they can just wait until the lane ends.

FWIW, regardless if it's a merge lane or an exit-only lane, drivers are free to merge as long as there's dashed lines. Merge lanes, however, allow more space to merge, and they prevent through traffic from flooding the non-exit-only lane.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on July 26, 2017, 09:57:10 PM
Prevailing traffic theory is that ending the lane after the exit is always better than a lane drop, if you can help it. I'm honestly fuzzy as to why, but I know that for example, they are doing that with I-280 WB at NJ 21 in the reconstruction. By moving the lane drop a few hundred feet downstream, they gained somewhere from 50-100 vehicles in capacity.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: nexus73 on July 27, 2017, 12:28:18 AM
Quote from: Alps on July 26, 2017, 09:57:10 PM
Prevailing traffic theory is that ending the lane after the exit is always better than a lane drop, if you can help it. I'm honestly fuzzy as to why, but I know that for example, they are doing that with I-280 WB at NJ 21 in the reconstruction. By moving the lane drop a few hundred feet downstream, they gained somewhere from 50-100 vehicles in capacity.

You'll see the same thing in Eugene on I-5 when the short 3-lane section drops to 2 lanes in each direction.  It's a good idea.

Rick
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on August 08, 2017, 01:36:23 AM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on June 30, 2017, 09:01:13 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on June 11, 2017, 11:17:59 AM
On a recent trip up to Tacoma, I noticed the concurrency of I-5 and US-12 has interesting signage I haven't seen elsewhere.  The shields are together on a large white sign (didn't get pictures).  The interstate shield is on the white background, not cut out.

Those signs replaced even more interesting signs, that had both the Interstate 5 and U.S. 12 shields against a BLUE (!!!) background.

Question: did the composite white-background sign feature the US 12 shield as a "cutout", with the shield outline as a black line, or did it employ a black background around the shield like a standard WA US stand-alone reassurance shield?  I don't recall seeing one of that particular type of "combos" the last time I was up there about 4 years ago -- the only ones I recall used a basic black background on which both the shields were located.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 10, 2017, 03:07:31 AM
Some cool things going on at the Lynch Road/101 junction south of Shelton. Current intersection allows one car to wait in middle at a time, and there's quite a few conflicting movements. So WSDOT, finally, isn't ruining the intersection by installing a bunch of protected lefts or something. They actually have some cool stuff planned (see video below).

- SB turns onto Lynch Road will now occur earlier, merging onto the parallel Brewer Road several hundred yards north of the junction
- there will be a NB and SB acceleration lane
- traffic turning onto SB 101 need only look left now, since there will be an acceleration lane to merge onto SB 101, plus there won't be that SB left turn off 101.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e07AKaep_Q
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 10, 2017, 04:28:52 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 08, 2017, 01:36:23 AM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on June 30, 2017, 09:01:13 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on June 11, 2017, 11:17:59 AM
On a recent trip up to Tacoma, I noticed the concurrency of I-5 and US-12 has interesting signage I haven't seen elsewhere.  The shields are together on a large white sign (didn't get pictures).  The interstate shield is on the white background, not cut out.

Those signs replaced even more interesting signs, that had both the Interstate 5 and U.S. 12 shields against a BLUE (!!!) background.

Question: did the composite white-background sign feature the US 12 shield as a "cutout", with the shield outline as a black line, or did it employ a black background around the shield like a standard WA US stand-alone reassurance shield?  I don't recall seeing one of that particular type of "combos" the last time I was up there about 4 years ago -- the only ones I recall used a basic black background on which both the shields were located.

I can't seem to find any evidence of this combo both-on-blue reassurance assembly, but the SW region has had a couple variations of the now-common half white, half black unisign:

- blue-on-blue and white-on-white assembly (replaced, probably due to conflicting background colours): https://goo.gl/6zYkso
- blue-on-white and white-on-black assembly -- mostly standard [but with a gigantic border] (same location as above): https://goo.gl/Lxzpuz

Both of these signs are gone. Neither lasted very long for whatever reason.

If I can find an example of the sign that sp_redelectric describes, I will let you know.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 15, 2017, 08:14:20 PM
Bothell's new "Multiway Boulevard (http://www.bothellwa.gov/446/Multiway-Boulevard)" (Bothell Way, formerly SR 527) opens on August 24.

11 lanes, with double parking and tons of medians. Also sharrows. Truly a masterful torture device.

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 15, 2017, 08:51:27 PM
That is one of the most overdesigned road ways I have ever seen. That wide of ROW yet there's sharrows?! 🖕 Bothell.

I'd have put a two-way protected bike path up one side of the street, and maybe some back-in-only angle parking on the other. One of the phases would be a bike/ped scramble, where peds and bikes can go and cross in all directions. Keep turn lanes where necessary, but eliminate the center lane/median at intersections without left turns (narrow ROW).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on August 15, 2017, 10:02:23 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 15, 2017, 08:14:20 PM
Bothell's new "Multiway Boulevard (http://www.bothellwa.gov/446/Multiway-Boulevard)" (Bothell Way, formerly SR 527) opens on August 24.

11 lanes, with double parking and tons of medians. Also sharrows. Truly a masterful torture device.


That looks like an intersection in Budapest!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on August 16, 2017, 01:32:08 AM
I live nearby, so I'd seen this being built, but I can definitely agree that it seems like a good way to allow for parking without having to stop thru traffic. Who knows how traffic will respond to it; hopefully it doesn't end up being a total nightmare safety-wise with all those conflict points. It's definitely a unique concept; we'll have to wait and see how it works...
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on August 16, 2017, 04:58:00 AM
After watching the video, I can see where the design team was trying to go with this -- but not being able to pull out of an "access lane" (as they term it) onto the main Bothell Way through traffic lanes seems to be a bit counterintuitive; that'll take some getting used to by a lot of drivers.  Slogging down 4-5 blocks of access lanes to rejoin the main street might be a bit gratuitous.  One would think that if there are parallel streets available, they'll get used quite a bit by drivers frustrated at attempting to negotiate this particular arrangement. 

This sort of layout looks as though it's geared toward the regular/repeat user who will over time become accustomed to its idiosyncracies; but it may be problematic for the driver who utilizes the facility only sporadically -- or even less.  I would expect to see quite a few "fender-benders" occurring -- particularly during the "break-in" period. 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on August 17, 2017, 12:11:03 AM
Just y'all realize that this has been used on the regular in NYC for decades - Grand Concourse, Ocean Pkwy., Linden Blvd., I could go on. So it does work.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 17, 2017, 01:43:06 AM
But for three blocks, it's pointless overengineering.

It will be demolished in 5 years when the BRT lines are extended to Bothell, too, so there's no point.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on August 17, 2017, 03:23:10 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 17, 2017, 01:43:06 AM
But for three blocks, it's pointless overengineering.

Nah...but traffic is gonna flow great thru there, though. :D
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on August 17, 2017, 04:45:58 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on August 17, 2017, 03:23:10 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 17, 2017, 01:43:06 AM
But for three blocks, it's pointless overengineering.

Nah...but traffic is gonna flow great thru there, though. :D

Yeah -- until some moron decides he/she absolutely needs to hang a left from one of the access lanes to get where they're going!  Back in the late '90's, the city of El Monte down in SoCal reconstructed their main business drag, Ramona Blvd, to the same configuration as the Bothell boulevard -- and drivers repeatedly did exactly that; they ended up shunting the access lanes back to the main drag about 50 yards before each cross-street (and blocked off the lane prior to that cross-street), which sort of defeated the design purpose.  And, during rush hour (Ramona essentially functioned as a "relief route" for I-10, located about a mile to the south) getting in & out of the access lanes was all but impossible.  And -- to add to the fun & games  -- Metrolink tracks crossed Ramona at a 45-degree angle at one of the intersections in this stretch -- with their peak traffic hours naturally coinciding with that of the boulevard (and the El Monte train station a block southwest of the crossing)!  The whole thing was four relatively long blocks -- but perpetually a "hot mess".  But I will say they did a great job making the area look pretty!   
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 17, 2017, 03:24:10 AM
Does anyone know the story behind SR-18's name, "Auburn-Echo Lake Cutoff Road"? Echo Lake is nowhere near SR-18 (it's way up north east of Maltby (https://goo.gl/usvmQp)). Was the name coined because the road was planned to eventually bypass the Echo Lake area?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Desert Man on November 17, 2017, 01:26:01 PM
Wikipedia article feature: Washington State Route 520 from Seattle to Redmond, HQs of Microsoft and Nintendo (of America)...and the suburb of Redmond is known as "Silicon Forest".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Route_520
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on November 17, 2017, 11:02:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 17, 2017, 03:24:10 AM
Does anyone know the story behind SR-18's name, "Auburn-Echo Lake Cutoff Road"? Echo Lake is nowhere near SR-18 (it's way up north east of Maltby (https://goo.gl/usvmQp)). Was the name coined because the road was planned to eventually bypass the Echo Lake area?
Apparently the Echo Lake Cutoff name began with the first sections of roadway near Snoqualmie, which were constructed before I-405. Thus, although it's actually longer in distance than US 99 through Seattle, what's now 18 certainly would have been a shorter time to drive (in combination with - already existing? - 202/203), hence a cutoff. That's my guess. If 202/203 did not already exist at that point, I don't know.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 18, 2017, 01:33:18 AM
Quote from: Alps on November 17, 2017, 11:02:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 17, 2017, 03:24:10 AM
Does anyone know the story behind SR-18's name, "Auburn-Echo Lake Cutoff Road"? Echo Lake is nowhere near SR-18 (it's way up north east of Maltby (https://goo.gl/usvmQp)). Was the name coined because the road was planned to eventually bypass the Echo Lake area?

Apparently the Echo Lake Cutoff name began with the first sections of roadway near Snoqualmie, which were constructed before I-405. Thus, although it's actually longer in distance than US 99 through Seattle, what's now 18 certainly would have been a shorter time to drive (in combination with - already existing? - 202/203), hence a cutoff. That's my guess. If 202/203 did not already exist at that point, I don't know.

I was thinking something along those lines. Either way, it would have involved a short duplex with then-US-10, because Snoqualmie Parkway did not yet exist (Hwy 18 ended at I-90 until maybe twenty years ago?). My main objection to this theory is that 202 and 203 already have names (Fall City-Snoqualmie Road, Fall City-Carnation Road, Fall City Duvall Road, and Monroe Duvall Road). It's odd that they'd drop the name from the relevant section of road, but keep it on the section that wasn't (i.e. the section that doesn't by pass Echo Lake).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on November 18, 2017, 01:54:35 AM
There's actually an Echo Lake under a mile east of the I-90/ WA 18 interchange. That's where the name "Echo Lake Cutoff" comes from.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 18, 2017, 02:14:53 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on November 18, 2017, 01:54:35 AM
There's actually an Echo Lake under a mile east of the I-90/ WA 18 interchange. That's where the name "Echo Lake Cutoff" comes from.

So there is. Why the F are there two Echo Lakes? :-D

I think I see where the name comes from now. The 'cutoff' refers to the nature of the road (cutting off the Seattle metro area), and 'Auburn-Echo Lake' refers to the two geographic entities on either end of the highway.

Problem solved. My head kept reading 'Echo Lake Cutoff' as one entity rather than two.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: MNHighwayMan on November 18, 2017, 06:44:47 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2017, 02:14:53 AM
So there is. Why the F are there two Echo Lakes? :-D

Don't even bother in looking into why Minnesota has tons of Mud, Round, or Long Lakes, then, or else your head might explode. :-D
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 18, 2017, 12:55:51 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on November 18, 2017, 06:44:47 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2017, 02:14:53 AM
So there is. Why the F are there two Echo Lakes? :-D

Don't even bother in looking into why Minnesota has tons of Mud, Round, or Long Lakes, then, or else your head might explode. :-D

At least Minnesota has an excuse. Not sure I could come up with unique names for ten thousand lakes. Washington, on the other hand, has maybe 1/100 of that. No excuses.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: MikeTheActuary on November 18, 2017, 01:19:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2017, 02:14:53 AMSo there is. Why the F are there two Echo Lakes? :-D

One's the original; the other's an echo.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 19, 2017, 11:22:52 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on November 17, 2017, 01:26:01 PM
Wikipedia article feature: Washington State Route 520 from Seattle to Redmond, HQs of Microsoft and Nintendo (of America)...and the suburb of Redmond is known as "Silicon Forest".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Route_520

No one calls it that. Silicon Forest is the name of the Hillsboro-Beaverton corridor in Portland. We really don't want the region to be known as a "Silicion [Landform]" (https://www.geekwire.com/2014/seattle-needs-new-nickname-please-silicon/).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on November 22, 2017, 05:17:52 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 19, 2017, 11:22:52 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on November 17, 2017, 01:26:01 PM
Wikipedia article feature: Washington State Route 520 from Seattle to Redmond, HQs of Microsoft and Nintendo (of America)...and the suburb of Redmond is known as "Silicon Forest".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Route_520

No one calls it that. Silicon Forest is the name of the Hillsboro-Beaverton corridor in Portland. We really don't want the region to be known as a "Silicion [Landform]" (https://www.geekwire.com/2014/seattle-needs-new-nickname-please-silicon/).

Since when has any particular location had any say regarding popular (and decidedly reductionist) monickers?  When I was living in Portland in the mid-'90's, quite a few folks (mostly connected with PSU) referred to Beaverton-Hillsboro (essentially the OR 8 corridor) as either the "Tektronix" or "Nike" corridor after the firms whose facilities tended to dominate the area.  This even continued after the inception of the LR extension in the area -- particularly among the more vehement PSU-based urbanists who viewed the LR as "enabling" development in the suburban area west of town; some even referred to that western area as the "San Fernando Valley" of PDX (however, there were little or no complaints from that quarter about the eastern part of the line extending to Gresham!). 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on November 22, 2017, 04:35:55 PM
Beaverton-Hillsboro has been known as the Silicon Forest since the late 90s.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 22, 2017, 06:14:36 PM
Interestingly, I usually hear the area with all the tech, on the east side of Lake Washington, referred to as simply "Redmond", a leading tech city on the Eastside (and the home of Microsoft, & Nintendo, among other companies).

Apple took a jab at Microsoft many years ago in a banner ad, simply referring to "Redmond":

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2385/1895583251_f102d4324d.jpg)

I've never heard the term "Silicon Forest", even as it relates to the Beaverton-Hillsboro stretch. But judging by the comments above, it's nonetheless a moniker that has been around for a while.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on November 22, 2017, 06:19:04 PM
I've heard the term "Silicon Forest" for the Portland suburbs occasionally, but not nearly as often as "Silicon Valley" or "Silicon Gulch".  I've never heard any "Silicon" nickname for the Redmond area tech companies.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: JasonOfORoads on November 27, 2017, 07:41:05 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 22, 2017, 06:19:04 PM
I've heard the term "Silicon Forest" for the Portland suburbs occasionally, but not nearly as often as "Silicon Valley" or "Silicon Gulch".  I've never heard any "Silicon" nickname for the Redmond area tech companies.

I've never heard of "Silicon Gulch", but I've heard Beaverton-Hillsboro referred to as "Silicon Forest" plenty over the past couple decades.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 27, 2017, 07:50:08 PM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on November 27, 2017, 07:41:05 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 22, 2017, 06:19:04 PM
I've heard the term "Silicon Forest" for the Portland suburbs occasionally, but not nearly as often as "Silicon Valley" or "Silicon Gulch".  I've never heard any "Silicon" nickname for the Redmond area tech companies.

I've never heard of "Silicon Gulch", but I've heard Beaverton-Hillsboro referred to as "Silicon Forest" plenty over the past couple decades.

Does anyone know who exactly uses the term "Silicon Forest"? I've never heard the term mentioned up here in Washington, and in general, monikers are not used by locals (although maybe that's the case here).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 27, 2017, 10:04:49 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 27, 2017, 07:50:08 PM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on November 27, 2017, 07:41:05 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 22, 2017, 06:19:04 PM
I've heard the term "Silicon Forest" for the Portland suburbs occasionally, but not nearly as often as "Silicon Valley" or "Silicon Gulch".  I've never heard any "Silicon" nickname for the Redmond area tech companies.

I've never heard of "Silicon Gulch", but I've heard Beaverton-Hillsboro referred to as "Silicon Forest" plenty over the past couple decades.

Does anyone know who exactly uses the term "Silicon Forest"? I've never heard the term mentioned up here in Washington, and in general, monikers are not used by locals (although maybe that's the case here).

It's been adopted by The Oregonian (http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/), the state encyclopedia (https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/silicon_forest/), and national outlets for decades (1985 example from Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/04/08/oregon-is-a-port-in-storm-of-protectionism/d7f8cbf0-575d-424a-bbdd-65b92e3d6d38/)). I think it's a pretty valid nickname. Much like "Emerald City" and "Jet City", it's been boosted locally but harder for non-residents to identify.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on November 28, 2017, 12:59:27 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 27, 2017, 10:04:49 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 27, 2017, 07:50:08 PM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on November 27, 2017, 07:41:05 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 22, 2017, 06:19:04 PM
I've heard the term "Silicon Forest" for the Portland suburbs occasionally, but not nearly as often as "Silicon Valley" or "Silicon Gulch".  I've never heard any "Silicon" nickname for the Redmond area tech companies.

I've never heard of "Silicon Gulch", but I've heard Beaverton-Hillsboro referred to as "Silicon Forest" plenty over the past couple decades.

Does anyone know who exactly uses the term "Silicon Forest"? I've never heard the term mentioned up here in Washington, and in general, monikers are not used by locals (although maybe that's the case here).

It's been adopted by The Oregonian (http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/), the state encyclopedia (https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/silicon_forest/), and national outlets for decades (1985 example from Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/04/08/oregon-is-a-port-in-storm-of-protectionism/d7f8cbf0-575d-424a-bbdd-65b92e3d6d38/)). I think it's a pretty valid nickname. Much like "Emerald City" and "Jet City", it's been boosted locally but harder for non-residents to identify.

It's interesting that any reference to the "Silicon Forest" would be primarily applied to Beaverton-Hillsboro; when I was residing up there (disclosure: 20+ years ago) most of the "tech" companies were situated farther south in the industrial parks in Tualatin; even the "godfather" of the Portland tech scene, Tectronix, had relocated their HQ and main production facility from Beaverton to Wilsonville, right at the north end of the I-5 Willamette River bridge.  From what I remember, Phil Knight's Nike facility was the major commercial "campus" in Beaverton, while the industrial area along OR 8 seemed at the time to host a variegated group of enterprises without any particular emphasis.  It'd be interesting to obtain a list of prominent tech companies with facilities in the area -- whether "homegrown" or branches of firms headquartered elsewhere.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 28, 2017, 01:18:13 AM
Quote from: sparker on November 28, 2017, 12:59:27 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 27, 2017, 10:04:49 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 27, 2017, 07:50:08 PM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on November 27, 2017, 07:41:05 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 22, 2017, 06:19:04 PM
I've heard the term "Silicon Forest" for the Portland suburbs occasionally, but not nearly as often as "Silicon Valley" or "Silicon Gulch".  I've never heard any "Silicon" nickname for the Redmond area tech companies.

I've never heard of "Silicon Gulch", but I've heard Beaverton-Hillsboro referred to as "Silicon Forest" plenty over the past couple decades.

Does anyone know who exactly uses the term "Silicon Forest"? I've never heard the term mentioned up here in Washington, and in general, monikers are not used by locals (although maybe that's the case here).

It's been adopted by The Oregonian (http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/), the state encyclopedia (https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/silicon_forest/), and national outlets for decades (1985 example from Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/04/08/oregon-is-a-port-in-storm-of-protectionism/d7f8cbf0-575d-424a-bbdd-65b92e3d6d38/)). I think it's a pretty valid nickname. Much like "Emerald City" and "Jet City", it's been boosted locally but harder for non-residents to identify.

It's interesting that any reference to the "Silicon Forest" would be primarily applied to Beaverton-Hillsboro; when I was residing up there (disclosure: 20+ years ago) most of the "tech" companies were situated farther south in the industrial parks in Tualatin; even the "godfather" of the Portland tech scene, Tectronix, had relocated their HQ and main production facility from Beaverton to Wilsonville, right at the north end of the I-5 Willamette River bridge.  From what I remember, Phil Knight's Nike facility was the major commercial "campus" in Beaverton, while the industrial area along OR 8 seemed at the time to host a variegated group of enterprises without any particular emphasis.  It'd be interesting to obtain a list of prominent tech companies with facilities in the area -- whether "homegrown" or branches of firms headquartered elsewhere.

Look no further than Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Forest#Companies_and_subsidiaries
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on November 28, 2017, 02:29:10 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 28, 2017, 01:18:13 AM
Quote from: sparker on November 28, 2017, 12:59:27 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 27, 2017, 10:04:49 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 27, 2017, 07:50:08 PM
Quote from: JasonOfORoads on November 27, 2017, 07:41:05 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 22, 2017, 06:19:04 PM
I've heard the term "Silicon Forest" for the Portland suburbs occasionally, but not nearly as often as "Silicon Valley" or "Silicon Gulch".  I've never heard any "Silicon" nickname for the Redmond area tech companies.

I've never heard of "Silicon Gulch", but I've heard Beaverton-Hillsboro referred to as "Silicon Forest" plenty over the past couple decades.

Does anyone know who exactly uses the term "Silicon Forest"? I've never heard the term mentioned up here in Washington, and in general, monikers are not used by locals (although maybe that's the case here).

It's been adopted by The Oregonian (http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/), the state encyclopedia (https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/silicon_forest/), and national outlets for decades (1985 example from Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/04/08/oregon-is-a-port-in-storm-of-protectionism/d7f8cbf0-575d-424a-bbdd-65b92e3d6d38/)). I think it's a pretty valid nickname. Much like "Emerald City" and "Jet City", it's been boosted locally but harder for non-residents to identify.

It's interesting that any reference to the "Silicon Forest" would be primarily applied to Beaverton-Hillsboro; when I was residing up there (disclosure: 20+ years ago) most of the "tech" companies were situated farther south in the industrial parks in Tualatin; even the "godfather" of the Portland tech scene, Tectronix, had relocated their HQ and main production facility from Beaverton to Wilsonville, right at the north end of the I-5 Willamette River bridge.  From what I remember, Phil Knight's Nike facility was the major commercial "campus" in Beaverton, while the industrial area along OR 8 seemed at the time to host a variegated group of enterprises without any particular emphasis.  It'd be interesting to obtain a list of prominent tech companies with facilities in the area -- whether "homegrown" or branches of firms headquartered elsewhere.

Look no further than Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Forest#Companies_and_subsidiaries

Cool!  Thanks for supplying the list.  Looks like most of the firms cited are engaged in software development; this is certainly a change from the mid-90's, when i was up there -- and hardware, primarily in the area of desktop computing, was dominating the tech scene up there (HP, which was then assembling computer "towers" and printers down in Corvallis, had several sub-assembly facilities in Tualatin and Lake Oswego).  Glad to see the area has a nice concentration of educational software;  it's mostly B-to-B applications here in the original "Silicon Valley". 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 30, 2017, 08:34:51 PM
The 405-167 express-lanes flyover is well on its way. WSDOT recently posted a few pictures on their Flickr (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/) page...

Piers for the overpass:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4557/37863611875_8c00d4d26c_b.jpg).

Widened I-405, bridge going over Talbot Road:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4553/38490529486_4db8f36d48_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on November 30, 2017, 09:51:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2017, 08:34:51 PM
The 405-167 express-lanes flyover is well on its way.

Yay! :clap:

Thanks for the pics.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 30, 2017, 11:32:09 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2017, 09:51:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2017, 08:34:51 PM
The 405-167 express-lanes flyover is well on its way.

Yay! :clap:

Indeed. That movement is a disaster 24/7 (literally, I've driven it at 1 am, and traffic was slowing). Once this is complete, it will be a massive improvement. My only hope is that solo traffic destined for and/or using the 167 toll lane is allowed to use the flyover. Sounds logical, but the 405 will still only have HOV lanes until the express lanes are extended south, so I fear the flyover will be HOV only, and solo drivers using the toll lane will have to use the GP ramps. Once the 405 express lanes are extended south (to open in 2024), the flyover will definitely accommodate solo drivers who are paying the toll, but until then, I'm not holding my breath.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kendancy66 on November 30, 2017, 11:39:12 PM
Quote from: 8.Lug on June 10, 2016, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 10, 2016, 03:57:20 PM
When were you here?
19th-28th of last month. Have a friend in Rochester, WA which was named for Rochester, MI which was named for Rochester, NY our home town lol
Which one of your friend named rochester minnesota?

SAMSUNG-SGH-I747

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 01, 2017, 12:03:05 AM
I was looking at the 405 Bellevue to Renton project library on WSDOT's website, where they published the project's "Finding of No Significant Impact (https://goo.gl/cH7sW8)" (approved in 2008). I have no idea how accurate this FONSI is, given that it was published nine years ago, but it covers several of the plans for the freeway (at least as of 2008). It appears to be slightly out of date, as there's no mention of toll lanes, and it only shows one HOV lane throughout the widening (and I know WSDOT plans two express lanes from Bellevue to Renton). Nonetheless, some of the things I found...

- An HOV flyover is planned from SB 405 to EB 169
- The loop ramps will be eliminated from the Hwy 169, Hwy 900, and NE 44 St interchanges
- The Hwy 169 interchange will be converted to a diamond, with frontage roads between Hwy 169 and NE 4 St.
- The Hwy 900 interchange will be converted to full diamond
- The NE 44 St interchange will be converted to full diamond
- Sunset Blvd will be realigned and connected to NE 4 St
- The Houser Way tunnel would be eliminated
- An HOV direct access ramp would be built at NE 8 St (connecting road goes under SB 405)
- Lake Washington Blvd (near NE 44 St) will be realigned to the east
- At Lake Washington Blvd, a BRT station is planned
- VERY IMPORTANTLY, braided ramps between Coal Creek Parkway and I-90

Now, here's the catch. WSDOT is constantly changing their website, and links that I've previously read are nowhere to be found. I have seen another EIS-type document that shows the 405 widening with 2 express lanes, and extending all the way to the 167 (rather than just to Hwy 900), but I can't find it anywhere. I think I'll need to consult the Wayback Machine.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: mrsman on December 03, 2017, 06:19:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2017, 11:32:09 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2017, 09:51:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2017, 08:34:51 PM
The 405-167 express-lanes flyover is well on its way.

Yay! :clap:

Indeed. That movement is a disaster 24/7 (literally, I've driven it at 1 am, and traffic was slowing). Once this is complete, it will be a massive improvement. My only hope is that solo traffic destined for and/or using the 167 toll lane is allowed to use the flyover. Sounds logical, but the 405 will still only have HOV lanes until the express lanes are extended south, so I fear the flyover will be HOV only, and solo drivers using the toll lane will have to use the GP ramps. Once the 405 express lanes are extended south (to open in 2024), the flyover will definitely accommodate solo drivers who are paying the toll, but until then, I'm not holding my breath.

I hope so too.  It makes perfect sense to allow SOV express lane users to use the flyovers, even if don't meet HOV requirements.  But there is a lot of precedent for stupidity out there.

Case in point, I-395 in Virginia.  The central lanes are currently a reversible 2 lane roadway open to HOV only during rush hours.  The direct exits from the central lanes to local streets are also restricted to HOV.  They are currently working on a widening project to convert the central lanes to a 3 lane reversible roadway.  This roadway will be free to HOVs (3 or more occupants) with EZ-Pass Flex, open to SOVs (and cars with 2 occupants) who will pay a toll with EZ-Pass, and closed to all who do not have a transponder.  The requirement for transponder/paying of toll will now be at all hours, not just rush hours.  All of the entrances/exits will match this arrangement, allowing anyone who is allowed to be on the express lanes to be on the exit/entrance ramps, except for Seminary Road which will still be restricted to HOVs only.  The reason for this is that the Seminary Rd exit/entrance ramps are relatively recent and were paid with federal funds that were allocated to be used for HOV purposes.

See:  https://www.395expresslanes.com/about

Quote395 Express Lanes Project

Extending the 95 Express Lanes for eight miles north to the D.C. line, the 395 Express Lanes will reduce congestion in the I-395 corridor, increase capacity by adding an additional HOV lane to create three reversible lanes on I-395 and extend the benefits and travel options of the 95 Express Lanes farther north.

The 395 Express Lanes will operate just like the 95 Express Lanes in Northern Virginia. Carpoolers and sluggers with three or more people in the vehicle will continue to travel for free with an E-ZPass® FlexSM set to HOV mode. Those willing to pay a toll will be able to access the Lanes 24/7 with an E-ZPass®.

The existing HOV entry and exit points on the current I-395 HOV lanes will become accessible for toll paying customers. However, the Seminary Road ramp delivered in 2016 will remain HOV only. Improvements will be made to Eads Street interchange to provide direct access to the Pentagon and Crystal City.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 03, 2017, 10:10:18 PM
From my experience, weaving between HOV lanes and the exit ramps contribute a lot to both congestion and collisions. You'd think a DOT would do everything in their power to reduce unnecessary lane changes.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 14, 2017, 07:56:30 PM
The state is exploring a toll for the US 2 trestle (between Everett and Lake Stevens/Snohomish), with peak rates of $6.30, to fund a replacement bridge. People were not pleased.

http://www.heraldnet.com/news/heavy-traffic-on-toll-idea-to-help-fund-a-new-u-s-2-trestle/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 14, 2017, 09:58:08 PM
Drivers weren't pleased when the state implemented a toll on the 520, but I don't think anyone would argue that it wasn't worth it. An HOV lane, new interchanges, bike/ped facilities, etc. It's definitely worth the toll. A US-2 Trestle replacement, besides being necessary due to age, has the potential to improve traffic flow for not just drivers, but also buses, HOV, and pedestrians and bikes.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 14, 2017, 11:56:42 PM
PNW drives don't like tolls at all. In Oregon, the three things we hate are sales taxes, tolls, and pumping our own gas. Citizens don't like to pay tolls because it restricts them to drive to certain places but sometimes they are needed.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on December 15, 2017, 12:17:01 AM
Washington voters have been wiling to accept tolls when it's an important project.  Not only the 520 bridge, but also the 167 and 405 HOT lanes and the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.  Many of the comments indicated that.  The $6 is out, but a lower toll or a toll on a HOT lane only perhaps.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: KEK Inc. on December 15, 2017, 09:22:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 14, 2017, 09:58:08 PM
Drivers weren't pleased when the state implemented a toll on the 520, but I don't think anyone would argue that it wasn't worth it. An HOV lane, new interchanges, bike/ped facilities, etc. It's definitely worth the toll. A US-2 Trestle replacement, besides being necessary due to age, has the potential to improve traffic flow for not just drivers, but also buses, HOV, and pedestrians and bikes.

2 needs to be a freeway from Everett to Gold Bar.  It's unlikely we'll see it be a freeway beyond Monroe though.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 15, 2017, 11:19:51 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on December 15, 2017, 09:22:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 14, 2017, 09:58:08 PM
Drivers weren't pleased when the state implemented a toll on the 520, but I don't think anyone would argue that it wasn't worth it. An HOV lane, new interchanges, bike/ped facilities, etc. It's definitely worth the toll. A US-2 Trestle replacement, besides being necessary due to age, has the potential to improve traffic flow for not just drivers, but also buses, HOV, and pedestrians and bikes.

2 needs to be a freeway from Everett to Gold Bar.  It's unlikely we'll see it be a freeway beyond Monroe though.

WSDOT, last I checked, was planning a Monroe Bypass (http://leg.wa.gov/JTC/Documents/Studies/P3/August2_3Workshop/MonroeBypassSummary.pdf). It's planned to be a limited access facility, but the summary indicates at least one signalised intersection in stage 1, and two roundabouts in stage 2. Stage 3 maintains these roundabouts (the first signal is replaced by a roundabout in stage 2), but extends the Monroe Bypass from Chain Link Road to the "Campbell Road Interchange"...no idea where that is (but it's west of Snohomish).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 16, 2017, 02:49:05 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2017, 11:19:51 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on December 15, 2017, 09:22:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 14, 2017, 09:58:08 PM
Drivers weren't pleased when the state implemented a toll on the 520, but I don't think anyone would argue that it wasn't worth it. An HOV lane, new interchanges, bike/ped facilities, etc. It's definitely worth the toll. A US-2 Trestle replacement, besides being necessary due to age, has the potential to improve traffic flow for not just drivers, but also buses, HOV, and pedestrians and bikes.

2 needs to be a freeway from Everett to Gold Bar.  It's unlikely we'll see it be a freeway beyond Monroe though.

WSDOT, last I checked, was planning a Monroe Bypass (http://leg.wa.gov/JTC/Documents/Studies/P3/August2_3Workshop/MonroeBypassSummary.pdf). It's planned to be a limited access facility, but the summary indicates at least one signalised intersection in stage 1, and two roundabouts in stage 2. Stage 3 maintains these roundabouts (the first signal is replaced by a roundabout in stage 2), but extends the Monroe Bypass from Chain Link Road to the "Campbell Road Interchange"...no idea where that is (but it's west of Snohomish).

Roundabouts on any 4 lane road with a 50 mph or higher speed limit spells bad news, hopefully they can reverse course a little bit.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 16, 2017, 03:43:38 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 16, 2017, 02:49:05 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2017, 11:19:51 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on December 15, 2017, 09:22:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 14, 2017, 09:58:08 PM
Drivers weren't pleased when the state implemented a toll on the 520, but I don't think anyone would argue that it wasn't worth it. An HOV lane, new interchanges, bike/ped facilities, etc. It's definitely worth the toll. A US-2 Trestle replacement, besides being necessary due to age, has the potential to improve traffic flow for not just drivers, but also buses, HOV, and pedestrians and bikes.

2 needs to be a freeway from Everett to Gold Bar.  It's unlikely we'll see it be a freeway beyond Monroe though.

WSDOT, last I checked, was planning a Monroe Bypass (http://leg.wa.gov/JTC/Documents/Studies/P3/August2_3Workshop/MonroeBypassSummary.pdf). It's planned to be a limited access facility, but the summary indicates at least one signalised intersection in stage 1, and two roundabouts in stage 2. Stage 3 maintains these roundabouts (the first signal is replaced by a roundabout in stage 2), but extends the Monroe Bypass from Chain Link Road to the "Campbell Road Interchange"...no idea where that is (but it's west of Snohomish).

Roundabouts on any 4 lane road with a 50 mph or higher speed limit spells bad news, hopefully they can reverse course a little bit.

Not necessarily. There are four two-lane roundabouts along Guide Meridian Road (SR-539) north of Bellingham, a divided highway with a 50 mph limit. They seem to operate decently well.

On the other hand, signals along 50+ mph roads are usually fine, but crashes at that speed, especially when it's into a stopped car, or the side of a car passing in the perpendicular direction, can be horrific. That's why rural roundabouts are more common now. Especially since traffic levels are light, it keep traffic from having to come to a full stop for one car that has to go straight or left. Rural signals can be improved if there's a warning sign approaching the signal, informing drivers of an impending red light. Nothing worse than approaching a signal at 50+ mph and having it go red.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 16, 2017, 08:32:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 16, 2017, 03:43:38 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 16, 2017, 02:49:05 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2017, 11:19:51 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on December 15, 2017, 09:22:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 14, 2017, 09:58:08 PM
Drivers weren't pleased when the state implemented a toll on the 520, but I don't think anyone would argue that it wasn't worth it. An HOV lane, new interchanges, bike/ped facilities, etc. It's definitely worth the toll. A US-2 Trestle replacement, besides being necessary due to age, has the potential to improve traffic flow for not just drivers, but also buses, HOV, and pedestrians and bikes.

2 needs to be a freeway from Everett to Gold Bar.  It's unlikely we'll see it be a freeway beyond Monroe though.

WSDOT, last I checked, was planning a Monroe Bypass (http://leg.wa.gov/JTC/Documents/Studies/P3/August2_3Workshop/MonroeBypassSummary.pdf). It's planned to be a limited access facility, but the summary indicates at least one signalised intersection in stage 1, and two roundabouts in stage 2. Stage 3 maintains these roundabouts (the first signal is replaced by a roundabout in stage 2), but extends the Monroe Bypass from Chain Link Road to the "Campbell Road Interchange"...no idea where that is (but it's west of Snohomish).

Roundabouts on any 4 lane road with a 50 mph or higher speed limit spells bad news, hopefully they can reverse course a little bit.

Not necessarily. There are four two-lane roundabouts along Guide Meridian Road (SR-539) north of Bellingham, a divided highway with a 50 mph limit. They seem to operate decently well.

On the other hand, signals along 50+ mph roads are usually fine, but crashes at that speed, especially when it's into a stopped car, or the side of a car passing in the perpendicular direction, can be horrific. That's why rural roundabouts are more common now. Especially since traffic levels are light, it keep traffic from having to come to a full stop for one car that has to go straight or left. Rural signals can be improved if there's a warning sign approaching the signal, informing drivers of an impending red light. Nothing worse than approaching a signal at 50+ mph and having it go red.

I have not heard of that roundabout before but then again, I haven't been North of US 2 west of the Cascades and don't pay as much attention up there as I do south of there.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 16, 2017, 09:46:30 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 16, 2017, 08:32:20 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 16, 2017, 03:43:38 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 16, 2017, 02:49:05 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2017, 11:19:51 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on December 15, 2017, 09:22:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 14, 2017, 09:58:08 PM
Drivers weren't pleased when the state implemented a toll on the 520, but I don't think anyone would argue that it wasn't worth it. An HOV lane, new interchanges, bike/ped facilities, etc. It's definitely worth the toll. A US-2 Trestle replacement, besides being necessary due to age, has the potential to improve traffic flow for not just drivers, but also buses, HOV, and pedestrians and bikes.

2 needs to be a freeway from Everett to Gold Bar.  It's unlikely we'll see it be a freeway beyond Monroe though.

WSDOT, last I checked, was planning a Monroe Bypass (http://leg.wa.gov/JTC/Documents/Studies/P3/August2_3Workshop/MonroeBypassSummary.pdf). It's planned to be a limited access facility, but the summary indicates at least one signalised intersection in stage 1, and two roundabouts in stage 2. Stage 3 maintains these roundabouts (the first signal is replaced by a roundabout in stage 2), but extends the Monroe Bypass from Chain Link Road to the "Campbell Road Interchange"...no idea where that is (but it's west of Snohomish).

Roundabouts on any 4 lane road with a 50 mph or higher speed limit spells bad news, hopefully they can reverse course a little bit.

Not necessarily. There are four two-lane roundabouts along Guide Meridian Road (SR-539) north of Bellingham, a divided highway with a 50 mph limit. They seem to operate decently well.

On the other hand, signals along 50+ mph roads are usually fine, but crashes at that speed, especially when it's into a stopped car, or the side of a car passing in the perpendicular direction, can be horrific. That's why rural roundabouts are more common now. Especially since traffic levels are light, it keep traffic from having to come to a full stop for one car that has to go straight or left. Rural signals can be improved if there's a warning sign approaching the signal, informing drivers of an impending red light. Nothing worse than approaching a signal at 50+ mph and having it go red.

I have not heard of that roundabout before but then again, I haven't been North of US 2 west of the Cascades and don't pay as much attention up there as I do south of there.

Well, and north of there is basically Canada. So unless you have a passport, that's Lands End.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: 02 Park Ave on December 18, 2017, 12:59:04 PM
The southbound I-5 in Pierce County is closed due to the train wreck.  It will probably be closed for the renainder of the day.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 18, 2017, 04:04:09 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on December 18, 2017, 12:59:04 PM
The southbound I-5 in Pierce County is closed due to the train wreck.  It will probably be closed for the [remainder] of the day.

Lots of traffic diverting to Hwy 7, 507, and 510 through Spanaway, Roy, and Yelm. Pretty much stop and go for the entire length of the detour. Suggested detour is Hwy 16 to Purdy. Very long but actually moving, and drivers won't have to worry about running out of fuel.

Thread about the derailment: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21785.0
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on January 14, 2018, 04:44:01 AM
The Hwy 9/Hwy 204 improvements south of Lake Stevens appear to be coming together. The preferred alternative is E2B-Variation 4, which calls for:

- a grade-separated tight-diamond interchange between Hwy 9 and Hwy 204
- four lanes of Hwy 9 would sink below Hwy 204
- 4 St NE intersects the Hwy 9 northbound off-ramp as a RIRO
- 92 Ave NE is virtually eliminated, replaced by the Hwy 9 northbound off-ramp
- lane additions for Hwy 9 at the Market Place junction
- the Vernon Street off-ramp from Hwy 9 southbound remains

I would prefer to see a tight SPUI, like the one built in Tacoma between the 705 and 509 (https://goo.gl/sbMSU5), but that might require a bridge that's too pricey. Tight diamonds have terrible flow due to all the conflicting movements. Alas, most of the traffic will be entering/exiting Hwy 9 at this interchange, so they'll probably find a way to properly signalise it.

Other alternatives were considered (see WSDOT Flickr (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/)). Some ended Vernon Road right before 7 Place NE in a cul-de-sac. Some included a new road passing through the shopping center, connecting 7 Place NE to 4 St NE. Others included an overpass for Davies Road, with an additional northbound on-ramp. The current southbound off-ramp to Vernon Road would be retained of course, but a left turn option would have been allowed to access Davies Road. That would have been my preferred alternative, but I'm guessing that design would have been too expensive. The budget for this whole thing is only $69 million. Which is actually quite a lot. But not enough to do everything that I'm sure WSDOT would like to do. The last tight diamond, built north of Gig Harbor, cost $24 million (https://goo.gl/SqMdLL). I would have guessed that expropriations costs were pretty high, but it looks like WSDOT already owns the land. So not sure why the high cost. Must be that Vernon Road off-ramp, and all the signals that the Hwy 16 tight diamond didn't get (stop-sign controlled).

Expect construction to start in 2019.

The E2B-Variation 4 diagram is below; here's a link to the current intersection: https://goo.gl/G5a6Qt

(https://i.imgur.com/xiAGBih.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on January 14, 2018, 08:13:03 PM
The PSRC's Regional Transportation Plan (https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/rtpwebmap.html) shows some of the upcoming (and unfunded) proposals for regional roadways over the next 25 years. Some highlights: HOT lane conversion of I-5 from Tukwila to Everett (possibly involving the express lanes), extending BAT lanes on SR 99 in Everett, completion of the SR 18 widening, rebuilding SR 305 between Poulsbo and Winslow, and new bike trails out into the mountains from Tacoma and Arlington.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on January 23, 2018, 01:52:32 AM
Quote from: mrsman on December 03, 2017, 06:19:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2017, 11:32:09 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 30, 2017, 09:51:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 30, 2017, 08:34:51 PM
The 405-167 express-lanes flyover is well on its way.

Yay! :clap:

Indeed. That movement is a disaster 24/7 (literally, I've driven it at 1 am, and traffic was slowing). Once this is complete, it will be a massive improvement. My only hope is that solo traffic destined for and/or using the 167 toll lane is allowed to use the flyover. Sounds logical, but the 405 will still only have HOV lanes until the express lanes are extended south, so I fear the flyover will be HOV only, and solo drivers using the toll lane will have to use the GP ramps. Once the 405 express lanes are extended south (to open in 2024), the flyover will definitely accommodate solo drivers who are paying the toll, but until then, I'm not holding my breath.

I hope so too.  It makes perfect sense to allow SOV express lane users to use the flyovers, even if don't meet HOV requirements.  But there is a lot of precedent for stupidity out there.

I was curious enough that I contacted Craig Smiley, a WSDOT consultant in charge of PR. He told me in an email,

Quote
The intent of the direct connector is ultimately to connect 15 miles of HOT lanes on SR 167 to 25 miles of express toll lanes on I-405, resulting in a 40-mile express toll lane system however; when the direct connector initially opens to traffic, it will be limited to vehicles meeting the HOV occupancy requirement. We plan to begin construction of the Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes Project in 2019, shortly after the direct connector opens. The project will add an additional lane in each direction and will be paired with the current HOV lane to create a two-lane express toll lane system between SR 167 in Renton and Northeast 6th Street in Bellevue. Once complete, single occupancy drivers in the HOT lanes of SR 167 who pay the toll will also be able to continue paying a toll to use the direct connector ramp to access the express toll lanes of I-405. Our current plans call for opening the Renton to Bellevue express toll lanes in 2024.

:-/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: duaneu2 on January 29, 2018, 09:35:06 AM
Has SR-900 been decommissioned between Renton and Tukwila? I just noticed this morning that the SR-900 shields have been covered up on the BGS's to the Bronson Way exit on northbound I-405.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Hurricane Rex on January 29, 2018, 11:20:46 AM
Quote from: duaneu2 on January 29, 2018, 09:35:06 AM
Has SR-900 been decommissioned between Renton and Tukwila? I just noticed this morning that the SR-900 shields have been covered up on the BGS's to the Bronson Way exit on northbound I-405.
It's still posted, at least on Google maps, could anyone else who lives closer confirm or deny this?: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.4884883,-122.2354566,13.73z
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: KEK Inc. on January 29, 2018, 02:36:35 PM
Quote from: duaneu2 on January 29, 2018, 09:35:06 AM
Has SR-900 been decommissioned between Renton and Tukwila? I just noticed this morning that the SR-900 shields have been covered up on the BGS's to the Bronson Way exit on northbound I-405.

I'm pretty sure it's still signed on I-5 in Tukwila/S. Seattle. 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on January 29, 2018, 02:49:06 PM
Quote from: duaneu2 on January 29, 2018, 09:35:06 AM
Has SR-900 been decommissioned between Renton and Tukwila? I just noticed this morning that the SR-900 shields have been covered up on the BGS's to the Bronson Way exit on northbound I-405.

Just the 900 shields? RCW 47.17.825 is still in effect, so I don't believe it was decommissioned.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: duaneu2 on January 31, 2018, 10:12:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 29, 2018, 02:49:06 PM
Quote from: duaneu2 on January 29, 2018, 09:35:06 AM
Has SR-900 been decommissioned between Renton and Tukwila? I just noticed this morning that the SR-900 shields have been covered up on the BGS's to the Bronson Way exit on northbound I-405.

Just the 900 shields? RCW 47.17.825 is still in effect, so I don't believe it was decommissioned.

Interesting. I wonder why they were removed then.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on January 31, 2018, 11:55:07 PM
Quote from: duaneu2 on January 31, 2018, 10:12:01 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 29, 2018, 02:49:06 PM
Quote from: duaneu2 on January 29, 2018, 09:35:06 AM
Has SR-900 been decommissioned between Renton and Tukwila? I just noticed this morning that the SR-900 shields have been covered up on the BGS's to the Bronson Way exit on northbound I-405.

Just the 900 shields? RCW 47.17.825 is still in effect, so I don't believe it was decommissioned.

Interesting. I wonder why they were removed then.

I went by there yesterday. Sure enough, they're covered up. The directional signs after the interchange split still have the 900 shield on it, though.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 14, 2018, 08:22:20 PM
Downtown Seattle's mode-split survey for 2017 (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/transit-ridership-continues-to-grow-in-central-seattle-while-solo-car-commutes-decline/): transit is up to 48.4 percent, driving alone is down to 25 percent. Includes 262K employees who work in the center city.

(https://i.imgur.com/u6ETqLL.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/ywGSs1u.png)

This is despite the addition of 60,000 new jobs since 2010:

(https://i.imgur.com/wSuVJIr.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 14, 2018, 10:13:50 PM
Does Rideshare take into account HOV? Or is it just Uber and Lyft?

Regardless, these are great numbers. Glad to see Transit is really catching on.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: webny99 on February 14, 2018, 10:16:30 PM
Also, are the two graphs supposed to be identical?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Hurricane Rex on February 15, 2018, 01:38:10 AM
And, for curiosity purposes, do you know if there is a report for the rest of Seattle?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 15, 2018, 02:53:28 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 14, 2018, 10:13:50 PM
Does Rideshare take into account HOV? Or is it just Uber and Lyft?

Regardless, these are great numbers. Glad to see Transit is really catching on.

Rideshare includes carpools, vanpools, and rideshare.

Quote from: Hurricane Rex on February 15, 2018, 01:38:10 AM
And, for curiosity purposes, do you know if there is a report for the rest of Seattle?

Probably have to dig around ACS or state-level data. It should look relatively similar to this downtown dataset, though, since the only large employer outside the downtown/First Hill/Capitol Hill area is the University of Washington, and they have huge transit patronage.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 18, 2018, 09:22:22 PM
Sustained winds of over 25 mph or waves of at least 2 feet would trigger a shutdown of the westbound I-90 floating bridge, as it did today: https://wsdotblog.blogspot.com/2018/02/new-wind-and-wave-criteria-changes.html

At one point the backup was past Eastgate. Not bad for a Sunday jam.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 03, 2018, 04:09:33 AM
The 405/167 HOV flyover is coming along nicely. Girders are being placed now...

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4604/39669120235_f3b00ca1bb_o.jpg)

WSDOT Flickr (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on March 17, 2018, 06:12:55 PM
Noticed recently that there is a new traffic signal on the I-90 express lanes just south of Corwin Place (approximately here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/47%C2%B035'41.2%22N+122%C2%B018'50.3%22W/@47.5949778,-122.3149428,374m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d47.5947687!4d-122.3139759)), which is being used as truck access for the East Link staging area just to the north. Not often you see a traffic signal re-added to an interstate.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 22, 2018, 06:49:22 PM
I've realized after viewing the "Redesigning Interchanges" thread that Washington has very few full freeway-to-freeway interchanges (no missing movements, 4-way junctions, no signals) that don't involve some sort of collector lane situation. For example...

- I-90/I-5 (Seattle): I-5 has C/D lanes through the interchange
- I-90/I-405 (Factoria): Collector lanes between the 405 and Bellevue Way
- I-5/I-405 (Lynnwood): Technically missing some movements (although the movements would be unpopular)
- WA-167/WA-18 (Auburn): missing some movements
- I-5/I-705 (Tacoma): I-5 has C/D lanes from the south
- I-405/WA-520 (Bellevue): C/D lanes south and east of the interchange
- I-405/WA-522 (Bothell): collector lanes between UW-Bothell and the 405.
- I-5/WA-18 (Federal Way): almost counts but there's an off-ramp signal SB to WB.
- I-5/I-405/WA-518 (Tukwila): really close but technically there's a C/D lane going south, collecting traffic from 518 and Klickitat Dr/Strander Blvd/Southcenter Pkwy.

The interchanges that don't involve any C/D lanes and are aren't missing any movements (and are basically all freeway-to-freeway)...

- I-182/WA-240 (Richland): probably the most normal looking freeway interchange in the state -- 240 technically turns into an arterial to the north, but I'm going to count it anyway
- US-12/US-395/WA-397 (Pasco): debatable as to whether or not 395/397 is actually a freeway, but it could be argued that it is
- I-405/WA-167 (Renton): super close due to Rainier Ave being directly north of the 405, but technically no C/D lanes and is freeway-to-freeway.
- I-205/WA-14 (Vancouver): unconventional design, but missing no movements, and all merges/diverges are from the mainline. No arterial around, so perhaps the only no-brainer example here.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 07:14:47 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 17, 2018, 06:12:55 PM
Noticed recently that there is a new traffic signal on the I-90 express lanes just south of Corwin Place (approximately here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/47%C2%B035'41.2%22N+122%C2%B018'50.3%22W/@47.5949778,-122.3149428,374m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d47.5947687!4d-122.3139759)), which is being used as truck access for the East Link staging area just to the north. Not often you see a traffic signal re-added to an interstate.

Decided to walk over to Rizal Bridge and get a picture:

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/809/40919149682_0c7e2e1010_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25kTkAJ)
Traffic signal on I-90 express lanes (https://flic.kr/p/25kTkAJ) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 22, 2018, 07:22:50 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 07:14:47 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 17, 2018, 06:12:55 PM
Noticed recently that there is a new traffic signal on the I-90 express lanes just south of Corwin Place (approximately here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/47%C2%B035'41.2%22N+122%C2%B018'50.3%22W/@47.5949778,-122.3149428,374m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d47.5947687!4d-122.3139759)), which is being used as truck access for the East Link staging area just to the north. Not often you see a traffic signal re-added to an interstate.

Decided to walk over to Rizal Bridge and get a picture:

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/809/40919149682_0c7e2e1010_b.jpg

Interesting. It's just buses that use those lanes, correct? At least until the Eastlink trains roll through.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 07:41:34 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 22, 2018, 07:22:50 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 22, 2018, 07:14:47 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 17, 2018, 06:12:55 PM
Noticed recently that there is a new traffic signal on the I-90 express lanes just south of Corwin Place (approximately here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/47%C2%B035'41.2%22N+122%C2%B018'50.3%22W/@47.5949778,-122.3149428,374m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d47.5947687!4d-122.3139759)), which is being used as truck access for the East Link staging area just to the north. Not often you see a traffic signal re-added to an interstate.

Decided to walk over to Rizal Bridge and get a picture:

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/809/40919149682_0c7e2e1010_b.jpg

Interesting. It's just buses that use those lanes, correct? At least until the Eastlink trains roll through.

They're still open to HOV traffic entering from 5th & Airport Way for now. Beginning in September, it will be closed to all traffic.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 04, 2018, 07:27:41 PM
Mayor Durkan has announced her intention to implement a downtown congestion charge by 2021

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/seattle-mayor-wants-a-tolling-plan-to-reduce-traffic-congestion-greenhouse-gases/

Way too soon of a timeline. Durkan should at least wait until Link is built to Lynnwood, the Eastside and Federal Way before trying to touch the issue. And there needs to be a massive amount of transit priority added before it can go online...far more than the $30 million package proposed in One Center City.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 04, 2018, 08:26:37 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 04, 2018, 07:27:41 PM
And there needs to be a massive amount of transit priority added before it can go online...far more than the $30 million package proposed in One Center City.

I have noticed that the peak-use bus lanes tend to see very little use during off-hours (although maybe your experience differs). Most notably those along 4th Ave, between the I-90 off-ramps and Olive Way. I will use it as my own little bypass lane (as long as there aren't any parked cars or right-turn-only modifications). Changing those lanes to 24/7 bus lanes (like those on Aurora) would be an easy change, and I'm sure most wouldn't notice the difference.

They better finish the 1st Ave Streetcar if they want to implement a congestion charge. Those charges work in other countries because they have a large transit backbone. Seattle is working towards this, but we're not there yet.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Henry on April 05, 2018, 09:28:59 AM
Not surprised that Seattle is throwing its hat into the congestion charge ring (after San Francisco); downtown traffic is bad enough, but I agree that public transit needs to be expanded in order for the charges to be justified.

However, the new Alaskan Way tunnel is a good start.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 05, 2018, 04:54:48 PM
Hopefully the congestion pricing plan, if approved, will be based on fluctuating prices, similar to pricing plans found on Express Toll and High Occupancy Toll Lanes. If it is a flat charge, like London's cordon pricing plan, it will be far less effective long-term.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on April 05, 2018, 05:03:38 PM
Yes.  I hope it's daytime, not evenings or weekends.  Not too crazy about taking the bus downtown for shopping and carrying heavy packages back, or dinner at a white-tablecloth sort of place or theater.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 05, 2018, 08:44:44 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 04, 2018, 08:26:37 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 04, 2018, 07:27:41 PM
And there needs to be a massive amount of transit priority added before it can go online...far more than the $30 million package proposed in One Center City.

I have noticed that the peak-use bus lanes tend to see very little use during off-hours (although maybe your experience differs). Most notably those along 4th Ave, between the I-90 off-ramps and Olive Way. I will use it as my own little bypass lane (as long as there aren't any parked cars or right-turn-only modifications). Changing those lanes to 24/7 bus lanes (like those on Aurora) would be an easy change, and I'm sure most wouldn't notice the difference.

They better finish the 1st Ave Streetcar if they want to implement a congestion charge. Those charges work in other countries because they have a large transit backbone. Seattle is working towards this, but we're not there yet.

Yeah, the peak-only lanes on Stewart and Howell especially need to become all-day, since the two streets function as both the inflow and outflow during both peak periods, thanks to deadheading buses. These lanes won't see as much use after 2024, but it would be nice to have some temporary measures to speed up transit until Link is finished.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on April 05, 2018, 09:29:27 PM
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?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 05, 2018, 10:40:37 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 05, 2018, 09:29:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Hurricane Rex on April 06, 2018, 02:37:35 AM
Have connections from all major areas, then implement the toll. That is the best way to go.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on April 06, 2018, 03:05:44 AM
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.   
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 06, 2018, 08:20:12 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 05, 2018, 10:40:37 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 05, 2018, 09:29:27 PM
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).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 06, 2018, 08:37:35 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 06, 2018, 03:05:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 06, 2018, 08:38:17 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 06, 2018, 08:20:12 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 05, 2018, 10:40:37 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 05, 2018, 09:29:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 12, 2018, 04:24:41 PM
WSDOT has started construction on the I-5 Mounts Road to Thorne Lane project (http://wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I5/MountsRdThorneLn/default.htm), 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)

(https://i.imgur.com/U4Fq3fD.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/rA2xm1K.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 12, 2018, 07:48:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 12, 2018, 08:53:41 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 12, 2018, 07:48:24 PM
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!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: D-Dey65 on April 18, 2018, 07:03:18 PM
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

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 18, 2018, 08:18:45 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 18, 2018, 07:03:18 PM
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!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 18, 2018, 08:35:17 PM
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).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 30, 2018, 03:29:01 PM
A BL I-5 sign has gone up in the collector-distributor lanes in Downtown Seattle. (source (https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/8g1gxa/dearbornmadisonjames_collectordistributor_now/))

(https://i.imgur.com/DUBvP6Z.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 30, 2018, 04:18:20 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 30, 2018, 03:29:01 PM
A BL I-5 sign has gone up in the collector-distributor lanes in Downtown Seattle. (source (https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/8g1gxa/dearbornmadisonjames_collectordistributor_now/))

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

That has to be a mistake. Aren't business loops written in RCWs?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 30, 2018, 08:11:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 30, 2018, 04:18:20 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 30, 2018, 03:29:01 PM
A BL I-5 sign has gone up in the collector-distributor lanes in Downtown Seattle. (source (https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/8g1gxa/dearbornmadisonjames_collectordistributor_now/))

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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: mrsman on April 30, 2018, 08:33:25 PM
Any idea why the order of streets was switced from Dearborn, James, Madison?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 30, 2018, 09:42:49 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 30, 2018, 08:11:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 30, 2018, 04:18:20 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 30, 2018, 03:29:01 PM
A BL I-5 sign has gone up in the collector-distributor lanes in Downtown Seattle. (source (https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/8g1gxa/dearbornmadisonjames_collectordistributor_now/))

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?

Quote from: mrsman on April 30, 2018, 08:33:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 01, 2018, 05:05:46 PM
I was reading RCW 46.61.425, "Minimum speed regulation–Passing slow moving vehicle."

Section 1 includes this bit:

Quote from: RCW 46.61.425
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on May 01, 2018, 08:28:06 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 01, 2018, 05:05:46 PM
I was reading RCW 46.61.425, "Minimum speed regulation–Passing slow moving vehicle."

Section 1 includes this bit:

Quote from: RCW 46.61.425
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sp_redelectric on May 01, 2018, 11:52:39 PM
Quote from: RCW 46.61.425
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...
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: mrsman on May 04, 2018, 12:10:53 PM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on May 01, 2018, 11:52:39 PM
Quote from: RCW 46.61.425
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on May 04, 2018, 01:36:36 PM
Quote from: mrsman on May 04, 2018, 12:10:53 PM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on May 01, 2018, 11:52:39 PM
Quote from: RCW 46.61.425
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Hurricane Rex on May 04, 2018, 09:24:31 PM


Quote from: kkt on May 04, 2018, 01:36:36 PM
Quote from: mrsman on May 04, 2018, 12:10:53 PM
Quote from: sp_redelectric on May 01, 2018, 11:52:39 PM
Quote from: RCW 46.61.425
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

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 04, 2018, 11:01:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: thefraze_1020 on May 07, 2018, 12:04:15 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 30, 2018, 03:29:01 PM
A BL I-5 sign has gone up in the collector-distributor lanes in Downtown Seattle. (source (https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/8g1gxa/dearbornmadisonjames_collectordistributor_now/))

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

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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on May 07, 2018, 01:29:57 PM
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on May 07, 2018, 12:04:15 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 30, 2018, 03:29:01 PM
A BL I-5 sign has gone up in the collector-distributor lanes in Downtown Seattle. (source (https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/8g1gxa/dearbornmadisonjames_collectordistributor_now/))

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

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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on May 07, 2018, 03:46:32 PM
Yes.  It's not really a business loop, it's just a C/D with an easy re-entrance to the mainline.  More like Sacramento's Capitol Freeway that anything (neither should be signed as businesses routes!).

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on May 07, 2018, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 07, 2018, 01:29:57 PM
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on May 07, 2018, 12:04:15 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 30, 2018, 03:29:01 PM
A BL I-5 sign has gone up in the collector-distributor lanes in Downtown Seattle. (source (https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/8g1gxa/dearbornmadisonjames_collectordistributor_now/))

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

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.
In North America, to be sure.
Barcelona has an express/local configuration on one of their motorways, with AP-7 as the mainline (tolled?) express and B-30 as the local C/D.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: mrsman on May 09, 2018, 09:31:35 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on May 07, 2018, 10:37:19 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 07, 2018, 01:29:57 PM
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on May 07, 2018, 12:04:15 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 30, 2018, 03:29:01 PM
A BL I-5 sign has gone up in the collector-distributor lanes in Downtown Seattle. (source (https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/8g1gxa/dearbornmadisonjames_collectordistributor_now/))

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

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.
In North America, to be sure.
Barcelona has an express/local configuration on one of their motorways, with AP-7 as the mainline (tolled?) express and B-30 as the local C/D.

Correct.  This is unique.  Biz-5 is inappropriate since it doesn't become a surface street.  These lanes are essentially local lanes, but they can't be signed as such because express lanes in this area have a specific meaning.  There are already express lanes that provide very few exits and are reversilble.  (IN other areas of the country these lanes are often restricted to HOV or toll).  Then there are general lanes that usually meet every exit.  Here is a third set of lanes designed to access the three streets but can also be used to continue north on I-5.  THe average person does know the meaning of C-D lanes.

If it were me, I'd sign it as "TO I-5 north" with a regular shield.  Traffic headed north of town should stay on the regular lanes, but if for some reason they can't get there (traffic) they can rest assured that they can keep right and use these lanes and they wont be forced to exit onto surface streets.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 09, 2018, 09:52:09 PM
Here's the other sign preceding the one above. Much cleaner but still as controversial...

(https://i.imgur.com/WjeWYPH.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on May 09, 2018, 11:11:35 PM
There are Business freeway loops elsewhere (Sacramento, NC), but this would be the first time a Business route never leaves its parent's right of way! (Even frontage road BRs eventually head off into town.)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2018, 11:59:42 PM
I'm noticing a huge amount of oddities on this current trip in Washington:

-  What is up with the hyper-slow speed limits?  60 MPH for freeways like I-5, WA 509 and WA 16 are an absolute joke outside of the primary urban centers of Seattle/Tacoma.  Most of the surface highways are 35-40 MPH with top speeds of 50 MPH from what I've observed.

-  There are a ton of uni-signs and shields placed on small BGSs.  It looks like most of the shields are at least 25 years old and sorely need to be replaced.

-  I would have thought (granted this is the fourth time I've been to Washington) that shoulder widths would have been much more generous on state highways given the gloomy winter weather.  On two-lane highways this seems to be extremely problematic as there is almost nowhere to pull over in an emergency.

-  Urban surface routes are extremely poorly signed.  WA 509 came to mind as having almost non-existent signage south Seatac where the freeway segment ended.  It was also really unclear if WA 516 and WA 99 served as a connecting corridor to WA 509.

-  Highway "Begin" placards seem to be a huge thing here while "End" placards are a rare find.

-  I really dig getting a full-size junction BGS even on surface routes.

-  There doesn't seem to be any consistency in shield placement, control city signage or even mileage markers.  It kind of made it difficult to cut a good photo album for routes like I'm used to in most states. 

-  Is not having a turn-around point before ferry terminals a thing or is it an anomaly limited to something like WA 304?

-  There are way more EV charging stations outside of major urban cores than I'm used to seeing.

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 10, 2018, 01:19:38 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2018, 11:59:42 PM
I'm noticing a huge amount of oddities on this current trip in Washington:

-  What is up with the hyper-slow speed limits?  60 MPH for freeways like I-5, WA 509 and WA 16 are an absolute joke outside of the primary urban centers of Seattle/Tacoma.  Most of the surface highways are 35-40 MPH with top speeds of 50 MPH from what I've observed.

-  There are a ton of uni-signs and shields placed on small BGSs.  It looks like most of the shields are at least 25 years old and sorely need to be replaced.

-  I would have thought (granted this is the fourth time I've been to Washington) that shoulder widths would have been much more generous on state highways given the gloomy winter weather.  On two-lane highways this seems to be extremely problematic as there is almost nowhere to pull over in an emergency.

On speed limits, they are pretty low in some spots, but enforcement is pretty limited so I'm not complaining. The limit from Fife to Tukwila really should be 70, but WSDOT maintains that this is an urban freeway so the limit remains 60. With a few exceptions, WSDOT is mental about signing urban freeways at 60 and rural freeways at 70. I-705 is an example of a very short road with a seemingly high limit, but it's a freeway so it gets 60. The highest non freeway limit is probably two lane highways in suburban areas, which are often 55. Most suburban routes top out at 45, but traffic is so crappy here it rarely matters. When traffic is flowing, no one pays attention to the limit anyway so whatevs.

On unisigns, this is a WSDOT trademark. Piecemeal signs are rare except when installed by cities. Them being placed against a green background was a practice that ended many years ago. Those signs are approaching the end of their service life, so I'd expect them to start disappearing. WSDOT installs standard route shields now. LGSs are still used by Seattle to guide drivers to freeways, but usually have the state name, so that's cool.

On shoulders, WSDOT has focused more on capacity improvements lately over shoulders. On the 5, when the HOV lanes were installed many years ago, the agency sort of set a precedent that only total rebuilds would include shoulders along both sides. Most widenings don't seem to incorporate shoulders on the left, and right shoulders are never wider than necessary. WSDOT employs this "practical solutions" (or something) policy nowadays, which gets them to focus more on improving capacity first, and everything else second. I guess shoulders are second.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Max Rockatansky on May 10, 2018, 03:52:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 10, 2018, 01:19:38 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2018, 11:59:42 PM
I'm noticing a huge amount of oddities on this current trip in Washington:

-  What is up with the hyper-slow speed limits?  60 MPH for freeways like I-5, WA 509 and WA 16 are an absolute joke outside of the primary urban centers of Seattle/Tacoma.  Most of the surface highways are 35-40 MPH with top speeds of 50 MPH from what I've observed.

-  There are a ton of uni-signs and shields placed on small BGSs.  It looks like most of the shields are at least 25 years old and sorely need to be replaced.

-  I would have thought (granted this is the fourth time I've been to Washington) that shoulder widths would have been much more generous on state highways given the gloomy winter weather.  On two-lane highways this seems to be extremely problematic as there is almost nowhere to pull over in an emergency.

On speed limits, they are pretty low in some spots, but enforcement is pretty limited so I'm not complaining. The limit from Fife to Tukwila really should be 70, but WSDOT maintains that this is an urban freeway so the limit remains 60. With a few exceptions, WSDOT is mental about signing urban freeways at 60 and rural freeways at 70. I-705 is an example of a very short road with a seemingly high limit, but it's a freeway so it gets 60. The highest non freeway limit is probably two lane highways in suburban areas, which are often 55. Most suburban routes top out at 45, but traffic is so crappy here it rarely matters. When traffic is flowing, no one pays attention to the limit anyway so whatevs.

On unisigns, this is a WSDOT trademark. Piecemeal signs are rare except when installed by cities. Them being placed against a green background was a practice that ended many years ago. Those signs are approaching the end of their service life, so I'd expect them to start disappearing. WSDOT installs standard route shields now. LGSs are still used by Seattle to guide drivers to freeways, but usually have the state name, so that's cool.

On shoulders, WSDOT has focused more on capacity improvements lately over shoulders. On the 5, when the HOV lanes were installed many years ago, the agency sort of set a precedent that only total rebuilds would include shoulders along both sides. Most widenings don't seem to incorporate shoulders on the left, and right shoulders are never wider than necessary. WSDOT employs this "practical solutions" (or something) policy nowadays, which gets them to focus more on improving capacity first, and everything else second. I guess shoulders are second.

I understand the capacity thing on an Interstate but what something like a 308 where if you have a blowout there is virtually nowhere to pull over? 

I found a lot of those LGSs you were referring to on this trip.  There was one even displaying "Washington" in the shields for I-5/I-90 coming off the Bremerton-Seattle Ferry this morning.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on May 10, 2018, 05:12:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 10, 2018, 03:52:10 PM

I found a lot of those LGSs you were referring to on this trip.  There was one even displaying "Washington" in the shields for I-5/I-90 coming off the Bremerton-Seattle Ferry this morning.

At the middle ferry slip at Colman Dock, there used to be a BGS visible by traffic coming off of the ferry that said "TEMP I-90." I'm pretty sure it dated from around 1966, when the ferry terminal was last rebuilt. I'm not sure if it's still there currently, because WSF is currently rebuilding Colman Dock, so they may have removed that antiquated (but historic) sign.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Max Rockatansky on May 10, 2018, 05:21:53 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on May 10, 2018, 05:12:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 10, 2018, 03:52:10 PM

I found a lot of those LGSs you were referring to on this trip.  There was one even displaying "Washington" in the shields for I-5/I-90 coming off the Bremerton-Seattle Ferry this morning.

At the middle ferry slip at Colman Dock, there used to be a BGS visible by traffic coming off of the ferry that said "TEMP I-90." I'm pretty sure it dated from around 1966, when the ferry terminal was last rebuilt. I'm not sure if it's still there currently, because WSF is currently rebuilding Colman Dock, so they may have removed that antiquated (but historic) sign.

Was it where this BGS is located now? 

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/958/41122877625_ac55d8a792_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25DTuPt)IMG_5781 (https://flic.kr/p/25DTuPt) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 10, 2018, 05:26:49 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 10, 2018, 03:52:10 PM
I understand the capacity thing on an Interstate but what something like a 308 where if you have a blowout there is virtually nowhere to pull over? 

Which part of 308 are you referring to specifically? Most two-lane highways have a shoulder, although it's usually only half a dozen feet wide. Really old two-lane highways have shoulders that are only a foot or two wide.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Max Rockatansky on May 10, 2018, 05:46:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 10, 2018, 05:26:49 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 10, 2018, 03:52:10 PM
I understand the capacity thing on an Interstate but what something like a 308 where if you have a blowout there is virtually nowhere to pull over? 

Which part of 308 are you referring to specifically? Most two-lane highways have a shoulder, although it's usually only half a dozen feet wide. Really old two-lane highways have shoulders that are only a foot or two wide.

It's that foot or two width that I was seeing.  It was pretty much directly west of Keyport and hat lagoon to be specific.  Near 3 it definitely had full width shoulders approaching the interchange. 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on May 10, 2018, 06:28:13 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 10, 2018, 05:21:53 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on May 10, 2018, 05:12:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 10, 2018, 03:52:10 PM

I found a lot of those LGSs you were referring to on this trip.  There was one even displaying "Washington" in the shields for I-5/I-90 coming off the Bremerton-Seattle Ferry this morning.

At the middle ferry slip at Colman Dock, there used to be a BGS visible by traffic coming off of the ferry that said "TEMP I-90." I'm pretty sure it dated from around 1966, when the ferry terminal was last rebuilt. I'm not sure if it's still there currently, because WSF is currently rebuilding Colman Dock, so they may have removed that antiquated (but historic) sign.

Was it where this BGS is located now? 

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/958/41122877625_ac55d8a792_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25DTuPt)IMG_5781 (https://flic.kr/p/25DTuPt) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr

I believe the sign that he's referring to is this one on the pedestrian bridge at Marion:

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/483/19036420450_4756ce895b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/v1bCzG)
Old sign at Colman Dock (https://flic.kr/p/v1bCzG) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on May 10, 2018, 06:55:32 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2018, 11:59:42 PM
I'm noticing a huge amount of oddities on this current trip in Washington:

-  Urban surface routes are extremely poorly signed.  WA 509 came to mind as having almost non-existent signage south Seatac where the freeway segment ended.  It was also really unclear if WA 516 and WA 99 served as a connecting corridor to WA 509.

SR 509's routing between eastern Tacoma and Des Moines is pretty much a temporary route. The long-term plan (https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Gateway/default.htm) is to extend the freeway segment of SR 509 down to I-5 near Angle Lake, and link up the Port of Tacoma freeway to I-5 and an extended SR 167.

(https://i.imgur.com/T2eQPES.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/DAWR2AX.jpg)

Quote
-  Is not having a turn-around point before ferry terminals a thing or is it an anomaly limited to something like WA 304?

The Bremerton terminal is a bit unique because it's constrained by the naval shipyard, so there's no room for a turnaround. Most terminals do have some kind of turnaround before you reach the toll booths, but otherwise reserve turnarounds for buses and taxis.

(The above might be a bit inaccurate, since I rarely ride the ferries...walk-ons are too expensive for my taste).

Quote
-  There are way more EV charging stations outside of major urban cores than I'm used to seeing.

WSDOT has been building quite a few as part of the "West Coast Electric Highway" initiative and have many more planned (https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/8FB1659C-45B4-4423-8EAB-6F659DB9A790/0/WCEH_EVIPP_Map_Web.pdf).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on May 11, 2018, 04:04:14 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 10, 2018, 06:28:13 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 10, 2018, 05:21:53 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on May 10, 2018, 05:12:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 10, 2018, 03:52:10 PM

I found a lot of those LGSs you were referring to on this trip.  There was one even displaying "Washington" in the shields for I-5/I-90 coming off the Bremerton-Seattle Ferry this morning.

At the middle ferry slip at Colman Dock, there used to be a BGS visible by traffic coming off of the ferry that said "TEMP I-90." I'm pretty sure it dated from around 1966, when the ferry terminal was last rebuilt. I'm not sure if it's still there currently, because WSF is currently rebuilding Colman Dock, so they may have removed that antiquated (but historic) sign.

Was it where this BGS is located now? 
[pic]

I believe the sign that he's referring to is this one on the pedestrian bridge at Marion:
[pic]

Yep, that's the one. Is it still there?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Hurricane Rex on May 14, 2018, 10:29:38 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 10, 2018, 01:19:38 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2018, 11:59:42 PM
I'm noticing a huge amount of oddities on this current trip in Washington:

-  What is up with the hyper-slow speed limits?  60 MPH for freeways like I-5, WA 509 and WA 16 are an absolute joke outside of the primary urban centers of Seattle/Tacoma.  Most of the surface highways are 35-40 MPH with top speeds of 50 MPH from what I've observed.

-  There are a ton of uni-signs and shields placed on small BGSs.  It looks like most of the shields are at least 25 years old and sorely need to be replaced.

-  I would have thought (granted this is the fourth time I've been to Washington) that shoulder widths would have been much more generous on state highways given the gloomy winter weather.  On two-lane highways this seems to be extremely problematic as there is almost nowhere to pull over in an emergency.

On speed limits, they are pretty low in some spots, but enforcement is pretty limited so I'm not complaining. The limit from Fife to Tukwila really should be 70, but WSDOT maintains that this is an urban freeway so the limit remains 60. With a few exceptions, WSDOT is mental about signing urban freeways at 60 and rural freeways at 70. I-705 is an example of a very short road with a seemingly high limit, but it's a freeway so it gets 60. The highest non freeway limit is probably two lane highways in suburban areas, which are often 55. Most suburban routes top out at 45, but traffic is so crappy here it rarely matters. When traffic is flowing, no one pays attention to the limit anyway so whatevs.

On unisigns, this is a WSDOT trademark. Piecemeal signs are rare except when installed by cities. Them being placed against a green background was a practice that ended many years ago. Those signs are approaching the end of their service life, so I'd expect them to start disappearing. WSDOT installs standard route shields now. LGSs are still used by Seattle to guide drivers to freeways, but usually have the state name, so that's cool.

On shoulders, WSDOT has focused more on capacity improvements lately over shoulders. On the 5, when the HOV lanes were installed many years ago, the agency sort of set a precedent that only total rebuilds would include shoulders along both sides. Most widenings don't seem to incorporate shoulders on the left, and right shoulders are never wider than necessary. WSDOT employs this "practical solutions" (or something) policy nowadays, which gets them to focus more on improving capacity first, and everything else second. I guess shoulders are second.
I'm honestly surprised that further west Washington seems to be more strict on interstate speeds than the east side. Centralia/Chehalis is 60 while I-182 west of US 395 is posted at 70. Same with the eastern sections of Spokane. Not a lot of states (I feel) do that unless they have a reason to. Capacity?

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 14, 2018, 12:47:35 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on May 14, 2018, 10:29:38 AM
I'm honestly surprised that further west Washington seems to be more strict on interstate speeds than the east side. Centralia/Chehalis is 60 while I-182 west of US 395 is posted at 70. Same with the eastern sections of Spokane. Not a lot of states (I feel) do that unless they have a reason to. Capacity?

I believe the Eastern districts are free to post limits as they see fit (the same as the Western districts), as long limits above 60 are approved by the Secretary of Transportation. Why higher limits out east? Probably just lower density overall.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 18, 2018, 08:34:05 PM
The sign for the Northbound to Northbound 167 to 405 direct access ramp has gone up. I don't believe the ramp is to be complete until next year though.

(https://i.imgur.com/wCltkm1.jpg)

Progress on the ramp...

(https://i.imgur.com/ABy1HOe.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/qY4qqXP.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: roadfro on May 18, 2018, 09:33:03 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 18, 2018, 08:34:05 PM
The sign for the Northbound to Northbound 167 to 405 direct access ramp has gone up. I don't believe the ramp is to be complete until next year though.

(https://i.imgur.com/wCltkm1.jpg)

I'm surprised the sign is not white on green (with maybe a white header showing the restriction). This is not compliant with MUTCD.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 18, 2018, 11:02:30 PM
Quote from: roadfro on May 18, 2018, 09:33:03 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 18, 2018, 08:34:05 PM
The sign for the Northbound to Northbound 167 to 405 direct access ramp has gone up. I don't believe the ramp is to be complete until next year though.

https://i.imgur.com/wCltkm1.jpg

I'm surprised the sign is not white on green (with maybe a white header showing the restriction). This is not compliant with MUTCD.

Yeah, that's a good point. WashDOT has used black on white HOV and express signage for quite a long time, however, I seem to recall a ruling which prohibits any further use of this style. I'll have to send them an email once I get my hands on a link. Unless you have one? ;-)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: roadfro on May 20, 2018, 12:42:09 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 18, 2018, 11:02:30 PM
Quote from: roadfro on May 18, 2018, 09:33:03 PM
I'm surprised the sign is not white on green (with maybe a white header showing the restriction). This is not compliant with MUTCD.

Yeah, that's a good point. WashDOT has used black on white HOV and express signage for quite a long time, however, I seem to recall a ruling which prohibits any further use of this style. I'll have to send them an email once I get my hands on a link. Unless you have one? ;-)

I don't recall a "ruling", per se. But the 2007 Bluffton University bus crash (Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluffton_University_bus_crash)) in Atlanta was determined to be caused, in part, by the bus driver mistaking a black-on-white HOV only exit for the through lane. (Granted, the HOV exit direction sign in that case looked much more like a regulatory sign than this one.)

The NTSB investigation of that incident led to recommendations for signage treatment for HOV/Preferential Lane guide signage. Those recommendations contributed to the standards present in the 2009 MUTCD Chapter 2G regarding HOV/Preferential Lane signage. See specifically Section 2G.15 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/part2g.htm#section2G15).
Quote from: 2009 MUTCD
Section 2G.15 Guide Signs for Direct Exits from Preferential Lanes to Another Highway
Standard:
<...>
02 The design of Advance Guide, Exit Direction, and Pull-Through signs for direct exits from preferential lanes shall be distinguished from those applicable to general-purpose lanes by inclusion of an upper section with the applicable black legend on a white background, such as HOV LANE (for Pull-Through signs) or HOV EXIT (for Advance Guide and Exit Direction signs). For preferential lanes that incorporate a vehicle occupancy requirement, the white diamond symbol on a black background shall be displayed at the left-hand edge of this upper section (see Figures 2G-15 and 2G-16).

I'm also noting that the MUTCD chapter also doesn't currently show examples of bus/HOV symbols to define the lane regulation/definitions, as seen in the above pic. But I don't think this is as egregious as the whole white sign (and think we should be moving in this direction).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 21, 2018, 10:01:23 PM
Here is what WSDOT will be building at the intersection of Hwy 9 and 204 in Lake Stevens. Tight diamond that will operate more like a SPUI. Some of the odd one-way roads will remain, but will be rebuilt, and a new N-S road will be built through the shopping center east of the junction:

https://youtu.be/w9dqHiw-tto
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on May 21, 2018, 10:30:21 PM
It's interesting how the new bus stops are basically like the freeway stops on I-5 and I-405. Perhaps this will be the start of CT's Arlington-Woodinville express that was promised in 2015.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Max Rockatansky on May 24, 2018, 12:20:49 AM
Drove a lot of I-5, WA 99 and I-405 this past week. 

I-5 generally isn't too much of a problem provided you can get to the express lanes through downtown (my approach was northbound during evening rush hour when I tried).  I thought it was interesting to see the regular lanes basically bottleneck down so much in downtown approaching I-90.  Those 70 minute drive times from Everett to Seattle look brutal to deal with on a regular basis.  Capacity seemed like a huge issue with no inside shoulders where the HOV lanes were.

I-405 I thought had a huge capacity issue north of I-90.  The express lanes were up to $10.50 when I drove through but dropped to $0.50 when I got south of I-90.  I'm was really surprised that I-405 wasn't at least six regular lanes instead of the four with two HOV.

WA 99 was the real way to move about the city in a car for me.  Traffic may have been slow but I don't recall at any point where 99 stopped completely in either direction of travel.  It was a little weird to see exclusive bus lanes on a surface highway but it didn't really slow things up.

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on May 24, 2018, 12:33:05 AM
Yeah, the express lanes were I-5's original construction, but the HOV lanes were added later by taking away the shoulder and narrowing general-purpose lanes.  Yes, the bottleneck at I-90 and the convention center is a problem, with no easy solution.  Trying to go the reverse direction from the I-5 express lanes is a problem most of the time.

When I-405 was planned it was a rural interstate and two lanes each way was gonna be plenty.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 24, 2018, 02:08:52 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 24, 2018, 12:20:49 AM
I-405 I thought had a huge capacity issue north of I-90.  The express lanes were up to $10.50 when I drove through but dropped to $0.50 when I got south of I-90.  I'm was really surprised that I-405 wasn't at least six regular lanes instead of the four with two HOV.

I'm not following here.

A) the 405 north of I-90 is much wider than the 405 south of I-90. The capacity issue is south of I-90 at this point in time.
B) The tolls only go up to $10 (on all WA toll routes)
C) There are no tolls on the 405 south of I-90; there are tolls on 167, which off-peak are usually $0.50.

The 405 is going to be rebuilt in a few years to add a second HOV lane and another general purpose lane south of I-90 (err, Coal Creek Parkway), meanwhile converting it to express toll. This will connect the current 405 toll lanes to the 167 toll lanes (much needed).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on May 24, 2018, 02:15:05 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 24, 2018, 12:20:49 AM
Those 70 minute drive times from Everett to Seattle look brutal to deal with on a regular basis.  Capacity seemed like a huge issue with no inside shoulders where the HOV lanes were.

I do the Everett to Seattle commute on a weekly basis by bus, and it usually takes about 60 minutes. The real bottleneck comes at the Stewart Street offramp, where the express lanes and regular lanes dump out into a four-laned one-way street; buses have to weave over traffic heading towards Denny Way, and it's a total nightmare.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on May 26, 2018, 03:47:59 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 24, 2018, 02:08:52 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 24, 2018, 12:20:49 AM
I-405 I thought had a huge capacity issue north of I-90.  The express lanes were up to $10.50 when I drove through but dropped to $0.50 when I got south of I-90.  I'm was really surprised that I-405 wasn't at least six regular lanes instead of the four with two HOV.

I'm not following here.

A) the 405 north of I-90 is much wider than the 405 south of I-90. The capacity issue is south of I-90 at this point in time.
B) The tolls only go up to $10 (on all WA toll routes)
C) There are no tolls on the 405 south of I-90; there are tolls on 167, which off-peak are usually $0.50.

I think he's referring to I-405 north of the WA 522 interchange since that is typically an absolute mess north of there, especially in the SB direction in the mornings.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 26, 2018, 03:50:30 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on May 26, 2018, 03:47:59 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 24, 2018, 02:08:52 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 24, 2018, 12:20:49 AM
I-405 I thought had a huge capacity issue north of I-90.  The express lanes were up to $10.50 when I drove through but dropped to $0.50 when I got south of I-90.  I'm was really surprised that I-405 wasn't at least six regular lanes instead of the four with two HOV.

I'm not following here.

A) the 405 north of I-90 is much wider than the 405 south of I-90. The capacity issue is south of I-90 at this point in time.
B) The tolls only go up to $10 (on all WA toll routes)
C) There are no tolls on the 405 south of I-90; there are tolls on 167, which off-peak are usually $0.50.

I think he's referring to I-405 north of the WA 522 interchange since that is typically an absolute mess north of there, especially in the SB direction in the mornings.

Perhaps, yeah. Still confused about the claimed $10.50 toll.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Max Rockatansky on May 26, 2018, 09:21:34 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 26, 2018, 03:50:30 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on May 26, 2018, 03:47:59 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 24, 2018, 02:08:52 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 24, 2018, 12:20:49 AM
I-405 I thought had a huge capacity issue north of I-90.  The express lanes were up to $10.50 when I drove through but dropped to $0.50 when I got south of I-90.  I'm was really surprised that I-405 wasn't at least six regular lanes instead of the four with two HOV.

I'm not following here.

A) the 405 north of I-90 is much wider than the 405 south of I-90. The capacity issue is south of I-90 at this point in time.
B) The tolls only go up to $10 (on all WA toll routes)
C) There are no tolls on the 405 south of I-90; there are tolls on 167, which off-peak are usually $0.50.

I think he's referring to I-405 north of the WA 522 interchange since that is typically an absolute mess north of there, especially in the SB direction in the mornings.

Perhaps, yeah. Still confused about the claimed $10.50 toll.

Looking at the map the traffic cleared somewhere approaching the I-90 interchange.  I saw $10 for certain near I-5, could be mistaken about $10.50.  Probably didn't help I was talking to my passenger the entire time, usually I'm paying way more attention. 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 26, 2018, 12:14:39 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 26, 2018, 09:21:34 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 26, 2018, 03:50:30 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on May 26, 2018, 03:47:59 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 24, 2018, 02:08:52 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 24, 2018, 12:20:49 AM
I-405 I thought had a huge capacity issue north of I-90.  The express lanes were up to $10.50 when I drove through but dropped to $0.50 when I got south of I-90.  I'm was really surprised that I-405 wasn't at least six regular lanes instead of the four with two HOV.

I'm not following here.

A) the 405 north of I-90 is much wider than the 405 south of I-90. The capacity issue is south of I-90 at this point in time.
B) The tolls only go up to $10 (on all WA toll routes)
C) There are no tolls on the 405 south of I-90; there are tolls on 167, which off-peak are usually $0.50.

I think he's referring to I-405 north of the WA 522 interchange since that is typically an absolute mess north of there, especially in the SB direction in the mornings.

Perhaps, yeah. Still confused about the claimed $10.50 toll.

Looking at the map the traffic cleared somewhere approaching the I-90 interchange.  I saw $10 for certain near I-5, could be mistaken about $10.50.  Probably didn't help I was talking to my passenger the entire time, usually I'm paying way more attention.

The northern stretch is definitely busier thanks to the fewer lanes, but I think you might have been mistaken. The base (and probably most common) toll is $0.50. That might have been what you saw? It doesn't hit $10 very often.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Max Rockatansky on May 26, 2018, 02:26:14 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 26, 2018, 12:14:39 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 26, 2018, 09:21:34 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 26, 2018, 03:50:30 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on May 26, 2018, 03:47:59 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 24, 2018, 02:08:52 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 24, 2018, 12:20:49 AM
I-405 I thought had a huge capacity issue north of I-90.  The express lanes were up to $10.50 when I drove through but dropped to $0.50 when I got south of I-90.  I'm was really surprised that I-405 wasn't at least six regular lanes instead of the four with two HOV.

I'm not following here.

A) the 405 north of I-90 is much wider than the 405 south of I-90. The capacity issue is south of I-90 at this point in time.
B) The tolls only go up to $10 (on all WA toll routes)
C) There are no tolls on the 405 south of I-90; there are tolls on 167, which off-peak are usually $0.50.

I think he's referring to I-405 north of the WA 522 interchange since that is typically an absolute mess north of there, especially in the SB direction in the mornings.

Perhaps, yeah. Still confused about the claimed $10.50 toll.

Looking at the map the traffic cleared somewhere approaching the I-90 interchange.  I saw $10 for certain near I-5, could be mistaken about $10.50.  Probably didn't help I was talking to my passenger the entire time, usually I'm paying way more attention.

The northern stretch is definitely busier thanks to the fewer lanes, but I think you might have been mistaken. The base (and probably most common) toll is $0.50. That might have been what you saw? It doesn't hit $10 very often.

Between 524 and 527 it definitely hit $10 dollars.  Somewhere approaching I-90 the toll dropped back down to $0.50.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Hurricane Rex on May 28, 2018, 06:38:24 PM
Does anyone have an explanation for why there is a Oregon style Speed 35 sign in Woodland? Looks pretty new too.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on May 28, 2018, 11:26:11 PM
As in no 'Limit'? That's uncanny.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 29, 2018, 03:22:19 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on May 28, 2018, 06:38:24 PM
Does anyone have an explanation for why there is a Oregon style Speed 35 sign in Woodland? Looks pretty new too.

Streetview or photo? I've only seen one of this style in Washington, and it was posted only a few years ago in Puyallup. Still standing today...

(https://i.imgur.com/Cl7Sliw.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Hurricane Rex on May 29, 2018, 03:17:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 29, 2018, 03:22:19 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on May 28, 2018, 06:38:24 PM
Does anyone have an explanation for why there is a Oregon style Speed 35 sign in Woodland? Looks pretty new too.

Streetview or photo? I've only seen one of this style in Washington, and it was posted only a few years ago in Puyallup. Still standing today...

(https://i.imgur.com/Cl7Sliw.jpg)
Didn't get a photo, driving home from Silver lake near Castle Rock and saw the sign. It was on the frontage road on the I-5 SB side next to the Safeway. I was already past the exit when I saw it.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: BloonsTDFan360 on June 03, 2018, 01:56:40 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on May 29, 2018, 03:17:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 29, 2018, 03:22:19 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on May 28, 2018, 06:38:24 PM
Does anyone have an explanation for why there is a Oregon style Speed 35 sign in Woodland? Looks pretty new too.

Streetview or photo? I've only seen one of this style in Washington, and it was posted only a few years ago in Puyallup. Still standing today...

(https://i.imgur.com/Cl7Sliw.jpg)
Didn't get a photo, driving home from Silver lake near Castle Rock and saw the sign. It was on the frontage road on the I-5 SB side next to the Safeway. I was already past the exit when I saw it.

LG-TP260
The sign in Woodland must have been new, never saw an Oregon-style speed sign up there.

Clark County has quite a handful of these signs, pretty much inspired by our southern neighbor. Vancouver's F Street school zone has one (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.6449674,-122.6662757,3a,33.2y,196.87h,89.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgEgV7svNuIQMwMdaAhlXRw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656); another one in Battle Ground (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.791788,-122.5372282,3a,15y,5.33h,88.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1si9o3adXYF8zXZzOuQOvAhA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Di9o3adXYF8zXZzOuQOvAhA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D107.44689%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656). No pic or street view but there's yet another one in BG, in a new residential subdivision!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 03, 2018, 02:31:49 AM
Quote from: BloonsTDFan360 on June 03, 2018, 01:56:40 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on May 29, 2018, 03:17:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 29, 2018, 03:22:19 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on May 28, 2018, 06:38:24 PM
Does anyone have an explanation for why there is a Oregon style Speed 35 sign in Woodland? Looks pretty new too.

Streetview or photo? I've only seen one of this style in Washington, and it was posted only a few years ago in Puyallup. Still standing today...

https://i.imgur.com/Cl7Sliw.jpg
Didn't get a photo, driving home from Silver lake near Castle Rock and saw the sign. It was on the frontage road on the I-5 SB side next to the Safeway. I was already past the exit when I saw it.

The sign in Woodland must have been new, never saw an Oregon-style speed sign up there.

Clark County has quite a handful of these signs, pretty much inspired by our southern neighbor. Vancouver's F Street school zone has one (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.6449674,-122.6662757,3a,33.2y,196.87h,89.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgEgV7svNuIQMwMdaAhlXRw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656); another one in Battle Ground (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.791788,-122.5372282,3a,15y,5.33h,88.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1si9o3adXYF8zXZzOuQOvAhA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Di9o3adXYF8zXZzOuQOvAhA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D107.44689%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656). No pic or street view but there's yet another one in BG, in a new residential subdivision!

Damn, nice! I did not know of any other "SPEED" signs in Washington. That second sign (from Battle Ground) had to have come from an Oregon sign shop. It looks exactly like the limit signs in Oregon.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 03, 2018, 02:38:43 AM
A few photos of the "Revive I-5" project, which closed the mainline lanes over the weekend, including the new Business Loop shields.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1721/27658847457_5173fe0a00_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J97PJi)Revive I-5 project from Holgate Street (https://flic.kr/p/J97PJi) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1740/40721328750_97a6d4199c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/253psk1)Revive I-5 project from Holgate Street (https://flic.kr/p/253psk1) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1736/41806631554_f4d2365d01_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26GiV3j)I-5 Business Loop in Seattle (https://flic.kr/p/26GiV3j) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1757/40721325390_b41814efe6_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/253prk5)Revive I-5 project from Holgate Street (https://flic.kr/p/253prk5) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1738/42477863972_b984e7f191_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27HCa43)Revive I-5 project from Yesler Way (https://flic.kr/p/27HCa43) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1721/41627362295_12d06ffd07_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/26qt7x2)Revive I-5 project from Yesler Way (https://flic.kr/p/26qt7x2) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1749/27658886567_2a07bcb84d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/J982mB)
Revive I-5 elevated view from Columbia Center (https://flic.kr/p/J982mB) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 03, 2018, 07:44:47 AM
^^^

Where is the new Business Loop going to run?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 03, 2018, 11:34:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 03, 2018, 07:44:47 AM
^^^

Where is the new Business Loop going to run?

It's basically signage for the collector part of the collector-distributor lanes through downtown. It's probably a mistake from WSDOT.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 03, 2018, 12:24:10 PM
Quote from: Bruce on June 03, 2018, 11:34:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 03, 2018, 07:44:47 AM
^^^

Where is the new Business Loop going to run?

It's basically signage for the collector part of the collector-distributor lanes through downtown. It's probably a mistake from WSDOT.

That's what I would have thought.  It would be really difficult to get a viable Business Loop back to I-5 given you can't take 4th Avenue directly to West Lake anymore.  It probably would be pretty handy to have some sort of signed business route through downtown since it isn't the most intuitive place get through on surface streets.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 03, 2018, 08:56:47 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 03, 2018, 12:24:10 PM
Quote from: Bruce on June 03, 2018, 11:34:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 03, 2018, 07:44:47 AM
^^^

Where is the new Business Loop going to run?

It's basically signage for the collector part of the collector-distributor lanes through downtown. It's probably a mistake from WSDOT.

That's what I would have thought.  It would be really difficult to get a viable Business Loop back to I-5 given you can't take 4th Avenue directly to West Lake anymore.  It probably would be pretty handy to have some sort of signed business route through downtown since it isn't the most intuitive place get through on surface streets.

City's official policy is to redirect cars away from downtown, because it's generally the right thing to do.

But a viable business loop would probably follow the commuter bus routes, or perhaps continue all the way to the Space Needle before turning east onto Mercer.

(https://i.imgur.com/KFlFihN.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on June 04, 2018, 12:59:19 AM
Probably not a particularly good idea to establish a business loop in as dense a downtown area as central Seattle unless plans included sufficient parking to serve any additional automotive traffic generated by the signage of the loop.  But as Seattle is attempting to discourage and/or divert such traffic out of downtown, providing parking would be counterproductive.  While slapping biz loop signage on a C/D lane seems either overkill or an errant concept, at least it (probably/hopefully) won't be construed as an invitation onto a specific continuum of surface streets.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 04, 2018, 01:43:30 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 04, 2018, 12:59:19 AM
Probably not a particularly good idea to establish a business loop in as dense a downtown area as central Seattle unless plans included sufficient parking to serve any additional automotive traffic generated by the signage of the loop.  But as Seattle is attempting to discourage and/or divert such traffic out of downtown, providing parking would be counterproductive.  While slapping biz loop signage on a C/D lane seems either overkill or an errant concept, at least it (probably/hopefully) won't be construed as an invitation onto a specific continuum of surface streets.

Oddly enough, I don't find parking downtown to be difficult. The various local transport agencies have really doubled down over the last 15 years to reduce downtown vehicular traffic, with the result being fewer cars entering downtown than ever before. This has made it easier to find parking, should someone pain the commute by car into the city.




FWIW, this new Biz I-5 shield is now at least the third example of WSDOT posting a shield that refers to a highway that doesn't legally exist on paper. The first two are in Clark County: WA-501 Spur (https://goo.gl/hPQ3rN) near the abandoned Lower River Road (posted 2012), and WA-503 Biz (https://goo.gl/5KtBPy) near Battle Ground (posted 1996) (BGS here (https://goo.gl/Ris1ho)).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 04, 2018, 09:47:55 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2018, 01:43:30 AM
Quote from: sparker on June 04, 2018, 12:59:19 AM
Probably not a particularly good idea to establish a business loop in as dense a downtown area as central Seattle unless plans included sufficient parking to serve any additional automotive traffic generated by the signage of the loop.  But as Seattle is attempting to discourage and/or divert such traffic out of downtown, providing parking would be counterproductive.  While slapping biz loop signage on a C/D lane seems either overkill or an errant concept, at least it (probably/hopefully) won't be construed as an invitation onto a specific continuum of surface streets.

Oddly enough, I don't find parking downtown to be difficult. The various local transport agencies have really doubled down over the last 15 years to reduce downtown vehicular traffic, with the result being fewer cars entering downtown than ever before. This has made it easier to find parking, should someone pain the commute by car into the city.




FWIW, this new Biz I-5 shield is now at least the third example of WSDOT posting a shield that refers to a highway that doesn't legally exist on paper. The first two are in Clark County: WA-501 Spur (https://goo.gl/hPQ3rN) near the abandoned Lower River Road (posted 2012), and WA-503 Biz (https://goo.gl/5KtBPy) near Battle Ground (posted 1996) (BGS here (https://goo.gl/Ris1ho)).

I thought it was easy to find parking this past month.  There was plenty of little side lots offering "somewhat" affordable parking in addition to various garages.  In particular I noticed there was a lot of parking to be found on 1st and 2nd Avenues.  The Seattle Center had a punch of parking at the facility and around the area.  Usually I just parked somewhere near the Space Needle and spent the day on foot in downtown.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: BloonsTDFan360 on June 04, 2018, 06:35:23 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2018, 01:43:30 AM
FWIW, this new Biz I-5 shield is now at least the third example of WSDOT posting a shield that refers to a highway that doesn't legally exist on paper. The first two are in Clark County: WA-501 Spur (https://goo.gl/hPQ3rN) near the abandoned Lower River Road (posted 2012), and WA-503 Biz (https://goo.gl/5KtBPy) near Battle Ground (posted 1996) (BGS here (https://goo.gl/Ris1ho)).
There's also an SR 14 Biz (https://goo.gl/maps/n7oN29kcSot) in the Camas-Washougal area, with frequent (https://goo.gl/maps/Y8UsMnQYy1L2) reassurance (https://goo.gl/maps/oSSN37P7QUN2) markers (https://goo.gl/maps/Cz6qbEUZcG72). I guess the SW Region loves making up their own highways.

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on June 05, 2018, 04:56:29 AM
14B has been there for years. I think it was even in the 1997 or 1999 Portland Thomas Guide.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Henry on June 06, 2018, 09:10:52 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 03, 2018, 08:56:47 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 03, 2018, 12:24:10 PM
Quote from: Bruce on June 03, 2018, 11:34:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 03, 2018, 07:44:47 AM
^^^

Where is the new Business Loop going to run?

It's basically signage for the collector part of the collector-distributor lanes through downtown. It's probably a mistake from WSDOT.

That's what I would have thought.  It would be really difficult to get a viable Business Loop back to I-5 given you can't take 4th Avenue directly to West Lake anymore.  It probably would be pretty handy to have some sort of signed business route through downtown since it isn't the most intuitive place get through on surface streets.

City's official policy is to redirect cars away from downtown, because it's generally the right thing to do.

But a viable business loop would probably follow the commuter bus routes, or perhaps continue all the way to the Space Needle before turning east onto Mercer.

(https://i.imgur.com/KFlFihN.png)
I agree that they should follow the commuter routes, and both pictures have a pretty good detail on what the north end of BL 5 would look like. Given that the southern end is also at the I-90 terminus, I'd like to know how that part of the route would run into downtown.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: akotchi on June 16, 2018, 11:28:42 AM
Not quite sure where to post this, but this seemed to be the best place . . .

On a trip to Seattle last month, I found this sign at the exit of one of the ferry terminals -- Bainbridge, I think.  How old is this sign, and what does the TEMP refer to?  Old enough to pre-date the completion of I-90 across Lake Washington?  If so, what was the "I-90 TEMP" route?

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/880/27967009227_4e6a7df00d_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 12:22:59 PM
Quote from: akotchi on June 16, 2018, 11:28:42 AM
Not quite sure where to post this, but this seemed to be the best place . . .

On a trip to Seattle last month, I found this sign at the exit of one of the ferry terminals -- Bainbridge, I think.  How old is this sign, and what does the TEMP refer to?  Old enough to pre-date the completion of I-90 across Lake Washington?  If so, what was the "I-90 TEMP" route?

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/880/27967009227_4e6a7df00d_b.jpg)

Wasn't I-90 supposed to reach the Alaska Way Viaduct?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 16, 2018, 02:08:49 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 12:22:59 PM
Quote from: akotchi on June 16, 2018, 11:28:42 AM
Not quite sure where to post this, but this seemed to be the best place . . .

On a trip to Seattle last month, I found this sign at the exit of one of the ferry terminals -- Bainbridge, I think.  How old is this sign, and what does the TEMP refer to?  Old enough to pre-date the completion of I-90 across Lake Washington?  If so, what was the "I-90 TEMP" route?

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/880/27967009227_4e6a7df00d_b.jpg

Wasn't I-90 supposed to reach the Alaska Way Viaduct?

Yes, this was the original plan. The demolished section of the viaduct had several ramp stubs where the connection would have occurred. You can see them on Historic Aerials: https://goo.gl/8U7ddz

That said, I believe the TEMP I-90 sign refers to the routing of I-90 before it was completed to I-5. It ended at Rainier Ave (and another since-demolished road) until the early 90s. Traffic accessed the Mount Baker Tunnels and the Lacey V Murrow Bridge via Dearborn, via what I believe was TEMP I-90 (old maps show an I-90 route shield along Dearborn). I don't believe this temp route reached all the way to Alaskan Way, but signs from Alaskan Way to this temporary route were labelled "TO TEMP I-90". Someone with more info should double check this, because I'm not 100% sure. I do know that TEMP 90 hasn't been a thing for quite a while, and that this sign is extremely old.

The old I-90/Rainier Ave interchange is also on Historic Aerials: https://goo.gl/xcqKhL
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on June 16, 2018, 02:19:45 PM
The "temp" refered to the incomplete I-90 from before the I-90 to I-5 interchange was built.  I-90 was first built up to 4th Avenue South, but the interchange with I-5 was delayed for decades while its size, takings, and cost of the interchange and downtown exits were debated in legislature and the courts.  Temp I-90 was signed along city streets to reach I-5.  The interchange with I-5 was finally completed about 1990.


Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 16, 2018, 04:15:02 PM
The route of Temp I-90 ran from the Rainier Avenue interchange along the current I-90 lanes around part of Beacon Hill (but as an undivided 4-lane road). It then veered west onto Dearborn Street and crossed under I-5.

For decades, the ramps to I-5 were built but unconnected, and nicknamed the "ramps to nowhere".

(https://i.imgur.com/naWPfdd.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/ViLWSzA.png)

This image shows some of the ramps at Rainier:

(https://www.seattle.gov/Images/CityArchive/Exhibits/CityatWork/CentralAreafromMtBaker.gif)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 16, 2018, 04:55:30 PM
Quote from: Bruce on June 16, 2018, 04:15:02 PM
(https://www.seattle.gov/Images/CityArchive/Exhibits/CityatWork/CentralAreafromMtBaker.gif)

Sweet photo Bruce! I know you didn't take it, but I sure haven't seen it before. I've seen that weird junction on Historic Aerials a million times, but never a true photo.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on June 16, 2018, 06:37:45 PM
Quote from: Bruce on June 16, 2018, 04:15:02 PM
The route of Temp I-90 ran from the Rainier Avenue interchange along the current I-90 lanes around part of Beacon Hill (but as an undivided 4-lane road). It then veered west onto Dearborn Street and crossed under I-5.

For decades, the ramps to I-5 were built but unconnected, and nicknamed the "ramps to nowhere".

Great info and pictures!  Thanks Bruce!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 16, 2018, 08:12:12 PM
I'm actually in the middle of rewriting the I-90 entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_90_in_Washington) on Wikipedia, so I had the information handy. Our highway history is rather poorly documented, so I've been scrounging around various sources looking for opening dates (https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1ILxw-86Y1JRTS1ZpEW0zFpF_YJ0&ll=47.72749356729938%2C-122.63093944238278&z=9) for freeway segments and other information beyond legislative actions. If anyone has a suggestion of where to look, I'm all ears.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 08:21:48 PM
Quote from: Bruce on June 16, 2018, 08:12:12 PM
I'm actually in the middle of rewriting the I-90 entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_90_in_Washington) on Wikipedia, so I had the information handy. Our highway history is rather poorly documented, so I've been scrounging around various sources looking for opening dates (https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1ILxw-86Y1JRTS1ZpEW0zFpF_YJ0&ll=47.72749356729938%2C-122.63093944238278&z=9) for freeway segments and other information beyond legislative actions. If anyone has a suggestion of where to look, I'm all ears.

Incidentally someone on Wikipedia actually did really good job with the state highways.  I noticed that a lot of the articles lined up with the correct Primary and Secondary state highway numbers when I was doing my run WA Routes last month.  Almost everything was lining up with the map research I did and with information I received on this board. 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 16, 2018, 08:24:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 08:21:48 PM
Quote from: Bruce on June 16, 2018, 08:12:12 PM
I'm actually in the middle of rewriting the I-90 entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_90_in_Washington) on Wikipedia, so I had the information handy. Our highway history is rather poorly documented, so I've been scrounging around various sources looking for opening dates (https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1ILxw-86Y1JRTS1ZpEW0zFpF_YJ0&ll=47.72749356729938%2C-122.63093944238278&z=9) for freeway segments and other information beyond legislative actions. If anyone has a suggestion of where to look, I'm all ears.

Incidentally someone on Wikipedia actually did really good job with the state highways.  I noticed that a lot of the articles lined up with the correct Primary and Secondary state highway numbers when I was doing my run WA Routes last month.  Almost everything was lining up with the map research I did and with information I received on this board. 

I wrote many of the Washington entries years ago, and have been slowly rewriting them using new knowledge (thanks in part to plentiful newspaper archives that I now can access from home). Same goes for Seattle's transit articles.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 08:44:04 PM
Quote from: Bruce on June 16, 2018, 08:24:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2018, 08:21:48 PM
Quote from: Bruce on June 16, 2018, 08:12:12 PM
I'm actually in the middle of rewriting the I-90 entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_90_in_Washington) on Wikipedia, so I had the information handy. Our highway history is rather poorly documented, so I've been scrounging around various sources looking for opening dates (https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1ILxw-86Y1JRTS1ZpEW0zFpF_YJ0&ll=47.72749356729938%2C-122.63093944238278&z=9) for freeway segments and other information beyond legislative actions. If anyone has a suggestion of where to look, I'm all ears.

Incidentally someone on Wikipedia actually did really good job with the state highways.  I noticed that a lot of the articles lined up with the correct Primary and Secondary state highway numbers when I was doing my run WA Routes last month.  Almost everything was lining up with the map research I did and with information I received on this board. 

I wrote many of the Washington entries years ago, and have been slowly rewriting them using new knowledge (thanks in part to plentiful newspaper archives that I now can access from home). Same goes for Seattle's transit articles.

Figured you probably had a hand in them once you mentioned updating I-90.  I've found on the whole the site is getting better for historical highway information but it's still best cross-reference other sources.  I with the California stuff I've gotten lucky that sites like cahighways exist along with a huge amount of easy to access map scans on David Rumsey. 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on June 17, 2018, 01:22:12 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 16, 2018, 08:12:12 PM
I'm actually in the middle of rewriting the I-90 entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_90_in_Washington) on Wikipedia, so I had the information handy. Our highway history is rather poorly documented, so I've been scrounging around various sources looking for opening dates (https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1ILxw-86Y1JRTS1ZpEW0zFpF_YJ0&ll=47.72749356729938%2C-122.63093944238278&z=9) for freeway segments and other information beyond legislative actions. If anyone has a suggestion of where to look, I'm all ears.

You've probably thought of this already, but I'd narrow down the dates using historical topographic maps, and then newspapers from the period.  Only the biggest papers will be online, like the Seattle Times and PI, but there are printed indexes to a lot of smaller town papers that may just be on microfilm at big libraries.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 17, 2018, 01:29:49 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 17, 2018, 01:22:12 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 16, 2018, 08:12:12 PM
I'm actually in the middle of rewriting the I-90 entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_90_in_Washington) on Wikipedia, so I had the information handy. Our highway history is rather poorly documented, so I've been scrounging around various sources looking for opening dates (https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1ILxw-86Y1JRTS1ZpEW0zFpF_YJ0&ll=47.72749356729938%2C-122.63093944238278&z=9) for freeway segments and other information beyond legislative actions. If anyone has a suggestion of where to look, I'm all ears.

You've probably thought of this already, but I'd narrow down the dates using historical topographic maps, and then newspapers from the period.  Only the biggest papers will be online, like the Seattle Times and PI, but there are printed indexes to a lot of smaller town papers that may just be on microfilm at big libraries.


That's my exact workflow, for the most part. The Suzzallo Library at UW has the best collection of statewide newspapers on microfilm from what I've seen...even small journals like Ritzville and Okanogan are represented.

And speaking of Ritzville, I just found out that the town put up a few Historic US 10 shields and had their state senator (the Republican leader) fund 14 more (http://ritzvillejournal.com/former-highway-route-to-receive-new-signage-p8983-459.htm).

There's a pair of shields at 1st Avenue and Jackson Street, then one further south near Weber Road.

(https://i.imgur.com/Ttujh0q.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 17, 2018, 07:00:50 PM
My current research roadblock is to figure out when exactly US 10's two alternate routes were approved and signed. Anyone know the dates for these events?

From what I've seen on various sites, US 10 Alt (Seattle-Issaquah, via current SR 900) was signed after the floating bridge opened in 1940 and was removed sometime in the 1950s.

And there's also the other US 10 Alt, which was signed after US 10 was shifted south from Wenatchee to Vantage and the current I-90 corridor (don't have an exact date for this either). US 2 was extended across it in 1946, but apparently it was concurrent for a short while before US 10 Alt disappeared entirely.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: thefraze_1020 on June 17, 2018, 10:34:32 PM
A great resource for Washington's road history (particularly freeway openings) is WSDOT's Library Digital Collections.

I highly recommend checking the opening day materials section.

https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 18, 2018, 02:51:54 AM
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on June 17, 2018, 10:34:32 PM
A great resource for Washington's road history (particularly freeway openings) is WSDOT's Library Digital Collections.

I highly recommend checking the opening day materials section.

https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/

I can't believe I haven't seen this before. Thanks!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: thefraze_1020 on June 18, 2018, 11:37:56 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 17, 2018, 01:29:49 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 17, 2018, 01:22:12 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 16, 2018, 08:12:12 PM
I'm actually in the middle of rewriting the I-90 entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_90_in_Washington) on Wikipedia, so I had the information handy. Our highway history is rather poorly documented, so I've been scrounging around various sources looking for opening dates (https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1ILxw-86Y1JRTS1ZpEW0zFpF_YJ0&ll=47.72749356729938%2C-122.63093944238278&z=9) for freeway segments and other information beyond legislative actions. If anyone has a suggestion of where to look, I'm all ears.

You've probably thought of this already, but I'd narrow down the dates using historical topographic maps, and then newspapers from the period.  Only the biggest papers will be online, like the Seattle Times and PI, but there are printed indexes to a lot of smaller town papers that may just be on microfilm at big libraries.


That's my exact workflow, for the most part. The Suzzallo Library at UW has the best collection of statewide newspapers on microfilm from what I've seen...even small journals like Ritzville and Okanogan are represented.

And speaking of Ritzville, I just found out that the town put up a few Historic US 10 shields and had their state senator (the Republican leader) fund 14 more (http://ritzvillejournal.com/former-highway-route-to-receive-new-signage-p8983-459.htm).

There's a pair of shields at 1st Avenue and Jackson Street, then one further south near Weber Road.

(https://i.imgur.com/Ttujh0q.png)

You betcha! Also, speaking of historic US 10 shields, when I was on vacation around Washington last month, I noticed that Grant County put up two shields on the old highway in Frenchman Coulee.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1721/40866812990_9360687040_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/25gg6HY)IMG_8758 (https://flic.kr/p/25gg6HY) by Cameron Frazer (https://www.flickr.com/photos/146732988@N03/), on Flickr

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1741/42626873502_1e8a9ae39c_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27WMSoS)IMG_8766 (https://flic.kr/p/27WMSoS) by Cameron Frazer (https://www.flickr.com/photos/146732988@N03/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 18, 2018, 03:17:20 PM
From WSDOT Flickr...

The SR-20/Sharpes Corner roundabouts are coming along nicely. The Gibraltar Road roundabout is finished and opened, with final markings installed. The primary two-lane roundabout to the north is still under construction, though it's mostly operational. Impressively quick construction; amazing how fast stuff gets done with good weather:

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1759/41012956270_e9da1517d7_h.jpg)

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/879/41012967960_5cc3117fe0_h.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: thefraze_1020 on June 18, 2018, 05:49:59 PM
Yes and I am thankful it has been progressing so quickly. I work for the city of Anacortes, so I and my co-workers have to navigate this bottleneck almost daily.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 23, 2018, 06:49:35 AM
After a few days of intensive research, I've managed to come up with opening dates for almost all of I-90. Here's a west-to-east list:

I-5 to I-405 via Mercer Island: Technically September 25, 1993, after the re-opening of the eastbound floating bridge; the rest was completed much earlier in 1992

North Bend bypass: October 13, 1978, eliminating the last traffic light between Bellevue and Spokane

North Bend to Denny Creek: October 1959

Denny Creek Viaduct: July 1981, replacing the earlier US 10 alignment on the east side of the valley

Snoqualmie Pass to Easton: October 1959

Easton to Cle Elum: September 30, 1964

Cle Elum to Ellensburg: August 8, 1967

Ellensburg to Vantage: November 20, 1968 (part of I-82's opening)

George to Moses Lake: 1958 (need a more specific date here, though)

Tokio to Fishtrap: November 22, 1968

Fishtrap to Four Lakes: November 18, 1966

Four Lakes to Maple Street (Spokane): December 7, 1965

Maple Street to Pine Street: September 25, 1969

Pine Street to Helena Street: 1971 (again, a more specific date)

Havana Street to Pines Road (SR 27): November 16, 1956, the first segment to open

Pines Road to Greenacres: November 19, 1957

Greenacers to Seaton: October 23, 1964

Seaton to Idaho: July 28, 1977 (after opening of Idaho's Spokane River Bridges)

Just three missing segments, which I hope someone can point out for me:

Factoria/Bellevue to Issaquah

Vantage Bridge to George (SR 281/283) seems to have been built sometime between 1961 and 1967

Moses Lake to Ritzville, sometime after 1967/1968, but finished in time for Expo '74

Helena to Havana Street in Spokane
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: thefraze_1020 on June 23, 2018, 12:29:00 PM
If it helps, I contacted Adams County regarding the bridges on the old highway between Schrag and Ritzville. They sent me documents stating that the ownership transfer from the state to the county occurred in 1973. That indicates to me that I-90 was opened there in late 72 or early 73.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 23, 2018, 06:53:41 PM
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on June 23, 2018, 12:29:00 PM
If it helps, I contacted Adams County regarding the bridges on the old highway between Schrag and Ritzville. They sent me documents stating that the ownership transfer from the state to the county occurred in 1973. That indicates to me that I-90 was opened there in late 72 or early 73.

That helps a lot. I was able to pull up a short Times blurb dated to August 28, 1973:

(https://i.imgur.com/jY5Ywnn.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 24, 2018, 06:43:01 PM
The new Sharpes Corner roundabout on SR 20 is open, and includes signage for U.S. Bike Route 10 and Skagit County's numbered bike routes.

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/884/42923000962_ac44f14bd8_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/28oXALJ)
June 15 through June 22 work (https://flic.kr/p/28oXALJ) by Washington State Dept of Transportation (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/), on Flickr

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/891/29099892398_250b1319a8_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LksybJ)
June 15 through June 22 work (https://flic.kr/p/LksybJ) by Washington State Dept of Transportation (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 24, 2018, 08:59:38 PM
That bike route sign reminds me. I saw a Kitsap county bike route shield, with a county cutout for the shield:

(https://i.imgur.com/otpCLVT.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2018, 10:13:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 24, 2018, 08:59:38 PM
That bike route sign reminds me. I saw a Kitsap county bike route shield, with a county cutout for the shield:

(https://i.imgur.com/otpCLVT.jpg)

Isn't that the one on Silverdale Way and Newberry Hill Road?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 24, 2018, 11:13:33 PM
This appears to be the numbered map (with only 20 to 70): https://www.kitsapgov.com/pw/Documents/Bike_Route_2004.pdf
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on June 24, 2018, 11:27:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 24, 2018, 08:59:38 PM
That bike route sign reminds me. I saw a Kitsap county bike route shield, with a county cutout for the shield:

(https://i.imgur.com/otpCLVT.jpg)

That's wacky.  Even a lot of people who live there won't recognize it from the outline.  Just putting KITSAP COUNTY on the sign would be more recognizable and less expensive.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 24, 2018, 11:47:11 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2018, 10:13:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 24, 2018, 08:59:38 PM
That bike route sign reminds me. I saw a Kitsap county bike route shield, with a county cutout for the shield:

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

Isn't that the one on Silverdale Way and Newberry Hill Road?

Bingo! Just north of the roundabout going southbound.

Quote from: Bruce on June 24, 2018, 11:13:33 PM
This appears to be the numbered map (with only 20 to 70): https://www.kitsapgov.com/pw/Documents/Bike_Route_2004.pdf

Thanks for the map!

Quote from: kkt on June 24, 2018, 11:27:54 PM
That's wacky.  Even a lot of people who live there won't recognize it from the outline.  Just putting KITSAP COUNTY on the sign would be more recognizable and less expensive.

I don't think it's too big of a deal. The number is the most important thing. I'm sure Kitsap residents recognise their own county shape.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Max Rockatansky on June 25, 2018, 12:20:36 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 24, 2018, 11:47:11 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2018, 10:13:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 24, 2018, 08:59:38 PM
That bike route sign reminds me. I saw a Kitsap county bike route shield, with a county cutout for the shield:

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

Isn't that the one on Silverdale Way and Newberry Hill Road?

Bingo! Just north of the roundabout going southbound.

Quote from: Bruce on June 24, 2018, 11:13:33 PM
This appears to be the numbered map (with only 20 to 70): https://www.kitsapgov.com/pw/Documents/Bike_Route_2004.pdf

Thanks for the map!

Quote from: kkt on June 24, 2018, 11:27:54 PM
That's wacky.  Even a lot of people who live there won't recognize it from the outline.  Just putting KITSAP COUNTY on the sign would be more recognizable and less expensive.

I don't think it's too big of a deal. The number is the most important thing. I'm sure Kitsap residents recognise their own county shape.

I kept trying to get a picture of that Route 31 shield the entire week I was up there but kept missing it in traffic.  I must have passed it a dozen times.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 25, 2018, 05:50:37 AM
A Minnesota-style option lane sign has popped up along I-5 near downtown Seattle, for Exit 164. Note the unusual use of an exit tab (a necessity given the design of the sign):

(https://i.imgur.com/1m8TSly.jpg)




A tabbed exit sign has shown up at Hwy 16 and Jackson Ave, north of UP. New sign from the last year: https://goo.gl/9vRS66 -- continues the WSDOT tradition of using multiple weights on one sign  :verymad:

(https://i.imgur.com/aDcqHJD.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on June 25, 2018, 03:16:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 25, 2018, 05:50:37 AM
A Minnesota-style option lane sign has popped up along I-5 near downtown Seattle, for Exit 164. Note the unusual use of an exit tab (a necessity given the design of the sign):

(https://i.imgur.com/1m8TSly.jpg)

You'd think that they would have used an APL sign there.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 25, 2018, 03:42:31 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on June 25, 2018, 03:16:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 25, 2018, 05:50:37 AM
A Minnesota-style option lane sign has popped up along I-5 near downtown Seattle, for Exit 164. Note the unusual use of an exit tab (a necessity given the design of the sign):

https://i.imgur.com/1m8TSly.jpg

You'd think that they would have used an APL sign there.

I thought about that. I would guess, given the number of exit ramps here, it was easier to use down arrows instead. I certainly could have come up with an APL that would have fit.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: MNHighwayMan on June 25, 2018, 09:52:26 PM
Is it just me or does the kerning on that sign look a little too tight?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 25, 2018, 10:19:32 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on June 25, 2018, 09:52:26 PM
Is it just me or does the kerning on that sign look a little too tight?

That's been a WSDOT thing lately. Mostly on arterials and smaller signs, though. Shouldn't have made its way on to a freeway sign.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 06, 2018, 03:03:34 PM
A one-vehicle crash on SR 99 knocked down a sign gantry in south Seattle.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhbdRcmVMAIbedi.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dhb7sYgX0AEj7AM.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on July 06, 2018, 04:16:17 PM
That driver is going to have a heck of a bill.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 06, 2018, 05:52:31 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 06, 2018, 04:16:17 PM
That driver is going to have a heck of a bill.

I'm sure insurance would cover it?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Max Rockatansky on July 06, 2018, 06:07:00 PM
Wouldn't mind having the "99 North Seattle"  in my back yard. 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on July 07, 2018, 09:05:27 PM
Today I noticed this greenout for Washington SR 900 on I-405.  This would be for West 900, a pair of one-way couplets through downtown Renton.  East 900 multiplexes near here until the next exit.  This greened out section of 900 is still on SR Web.  Where else would I go to find the latest information about deleted sections of Washington State Highways?

900 functions as a highway between Rainier Avenue and Interstate 5, but seems more like a local street through downtown Renton.  I don't know of many motorists who would treat the downtown section of 900 as a thru highway, so perhaps it's just as well that it's being decertified.  Renton is trying to kick the transit center out of downtown so it can turn 3rd Street (eastbound 900) into a street that can be easily closed for festivals.  Perhaps this is the first sign of this happening.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1810/29396498288_cb6daee461.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LMEJMo)SR 900 Greenout (https://flic.kr/p/LMEJMo) by Arthur Allen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 07, 2018, 10:20:35 PM
Off-topic, but where did you photograph the "Road to be Extended" sign in your avatar?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 07, 2018, 11:01:27 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 07, 2018, 10:20:35 PM
Off-topic, but where did you photograph the "Road to be Extended" sign in your avatar?

As you might imagine, judging the number on the sign, somewhere in the 425. But those signs are all over Pierce County. I could have several photos for you by tomorrow.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 07, 2018, 11:43:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 07, 2018, 11:01:27 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 07, 2018, 10:20:35 PM
Off-topic, but where did you photograph the "Road to be Extended" sign in your avatar?

As you might imagine, judging the number on the sign, somewhere in the 425. But those signs are all over Pierce County. I could have several photos for you by tomorrow.

Do share a few locations, especially if I can reach them by bus. I've been meaning to travel down there for a few errands soon.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on July 07, 2018, 11:47:08 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 07, 2018, 10:20:35 PM
Off-topic, but where did you photograph the "Road to be Extended" sign in your avatar?

Redmond. (https://goo.gl/maps/MWJKmFyyc242)  They were waiting for the railroad to be abandoned before they extended it.  There is still another sign existing a few miles away. (https://goo.gl/maps/qoTWaBMf9YS2)

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/959/27270202897_66ec135763.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HxLVf2)Road to be extended in the future (https://flic.kr/p/HxLVf2) by Arthur Allen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 08, 2018, 02:09:41 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 07, 2018, 11:43:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 07, 2018, 11:01:27 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 07, 2018, 10:20:35 PM
Off-topic, but where did you photograph the "Road to be Extended" sign in your avatar?

As you might imagine, judging the number on the sign, somewhere in the 425. But those signs are all over Pierce County. I could have several photos for you by tomorrow.

Do share a few locations, especially if I can reach them by bus. I've been meaning to travel down there for a few errands soon.

I'm sure there are more, but here's three. Turns out, it's not a Pierce County thing (I think -- need more time to be sure), but rather a Puyallup thing.

Roads ending at those red and white chevron signs are very common in Puyallup; roads are often designed to be extended, though I'm not sure if there are any finite plans for them:

23 Pl SE: https://goo.gl/sHpQsD

12 Ave SE/22 St SE: https://goo.gl/u9rKrE

47 Ave SE (should still be there -- road wasn't completely finished through): https://goo.gl/htqsVq

There might be one here, farther south in unincorporated Pierce County, but I'm not 100% sure: https://goo.gl/LC3y68 (nothing there; 9 July 2018)

There are a lot of roads in Pierce County that were very clearly designed to extend beyond their current terminus. I'm not sure how common this type of situation is up north.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 09, 2018, 02:02:35 AM
Here's one of these City of Puyallup-installed "Road to be extended in the future" signs. This one is brand new, near the current dead end of 47 Ave SE behind the YMCA: https://goo.gl/Q3dLKe (Google Earth satellite only).

The city has started putting the message on the pavement as well! :-D The one on 23 Pl SE in the valley had this message on the ground as well, but I did not get a good picture.

(FWIW, the city has switched back to using FHWA on their less common signage)

(https://i.imgur.com/cs0PC8P.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: mrsman on July 24, 2018, 07:59:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 07, 2018, 11:01:27 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 07, 2018, 10:20:35 PM
Off-topic, but where did you photograph the "Road to be Extended" sign in your avatar?

As you might imagine, judging the number on the sign, somewhere in the 425. But those signs are all over Pierce County. I could have several photos for you by tomorrow.

An interesting harbinger for good things to come.  Must be a local practice.   Don't know of such signs being signed near where I live.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 01:53:44 AM
Quote from: mrsman on July 24, 2018, 07:59:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 07, 2018, 11:01:27 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 07, 2018, 10:20:35 PM
Off-topic, but where did you photograph the "Road to be Extended" sign in your avatar?

As you might imagine, judging the number on the sign, somewhere in the 425. But those signs are all over Pierce County. I could have several photos for you by tomorrow.

An interesting harbinger for good things to come.  Must be a local practice.   Don't know of such signs being signed near where I live.

I do find the sign to be quite odd. Because if any plans change, you've presented this false hope to the nearby community that a missing connection might one day be filled. If you don't publicize your plans, at least you can cancel them without anybody getting angry. Several of the ones that I know of have been in place for easily two decades. Probably longer. I think, eventually, people start to give up. Although the one I posted directly above is brand-new, so clearly the city of Puyallup is following through, to some degree.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: MNHighwayMan on July 25, 2018, 02:22:35 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 01:53:44 AM
I do find the sign to be quite odd. Because if any plans change, you've presented this false hope to the nearby community that a missing connection might one day be filled. If you don't publicize your plans, at least you can cancel them without anybody getting angry. Several of the ones that I know of have been in place for easily two decades. Probably longer. I think, eventually, people start to give up. Although the one I posted directly above is brand-new, so clearly the city of Puyallup is following through, to some degree.

The thing is, whenever I see a road like that, where the pavement and curb suddenly ends, and has red reflectors on the end, I assume that that means it's intended to be extended someday. I don't need a sign to tell that to me, because with the way things are set up, somewhat prepped and ready for additional road to be added on, I just expect that it will happen.

Now obviously, sometimes plans change and that temporary end becomes a little more permanent, but I still know that the intention was once there, at least.

That, combined with the potential for false promises, just makes the sign seem wholly unnecessary (never mind going through the effort of printing it onto the road surface :eyebrow:). Just put up the red reflector barriers and call it a day.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 02:55:12 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on July 25, 2018, 02:22:35 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 01:53:44 AM
I do find the sign to be quite odd. Because if any plans change, you've presented this false hope to the nearby community that a missing connection might one day be filled. If you don't publicize your plans, at least you can cancel them without anybody getting angry. Several of the ones that I know of have been in place for easily two decades. Probably longer. I think, eventually, people start to give up. Although the one I posted directly above is brand-new, so clearly the city of Puyallup is following through, to some degree.

The thing is, whenever I see a road like that, where the pavement and curb suddenly ends, and has red reflectors on the end, I assume that that means it's intended to be extended someday. I don't need a sign to tell that to me, because with the way things are set up, somewhat prepped and ready for additional road to be added on, I just expect that it will happen.

Now obviously, sometimes plans change and that temporary end becomes a little more permanent, but I still know that the intention was once there, at least.

That, combined with the potential for false promises, just makes the sign seem wholly unnecessary (never mind going through the effort of printing it onto the road surface :eyebrow:). Just put up the red reflector barriers and call it a day.

I'm not quite sure I agree. Those red barriers are more often used in my area to warn that a road ends, not to warn drivers that the road ends and that it will one day continue. Sometimes, there isn't room for a cul-de-sac, so you end up having to use those barriers to tell drivers to slow down and turn around, even if it's awkward. I've also seen them used when a road ends and there's some "geographical" barriers to keep one from continuing (such as trees, a lake, or a cliff).

There are some examples of the sign being used where the plan to continue the road is blatantly obvious (the picture above, for example), but the sign has been used at dead-ends where plans weren't so obvious: https://goo.gl/u9rKrE --&-- https://goo.gl/pnTKQJ. The first is on a curve, the second on a cul-de-sac.

FWIW, I have never seen the message printed on the road surface before. I don't think that's necessary either. But it's cool!

All told, the sign is clearly not necessary. Puyallup is the only city that I know of anywhere (now, Renton and Redmond had examples), so most agencies clearly don't see any value in it. But it doesn't hurt to keep the public in the loop.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: MNHighwayMan on July 25, 2018, 03:00:42 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 02:55:12 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on July 25, 2018, 02:22:35 PM
The thing is, whenever I see a road like that, where the pavement and curb suddenly ends, and has red reflectors on the end, I assume that that means it's intended to be extended someday. I don't need a sign to tell that to me, because with the way things are set up, somewhat prepped and ready for additional road to be added on, I just expect that it will happen.

Now obviously, sometimes plans change and that temporary end becomes a little more permanent, but I still know that the intention was once there, at least.

That, combined with the potential for false promises, just makes the sign seem wholly unnecessary (never mind going through the effort of printing it onto the road surface :eyebrow:). Just put up the red reflector barriers and call it a day.
I'm not quite sure I agree. Those red barriers are more often used in my area to warn that a road ends, not to warn drivers that the road ends and that it will one day continue. Sometimes, there isn't room for a cul-de-sac, so you end up having to use those barriers to tell drivers to slow down and turn around, even if it's awkward. I've also seen them used when a road ends and there's some "geographical" barriers to keep one from continuing (such as trees, a lake, or a cliff).

There are some examples of the sign being used where the plan to continue the road is blatantly obvious (the picture above, for example), but the sign has been used at dead-ends where plans weren't so obvious: https://goo.gl/u9rKrE --&-- https://goo.gl/pnTKQJ. The first is on a curve, the second on a cul-de-sac.

FWIW, I have never seen the message printed on the road surface before. I don't think that's necessary either. But it's cool!

All told, the sign is clearly not necessary. Puyallup is the only city that I know of anywhere (now, Renton and Redmond had examples), so most agencies clearly don't see any value in it. But it doesn't hurt to keep the public in the loop.

Well, in those examples, it's far less obvious, although that first example where there's clearly a marked off right-of-way (a given by how the edges are fenced off by the adjacent property owners) at least gives a hint of the idea.

I just don't think putting up signs saying "Hey, eventually there'll be a road here!" is at all necessary.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 03:07:28 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on July 25, 2018, 03:00:42 PM
I just don't think putting up signs saying "Hey, eventually there'll be a road here!" is at all necessary.

If you lived in an area where traffic sucked as much as it does here, you'd understand why local agencies like to assure their residents that they are doing something to improve the situation.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on July 25, 2018, 09:01:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 03:07:28 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on July 25, 2018, 03:00:42 PM
I just don't think putting up signs saying "Hey, eventually there'll be a road here!" is at all necessary.

If you lived in an area where traffic sucked as much as it does here, you'd understand why local agencies like to assure their residents that they are doing something to improve the situation.

There are quite a few places in CA, many within shouting distance of my residence, where if a sign such as this were erected, the outcry against such a road (any road) would commence in very short order, regardless of whether it was a goat path or a freeway.  Besides the usual supply-and-demand equation, there's a reason why (relatively) rationally-priced development is centered 50 miles east of here.  Dozens of miles of streets within housing tracts in places like Lathrop, Manteca, and Ripon are constructed to accommodate the Bay Area's "affordable" housing needs -- and that doesn't provoke much if any reaction from localized "growth control" activists -- out of sight, out of mind! 

At least you folks in WA can project and even publicize roads that aren't in Ellensburg or points east of there!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 25, 2018, 09:26:21 PM
I am personally not a fan of roads being built all over the place, and endless widening, but the public up here (in the suburbs, which is where these signs are, not really Seattle) seem to like that. Fill this missing connection here...widen this road here...rebuild this intersection here...etc. I can only assume that these signs are a way to appease those who appreciate missing connections being filled. Growing up really quite close to where many of these signs are, I can say for certain that even the most liberal of Puyallup residents appreciate connections being filled, since they connect two areas that are currently disconnected for all modes of transport. Yes, any new road is going to invite more cars, but it also invites all types of users, so long as the road is properly designed.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 26, 2018, 03:49:59 AM
Doing some newspaper dumpster diving and found an interesting fact: I-5 between Mountlake Terrace and Everett was designed for 80 mph (and tested by The Times's reporters at that speed).

(https://i.imgur.com/plPdRTs.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 26, 2018, 04:10:18 AM
Quote from: Bruce on July 26, 2018, 03:49:59 AM
Doing some newspaper dumpster diving and found an interesting fact: I-5 between Mountlake Terrace and Everett was designed for 80 mph (and tested by The Times's reporters at that speed).

https://i.imgur.com/plPdRTs.png

Nice find. Of course, the traffic is so shitty these days, it would be hard to ever raise it beyond 60. Maybe, if we can get ATM systems installed on all of our freeways, we could have 70 limits during off-peak hours again.

Hard to believe it used to be 70 through places like Lynnwood and Martha Lake; Historic Aerials suggests it was nearly as suburban as it was today (at least closer to Mountlake Terrace), yet 70 was no issue. I can't help but think it would still be 70 if not for the NSL.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 26, 2018, 05:55:22 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 26, 2018, 04:10:18 AM
Quote from: Bruce on July 26, 2018, 03:49:59 AM
Doing some newspaper dumpster diving and found an interesting fact: I-5 between Mountlake Terrace and Everett was designed for 80 mph (and tested by The Times's reporters at that speed).

https://i.imgur.com/plPdRTs.png

Nice find. Of course, the traffic is so shitty these days, it would be hard to ever raise it beyond 60. Maybe, if we can get ATM systems installed on all of our freeways, we could have 70 limits during off-peak hours again.

Hard to believe it used to be 70 through places like Lynnwood and Martha Lake; Historic Aerials suggests it was nearly as suburban as it was today (at least closer to Mountlake Terrace), yet 70 was no issue. I can't help but think it would still be 70 if not for the NSL.

While it seems that way, most of those homes were on much larger lots and there was a lot less traffic from lateral communities to compete with. Snohomish County didn't experience its first real boom until Boeing set up shop in 1967.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 26, 2018, 02:18:53 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 26, 2018, 05:55:22 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 26, 2018, 04:10:18 AM
Quote from: Bruce on July 26, 2018, 03:49:59 AM
Doing some newspaper dumpster diving and found an interesting fact: I-5 between Mountlake Terrace and Everett was designed for 80 mph (and tested by The Times's reporters at that speed).

https://i.imgur.com/plPdRTs.png

Nice find. Of course, the traffic is so shitty these days, it would be hard to ever raise it beyond 60. Maybe, if we can get ATM systems installed on all of our freeways, we could have 70 limits during off-peak hours again.

Hard to believe it used to be 70 through places like Lynnwood and Martha Lake; Historic Aerials suggests it was nearly as suburban as it was today (at least closer to Mountlake Terrace), yet 70 was no issue. I can't help but think it would still be 70 if not for the NSL.

While it seems that way, most of those homes were on much larger lots and there was a lot less traffic from lateral communities to compete with. Snohomish County didn't experience its first real boom until Boeing set up shop in 1967.

I see, good point. Hell, the 405 just ends at I-5 in the aerials I'm looking at. If that doesn't say how quiet the north used to be, I don't know what does. There wasn't even a Boeing Freeway yet (although I can see it being built in 1969).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 08, 2018, 04:16:14 AM
Does anyone know of any photo evidence of Sea-Tac's name change in 1983? It was changed to Henry M Jackson International Airport, apparently for a very brief period (Sep '83 to Feb '84), but the name was official for some time.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Shades101 on August 08, 2018, 04:59:46 PM
Anybody have any idea what all the blank sign gantries over the left lanes on I-5 South in the north Seattle area are from? Streetview shows them as being blank as far back as 2008.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 09, 2018, 02:03:43 AM
Quote from: Shades101 on August 08, 2018, 04:59:46 PM
Anybody have any idea what all the blank sign gantries over the left lanes on I-5 South in the north Seattle area are from? Streetview shows them as being blank as far back as 2008.

I see three unusued partial-width inside-aligned gantries on I-5 between Lynnwood and the Ship Canal. Historic imagery suggests they became unused between 2003 and 2005.

There's one over northbound 5 near Northgate (blank for at least ten years): https://goo.gl/L3XPdP

There's also this one along southbound 5 near the Metro base exit: https://goo.gl/b8AgXT (blank for 10+ years)

Also this one near NE 195 St: https://goo.gl/xyHoia (blank for 10+ years)

Unfortunately, I don't have any answer. It's possible that they were the gantries for HOV signage, but I don't know why they'd remove the signs. Unless, the gantries became unsafe and the signs were removed to reduce weight load. Of course, if that were the case, they should have removed the gantries.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on August 09, 2018, 11:38:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 08, 2018, 04:16:14 AM
Does anyone know of any photo evidence of Sea-Tac's name change in 1983? It was changed to Henry M Jackson International Airport, apparently for a very brief period (Sep '83 to Feb '84), but the name was official for some time.

I thought I remembered seeing a picture in the paper at the time, though I haven't found the picture in a search of the Seattle Times.  I did find an article that said they only changed four signs on surface streets.  I also remember that Metro transit was changing their destination display rolls at the time, so they put the new airport name into the rolls.  Ever since then, when you saw a driver scroll through the rolls you could see where "Sea-Tac Airport" was spliced back in.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 10, 2018, 12:43:33 AM
Anyone know when State Route 240 was built in Richland and Kennewick? I've been trying to track down the opening dates for the Richland By-Pass Highway (sometime in the 1940s, perhaps during the war?) and the freeway section (signed as US 410/US 12, possibly built in tandem with the Blue Bridge in the early 1950s), but haven't found much luck. The NBI for the overpasses is pretty incomplete and gives varying years for each interchange.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 10, 2018, 03:39:06 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on August 09, 2018, 11:38:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 08, 2018, 04:16:14 AM
Does anyone know of any photo evidence of Sea-Tac's name change in 1983? It was changed to Henry M Jackson International Airport, apparently for a very brief period (Sep '83 to Feb '84), but the name was official for some time.

I thought I remembered seeing a picture in the paper at the time, though I haven't found the picture in a search of the Seattle Times.  I did find an article that said they only changed four signs on surface streets.  I also remember that Metro transit was changing their destination display rolls at the time, so they put the new airport name into the rolls.  Ever since then, when you saw a driver scroll through the rolls you could see where "Sea-Tac Airport" was spliced back in.

Oh, interesting! I didn't think there would be too many changes in such a short period of time; it's cool that at least a few signs were changed. I guess only a small group of people can claim they flew through "Henry M Jackson International"!




Quote from: Bruce on August 10, 2018, 12:43:33 AM
Anyone know when State Route 240 was built in Richland and Kennewick? I've been trying to track down the opening dates for the Richland By-Pass Highway (sometime in the 1940s, perhaps during the war?) and the freeway section (signed as US 410/US 12, possibly built in tandem with the Blue Bridge in the early 1950s), but haven't found much luck. The NBI for the overpasses is pretty incomplete and gives varying years for each interchange.

It was evidently built far earlier than I expected. Usually going on to historic aerials, I can at least pinpoint the time of construction, between the aerial shot of no freeway, and the aerial shot of the freeway post-construction. But the images I'm looking at of Richland show that freeway being there since at least the mid 60s, with no earlier photos or maps.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: thefraze_1020 on August 10, 2018, 10:57:32 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 10, 2018, 12:43:33 AM
Anyone know when State Route 240 was built in Richland and Kennewick? I've been trying to track down the opening dates for the Richland By-Pass Highway (sometime in the 1940s, perhaps during the war?) and the freeway section (signed as US 410/US 12, possibly built in tandem with the Blue Bridge in the early 1950s), but haven't found much luck. The NBI for the overpasses is pretty incomplete and gives varying years for each interchange.

Go to WSDOT's archives website. Viewing their collection of opening day pamphlets, I can tell you that SR 240 from its junction with SR 24 (just south of Vernita Bridge) to the Horn Rapids area opened July 14, 1965 (see https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll3/id/93/rec/12). The portion from N Richland Road to Stevens Drive opened June 20, 1968 (see https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll3/id/107/rec/63).

When consulting the bridge log from 1966 (on the same website), the original overpass at what is now the Columbia Park Trail interchange (called "SR 240" on the bridge list) was built in 1952, the first Columbia Center Blvd overpass (called "Colorado Street") was built in 1960, and the US 395 overpass (called "SR 12") was built in 1953. The Blue Bridge itself was opened in 1954. I have a hunch that the portion of SR 240 that was originally US 410 (from Columbia Park Trail to US 395) likely was built circa 1952-1954. I would be surprised if it was opened before the Blue Bridge opened. Thus, I would guess the whole road section opened in 1954.

As for the Bypass Highway (SR 240 from I-182 north to where it turns left towards the Vernita Bridge), I do not have an answer right now but I would advise you to browse WSDOT's archives, especially old issues of "Washington Highway News" from the 1950's. The link is here: https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll1
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on August 10, 2018, 11:49:23 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 10, 2018, 12:43:33 AM
Anyone know when State Route 240 was built in Richland and Kennewick? I've been trying to track down the opening dates for the Richland By-Pass Highway (sometime in the 1940s, perhaps during the war?) and the freeway section (signed as US 410/US 12, possibly built in tandem with the Blue Bridge in the early 1950s), but haven't found much luck. The NBI for the overpasses is pretty incomplete and gives varying years for each interchange.

I had suspected the bypass opened no sooner than the railroad along side the bypass opened.  If you look at older railroad maps of Hanford you will see that at first the only railroad access was the Milwaukee Road from the north.  I thought perhaps sometime in the late 60s to early 70s, the Department of Energy realized that the Milwaukee Road was going out of business, and they needed rail access from another carrier, passing through the Tri-Cities to the south.  I just checked and found from this source (http://www.historylink.org/File/10804) that the Southern Connection rail was completed in 1950.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 11, 2018, 12:54:06 AM
If I'm posting here, then I have already exhausted the WSDOT Digital Collection or HistoricArchives.com, just FYI.

I contacted the Mid-Columbia Library and they got back to me with a few newspaper clippings from 1948 that mention the recent completion of the bypass. Tracking down the freeway sections will be a little more difficult, it seems.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 11, 2018, 02:54:37 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 08, 2018, 02:09:41 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 07, 2018, 11:43:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 07, 2018, 11:01:27 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 07, 2018, 10:20:35 PM
Off-topic, but where did you photograph the "Road to be Extended" sign in your avatar?

As you might imagine, judging the number on the sign, somewhere in the 425. But those signs are all over Pierce County. I could have several photos for you by tomorrow.

Do share a few locations, especially if I can reach them by bus. I've been meaning to travel down there for a few errands soon.

I'm sure there are more, but here's three. Turns out, it's not a Pierce County thing (I think -- need more time to be sure), but rather a Puyallup thing.

Roads ending at those red and white chevron signs are very common in Puyallup; roads are often designed to be extended, though I'm not sure if there are any finite plans for them:

23 Pl SE: https://goo.gl/sHpQsD

12 Ave SE/22 St SE: https://goo.gl/u9rKrE

47 Ave SE (should still be there -- road wasn't completely finished through): https://goo.gl/htqsVq

There might be one here, farther south in unincorporated Pierce County, but I'm not 100% sure: https://goo.gl/LC3y68 (nothing there; 9 July 2018)

There are a lot of roads in Pierce County that were very clearly designed to extend beyond their current terminus. I'm not sure how common this type of situation is up north.

Bruce,

To follow up on this post, I found another of these "ROAD TO BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE" signs in unincorporated Pierce County: https://goo.gl/u59FmG (176 St @ 63 Ave).

I was really sure that Pierce County had used the sign before, so I'm glad I wasn't going completely insane. Every other one I've found has been a Puyallup install. Weirdly enough, that left turn arrow (acting as a U-turn for traffic along 176 St) was recently changed to a U-turn signal, so perhaps they're not as confident in their plans as they once were (though the sign was only installed in the last few years).

Sort of related, about 20 blocks east, there is this left/right in, right-out intersection at 86 Ave, where masts have been put up for future signals along 176 St (https://goo.gl/9Y3EB2). The signal was clearly not installed, but if you follow 86 Ave to the north, there is clearly some reserved ROW for a future connection to 170 St. While there is no sign like above, there is a less-friendly "NO TRESPASSING" sign at the end of the street north of 176 St indicating that the property is county-owned.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on August 12, 2018, 07:47:32 PM
Well, I'll be darned.  The 1951 topo map of Richland shows a pre-divided Bypass, but no railroad.  The plot thickens.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1796/42194732960_61e96db5b4_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27hB34S)Richland Bypass Topo 1951 (https://flic.kr/p/27hB34S) by Arthur Allen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 15, 2018, 02:17:00 AM
Came across something interesting while poking around some of the Hanford-area highways: the site itself has its own internal numbered highway system (as described in this technical report (https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-6415rev16.pdf)).

Highway 11A seems to be directly referencing the old Secondary State Highway 11A, which ran across the Hanford site until 1943; the rest of 11A became SR 24 in 1964.

(https://i.imgur.com/bXbwWF7.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/DjdCcqz.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 15, 2018, 03:46:20 AM
SR 500 in Vancouver will be converted to a full freeway this fall. The final two signals at Falk Road and Stapleton Road will be eliminated by extending the median barrier across the intersection, making them effective RIRO interchanges. No immediate plans for pedestrian access at Stapleton, but Falk Road has a pedestrian overpass to maintain that connection. Acceleration and deceleration lanes will be put in place.

No plans for full-access interchanges for the time being. $80 million that the DOT does not yet have.

https://goo.gl/9NeKRj

Quote from: WSDOT
In collaboration with the City of Vancouver, Clark County, C-TRAN and the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council, the design was chosen because it balances significant safety improvements to SR 500, while maintaining some connectivity to SR 500 from local streets.

"With nearly 400 crashes occurring on SR 500 near these intersections over five years, we believe it's our responsibility to do something to improve safety,"  said Carley Francis, WSDOT Southwest Region Planning Director. "These improvements are relatively low cost, can be implemented rather quickly, and will significantly improve safety on SR 500."
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on August 15, 2018, 06:42:11 PM
I predict an edit war on that last segment of 500 on OSM... :meh:
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 15, 2018, 08:42:48 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on August 15, 2018, 06:42:11 PM
I predict an edit war on that last segment of 500 on OSM... :meh:

I thought about that. Serious point of contention not that long ago. No one tell Baloo! I think it's safe to label the whole thing as motorway now. Though I think it should have been totally motorway before, anyways, since WSDOT considered it to be one.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on August 16, 2018, 02:21:37 PM
I'd wait until the intersections become RIROs before making the change.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 16, 2018, 03:11:33 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on August 16, 2018, 02:21:37 PM
I'd wait until the intersections become RIROs before making the change.

Oh sorry, "now" meaning after WSDOT makes the change. Not such great wording, there...
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 21, 2018, 09:45:39 PM
And speaking of SR 500, does anyone know when exactly when it was built? The USGS topo archive suggests that the I-205 interchange (and only the interchange) was built by 1977, and the whole expressway was completed a few years later.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 01, 2018, 12:55:39 AM
The Denny Way overpass, as used by civil rights protesters on April 7, 1968. A nice I-5 shield assembly is just off to the side.

(https://i.imgur.com/Y63fs4o.jpg)

And now, that stretch of Denny has a red bus lane and a few updated state-name shields.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1841/30529779248_1b58593bc7_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/NvP6Jh)
Denny Way bus lane (https://flic.kr/p/NvP6Jh) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on September 11, 2018, 10:28:34 PM
I just noticed on WSDOT's website that they have put up a page on widening the I-405 express toll lanes between SR 522 and SR 527 (https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/i405/sr-522-sr-527/home). They will obviously be rebuilding the interchange with SR 522 to accommodate an additional lane in each direction. They're going to be essentially making the interchange with SR 522 no longer be fully free flowing; I guess this is cheaper and requires less ROW acquisition. Here's a picture from their website:
(https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2018/08/23/I405-SR522-Concept.png)

I sort of have mixed feelings about it. I'm glad they're widening the NB->EB ramp to two lanes as it really needed it. I'm also glad they're adding direct access to the express toll lanes; this will probably result in less weaving south of the interchange. However, it looks like this design will result in three new traffic signals being added to SR 522. I'm just hoping that this won't cause too much backup on 522. Part of me thinks it won't be too bad considering that (per my estimate) 60% of traffic on WB 522 does not continue on that highway west of I-405, but then again, I'm always skeptical when it comes to adding additional traffic signals. To me, traffic signals are at best a necessary evil. But hey, this will save money that can actually go towards maintenance.

Anyway, they also posted a picture showing a new direct-access ramp at the 527 interchange. I think it looks quite nice, but I'm really hoping they can leave enough room to add a second express toll lane. Unfortunately it doesn't quite look that way in this picture:
(https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2018/08/23/I405-SR527-Concept.png)

Anyway, I'm glad to see that they have finally put forth improvements to this part of I-405.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 11, 2018, 10:51:00 PM
Note that SR 522 isn't a freeway west of I-405, so the signals wouldn't be drastically worse than current conditions. As long as the north-to-east connections are grade-separated, it's fine.

These projects are all being done for the I-405 BRT project using Sound Transit funds, but WSDOT is obviously taking the lead on designing ramps (as it's their jurisdiction). I'm not too fond of splitting the existing pedestrian bridge and forcing pedestrians to endure a longer and noisier walk, but at least the buses won't have to weave in and out at this one interchange (the others haven't been fully designed yet, and I fear that serving UW Bothell will be complicated).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 11, 2018, 11:56:29 PM
Does anyone know where this pedestrian overpass was located? Spotted it in a 1970 issue of Washington Highways and it was apparently on I-5 in Seattle, but there's none of this design. Closest is 192nd, which has a different type of column.

(https://i.imgur.com/7KS1N4U.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on September 12, 2018, 12:15:05 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 11, 2018, 11:56:29 PM
Does anyone know where this pedestrian overpass was located? Spotted it in a 1970 issue of Washington Highways and it was apparently on I-5 in Seattle, but there's none of this design. Closest is 192nd, which has a different type of column.

https://i.imgur.com/7KS1N4U.png

North of S 38th Street in Tacoma.  It's since been replaced by a different pedestrian bridge to the south. (https://goo.gl/maps/gecrxgURw7U2)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on September 12, 2018, 12:35:47 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on September 12, 2018, 12:15:05 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 11, 2018, 11:56:29 PM
Does anyone know where this pedestrian overpass was located? Spotted it in a 1970 issue of Washington Highways and it was apparently on I-5 in Seattle, but there's none of this design. Closest is 192nd, which has a different type of column.

https://i.imgur.com/7KS1N4U.png

North of S 38th Street in Tacoma.  It's since been replaced by a different pedestrian bridge to the south. (https://goo.gl/maps/gecrxgURw7U2)

It's odd that they wouldn't say "Tacoma", especially since it's a Washington-specific newsletter. Nevertheless, that's definitely the right overpass (and oddly, the one I'm most familiar with).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 12, 2018, 02:08:00 AM
Thanks.

In return, I present a good find from a 1969 issue of Washington Highways, which lays out some of the rough opening dates for sections of I-5:

(https://i.imgur.com/nbB1l36.jpg)

There's a few typos in there (including a few switched lines), but otherwise it backs up newspaper records I have scoured for.

So far, I've tracked down the opening dates for all the urban sections of I-5, but I still have gaps for some of the rural sections, namely Salmon Creek (I-205) to Kelso and Marysville to Alger (ironically, a stretch I drive often).

If anyone has similar lists for I-82 and I-90, I'd love to see them (especially the former). I've been picking away at its Wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_82) for a few months and so far haven't found solid sources for any of the sections between Union Gap and the Umatilla Bridge, beyond some general years. There's apparently an online archive of newspaper articles at the Mid-Columbia Library, but it is one of the only libraries in the state that doesn't have a reciprocal agreement...so I'd have to pony up some cash for a card.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 12, 2018, 03:01:21 AM
Two interchange notes from Marysville:

There's a long-range proposal to rebuild Exit 199 and widen SR 528, but without rebuilding the overpasses, like so:

(https://i.imgur.com/R0eK7IQ.jpg)

Just to the south, there's a funded plan to build new ramps for SR 529 and this report includes some conceptual signage:

(https://i.imgur.com/QyWuTo7.png)

The "Next 2 exits" sign would be misleading, though, since Marysville stretches for 7 miles along I-5 and will have 6 exits by the time the last interchange is built under Connecting WA.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on September 12, 2018, 08:31:29 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 11, 2018, 10:51:00 PM
Note that SR 522 isn't a freeway west of I-405, so the signals wouldn't be drastically worse than current conditions. As long as the north-to-east connections are grade-separated, it's fine.
Yeah, I'm hoping this won't be too bad. The only ramps that will have lights are the ones that don't get as much use. We'll wait and see, and hope that the lights get synchronized (the cynic in me is thinking that this won't happen).

Quote from: Bruce on September 11, 2018, 10:51:00 PM
These projects are all being done for the I-405 BRT project using Sound Transit funds, but WSDOT is obviously taking the lead on designing ramps (as it's their jurisdiction). I'm not too fond of splitting the existing pedestrian bridge and forcing pedestrians to endure a longer and noisier walk, but at least the buses won't have to weave in and out at this one interchange (the others haven't been fully designed yet, and I fear that serving UW Bothell will be complicated).

Yeah, I didn't notice the thing with the pedestrian bridge. How are people going to get across the freeway now? Is there a crosswalk planned to go across the freeway station?

Quote from: Bruce on September 12, 2018, 03:01:21 AM
Two interchange notes from Marysville:

There's a long-range proposal to rebuild Exit 199 and widen SR 528, but without rebuilding the overpasses, like so:
Wow, I'm impressed that they can fit that many lanes in there without having to rebuild those overpasses. Had to check Street View to verify whether they could do this. I like the idea of putting one of the lanes between the bridge pylons and the abutments.

Quote from: Bruce on September 11, 2018, 10:51:00 PM
Just to the south, there's a funded plan to build new ramps for SR 529 and this report includes some conceptual signage:

I'm glad that they're doing this. It will allow traffic going into Marysville to avoid having to cross over those RR tracks. I'm surprised they didn't do it sooner.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 13, 2018, 02:47:42 AM
March 28, 1967 article in the Seattle Times claims that 400-500 signs were installed in downtown in preparation for the opening of I-5's southern leg (in January 1967, from Dearborn Street to SR 516).

(https://i.imgur.com/Ea9glzb.png)

I wonder how many originals remain.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: nexus73 on September 13, 2018, 11:17:32 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 13, 2018, 02:47:42 AM
March 28, 1967 article in the Seattle Times claims that 400-500 signs were installed in downtown in preparation for the opening of I-5's southern leg (in January 1967, from Dearborn Street to SR 516).

(https://i.imgur.com/Ea9glzb.png)

I wonder how many originals remain.

When I lived in Seattle for the summer of 1975, I was impressed by the amount of I-5 trailblazer signs in that city.  They struck me as a good idea.  I wonder how many other cities deluged the motoring public with them?  Put me in an unfamiliar place and I love having lots of signs around to guide me.

Rick
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 16, 2018, 02:05:31 AM
I've been reading into some of the legislature's exact wordings for highway definitions and was surprised to find that the south end of SR 99 was planned to be truncated to Federal Way when the freeway portion of SR 509 was originally planned to be completed in the 1980s. That didn't pan out until now, but the provision remains on the books...so potentially SR 99 could get pruned after the Gateway Program is completed.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=47.17.160
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on September 16, 2018, 02:13:18 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 16, 2018, 02:05:31 AM
I've been reading into some of the legislature's exact wordings for highway definitions and was surprised to find that the south end of SR 99 was planned to be truncated to Federal Way when the freeway portion of SR 509 was originally planned to be completed in the 1980s. That didn't pan out until now, but the provision remains on the books...so potentially SR 99 could get pruned after the Gateway Program is completed.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=47.17.160

I seem to recall a rather grand plan, where the 509 extended all the way into Federal Way (via what must have been a pretty steep grade), replacing S 348 St.

I remember reading this RCW before, and doing a double take, since that freeway would run through [what is today] a series of very tightly-packed suburban estates.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on September 17, 2018, 03:00:27 AM
I was looking at Sound Transit's I-405 BRT project page (https://www.soundtransit.org/projects-and-plans/bus-rapid-transit-i-405/document-archive) and I found some proposals for a complete reconstruction of the I-405 interchange with NE 85th Street in Kirkland. It's currently a cloverleaf, but the plan is to convert it to a three level roundabout which reminds me a lot of the ones that are scattered around the UK. The bottom level is NE 85th Street, and it is a dogbone interchange with the main lanes for I-405. The middle level is the actual UK-style roundabout interchange with the express toll lanes on I-405. There are also bus stops on that level. Finally, the top (3rd) level of that interchange is I-405. Here's what it'll look like: (view from the southeast)

(https://i.imgur.com/sXtXO6x.png)

Viewed from the south:
(https://i.imgur.com/baVc2X9.png)

I think this is a pretty neat design. I'm really looking forward to actually seeing it built.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 26, 2018, 08:47:29 PM
I'm heading out tomorrow on a spontaneous weekend road trip with some friends. We're planning to drive through Yakima, Hanford, the Tri-Cities, Walla Walla, and Boise...anything in particular that I should look out for?

They're mild roadgeeks who are more interested in getting to the places in a relatively timely manner, which means no massive diversions. But we're going to be stopping at monuments along the way (and getting a Hanford tour).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: nexus73 on September 27, 2018, 09:12:55 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 26, 2018, 08:47:29 PM
I'm heading out tomorrow on a spontaneous weekend road trip with some friends. We're planning to drive through Yakima, Hanford, the Tri-Cities, Walla Walla, and Boise...anything in particular that I should look out for?

They're mild roadgeeks who are more interested in getting to the places in a relatively timely manner, which means no massive diversions. But we're going to be stopping at monuments along the way (and getting a Hanford tour).

Take time to check out downtown Walla Walla.  It is more upscale and fancied up than one would expect!  Since this is a smaller city. one can cover the entire downtown district on foot with relative ease.  Read the Yelps on the restaurants down there beforehand too.  There are some fine looking dining places to head to.

Rick
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on September 27, 2018, 08:49:02 PM
The Thorne Lane / Berkeley St interchanges are finally seeing a makeover starting next month. The Thorne Lane interchange was seriously modified from when I last saw it, though I quite like the final design (very clever IMO).

http://wsdot.wa.gov/news/2018/09/26/work-add-new-lanes-replace-overpasses-i-5-lakewood-begins

(https://i.imgur.com/CGCMGdrh.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/rbExxcph.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 02, 2018, 01:51:19 PM
I'm really looking forward to checking Washington out! I will do two trips, one by car and checking out the roads then perhaps around summertime I will take the train and explore by bike and rail. I might spend more time then.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 09, 2018, 02:51:27 AM
A neat article and video of ghost signs near Seattle, including our favorite viaduct onramp sign.

http://mynorthwest.com/1081314/searching-ghost-signs-seattle/?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 09, 2018, 01:02:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 02, 2018, 01:51:19 PM
I'm really looking forward to checking Washington out! I will do two trips, one by car and checking out the roads then perhaps around summertime I will take the train and explore by bike and rail. I might spend more time then.

Are you thinking of flying up north somewhere and then switch to train, or train all the way from LA? That's on my bucket list.

Quote from: Bruce on October 09, 2018, 02:51:27 AM
A neat article and video of ghost signs near Seattle, including our favorite viaduct onramp sign.

http://mynorthwest.com/1081314/searching-ghost-signs-seattle/?

That was a great article. Now I have to get some photos of that scenic route sign. Never noticed it before.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 09, 2018, 01:19:08 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 09, 2018, 01:02:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 02, 2018, 01:51:19 PM
I'm really looking forward to checking Washington out! I will do two trips, one by car and checking out the roads then perhaps around summertime I will take the train and explore by bike and rail. I might spend more time then.

Are you thinking of flying up north somewhere and then switch to train, or train all the way from LA? That's on my bucket list.
I'm thinking of train all the way. Seems beautiful and I'd have clinched the farthest west Amtrak like at least to Seattle. Then at some point I'd do Vancouver in the future. 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on October 10, 2018, 12:49:47 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 09, 2018, 01:19:08 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 09, 2018, 01:02:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 02, 2018, 01:51:19 PM
I'm really looking forward to checking Washington out! I will do two trips, one by car and checking out the roads then perhaps around summertime I will take the train and explore by bike and rail. I might spend more time then.

Are you thinking of flying up north somewhere and then switch to train, or train all the way from LA? That's on my bucket list.
I'm thinking of train all the way. Seems beautiful and I'd have clinched the farthest west Amtrak like at least to Seattle. Then at some point I'd do Vancouver in the future. 

If you're going to use the Coast Starlight from L.A. to Seattle, try to book a mid-week departure; weekend starts tend to find ways to get delayed -- such as attaching private cars to the end of the train, which slows down the ascent of Cuesta Pass out of San Luis Obispo, and a subsequent delay when those cars need to be switched off the train at some point -- this has happened to either myself or friends more than once!.  The sole saving grace of all that is you sometimes get to pass Mt. Shasta at daybreak rather than in the dead of the night -- great views ascending the grade out of Dunsmuir.  Also you get to see just how fast a conventional Amtrak passenger train can go when the crew tries to make up time on the straight stretches between Marysville and Chico and up along US 97 north of Shasta (we're talking close to 100 at times!).  In any case, have a good trip! 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 10, 2018, 10:23:21 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 02, 2018, 01:51:19 PM
I'm really looking forward to checking Washington out! I will do two trips, one by car and checking out the roads then perhaps around summertime I will take the train and explore by bike and rail. I might spend more time then.

If you want a preview of the Vancouver ride, you can take the Sounder North line commuter train up to Everett and circle back on a double-decker freeway bus (or ride the Interurban Trail). Great views, especially around sunset on a clear summer day.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 11, 2018, 05:40:16 PM
Are there any plans to build the "missing link" of the SR-167 freeway (the portion from Interstate 5 in Tacoma to N. Merdian Ave, where the freeway currently ends)?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 11, 2018, 06:57:27 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 11, 2018, 05:40:16 PM
Are there any plans to build the "missing link" of the SR-167 freeway (the portion from Interstate 5 in Tacoma to N. Merdian Ave, where the freeway currently ends)?

Yes. That's part of the Puget Sound Gateway Project: https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Gateway/default.htm

Completion by the late 2020s. The project is almost entirely state-funded, so the whole program won't be complete until around 2030 (money won't arrive any faster than that).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 13, 2018, 03:23:51 AM
WSDOT is adding a meter to a roundabout in Richland to control inbound vehicle flow.

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 20, 2018, 03:35:46 PM
Consider this a momentous occasion: there is finally visual progress on the 167/509 extensions. Dirt is being piled up behind the Puyallup Recreation Center (https://goo.gl/XZAhpt). The dirt is being sourced from other area projects. This has actually been an on-going process for several months now (it's on Street View), but I only just now bothered to take some photos.

(https://i.imgur.com/qeBQbnr.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/5akJO7K.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 21, 2018, 01:12:23 AM
WSDOT changed the #5 lane of I-5 southbound in Fife to an exit-only, and threw up this definitely-permanent guide sign. As with most of the state, the exit tab is contained within the sign, but it doesn't go all the way across. Obviously reminiscent of California:

(https://i.imgur.com/UZIhm3g.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 11, 2018, 08:30:03 PM
SR 500 is officially, undoubtedly, all freeway now:

https://twitter.com/wsdot_sw/status/1061776454080331776
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 11, 2018, 11:36:05 PM
Well, not all of it...but the section that matters is.

SR 500 still drops down to a rural road with tons of hard turns east of Orchards. That won't be fixed for decades.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 12:21:01 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 11, 2018, 11:36:05 PM
Well, not all of it...but the section that matters is.

SR 500 still drops down to a rural road with tons of hard turns east of Orchards. That won't be fixed for decades.

Ahh thanks for reminding me. I always forget that it keeps going past 205 for quite a ways.

There was some quarrelling about 500's designation on OSM several years ago. At least that's settled without-doubt now.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on November 12, 2018, 04:04:39 PM
I wouldn't be half surprised if the edits I just made were challenged. Looks like I have to deal with someone 'fixing' my Newberg-Dundee Bypass tags.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: BloonsTDFan360 on November 13, 2018, 01:37:17 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 12:21:01 AM
There was some quarrelling about 500's designation on OSM several years ago. At least that's settled without-doubt now.
Quote from: Bickendan on November 12, 2018, 04:04:39 PM
I wouldn't be half surprised if the edits I just made were challenged.
Despite the RIRO conversion, someone wants it trunk still. (https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1034657#map=12/45.6687/-122.6183&layers=N) I tried resolving the map note but it got reverted. Feel free to add your thoughts.

Quote from: Bickendan on November 12, 2018, 04:04:39 PM
Looks like I have to deal with someone 'fixing' my Newberg-Dundee Bypass tags.
Use the alt_name tag for alternate names instead of using a semicolon for multiple names.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 13, 2018, 03:19:57 PM
Why was Highway 500 not built as a full-fledged freeway from the get-go? Money? Insufficient traffic? NIMBY's?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on November 13, 2018, 06:03:14 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 13, 2018, 03:19:57 PM
Why was Highway 500 not built as a full-fledged freeway from the get-go? Money? Insufficient traffic? NIMBY's?

All of the above, plus a generous helping of local politics.  The main reason WA 500 is being improved (albeit gradually and unobtrusively as possible) is the fact that PDX-area developers, stymied by growth limits across the river, are planting larger-tract housing in the areas around the north perimeter of Vancouver -- and out to Woodland on the north and Camas on the east.  If you're a regional resident -- and want a new "ranch"-style house on a third-acre or more, Clark County is the way to go unless you want to locate outside PDX Metro's bailiwick -- which means halfway to Salem or more.  Either way (WA or southward in OR), traffic will definitely be an issue if you're coming into town for work or otherwise -- such was a very deliberate choice early on with PDX/Metro planners.  Of course, they'd rather you commute in via transit; but with the ongoing rejection of MAX LR extensions over the river, that's a concept that's little more than a pipedream with occasional lip service!   The upgrades to WA 500 are simply there to cope with the inevitable traffic increases intrinsic to an expanding housing market.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 13, 2018, 06:07:37 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 13, 2018, 03:19:57 PM
Why was Highway 500 not built as a full-fledged freeway from the get-go? Money? Insufficient traffic? NIMBY's?

My understanding is that it was never meant to be a freeway, it just turned into one over time. Virtually every interchange was built piecemeal as-needed.

Quote from: BloonsTDFan360 on November 13, 2018, 01:37:17 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 12:21:01 AM
There was some quarrelling about 500's designation on OSM several years ago. At least that's settled without-doubt now.
Quote from: Bickendan on November 12, 2018, 04:04:39 PM
I wouldn't be half surprised if the edits I just made were challenged.
Despite the RIRO conversion, someone wants it trunk still. (https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1034657#map=12/45.6687/-122.6183&layers=N) I tried resolving the map note but it got reverted. Feel free to add your thoughts.

That "someone" is a banned user from this forum. He might have had an argument before, but now it makes no sense. There is a solid barrier from the 5 all the way past 205. It's not Interstate quality (the new merges are pretty tight) but it's legally a freeway according to WSDOT maps. Hell, WSDOT considered it freeway even with the signals, which is how this whole argument started. I can't believe he's still trying to contest this. Fucks sake.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on November 13, 2018, 11:25:37 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 13, 2018, 06:07:37 PM
It's not Interstate quality (the new merges are pretty tight) but it's legally a freeway according to WSDOT maps. Hell, WSDOT considered it freeway even with the signals, which is how this whole argument started. I can't believe he's still trying to contest this. Fucks sake.

Many new WSDOT projects on freeways don't always meet current interstate standards especially when it comes to shoulder widths, (e.g. I-405's new express toll lanes) so that's a non-argument. And the fact that he's considering those two RIRO intersections to be at-grade is just ludicrous. At grade means that the road crosses at grade. Paul/ Baloo really needs to butt out of this. I don't go over to Tulsa and demand that certain roads like the LL Tisdale Pkwy that he changed to trunk be converted to motorway, so he ought to give us the same courtesy.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on November 14, 2018, 12:32:22 AM
Apparently he thinks the stretch of SR 500 between I-205 and the Fourth Plain Boulevard should be marked as trunk because "at-grade intersections make it a trunk to the nearest motorway-to-motorway interchange." My response basically was that if that was the case, then every odd-numbered 3di should be marked as a trunk (especially the extremely short 3dis in Montana). The only difference here is this doesn't have an interstate shield slapped on it.

Anyway, enough with OSM arguments behind our keyboards. I'm glad that they made SR 500 a full freeway, even if they just cheaped out on it and put in RIROs. It would be hard to put an interchange in at either one or both  of those roads without those interchanges being too close to already existing interchanges.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 14, 2018, 01:03:46 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on November 13, 2018, 11:25:37 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 13, 2018, 06:07:37 PM
It's not Interstate quality (the new merges are pretty tight) but it's legally a freeway according to WSDOT maps. Hell, WSDOT considered it freeway even with the signals, which is how this whole argument started. I can't believe he's still trying to contest this. Fucks sake.

Many new WSDOT projects on freeways don't always meet current interstate standards especially when it comes to shoulder widths, (e.g. I-405's new express toll lanes) so that's a non-argument. And the fact that he's considering those two RIRO intersections to be at-grade is just ludicrous. At grade means that the road crosses at grade. Paul/ Baloo really needs to butt out of this. I don't go over to Tulsa and demand that certain roads like the LL Tisdale Pkwy that he changed to trunk be converted to motorway, so he ought to give us the same courtesy.

Yep, he's not getting it. Never mind that "motorway" and "trunk" designations are not used by American road agencies, so trying to apply any level of technical reasoning with those terms is ridiculous. The only reasonable option is to consult WSDOT maps, which show the road as freeway up to 4th Plain:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2017/08/31/highway-map-Vancouver.pdf

Quote from: compdude787 on November 14, 2018, 12:32:22 AM
Anyway, enough with OSM arguments behind our keyboards. I'm glad that they made SR 500 a full freeway, even if they just cheaped out on it and put in RIROs. It would be hard to put an interchange in at either one or both  of those roads without those interchanges being too close to already existing interchanges.

I think there are long-term plans for more extravagent stuff, but the safety just wasn't there with the signals. I'd welcome the changes, if only for the improved traffic flow.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Hurricane Rex on November 14, 2018, 01:05:33 AM
Calling it a freeway IMO is a stretch, it looks more like expressway quality to me.

In Oregon, it would be considered an expressway similar to the OR 18 expressway between OR 22 and the South Yamhill River.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 14, 2018, 01:07:39 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on November 14, 2018, 01:05:33 AM
Calling it a freeway IMO is a stretch, it looks more like expressway quality to me.

It's legally a freeway according to WSDOT maps. See my link above.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on November 14, 2018, 03:32:54 AM
Quote from: BloonsTDFan360 on November 13, 2018, 01:37:17 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 12, 2018, 12:21:01 AM
There was some quarrelling about 500's designation on OSM several years ago. At least that's settled without-doubt now.
Quote from: Bickendan on November 12, 2018, 04:04:39 PM
I wouldn't be half surprised if the edits I just made were challenged.
Despite the RIRO conversion, someone wants it trunk still. (https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1034657#map=12/45.6687/-122.6183&layers=N) I tried resolving the map note but it got reverted. Feel free to add your thoughts.

Quote from: Bickendan on November 12, 2018, 04:04:39 PM
Looks like I have to deal with someone 'fixing' my Newberg-Dundee Bypass tags.
Use the alt_name tag for alternate names instead of using a semicolon for multiple names.
Thank you! That will help overall!



-----

Strangely enough, I'm actually not seeing any reversions to my edit on WA 500.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on November 18, 2018, 09:49:38 PM
Speaking of "This road to be extended in the future":

Connecting Washington, Future Construction Site (https://goo.gl/maps/E28YRwbUAG32)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 18, 2018, 10:52:48 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on November 18, 2018, 09:49:38 PM
Speaking of "This road to be extended in the future":

Connecting Washington, Future Construction Site (https://goo.gl/maps/E28YRwbUAG32)

I've seen a few of those pop up in various spots. Here's one near Walla Walla:

(https://i.imgur.com/zmFzQ7d.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on November 19, 2018, 01:42:53 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 18, 2018, 10:52:48 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on November 18, 2018, 09:49:38 PM
Speaking of "This road to be extended in the future":

Connecting Washington, Future Construction Site (https://goo.gl/maps/E28YRwbUAG32)

I've seen a few of those pop up in various spots. Here's one near Walla Walla:

(https://i.imgur.com/zmFzQ7d.jpg)

Looks like the wording on the sign is copied word for word from their STIP entry (at least down to the "future construction site" part).  At least they're warning motorists to be aware that roadwork activity will likely affect travel on that stretch.  Just hope that the timeframe for construction is near-term enough so the pictured sign doesn't fall apart with corrosion!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 19, 2018, 03:56:34 AM
This one is definitely my favorite:

(https://i.imgur.com/BeSckP5.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 27, 2018, 01:26:33 AM
A nice map that I found in a GIS study of the regraded Denny Hill. The original hill basically ended at the center of the Amazon campus.

(https://i.imgur.com/eagFvZl.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 29, 2018, 03:03:28 AM
Came across a label for "State Historical Road No. 1" on this 1968 topo map (https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/img4/ht_icons/Browse/WA/WA_Tacoma%20South_244169_1961_24000.jpg), which roughly corresponds to 84th/85th in southern Tacoma. The historic military road is a bit further south, so what exactly could this be?

(https://i.imgur.com/qP6foih.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on November 29, 2018, 08:40:47 AM
http://www.historylink.org/File/7120
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 29, 2018, 09:05:51 PM
Quote from: Alps on November 29, 2018, 08:40:47 AM
http://www.historylink.org/File/7120

Thanks. I think I saved this article a while ago and forgot about it.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 29, 2018, 11:52:50 PM
"Secondary State Highway 4D"? I thought PSH-4 was in Eastern Washington? Not sure how a branch of it made it to Puyallup. Can't even find a map of the SSH routes; currently trying to figure out where the 4D/Byrd's Mill intersection once was. As far as I can tell, the highest-lettered SSH was 4C.

Nevertheless, I'm disappointed that Pierce County has neglected to sign "Byrd's Mill Road" as part of their "historic 19xx (https://goo.gl/TWB13d)" street blades. If anything, it should have been the first one signed! I drove 84th all the time growing up in the Summit area, to go to Tacoma and Lakewood for various things. Never for one second have I thought it could be traced back to the Indian Wars era. Besides the odd jog east of Portland Ave, it seems to fit right into the Tacoma/Pierce County grid. Sure, it's been rebuilt many times, but old roads usually have some traits even after rebuilding...not here, it seems.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 30, 2018, 02:21:40 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2018, 11:52:50 PM
"Secondary State Highway 4D"? I thought PSH-4 was in Eastern Washington? Not sure how a branch of it made it to Puyallup. Can't even find a map of the SSH routes; currently trying to figure out where the 4D/Byrd's Mill intersection once was. As far as I can tell, the highest-lettered SSH was 4C.

Nevertheless, I'm disappointed that Pierce County has neglected to sign "Byrd's Mill Road" as part of their "historic 19xx (https://goo.gl/TWB13d)" street blades. If anything, it should have been the first one signed! I drove 84th all the time growing up in the Summit area, to go to Tacoma and Lakewood for various things. Never for one second have I thought it could be traced back to the Indian Wars era. Besides the odd jog east of Portland Ave, it seems to fit right into the Tacoma/Pierce County grid. Sure, it's been rebuilt many times, but old roads usually have some traits even after rebuilding...not here, it seems.

I'm pretty sure they meant SSH 5D (which is now SR 161).

For a complete map of the PSH/SSH system, there's a few good maps on Flickr (like this 1952 one (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tigerzombie/6561417781)), or Rumsey's site (e.g. 1956 Shell (https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~212157~5500256)), or on the state archives.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 03, 2018, 02:07:05 AM
Here's the plan for the new 70th Ave bridge over I-5 (https://goo.gl/LBBfJ2) near Fife. This new bridge is technically the first part of WSDOT's Puget Sound Gateway Project.

Construction starts next Fall (2019), and finished Spring 2021.

Image from Voluntary Submitters Meeting a month ago: https://goo.gl/uvAKN7

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4843/32285184048_a9227feb7f_o.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on December 03, 2018, 01:49:39 PM
^^^^^^^^
IIRC the bridge relocation was necessary to accommodate the I-5 interchange with the WA 167 extension freeway located right at the Fife curve.  If the initial bridge is scheduled for 2019-21, is construction of the interchange itself slated to also begin during that period or is it delayed until this preliminary step is completed?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 03, 2018, 02:03:20 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 03, 2018, 01:49:39 PM
^^^^^^^^
IIRC the bridge relocation was necessary to accommodate the I-5 interchange with the WA 167 extension freeway located right at the Fife curve.  If the initial bridge is scheduled for 2019-21, is construction of the interchange itself slated to also begin during that period or is it delayed until this preliminary step is completed?

Yeah, they have the move the bridge for the new freeway, but also because the bridge itself is aging. This, plus the realigned surface streets, is stage 1a.

The interchange will be built as part of stage 1b, alongside the 509 extension to I-5. Stage 2, which is the southerly connection between 5 and 161 in Puyallup, is stage 2.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on December 04, 2018, 12:53:35 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 03, 2018, 02:03:20 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 03, 2018, 01:49:39 PM
^^^^^^^^
IIRC the bridge relocation was necessary to accommodate the I-5 interchange with the WA 167 extension freeway located right at the Fife curve.  If the initial bridge is scheduled for 2019-21, is construction of the interchange itself slated to also begin during that period or is it delayed until this preliminary step is completed?

Yeah, they have the move the bridge for the new freeway, but also because the bridge itself is aging. This, plus the realigned surface streets, is stage 1a.

The interchange will be built as part of stage 1b, alongside the 509 extension to I-5. Stage 2, which is the southerly connection between 5 and 161 in Puyallup, is stage 2.

Thanks for the info.  Any idea regarding the completion date of the entire 167/509 project(s)?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 04, 2018, 01:22:27 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 04, 2018, 12:53:35 AM
Any idea regarding the completion date of the entire 167/509 project(s)?

That's actually a good question. The entire project, including future phases for HOV ramps, has not been fully funded, but I believe early 2030s has been the target date.

What's paid for right now are four-lane 60-MPH 167 and 509 facilities, and a 50-MPH 509 Spur facility through Fife that should be two lanes. Plus, all the interchanges. The unfunded bits are the HOV lanes and ramps, plus a full build-out of the 5/167/509 Spur interchange, which will be a DDI at first.

Here's some images of the funded stages from a WSDOT open house. It should be noted that the 188th interchange (top left, second image) has been changed from a half diamond to a folded diamond recently, and will be built as part of the current funding stages.

(https://i.imgur.com/IJjvkvZ.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/z22wVW9.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on December 04, 2018, 02:32:02 AM
^^^^^^^^^
I suppose given the time-dictated limits of project funding, the proposed interim DDI will just have to suffice until some additional ramps are budgeted.  At least it's not a volleyball!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 04, 2018, 01:02:51 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 04, 2018, 02:32:02 AM
^^^^^^^^^
I suppose given the time-dictated limits of project funding, the proposed interim DDI will just have to suffice until some additional ramps are budgeted.  At least it's not a volleyball!

Yes, it could be worse! A regular diamond by itself was originally proposed. A seagull (continuous green-T) could have worked as well, but I think the DDI will suffice. Considering the total through traffic will not be as heavy as the turning traffic, this will keep most traffic from having to stop twice.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 05, 2018, 05:05:44 PM
The department of transportation has went through a change in vision. Ok, I'm fine with with the change despite certain disagreements with it (a safe sustainable transportation system in brief), but now, they won't count hours of congestion as a meaning of success or failure. That IMO trumps the distance from hospital ODOT excuse to become the worst decision by a DOT. How will they be accountable then? Does that mean less congestion relief projects? I'm baffled by that move.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 05, 2018, 05:45:14 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 05, 2018, 05:05:44 PM
The department of transportation has went through a change in vision. Ok, I'm fine with with the change despite certain disagreements with it (a safe sustainable transportation system in brief), but now, they won't count hours of congestion as a meaning of success or failure. That IMO trumps the distance from hospital ODOT excuse to become the worst decision by a DOT. How will they be accountable then? Does that mean less congestion relief projects? I'm baffled by that move.

Can you be a bit more specific? I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to in terms of "hours of congestion" or "distance from hospital excuse".

WSDOT still has plans for a ginormous interchange in Fife, they just don't have the cash to do that right now. Unlike some other states, WSDOT does not participate in PPP's or other forms of private financing; it sticks to traditional borrowing methods, which (AFAIK) help the state maintain a good credit rating, but it takes longer for money to become available for road work.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 05, 2018, 08:37:25 PM


Quote from: jakeroot on December 05, 2018, 05:45:14 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 05, 2018, 05:05:44 PM
The department of transportation has went through a change in vision. Ok, I'm fine with with the change despite certain disagreements with it (a safe sustainable transportation system in brief), but now, they won't count hours of congestion as a meaning of success or failure. That IMO trumps the distance from hospital ODOT excuse to become the worst decision by a DOT. How will they be accountable then? Does that mean less congestion relief projects? I'm baffled by that move.

Can you be a bit more specific? I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to in terms of "hours of congestion" or "distance from hospital excuse".

WSDOT still has plans for a ginormous interchange in Fife, they just don't have the cash to do that right now. Unlike some other states, WSDOT does not participate in PPP's or other forms of private financing; it sticks to traditional borrowing methods, which (AFAIK) help the state maintain a good credit rating, but it takes longer for money to become available for road work.

"Hours of congestion": I could be misinterpreting it, but I thought it was the hours of congestion a driver spends in traffic on average each year.

"Distance from hospital": An excuse ODOT used to justify them not raising the interstate speed limits. Mainly used in reference to a level 1 to 3 teams centers. I've called it the worst decision that DOT has made (maybe not on the forum).

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 06, 2018, 08:01:05 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on December 05, 2018, 08:37:25 PM
"Hours of congestion": I could be misinterpreting it, but I thought it was the hours of congestion a driver spends in traffic on average each year.

"Distance from hospital": An excuse ODOT used to justify them not raising the interstate speed limits. Mainly used in reference to a level 1 to 3 teams centers. I've called it the worst decision that DOT has made (maybe not on the forum)

Ahh thanks. Though I'm curious how those play into the discussion above? WSDOT is probably aware that the initial stages will come with congestion. I doubt rush-hour will operate above LOS D. They just need more money for the full build-out, to get some more acceptable LOS's (maybe C or B max).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: bing101 on December 20, 2018, 04:13:12 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sllnHziS7QQ


Cool Ride of WA-16 by Compdude 100.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: nexus73 on December 20, 2018, 06:26:02 PM
Quote from: bing101 on December 20, 2018, 04:13:12 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sllnHziS7QQ


Cool Ride of WA-16 by Compdude 100.

Thank you for my drive of the day Bing!  SR 16 was not a route I have used so it was great to see how it laid out.  You are right about the speed limit in the rural area being 70 MPH. 

Rick
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 21, 2018, 08:46:33 PM
Shot in the dark: Does anyone have a map showing US 99 Temp. in the 1960s and/or US 99 Business on 4th Avenue? They're among the last pieces of information I need to complete this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Route_99) on SR 99 (besides the whole viaduct/tunnel project, which I'm still compiling notes on).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on December 22, 2018, 03:38:01 AM
Quote from: bing101 on December 20, 2018, 04:13:12 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sllnHziS7QQ


Cool Ride of WA-16 by Compdude 100.

Wow, thanks for posting my video! I'm really honored.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on December 22, 2018, 11:32:16 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 21, 2018, 08:46:33 PM
Shot in the dark: Does anyone have a map showing US 99 Temp. in the 1960s and/or US 99 Business on 4th Avenue? They're among the last pieces of information I need to complete this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Route_99) on SR 99 (besides the whole viaduct/tunnel project, which I'm still compiling notes on).

I just have SR 99-T from the 1970 WSDOT map.

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/963/42051492161_81c322e83b_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/274WTyV)99T (https://flic.kr/p/274WTyV) by Arthur Allen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Kacie Jane on December 23, 2018, 03:33:07 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 21, 2018, 08:46:33 PM
Shot in the dark: Does anyone have a map showing US 99 Temp. in the 1960s and/or US 99 Business on 4th Avenue? They're among the last pieces of information I need to complete this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Route_99) on SR 99 (besides the whole viaduct/tunnel project, which I'm still compiling notes on).

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22825.msg2327576#msg2327576
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 23, 2018, 10:10:30 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on December 23, 2018, 03:33:07 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 21, 2018, 08:46:33 PM
Shot in the dark: Does anyone have a map showing US 99 Temp. in the 1960s and/or US 99 Business on 4th Avenue? They're among the last pieces of information I need to complete this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Route_99) on SR 99 (besides the whole viaduct/tunnel project, which I'm still compiling notes on).

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22825.msg2327576#msg2327576

Thanks. The article is now complete and in good enough shape for its big month.

Now onto I-5 in time for the 50th anniversary next May.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Pete from Boston on January 12, 2019, 11:44:42 PM
From today's Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/12/us/washington-highway-sign-420.html

Washington State Wants to Stop Theft of Mile 420 Signs. Its Solution? Mile 419.9

By Julia Jacobs
Jan. 12, 2019

The Washington State Department of Transportation has a problem that just won't go away.

For years, people have persistently stolen those green and white mile markers posted along the highway. The most popular signs to pilfer are Mile 420, a popular number among marijuana enthusiasts, and Mile, ahem, 69. (If you don't know that one by now, we can't help you.)

"They will typically go and take those more than anything,"  said Trevor McCain, who specializes in driver information signs at the Transportation Department. "They have special meanings to some people."

So the sign aficionados in Washington had to get creative. In hot spots for sign theft, they've simply moved the highway marker back one-tenth of a mile and tweaked the sign to say Mile 419.9. Or Mile 68.9.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on January 12, 2019, 11:56:13 PM
In driving to Astoria, Oregon along US 30 last month, I saw a Mile 419.9.  I think it's new because I couldn't find it on the Oregon Digital Video Log, to see if it really at 419.9 or 420.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Hurricane Rex on January 13, 2019, 12:04:38 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on January 12, 2019, 11:56:13 PM
In driving to Astoria, Oregon along US 30 last month, I saw a Mile 419.9.  I think it's new because I couldn't find it on the Oregon Digital Video Log, to see if it really at 419.9 or 420.
Where was this as ODOT doesn't do mileposts normally that way? They normally reset at certain points (US 26 in Portland/Madras/Prineville, US 30 Portland/N. Powder as examples

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on January 13, 2019, 01:01:29 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on January 12, 2019, 11:56:13 PM
In driving to Astoria, Oregon along US 30 last month, I saw a Mile 419.9.  I think it's new because I couldn't find it on the Oregon Digital Video Log, to see if it really at 419.9 or 420.
I doubt it's ODOT - the zero for that segment of US 30 (ORH 2W/92 Lower Columbia River Hwy) is in Portland at I-405, and it won't be for US 101 (ORH 4 Oregon Coast Hwy), which zeros at the border on the Astoria-Metzgler Bridge.

While US 30 clocks in around 480 miles in Oregon, its mile 420 would be around Baker, but it wouldn't be mileposted as such (it'd either fall on the La Grande-Baker Hwy or on I-84/ORH 6 Old Oregon Trail).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on January 14, 2019, 11:07:01 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on January 13, 2019, 01:01:29 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on January 12, 2019, 11:56:13 PM
In driving to Astoria, Oregon along US 30 last month, I saw a Mile 419.9.  I think it's new because I couldn't find it on the Oregon Digital Video Log, to see if it really at 419.9 or 420.
I doubt it's ODOT - the zero for that segment of US 30 (ORH 2W/92 Lower Columbia River Hwy) is in Portland at I-405, and it won't be for US 101 (ORH 4 Oregon Coast Hwy), which zeros at the border on the Astoria-Metzgler Bridge.

While US 30 clocks in around 480 miles in Oregon, its mile 420 would be around Baker, but it wouldn't be mileposted as such (it'd either fall on the La Grande-Baker Hwy or on I-84/ORH 6 Old Oregon Trail).

Well, that would explain why I couldn't find it on Digital Video Log or Google Street View.  I remembered it westbound just before I got to a small city.  It's been a month and a half and I can't remember more exactly.

Edit: on second thought, it was a 68.9 milepost.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on January 14, 2019, 02:58:34 PM
I had thought that Washington had removed all its "420" mile-markers already. I believe SR-20 and US-12 are the only routes that qualify, and zooming around Eastern WA a few months ago, I don't remember seeing any on Street View. Obviously I missed something, however, since Pete's article is brand new.

EDIT: I guess there's also numerous "69" markers that are also an issue...people these days...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DprP16sW0AIDNvV.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Kacie Jane on January 14, 2019, 06:12:28 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 14, 2019, 02:58:34 PM
I had thought that Washington had removed all its "420" mile-markers already. I believe SR-20 and US-12 are the only routes that qualify, and zooming around Eastern WA a few months ago, I don't remember seeing any on Street View. Obviously I missed something, however, since Pete's article is brand new.

It may be a new article, but it's not news.

This Spokesman-Review article from 2015 (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiEhq_lse7fAhXYFjQIHaoMDF0QzPwBegQIARAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spokesman.com%2Fstories%2F2015%2Faug%2F15%2Fsign-of-the-times-mile-420-highway-markers-are-hot%2F&psig=AOvVaw3EYgREAit2NMNFXLsu2CTZ&ust=1547593662549261) says the milepost on SR 20 had been replaced with a 419.9 one three years before.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on January 15, 2019, 02:58:22 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on January 14, 2019, 11:07:01 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on January 13, 2019, 01:01:29 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on January 12, 2019, 11:56:13 PM
In driving to Astoria, Oregon along US 30 last month, I saw a Mile 419.9.  I think it's new because I couldn't find it on the Oregon Digital Video Log, to see if it really at 419.9 or 420.
I doubt it's ODOT - the zero for that segment of US 30 (ORH 2W/92 Lower Columbia River Hwy) is in Portland at I-405, and it won't be for US 101 (ORH 4 Oregon Coast Hwy), which zeros at the border on the Astoria-Metzgler Bridge.

While US 30 clocks in around 480 miles in Oregon, its mile 420 would be around Baker, but it wouldn't be mileposted as such (it'd either fall on the La Grande-Baker Hwy or on I-84/ORH 6 Old Oregon Trail).

Well, that would explain why I couldn't find it on Digital Video Log or Google Street View.  I remembered it westbound just before I got to a small city.  It's been a month and a half and I can't remember more exactly.

Edit: on second thought, it was a 68.9 milepost.
Now that would certainly qualify, though that would be closer to Clatskanie than to Astoria.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on January 16, 2019, 07:28:13 PM
With Paine Field opening for passenger service in just a month, I've been thinking of access to the airport. SR 96 should be extended all the way up Airport Road to meet SR 526, thus bringing the airport onto the state highway system.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on January 18, 2019, 02:30:30 AM
Quote from: Bruce on January 16, 2019, 07:28:13 PM
With Paine Field opening for passenger service in just a month, I've been thinking of access to the airport. SR 96 should be extended all the way up Airport Road to meet SR 526, thus bringing the airport onto the state highway system.

That's a good idea. Also, SR 96 on its eastern end needs to be moved off of its current alignment and onto Cathcart Way, since it has a higher speed limit and higher capacity than the roads that make up its present routing.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Hurricane Rex on January 18, 2019, 03:19:32 AM
Quote from: Bruce on January 16, 2019, 07:28:13 PM
With Paine Field opening for passenger service in just a month, I've been thinking of access to the airport. SR 96 should be extended all the way up Airport Road to meet SR 526, thus bringing the airport onto the state highway system.
Except every major airport in the PNW with the exception of Boise does not have a state highway to the parking lot like the proposal here. Plus 526 goes around the permimiter. This is not to say I disagree with it, I actually support this, but chamces are really low.

LG-TP260

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on January 18, 2019, 05:46:23 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 18, 2019, 03:19:32 AM
Quote from: Bruce on January 16, 2019, 07:28:13 PM
With Paine Field opening for passenger service in just a month, I've been thinking of access to the airport. SR 96 should be extended all the way up Airport Road to meet SR 526, thus bringing the airport onto the state highway system.
Except every major airport in the PNW with the exception of Boise does not have a state highway to the parking lot like the proposal here. Plus 526 goes around the permimiter. This is not to say I disagree with it, I actually support this, but chamces are really low.

OR 213 used to run to the terminal. I suspect it was pulled back to 82nd when I-205 got built and the Port of Portland assumed all of Airport Way between PDX and I-205.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on January 19, 2019, 02:59:52 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 18, 2019, 03:19:32 AM
Quote from: Bruce on January 16, 2019, 07:28:13 PM
With Paine Field opening for passenger service in just a month, I've been thinking of access to the airport. SR 96 should be extended all the way up Airport Road to meet SR 526, thus bringing the airport onto the state highway system.
Except every major airport in the PNW with the exception of Boise does not have a state highway to the parking lot like the proposal here. Plus 526 goes around the permimiter. This is not to say I disagree with it, I actually support this, but chamces are really low.

LG-TP260

Sea-Tac is served by SR 99 (which coincidentally allows you to walk to the terminal without going through the light rail station). A state highway to the parking lot would be useless, but this is a pretty  logical connection, as SR 526 would not be serving people from the south and doesn't really get close enough to the terminal (at the center-east part of the airport property).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on January 24, 2019, 06:06:47 PM
It's 2019...I guess we're still too good for arrow-per-lane signs? Sure, let's keep using the style that was disallowed numerous years ago...

(https://i.imgur.com/Bl5Hhr5.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: KEK Inc. on January 25, 2019, 01:50:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 24, 2019, 06:06:47 PM
It's 2019...I guess we're still too good for arrow-per-lane signs? Sure, let's keep using the style that was disallowed numerous years ago...

Haha, I think the only APL I know of still in Washington is the 205/5 split in Salmon Creek.  (MM7 on I-5 SB)

Is that the final iteration of that sign?  It'll probably be revised 10 years later when the project is over. 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on January 25, 2019, 03:14:01 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on January 25, 2019, 01:50:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 24, 2019, 06:06:47 PM
It's 2019...I guess we're still too good for arrow-per-lane signs? Sure, let's keep using the style that was disallowed numerous years ago...

Haha, I think the only APL I know of still in Washington is the 205/5 split in Salmon Creek.  (MM7 on I-5 SB)

Is that the final iteration of that sign?  It'll probably be revised 10 years later when the project is over.

Now that I think about it, it's possible that this sign was drafted prior to the elimination of the option-lane down-arrow option. I think WSDOT only adopted that version of the MUTCD in late 2011. Future option lane signs in the area may come in the form of up arrows. I-5 in the other direction through Tacoma has a few APL-ish signs (http://bit.ly/2TeMVn3); it could be that up-arrow signs were drafted after the current MUTCD was adopted, having been the result of of the new regulations.

I suspect it may be the final iteration for a while. The HOV exit towards 16 won't open for a while, but the signage for that is covered up, several hundred meters down the freeway. So I don't foresee any changes at this exact spot.

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on January 26, 2019, 07:43:19 PM
Remember that $15 billion roads package passed four years ago by the legislature? Turns out it wasn't enough, so a new bill aims to create a 10-year, $16.3 billion package funded by a 6-cent gas tax increase and some form of carbon taxing.

https://www.heraldnet.com/news/plan-knots-together-carbon-fee-gas-tax-and-new-us-2-trestle/

Projects include: rebuilding the US 2 trestle east of Everett; five electric ferries; the Vancouver-Portland bridge on I-5 (don't call it the Cross Columbia); widening SR 522 between Maltby and Monroe to complete the four-laning; and improvements to SR 9.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on January 26, 2019, 09:30:50 PM
Assuming Oregon and the feds kick in the required amounts for the new Columbia River crossing, I would be fine with this. Not a huge fan of the locked in carbon fee, but it's a step.

I do find it annoying that Hans Zieger suddenly doesn't want anything to do with a tax hike, now that him and Stambaugh got their freeway to Tacoma. I would imagine that he would support a package that included money for 167's second stage, though (something I don't believe is included).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on January 28, 2019, 10:52:39 PM
Quote from: Bruce on January 26, 2019, 07:43:19 PM
Remember that $15 billion roads package passed four years ago by the legislature? Turns out it wasn't enough, so a new bill aims to create a 10-year, $16.3 billion package funded by a 6-cent gas tax increase and some form of carbon taxing.

https://www.heraldnet.com/news/plan-knots-together-carbon-fee-gas-tax-and-new-us-2-trestle/

Projects include: rebuilding the US 2 trestle east of Everett; five electric ferries; the Vancouver-Portland bridge on I-5 (don't call it the Cross Columbia); widening SR 522 between Maltby and Monroe to complete the four-laning; and improvements to SR 9.

I'm glad those projects are finally being funded. I also see that funding is being put forth to build the first phase of the Monroe Bypass--FINALLY!!!!!!!! It's only been fifty years since it's been needed.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: nexus73 on January 29, 2019, 11:13:02 AM
When does the last 4-lane gap on I-5 between PDX and Seattle get upgraded to 6-lane?  I could not find any info on WSDOT's website the last time I looked. 

Rick
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 08, 2019, 10:24:53 PM
I've been doing some research via the UW-Tacoma library for a school assignment on Chambers Bay, and have come across several articles from the early 50s that show several cool maps (which I found via the Newsbank website):

Tacoma City Planning Commission (TCPC) map of planned freeways | Oct 1950: http://bit.ly/2GyL60O (shows planned Hwy 7 Freeway and a rather "optimistic" plan for very urban routes)

TCPC diagram of Narrows Bridge intersection | Aug 1950: http://bit.ly/2RPREtI (shows old intersection of Olympic Blvd & 6th which no longer exists)
>> this article also has a blurb about a new "super-duper traffic light...which does the work of a battery of traffic cops" lololol

TCPC diagram of proposed Titlow Beach-to-Point Defiance Parkway | Jan 1955: http://bit.ly/2tdm6Ec (considered a distant hope -- they were right...would have been a western parallel of Schuster Pkwy)




I may update this post when I find more articles that I find interesting. Note that the articles mostly pertain to Tacoma.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 08, 2019, 10:32:04 PM
Mind posting screenshots? Not all of us have access to the UW system :P
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 08, 2019, 10:53:29 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 08, 2019, 10:32:04 PM
Mind posting screenshots? Not all of us have access to the UW system :P

Oh shit. I guess that explains why I had to login to access the website  :pan: :pan:

Hopefully this stuff is all public domain now...

(images in order above)

(https://i.imgur.com/4SiOHk9.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/h16RJDT.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/0pcytAV.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on February 09, 2019, 12:34:33 AM
On the SR-99 tunnel meet, we were looking for the WSDOT bridge badge on the tunnel.  All we found was the date 2015 stamped on concrete, and fractional mile markers on both ends, as well as fractional mile markers inside.  I mentioned finding an old badge on the Montlake Bridge, when it was signed as highway 1-J.  Before the 1960s restructure, Washington had just a few one and two digit state highways, with lettered branches.  1 was the US 99 corridor, though state highways that share US highways were not marked with their state number, in favor of the US highway.  The Montlake Bridge now conveys SR 513 from SR 520 to the southwest corner of Magnuson Park.  It isn't signed from 520, has only a few old trailblazers left, and isn't even marked on Google Maps any more.  It is on Open Street Map (https://osm.org/go/WIdQ_U901-)  Presumably this is the highway that would have been replaced by the Thompson Expressway, and now it's almost forgotten, taking traffic to a Navy base that doesn't even exist any more.  NOAA still has a campus there, some blocks after the north end of the highway designation.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7923/32091769317_106b1f5cdc_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/QTQGXx)WSDOT bridge badge, Montlake Bridge (https://flic.kr/p/QTQGXx) by Arthur Allen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 09, 2019, 02:40:07 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on February 09, 2019, 12:34:33 AM
On the SR-99 tunnel meet, we were looking for the WSDOT bridge badge on the tunnel.  All we found was the date 2015 stamped on concrete, and fractional mile markers on both ends, as well as fractional mile markers inside.  I mentioned finding an old badge on the Montlake Bridge, when it was signed as highway 1-J.  Before the 1960s restructure, Washington had just a few one and two digit state highways, with lettered branches.  1 was the US 99 corridor, though state highways that share US highways were not marked with their state number, in favor of the US highway.  The Montlake Bridge now conveys SR 513 from SR 520 to the southwest corner of Magnuson Park.  It isn't signed from 520, has only a few old trailblazers left, and isn't even marked on Google Maps any more.  It is on Open Street Map (https://osm.org/go/WIdQ_U901-)  Presumably this is the highway that would have been replaced by the Thompson Expressway, and now it's almost forgotten, taking traffic to a Navy base that doesn't even exist any more.  NOAA still has a campus there, some blocks after the north end of the highway designation.

At least WSDOT still takes care of it. I believe this bridge will be twinned soon.




Found a better map of the proposed Tacoma freeways.

According to the article, the unbuilt Highway 5 freeway (modern-day SR-7 replacement) was to be a "limited access freeway-type highway from the Roy Y paralleling Pacific Avenue to the east and feeding into the US-99 Freeway and with a probable expressway downtown". I always wondered where it was meant to go. Glad I now have some closure.

There's also some pretty lengthy explanations for other freeway routes too:

(https://i.imgur.com/gVm5N8e.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on February 09, 2019, 01:58:20 PM
SR 7/SR 512 interchange site. (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.1578694,-122.4229427,1000m/data=!3m1!1e3)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 15, 2019, 04:41:32 PM
Originally planned to open mid-2019 (though paving will proceed until Spring):

https://twitter.com/wsdot/status/1096206678016421888
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 20, 2019, 11:52:44 PM
The redesigned Northgate Mall, with new cross streets and Dallas-style garage enclosures.

(https://i.imgur.com/dX0E0YD.jpg)

Full PDF docket here: http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/AppDocs/GroupMeetings/DRProposal3031301AgendaID7085.pdf
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 21, 2019, 04:39:15 AM
Is that originally a typical suburban style mall atm?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on February 21, 2019, 10:46:18 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 21, 2019, 04:39:15 AM
Is that originally a typical suburban style mall atm?

Presumably this is the first shopping center where stores face each other across a pedestrian-only mall.  The are still keeping the very north end of the mall (2, 3, 4 & 5 on the map), but nothing lasts forever.  http://mall-hall-of-fame.blogspot.com/search/label/Seattle%27s%20Northgate%20Center
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 21, 2019, 06:00:39 PM
I suppose a massive garage system is inevitable in this mixed urban/suburban environment. Though I hope they are well hidden, and not dominating.

If not Northgate, I hope the Tacoma Mall will take after Burnaby. If there's no height limit, just go crazy. Although if the budget is too limiting, I would prefer a whole bunch of mid-rise buildings rather than just a few skyscrapers.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 21, 2019, 08:29:56 PM
It seems like more malls surrounded by large parking lots will be redeveloped in the coming years. There is a mall in OKC called Quail Springs which I give 10 years(that's a conservative estimate; it could be much sooner) until it is torn down and redeveloped.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 22, 2019, 12:17:32 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 21, 2019, 06:00:39 PM
I suppose a massive garage system is inevitable in this mixed urban/suburban environment. Though I hope they are well hidden, and not dominating.

If not Northgate, I hope the Tacoma Mall will take after Burnaby. If there's no height limit, just go crazy. Although if the budget is too limiting, I would prefer a whole bunch of mid-rise buildings rather than just a few skyscrapers.

Tacoma Mall doesn't really make sense as a high-rise cluster, because it won't have light rail until well after 2040 (at this rate). Northgate is ripe for the taking.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 22, 2019, 02:34:42 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 22, 2019, 12:17:32 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 21, 2019, 06:00:39 PM
I suppose a massive garage system is inevitable in this mixed urban/suburban environment. Though I hope they are well hidden, and not dominating.

If not Northgate, I hope the Tacoma Mall will take after Burnaby. If there's no height limit, just go crazy. Although if the budget is too limiting, I would prefer a whole bunch of mid-rise buildings rather than just a few skyscrapers.

Tacoma Mall doesn't really make sense as a high-rise cluster, because it won't have light rail until well after 2040 (at this rate). Northgate is ripe for the taking.

True, true. It would need a new transit center, too. The current one isn't even within the bounds of the property (even the South Hill Mall has them beat in this regard).

Any idea if Tacoma Mall was to be connected via the Tacoma Link or the regular Link?

Thinking seriously for a moment, McChord's runway may actually be quite limiting as far as height limits go at the Tacoma Mall, although there are several quite-tall apartment complexes just to the north (the Apex Apartments) that give some idea of what might be permitted.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 22, 2019, 03:50:52 PM
Pierce County wanted regular Link to be extended southwest to the mall. There was a plan from Tacoma to build more streetcars (which would be functionally the same as Tacoma Link), but it was scrapped in 2007.

I passed through the area yesterday and those apartment towers really stuck out. I wasn't expecting to see them so tall, and so prominently on the hill.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 22, 2019, 04:30:49 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 22, 2019, 03:50:52 PM
Pierce County wanted regular Link to be extended southwest to the mall. There was a plan from Tacoma to build more streetcars (which would be functionally the same as Tacoma Link), but it was scrapped in 2007.

I passed through the area yesterday and those apartment towers really stuck out. I wasn't expecting to see them so tall, and so prominently on the hill.

Tacoma has trouble paying for pothole repair. Doesn't surprise it couldn't fund its own street car network. Though I would love to see a few studies done for a cable car running up like 15th or 11th, if that's still a thing (given that the Link isn't strong enough to descend those hills on its own, never mind being too long).

Those apartments, despite their 90s looks, were only built in 2008. They're definitely some of the tallest buildings in the area, even being on top of that hill. A few other buildings in Pierce County that stand out are the Pacific Tower Condominiums, 1 Stadium Way, and Puyallup's City Hall.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 23, 2019, 09:36:59 PM
The WSTC approved a new name for a 22-mile section of SR 530: the Oso Slide Memorial Highway, which will run from Arlington to Darrington. New signage will be installed before the anniversary next month.

https://twitter.com/KING5Seattle/status/1099496731337785344
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 23, 2019, 11:50:19 PM
I've always thought the best highway names were the one's that people might use. Never heard of a freeway or highway with the word "memorial" in it, that subsequently enters the public lexicon.

Perhaps "Oso Highway"?

These "memorial" names are typically just a formality, but I've always thought the best way to memorialize something would be for the memorial to be well-known. These memorial designations just aren't. Anyone heard of the "Philip Martin Lelli Memorial Highway"? SR-509 in Tacoma (Port of Tacoma Freeway). A more memorable name might have been "Lelli Highway" or "Lelli Freeway". Everyone could remember that.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 24, 2019, 01:08:54 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 23, 2019, 11:50:19 PM
I've always thought the best highway names were the one's that people might use. Never heard of a freeway or highway with the word "memorial" in it, that subsequently enters the public lexicon.

Perhaps "Oso Highway"?

These "memorial" names are typically just a formality, but I've always thought the best way to memorialize something would be for the memorial to be well-known. These memorial designations just aren't. Anyone heard of the "Philip Martin Lelli Memorial Highway"? SR-509 in Tacoma (Port of Tacoma Freeway). A more memorable name might have been "Lelli Highway" or "Lelli Freeway". Everyone could remember that.

"Oso Memorial Highway" would have been fine enough. "Oso Highway" is too short and doesn't really reflect why it's named that way...have to think about permanence of the name some 50 years down the line.

Usually the public drops the memorial entirely for highways, but it seems to stick around for other things like stadiums (especially those of the multi-use era).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on February 24, 2019, 03:26:49 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 24, 2019, 01:08:54 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 23, 2019, 11:50:19 PM
I've always thought the best highway names were the one's that people might use. Never heard of a freeway or highway with the word "memorial" in it, that subsequently enters the public lexicon.

Perhaps "Oso Highway"?

These "memorial" names are typically just a formality, but I've always thought the best way to memorialize something would be for the memorial to be well-known. These memorial designations just aren't. Anyone heard of the "Philip Martin Lelli Memorial Highway"? SR-509 in Tacoma (Port of Tacoma Freeway). A more memorable name might have been "Lelli Highway" or "Lelli Freeway". Everyone could remember that.

"Oso Memorial Highway" would have been fine enough. "Oso Highway" is too short and doesn't really reflect why it's named that way...have to think about permanence of the name some 50 years down the line.

Usually the public drops the memorial entirely for highways, but it seems to stick around for other things like stadiums (especially those of the multi-use era).
"Bear Road" seems fine to me.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 25, 2019, 10:03:58 PM
A full list of projects proposed in the upcoming $16 billion transportation package (which is almost entirely highways related). Big-ticket items include the US 2 Hewitt Avenue trestle replacement ($1.49 billion), the Columbia River Bridge on I-5 ($3.175 billion), ferry terminal renovations ($1.5 billion), SR 3 widening near Gorst ($300 million), SR 18 widening near Tiger Mountain ($285 million), I-5 widening through JBLM ($350 million), and completing grade separations on SR 522 and US 395.

http://sdc.wastateleg.org/hobbs/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/02/2019TranspoProjects.pdf?utm_source=PSRC+News+-+Josh+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6d606a2b59-jnews-feb-25-2019&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4145c6c4e3-6d606a2b59-131826385
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: nexus73 on February 25, 2019, 10:18:42 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 25, 2019, 10:03:58 PM
A full list of projects proposed in the upcoming $16 billion transportation package (which is almost entirely highways related). Big-ticket items include the US 2 Hewitt Avenue trestle replacement ($1.49 billion), the Columbia River Bridge on I-5 ($3.175 billion), ferry terminal renovations ($1.5 billion), SR 3 widening near Gorst ($300 million), SR 18 widening near Tiger Mountain ($285 million), I-5 widening through JBLM ($350 million), and completing grade separations on SR 522 and US 395.

http://sdc.wastateleg.org/hobbs/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/02/2019TranspoProjects.pdf?utm_source=PSRC+News+-+Josh+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6d606a2b59-jnews-feb-25-2019&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4145c6c4e3-6d606a2b59-131826385

What is JBLM?

Rick
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 25, 2019, 10:21:20 PM
JBLM = Joint Base Lewis-McChord, aka Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base.

It's much easier to use the new acronym.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: nexus73 on February 25, 2019, 10:28:03 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 25, 2019, 10:21:20 PM
JBLM = Joint Base Lewis-McChord, aka Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base.

It's much easier to use the new acronym.

Never heard that acronym before.  Thanks for sharing.

Rick
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 25, 2019, 10:47:01 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on February 25, 2019, 10:28:03 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 25, 2019, 10:21:20 PM
JBLM = Joint Base Lewis-McChord, aka Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base.

It's much easier to use the new acronym.

Never heard that acronym before.  Thanks for sharing.

Rick

That's surprising. It's been in common use for about a decade now and has started to replace Fort Lewis entirely.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 25, 2019, 11:43:32 PM
I still instinctively say "McChord" or "Fort Lewis" when I know enough to be specific, but otherwise "JBLM"...I too thought this was a fairly well-known acronym. On most signs, and was part of a larger nation-wide pattern in the mid-noughties.

Usually pronounced as a normal acronym, although sometimes "jay-blam" (at least by the military personnel themselves)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Tarkus on February 26, 2019, 12:12:28 AM
I have a friend who was in the Air Force and was stationed at JBLM for awhile.  He pronounced it "jibblum" .
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 26, 2019, 12:36:59 AM
Quote from: Tarkus on February 26, 2019, 12:12:28 AM
I have a friend who was in the Air Force and was stationed at JBLM for awhile.  He pronounced it "jibblum" .

My information comes from Air Force personnel as well. But no doubt most just call it "McChord"...the whole Joint-Base operations continue to be ridiculed.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: nexus73 on February 26, 2019, 09:34:26 AM
Quote from: Bruce on February 25, 2019, 10:47:01 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on February 25, 2019, 10:28:03 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 25, 2019, 10:21:20 PM
JBLM = Joint Base Lewis-McChord, aka Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base.

It's much easier to use the new acronym.

Never heard that acronym before.  Thanks for sharing.

Rick

That's surprising. It's been in common use for about a decade now and has started to replace Fort Lewis entirely.

Since where I live is almost 400 miles away from the base, it never gets any mention in our local papers.  You live right there and thus hear about the base on a regular basis.  Now what does SCCI mean?  To you, nothing.  Over here it stands for South Coast Culinary Institute, which is part of SOCC, formerly SWOCC, which stands for Southwestern Oregon Community College. 

Local knowledge....

Rick
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on February 26, 2019, 12:41:09 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 25, 2019, 10:03:58 PM
A full list of projects proposed in the upcoming $16 billion transportation package (which is almost entirely highways related). Big-ticket items include the US 2 Hewitt Avenue trestle replacement ($1.49 billion), the Columbia River Bridge on I-5 ($3.175 billion), ferry terminal renovations ($1.5 billion), SR 3 widening near Gorst ($300 million), SR 18 widening near Tiger Mountain ($285 million), I-5 widening through JBLM ($350 million), and completing grade separations on SR 522 and US 395.

http://sdc.wastateleg.org/hobbs/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2019/02/2019TranspoProjects.pdf?utm_source=PSRC+News+-+Josh+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6d606a2b59-jnews-feb-25-2019&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4145c6c4e3-6d606a2b59-131826385

I like what I'm seeing on that list. Are they still proposing a carbon tax to pay for it though? I'm not quite sold on that.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Tarkus on February 26, 2019, 06:56:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 26, 2019, 12:36:59 AM
Quote from: Tarkus on February 26, 2019, 12:12:28 AM
I have a friend who was in the Air Force and was stationed at JBLM for awhile.  He pronounced it "jibblum" .

My information comes from Air Force personnel as well. But no doubt most just call it "McChord"...the whole Joint-Base operations continue to be ridiculed.

Similarly, all the Army people I know who have been up there just say "Fort Lewis".  I could tell my Air Force friend thought "Jibblum" was funny.

Oh, and that list of widening . . . seeing SR-18 makes me happy.  That's the one hairy spot in an otherwise very nice road--went on it once back when I was going to CWU, and wanted to avoid the snow in the Gorge and on US-97.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 26, 2019, 09:59:51 PM
Quote from: Tarkus on February 26, 2019, 06:56:11 PM
Oh, and that list of widening . . . seeing SR-18 makes me happy.  That's the one hairy spot in an otherwise very nice road--went on it once back when I was going to CWU, and wanted to avoid the snow in the Gorge and on US-97.

Indeed. It's such a nice road (apart from the Federal Way-Auburn segment, aka the original section), given the swooping curves and excellent interchanges, its certainly worthy of a 70 or 75 limit, though I have little faith in WSDOT raising it. Perhaps when it's entirely freeway from I-90 to I-5, we will see a higher limit.

Alas, I highly doubt this transport package will pass. Not sure the funding plan is as fledged out as it needs to be, nor am I sure there's enough support for a package at all, so soon after passing a similarly-large transport package.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: nexus73 on February 26, 2019, 11:29:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 26, 2019, 09:59:51 PM
Quote from: Tarkus on February 26, 2019, 06:56:11 PM
Oh, and that list of widening . . . seeing SR-18 makes me happy.  That's the one hairy spot in an otherwise very nice road--went on it once back when I was going to CWU, and wanted to avoid the snow in the Gorge and on US-97.

Indeed. It's such a nice road (apart from the Federal Way-Auburn segment, aka the original section), given the swooping curves and excellent interchanges, its certainly worthy of a 70 or 75 limit, though I have little faith in WSDOT raising it. Perhaps when it's entirely freeway from I-90 to I-5, we will see a higher limit.

Alas, I highly doubt this transport package will pass. Not sure the funding plan is as fledged out as it needs to be, nor am I sure there's enough support for a package at all, so soon after passing a similarly-large transport package.

Getting SR 18 finished as a freeway should have been done a long time ago.  It is an useful bypass of Seattle proper.  Somewhere I read that WSDOT had a plan to do so.  Is there a schedule for improvements yet?

Rick
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 26, 2019, 11:45:59 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on February 26, 2019, 11:29:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 26, 2019, 09:59:51 PM
Quote from: Tarkus on February 26, 2019, 06:56:11 PM
Oh, and that list of widening . . . seeing SR-18 makes me happy.  That's the one hairy spot in an otherwise very nice road--went on it once back when I was going to CWU, and wanted to avoid the snow in the Gorge and on US-97.

Indeed. It's such a nice road (apart from the Federal Way-Auburn segment, aka the original section), given the swooping curves and excellent interchanges, its certainly worthy of a 70 or 75 limit, though I have little faith in WSDOT raising it. Perhaps when it's entirely freeway from I-90 to I-5, we will see a higher limit.

Alas, I highly doubt this transport package will pass. Not sure the funding plan is as fledged out as it needs to be, nor am I sure there's enough support for a package at all, so soon after passing a similarly-large transport package.

Getting SR 18 finished as a freeway should have been done a long time ago.  It is an useful bypass of Seattle proper.  Somewhere I read that WSDOT had a plan to do so.  Is there a schedule for improvements yet?

I'm not sure what the delay has been, though it has consistently taken a long time to get any section of 18 widened. The section from Federal Way to 167 was widened by the late mid-60s, and from 167 past Auburn in the mid-80s. From past Auburn to a bit past Covington by the mid-90s (as well as the interchange at Issaquah-Hobart Rd), and then to its current point by around 2006 or 2007. So it's definitely due, though the Tiger Mountain stretch is arguably the most technically challenging, and therefore most expensive as well.

The current project is to rebuild the interchange at I-90 into a diverging diamond, though I know long-term plans are for a fully-directional interchange. The interchange rebuild was funded by the Connecting Washington transport package from 2015 ($150M):

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I90/SR18ICImprove/default.htm

(current proposal on left, long-term on right -- click for larger photo):

(https://i0.wp.com/sp2018tqmagru.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/90-18-aerial.jpg) (https://i2.wp.com/sp2018tqmagru.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/90-18-design-concept.jpg)

(images from http://livingsnoqualmie.com)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 27, 2019, 12:12:14 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on February 26, 2019, 09:34:26 AM
Quote from: Bruce on February 25, 2019, 10:47:01 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on February 25, 2019, 10:28:03 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 25, 2019, 10:21:20 PM
JBLM = Joint Base Lewis-McChord, aka Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base.

It's much easier to use the new acronym.

Never heard that acronym before.  Thanks for sharing.

Rick

That's surprising. It's been in common use for about a decade now and has started to replace Fort Lewis entirely.

Since where I live is almost 400 miles away from the base, it never gets any mention in our local papers.  You live right there and thus hear about the base on a regular basis.  Now what does SCCI mean?  To you, nothing.  Over here it stands for South Coast Culinary Institute, which is part of SOCC, formerly SWOCC, which stands for Southwestern Oregon Community College. 

Local knowledge....

Rick

I actually live about 90 miles from JBLM, and most often hear the term from people connected to the Navy (since the Navy has a major presence up here). FWIW, they either use JBLM (spelling it out) or Fort Lewis if they've been around for a while.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 17, 2019, 02:12:59 PM
The northbound I-5 exit 132 sign has changed again. The advanced warning for the 705/7 (Exit 133) split has been replaced in favor of a covered-up HOV sign (as there will now be a left HOV exit here), but the sign for exit 132 itself has also been replaced. The new sign makes it a bit clearer that both lanes go towards Hwy 16, instead of just the left lane (http://bit.ly/2UHjvOW).

The 705/7 sign has been moved downstream. You can see it in the background. There is also a new sign on the C/D lanes indicating which ramps of the parclo to use for S 38 St.

I guess it should be noted that, as with many signs in the area, it does not conform to the national MUTCD of using white-on-green arrows at exit only + option lane splits. This would have been a good location for an APL, especially with the HOV exit.

(https://i.imgur.com/f8sKVGM.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: OCGuy81 on March 22, 2019, 11:07:27 PM
Washington seems to use larger reassurance signs than most states. It's also the only state I've driven in where the direction "tab"  isn't a separate piece. The direction and marker are on the same sheet of metal.

Do any other states use signage like that?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 23, 2019, 10:49:48 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on March 22, 2019, 11:07:27 PM
Washington seems to use larger reassurance signs than most states. It's also the only state I've driven in where the direction "tab"  isn't a separate piece. The direction and marker are on the same sheet of metal.

Do any other states use signage like that?

I've seen other states, like Kansas, who use single-piece directional assemblies for guidance, but I can't recall seeing others with similar setups for reassurance assemblies.

WSDOT used green background reassurance assemblies for quite a while, but seems to have moved back to multi-colored uni-sign reassurance assemblies, minus Interstates which all seem to use the MUTCD-style setup with two separate sections (for the shield and the direction tab), though SW Washington has at least a couple uni-sign reassurance assemblies for I-5 that weren't green backgrounds:

(https://i.imgur.com/MJ7oNWR.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on March 27, 2019, 01:51:28 AM
A button copy sign at the NE 195th Street interchange on I-405 in Bothell. Not many on I-405, from what I've seen.

(https://i.imgur.com/qETDK9a.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on March 27, 2019, 11:51:01 AM
Quote from: Bruce on March 27, 2019, 01:51:28 AM
A button copy sign at the NE 195th Street interchange on I-405 in Bothell. Not many on I-405, from what I've seen.

(https://i.imgur.com/qETDK9a.jpg)
Also button copy WB at that ramp, and older non-BC signs at the NB ramp. Wow.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on March 27, 2019, 11:53:45 PM
Button copy on Boeing Access Road, south of Seattle.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4848/32490841148_0142b16656_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Rv747m)Faded I-5 sheld on button copy sign (https://flic.kr/p/Rv747m) by Arthur Allen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on March 28, 2019, 12:09:23 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on March 27, 2019, 11:53:45 PM
Button copy on Boeing Access Road, south of Seattle.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4848/32490841148_0142b16656_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Rv747m)Faded I-5 sheld on button copy sign (https://flic.kr/p/Rv747m) by Arthur Allen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/), on Flickr
And the other way. https://goo.gl/maps/kFj99ANovFJ2
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Henry on March 28, 2019, 09:48:41 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 26, 2019, 11:45:59 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on February 26, 2019, 11:29:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 26, 2019, 09:59:51 PM
Quote from: Tarkus on February 26, 2019, 06:56:11 PM
Oh, and that list of widening . . . seeing SR-18 makes me happy.  That's the one hairy spot in an otherwise very nice road--went on it once back when I was going to CWU, and wanted to avoid the snow in the Gorge and on US-97.

Indeed. It's such a nice road (apart from the Federal Way-Auburn segment, aka the original section), given the swooping curves and excellent interchanges, its certainly worthy of a 70 or 75 limit, though I have little faith in WSDOT raising it. Perhaps when it's entirely freeway from I-90 to I-5, we will see a higher limit.

Alas, I highly doubt this transport package will pass. Not sure the funding plan is as fledged out as it needs to be, nor am I sure there's enough support for a package at all, so soon after passing a similarly-large transport package.

Getting SR 18 finished as a freeway should have been done a long time ago.  It is an useful bypass of Seattle proper.  Somewhere I read that WSDOT had a plan to do so.  Is there a schedule for improvements yet?

I'm not sure what the delay has been, though it has consistently taken a long time to get any section of 18 widened. The section from Federal Way to 167 was widened by the late mid-60s, and from 167 past Auburn in the mid-80s. From past Auburn to a bit past Covington by the mid-90s (as well as the interchange at Issaquah-Hobart Rd), and then to its current point by around 2006 or 2007. So it's definitely due, though the Tiger Mountain stretch is arguably the most technically challenging, and therefore most expensive as well.

The current project is to rebuild the interchange at I-90 into a diverging diamond, though I know long-term plans are for a fully-directional interchange. The interchange rebuild was funded by the Connecting Washington transport package from 2015 ($150M):

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I90/SR18ICImprove/default.htm

(current proposal on left, long-term on right -- click for larger photo):

(https://i0.wp.com/sp2018tqmagru.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/90-18-aerial.jpg) (https://i2.wp.com/sp2018tqmagru.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/90-18-design-concept.jpg)

(images from http://livingsnoqualmie.com)
I-605, anyone?

Even if it doesn't end up as a full bypass of Seattle, I'd love to see the freeway upgrades to WA 18 done ASAP.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on March 29, 2019, 12:02:29 AM
More button copy: West Seattle Freeway. (https://goo.gl/maps/qkwgY2ACJpL2)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 29, 2019, 01:09:02 PM
Quote from: Henry on March 28, 2019, 09:48:41 AM
I-605, anyone?

Even if it doesn't end up as a full bypass of Seattle, I'd love to see the freeway upgrades to WA 18 done ASAP.

I-605 is certainly the most common designation for any such bypass. According to an early 2000s study, anything north of I-90 isn't economically feasible. I think the late 90s study determined that it wouldn't improve over I-405, though I guess things may have changed since then.

I could see a "605" designation for SR-18, but AFAIK the federal government didn't pay for any of the upgrades. Isn't that usually how interstates form?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 29, 2019, 05:39:15 PM
I wouldn't expect SR-18 to become Interstate 605 (or any other Interstate designation) anytime soon, if ever. The state of Washington will probably leave the highway with its existing number.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 29, 2019, 08:34:33 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 29, 2019, 05:39:15 PM
I wouldn't expect SR-18 to become Interstate 605 (or any other Interstate designation) anytime soon, if ever. The state of Washington will probably leave the highway with its existing number.

It's not a ridiculous thought. Once they finish upgrades to improve it to freeway-grade, and traffic counts are considered, an interstate designation may improve recognition of 18 as being a genuine southern "Ring road" around the south edge of Seattle. Upping the speed limit to a more reasonable 70 or 75 may help, especially considering current speeds (which are well above the posted 60, from what I've seen).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Kacie Jane on March 29, 2019, 08:44:11 PM
Improving the 90/18 interchange to freeway-to- freeway is a possibility. But I would be absolutely shocked if 18 over Tiger Mountain gets widened to four lanes and fully divided within my lifetime.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 05, 2019, 12:49:05 AM
Finally got to ride a double-decker bus on I-405, which also used the shoulder lane.

(https://i.imgur.com/mlMsg1u.jpg)

Felt a lot bumpier than a regular lane.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 05, 2019, 01:47:43 AM
WSDOT is temporarily lowering the speed limit on I-5 near Downtown Tacoma to 50 mph due to a lot of recent crashes.

https://www.king5.com/article/traffic/traffic-news/problem-stretch-of-i-5-in-tacoma-getting-lower-speed-limit-soon/281-7101a5a7-b141-4e8a-9340-a869cb540079
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: theroadwayone on April 15, 2019, 02:45:00 PM
This.
https://www.kxro.com/666-to-667-iconic-sign-no-more/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: MNHighwayMan on April 15, 2019, 03:21:47 PM
Distances are supposed to be measured from town centers, so as much as it sucks to lose it, the new sign is correct.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 15, 2019, 03:28:50 PM
The HOV ramp from WA-16 to southbound I-5 ramp has opened, but will be handling general-purpose traffic while other bits of the freeway are rebuilt or realigned.

Here's a video I took this morning:

https://youtu.be/Ad0aPBslvR4

Here's the ramp reconfiguration (from WSDOT Flickr):

(https://live.staticflickr.com/7851/32523632287_272fc4e910_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: nexus73 on April 15, 2019, 06:39:03 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 15, 2019, 02:45:00 PM
This.
https://www.kxro.com/666-to-667-iconic-sign-no-more/

Round those miles up and you would have 777...the luckiest of numbers in Nevada!

Rick
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: theroadwayone on April 15, 2019, 08:20:39 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on April 15, 2019, 06:39:03 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 15, 2019, 02:45:00 PM
This.
https://www.kxro.com/666-to-667-iconic-sign-no-more/

Round those miles up and you would have 777...the luckiest of numbers in Nevada!

Rick
I was listening to "Smells Like Teen Spirit" when I wrote that post.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 15, 2019, 08:40:07 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on April 15, 2019, 06:39:03 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 15, 2019, 02:45:00 PM
This.
https://www.kxro.com/666-to-667-iconic-sign-no-more/

Round those miles up and you would have 777...the luckiest of numbers in Nevada!

Rick

Also lucky numbers for Everett.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Henry on April 16, 2019, 12:02:56 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 15, 2019, 08:40:07 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on April 15, 2019, 06:39:03 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 15, 2019, 02:45:00 PM
This.
https://www.kxro.com/666-to-667-iconic-sign-no-more/

Round those miles up and you would have 777...the luckiest of numbers in Nevada!

Rick

Also lucky numbers for Everett.
And Atlantic City too.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on April 17, 2019, 09:58:39 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 15, 2019, 03:28:50 PM
The HOV ramp from WA-16 to southbound I-5 ramp has opened, but will be handling general-purpose traffic while other bits of the freeway are rebuilt or realigned.

Here's a video I took this morning:

https://youtu.be/Ad0aPBslvR4


At 0:50 I saw what looked like a greened-out BGS propped up by the side of the road... which turned out to be a dumpster lid.  Oh well, wishful thinking.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 20, 2019, 12:40:55 AM
Archival photo from September 1968 of the first Boeing 747 being rolled out of the half-complete Everett factory. You can see the future trench for SR 526 and the current bridge between the flightline and factory, as well as the former alignment of Casino Road (which carried SR 526 for another two years).

(https://i.imgur.com/eAnFMp9.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on April 21, 2019, 11:27:48 PM
Old Nalley Valley Viaduct, SR 16 in Tacoma, now demolished.  For some reason, the supports came down to single points with diagonal supports instead of vertical supports.  The Wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Route_16#History) looked like it had a promising link to the WSDOT page explaining this construction, but it was dead.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/46940162144_fdd1191ea0_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 21, 2019, 11:49:43 PM
The Wayback Machine is generally pretty good at picking up WSDOT pages: http://web.archive.org/web/20090925023059/http://wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/PierceCountyHOV/SR16_WBNalleyValley/History.htm
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 22, 2019, 03:26:48 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 20, 2019, 12:40:55 AM
Archival photo from September 1968 of the first Boeing 747 being rolled out of the half-complete Everett factory. You can see the future trench for SR 526 and the current bridge between the flightline and factory, as well as the former alignment of Casino Road (which carried SR 526 for another two years).

(https://i.imgur.com/eAnFMp9.jpg)

Must have been pretty incredible, for the right or wrong reasons, how many massive capital projects were occurring around those years. Huge new roads, massive new factories, etc.

Quote from: ErmineNotyours on April 21, 2019, 11:27:48 PM
Old Nalley Valley Viaduct, SR 16 in Tacoma, now demolished.  For some reason, the supports came down to single points with diagonal supports instead of vertical supports.  The Wiki page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Route_16#History) looked like it had a promising link to the WSDOT page explaining this construction, but it was dead.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/46940162144_fdd1191ea0_c.jpg)
Quote from: Bruce on April 21, 2019, 11:49:43 PM
The Wayback Machine is generally pretty good at picking up WSDOT pages: http://web.archive.org/web/20090925023059/http://wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/PierceCountyHOV/SR16_WBNalleyValley/History.htm

I suppose the more annoying thing is that, despite Bruce finding a link via the Wayback Machine, there's still no explanation as to why the tetrapod supports were used!

If I had to make an educated guess, Tacoma was really in a bad way around this time period. It could be that the supports were designed to allow as much light beneath the structure as physically possible, to deter the houseless from sleeping beneath them. Hell, that's a good idea even now (more natural than using fences or something else), for any number of reasons, but back then, I doubt they were concerned solely about making areas more walkable. It seemed to be more about, "how do we stop X from using Y".
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on April 22, 2019, 11:21:58 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 22, 2019, 03:26:48 PM

I suppose the more annoying thing is that, despite Bruce finding a link via the Wayback Machine, there's still no explanation as to why the tetrapod supports were used!

If I had to make an educated guess, Tacoma was really in a bad way around this time period. It could be that the supports were designed to allow as much light beneath the structure as physically possible, to deter the houseless from sleeping beneath them. Hell, that's a good idea even now (more natural than using fences or something else), for any number of reasons, but back then, I doubt they were concerned solely about making areas more walkable. It seemed to be more about, "how do we stop X from using Y".

After a trip to North Vancouver on Saturday, I had another theory, until I heard that the 1969 Nalley Valley Viaduct was made by a contractor from Oregon.  I couldn't help noticing the similarities with the extant underpasses from the project at Cedar Street for instance, (https://goo.gl/maps/1GtF5q9Dj1s7BFWu6) and compare them with bridges in Horseshoe Bay. (https://goo.gl/maps/AYNKWd1LfjwEzXKY9)  Maybe someone picked up a similar design idea between those two projects.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 25, 2019, 04:41:21 PM
WSDOT is holding an online open house (https://ch2mhill.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=e1512a33866c49a4bfc182562230b634) to discuss transportation improvements in the Tacoma Mall Subarea.

The open house has several images of proposed improvements around the mall, including some potential roundabouts, new ramps, etc.

In the comments, I suggested building a new (wide) pedestrian bridge south of 38th, but north of 48th. There is some consideration of modifying 38th to permit pedestrian access once again (presumably removed when the cloverleaf was modified into a Parclo B4 in 2001, and moved to new ped bridge due north), but I don't think this is a good idea, given how the interchange is currently configured. If they want to improve traffic flow, and improve pedestrian access, they need to continue segregating the two transportation types, as they already have, just building more pedestrian bridges as necessary. I'm all for shared streets, but freeway interchanges need special consideration.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 27, 2019, 06:50:41 PM
Mercer Street is currently shut down because of a crane collapse (working on the Google campus next door).

https://twitter.com/evanbush/status/1122270138047143936

Four dead, according to The Seattle Times.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 28, 2019, 01:23:32 AM
Remarked on the new Google "Cloud" logo (on the related building) to a couple Lyft passengers yesterday, having not seen it until yesterday. Later learned that it was only installed that morning, apparently. I guess only a few people got to see the crane and that logo together. Shouldn't have been that way.

Not related to the crane accident. Just an odd observation, at an otherwise somber moment.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 29, 2019, 01:01:13 AM
A semi-truck caught fire on SB I-5 in Marysville, creating a 10-mile backup (fueled by last-minute Tulip Festival traffic). Was a fun night to be driving around.

https://twitter.com/wspd7pio/status/1122678367529029632

https://twitter.com/SounderBruce/status/1122704767594008576
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 29, 2019, 02:29:42 AM
^^
I-5 from Smokey Point to Everett is, without any doubt, my least favorite stretch of I-5 in the state. There's either a massive backup, or half a million cops doing radar. Ugh.

Honestly, it's like the northern version of I-5 through JBLM...very heavily trafficked, annoyingly-distant alternate route; at least I don't see as many cops.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 29, 2019, 02:42:27 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 29, 2019, 02:29:42 AM
^^
I-5 from Smokey Point to Everett is, without any doubt, my least favorite stretch of I-5 in the state. There's either a massive backup, or half a million cops doing radar. Ugh.

Honestly, it's like the northern version of I-5 through JBLM...very heavily trafficked, annoyingly-distant alternate route; at least I don't see as many cops.

The reason: there's a State Patrol office right off exit 202, and the county sheriff is just northeast. And the patrols are very strict in part because the section had dozens of high-profile crashes (many fatal head-ons) before the concrete median barrier was erected. It's still a speedway because it's just too straight.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kwellada on April 29, 2019, 11:39:42 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 29, 2019, 02:29:42 AM
^^
I-5 from Smokey Point to Everett is, without any doubt, my least favorite stretch of I-5 in the state. There's either a massive backup, or half a million cops doing radar. Ugh.

Honestly, it's like the northern version of I-5 through JBLM...very heavily trafficked, annoyingly-distant alternate route; at least I don't see as many cops.

There's actually no part of I-5 I enjoy driving anymore.  It's basically an aggravating drive from border to border anymore. 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Hurricane Rex on April 29, 2019, 03:37:30 PM


Quote from: Bruce on April 29, 2019, 02:42:27 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 29, 2019, 02:29:42 AM
^^
I-5 from Smokey Point to Everett is, without any doubt, my least favorite stretch of I-5 in the state. There's either a massive backup, or half a million cops doing radar. Ugh.

Honestly, it's like the northern version of I-5 through JBLM...very heavily trafficked, annoyingly-distant alternate route; at least I don't see as many cops.

The reason: there's a State Patrol office right off exit 202, and the county sheriff is just northeast. And the patrols are very strict in part because the section had dozens of high-profile crashes (many fatal head-ons) before the concrete median barrier was erected. It's still a speedway because it's just too straight.

I would also argue that the 60 zone is a speed trap/artificially low and should be somewhere between 65-75 IMO. Every time I've driven it, its felt more rural than urban.

SM-J737T

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 29, 2019, 03:52:10 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on April 29, 2019, 03:37:30 PM


Quote from: Bruce on April 29, 2019, 02:42:27 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 29, 2019, 02:29:42 AM
^^
I-5 from Smokey Point to Everett is, without any doubt, my least favorite stretch of I-5 in the state. There's either a massive backup, or half a million cops doing radar. Ugh.

Honestly, it's like the northern version of I-5 through JBLM...very heavily trafficked, annoyingly-distant alternate route; at least I don't see as many cops.

The reason: there's a State Patrol office right off exit 202, and the county sheriff is just northeast. And the patrols are very strict in part because the section had dozens of high-profile crashes (many fatal head-ons) before the concrete median barrier was erected. It's still a speedway because it's just too straight.

I would also argue that the 60 zone is a speed trap/artificially low and should be somewhere between 65-75 IMO. Every time I've driven it, its felt more rural than urban.

SM-J737T



No, no, no, no.

Before the speed limit was lowered in 2006 and the barrier was installed a few years later, there were near-monthly fatalities on that stretch of freeway. I would not like to go back to those days.

60 is perfect. The traffic through the area is at a high enough volume that hitting 70 is rare.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 29, 2019, 05:26:01 PM
If I were to request any sort of change, it would be for variable speed signs to be installed along I-5 between Smokey Point and downtown Seattle, in both directions. Speeds above 60 would not be wise during rush hour periods, when you want to max out capacity. But with that barrier being installed, I-5 could handle 70 through there during weekends and off-hours. After all, since physics doesn't change, it's undoubtedly safer with that tall wall between directions.

It would be rather specious to assume that the 60 limit was the reason for the reduction in crashes, if it very nearly coincided with the installation of a barrier.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 29, 2019, 07:13:53 PM
Weekend traffic through Marysville is usually worse than it is during weekdays, since we're so far from the core of the metro area. Too many weekend vacationers and hikers!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 29, 2019, 08:30:45 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 29, 2019, 07:13:53 PM
Weekend traffic through Marysville is usually worse than it is during weekdays, since we're so far from the core of the metro area. Too many weekend vacationers and hikers!

Those bastards! How dare they participate in leisure activities!

Still, variable limits could be a thing, and they could be designed to respond to increased flow. Not sure what kind of traffic management tools were installed as part of the 116 St NE interchange (ramp meters?), but a smarter freeway could be a great asset through there. Maybe even speed cameras (with proper warnings, of course).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Hurricane Rex on April 29, 2019, 09:13:32 PM
1. I was 6 in 2006 and too young to remember any road info outside of the Portland area unless I did research.

2. The concrete barriers in other places have massively reduced fatalaties. I'll use an example in Wilsonville.

In 2004 when ODOT was doing their "study", Wilsonville asked if they can get their speed limit on I-5 lowered from 65 down to 55 due to fatal accidents. However ODOT decided to add a wire and metal barrier and kept the limit 65. Accidents went way down. Same thing on OR 34 recently and the speed limit increased. The only constant, adding the barriers.

Regarding the variable signs, I'm not opposed to them but I'd prefer it to be advisory speed limits instead of absolute.

SM-J737T

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 30, 2019, 01:17:19 AM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on April 29, 2019, 09:13:32 PM
Regarding the variable signs, I'm not opposed to them but I'd prefer it to be advisory speed limits instead of absolute.

But that kind of misses the point. WSDOT's system doesn't show anything below the speed limit unless there's a hazard ahead, so you really ought to slow down in advance of whatever that may be; if not for your safety, for the safety of others.

If these were to be used in sort of fringe areas, on the edge of rural and urban (an important distinction in WA, where, in practice, only two speed limits are used on interstates), they could display 70 during "quieter" hours, which could be determined by computers.

Looking at the 2018 Q1 speed report from WSDOT's website, the 85th percentile speed at milepost 207.7 (just a bit north of Smokey Point) is 77mph, but the speed limit does drop to 60 right about milepost 206. Based on this, I think there's a reasonbly good reason to consider at least a 70 limit south of Smokey Point, down to around milepost 196, that could be managed by computers to adjust to changing conditions (undoubtedly an issue south of Smokey Point). There would be a good chunk of hours where it may only display 60, but at least it would permit traffic, during off hours, to proceed at a rate that is arguably within the bounds of safe travel.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on April 30, 2019, 01:56:33 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 29, 2019, 05:26:01 PM

It would be rather specious to assume that the 60 limit was the reason for the reduction in crashes, if it very nearly coincided with the installation of a barrier.

I agree with this. Lower speed limits don't really make roads safer. I-5 would do fine with 65 mph speed limits in suburban areas.

Also the speed reports that WSDOT publishes are quite interesting. I'm surprised how high some of the 85th percentile speeds are.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on May 04, 2019, 11:49:20 PM
The legislature passed SB 5825, which makes the SR 167 HOT lanes permanent (instead of a pilot) and adds new funding for the SR 509/167 Gateway project that could bring the completion date to 2028, thanks to additional bond revenue.

https://www.king5.com/article/traffic/traffic-news/construction-on-sr-167-sr-509-could-end-3-years-early/281-c83f9dda-82f0-4f91-b2e5-2082cac3394a
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 06, 2019, 07:14:48 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 04, 2019, 11:49:20 PM
The legislature passed SB 5825, which makes the SR 167 HOT lanes permanent (instead of a pilot) and adds new funding for the SR 509/167 Gateway project that could bring the completion date to 2028, thanks to additional bond revenue.

https://www.king5.com/article/traffic/traffic-news/construction-on-sr-167-sr-509-could-end-3-years-early/281-c83f9dda-82f0-4f91-b2e5-2082cac3394a

Always good to hear when a completion date is pulled forward. A lot of south-sounders don't seem to realize that the 167 and 509 are genuinely funded for construction, but everyone is dismayed at the 2031 completion date. The impatience is compounded by the sheer number of snowbirds who are used to Arizona-style construction (which is wicked-quick in comparison).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: KEK Inc. on May 08, 2019, 12:21:40 AM
Variable speed technology is pricey, and I think its application is more valuable in stretches of urban freeways that have blind corners.  I can see it being incredibly useful all the way up to where I-5 crosses the Snohomish River in N. Everett; however, I don't see it practical north of there.

I think a variable speed zone should be applied to the section just south of the Enchantment Park all the way down to SR-512 in both directions.  (I know, the Fife drag is a straight-shot and contradicts my assessment of the Smokey Pt.-Marysville-Snohomish Slough run, but I've consistently run into traffic just after the bend and there are some dicey merging and sharp bends to justify placement there.)

405 definitely needs it in its entirety. 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 08, 2019, 03:49:22 PM
I would absolutely agree that variable speed limits are a huge asset in urban areas, especially where there are many blind corners (405, as you say). Anywhere they aren't currently used, they should be installed.

I would make the case that those variable speed signs should be extended into areas that are perhaps rural, perhaps suburban. Fringe areas where traffic sometimes exists, sometimes doesn't. South of Smokey Point, north of Olympia, west of North Bend, etc. Why? Traffic doesn't always exist in these areas, so its imperative that drivers have some form of alert when slow traffic does form, so they don't go flying into stopped cars that they didn't see coming.

Not sure I agree that straight stretches aren't necessarily deserving of variable limits. Any stretch of freeway with lots of trucks (really, any interstate and many state routes) limits distant visibility. As a driver of a small hatchback, I appreciate variable limits because they inform me of slower traffic ahead, even if I couldn't see the slower traffic with my own eyes. This is the case both when there are blind corners, and/or when I physically cannot see beyond more than a few cars in front of me.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on May 12, 2019, 11:51:07 AM
I didn't think there was any more button copy on I-5, but last night I saw this sign in Marysville. (https://goo.gl/maps/yBKUNFkGUwinPMkr7)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on May 12, 2019, 12:27:24 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on May 12, 2019, 11:51:07 AM
I didn't think there was any more button copy on I-5, but last night I saw this sign in Marysville. (https://goo.gl/maps/yBKUNFkGUwinPMkr7)

I've passed this sign hundreds of times and never noticed that it was button copy. It was overshadowed by the filthy overhead gantry at the exit.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: thefraze_1020 on May 12, 2019, 01:24:27 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on May 12, 2019, 11:51:07 AM
I didn't think there was any more button copy on I-5, but last night I saw this sign in Marysville. (https://goo.gl/maps/yBKUNFkGUwinPMkr7)

Shhhhh! No one needs to know it's there. Once word gets out, it'll be gone. Seriously though this sign is in very good shape for its age. Since it has exit numbers, it has to be newer than the early 1970's. I believe exit numbers were introduced to Washington around 1972.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 12, 2019, 01:45:34 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 12, 2019, 12:27:24 PM
It was overshadowed by the filthy overhead gantry at the exit.

No kidding. Some of those signs on 5 through Marysville and Everett (particularly near the Boeing Fwy) are disgusting. They're not even that old. Something must not have been applied correctly.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 15, 2019, 03:53:59 PM
Video on the completion of 167. Shows a few new visualisations for the interchanges, and how local creeks will be moved.

https://youtu.be/5CVS7-thPfg
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Henry on May 17, 2019, 11:59:17 AM
Funny how I included the completion of the WA 167 freeway as a missed opportunity for Seattle recently. I'll be glad to see it come to fruition.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 22, 2019, 04:36:01 PM
Quote from: Henry on May 17, 2019, 11:59:17 AM
Funny how I included the completion of the WA 167 freeway as a missed opportunity for Seattle recently. I'll be glad to see it come to fruition.

It's well on its way. The 2-year 70th Ave bridge replacement project begins this summer. It will demolish the old bridge, currently in the way of the new freeway, and also rebuilds some local roads. The second phase (509 Spur) starts construction in two years. The 167 construction won't begin until the 509 section is nearing completion, in summer 2025.

It's possible that construction phasing could be moved up with $265M in accelerated funding (https://washingtonstatewire.com/highlights-from-the-legislatures-transportation-budget/), provided last month by the state legislature.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 22, 2019, 04:46:31 PM
New roundabout coming to SR-20 @ Banta Road (https://goo.gl/maps/3mMFEmRCkFc2sFNE7), the primary northern access point to NAS Whidbey. Construction starts next Wednesday...should be complete by fall:

http://wsdot.wa.gov/news/2019/05/22/roundabout-coming-landing-oak-harbor

This will be the fifth roundabout on SR-20, including the two in Port Townsend and two new ones at Sharpes and Howards Corners.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on May 26, 2019, 09:49:16 PM
Here's a better photo of the last known I-5 button copy sign in Washington, southbound near Marysville.

To get this photo, I didn't want to pull over and merge back in to traffic, and pedestrians are not allowed, so I rode my bike on the freeway shoulder several hundred feet from the previous entrance.  Maybe I was considered a pedestrian for the moments I stopped my bike and stood on my feet.  The State Patrol never came by.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47939733211_8fe2dafd9e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2g3gEuk)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 26, 2019, 09:50:59 PM
Great photo! Thanks for running out there and grabbing it.

Before this sign, the last known signs were on I-5 in Tacoma, correct? (Portland Ave).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Kacie Jane on May 26, 2019, 10:07:33 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Wugi5snU2RJN4JFK8

Does this one count (and still exist)? I believe those were the three: Portland Ave. NB (now gone), Exit 199 SB, and the Everett weigh station SB.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 27, 2019, 04:44:09 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on May 26, 2019, 10:07:33 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Wugi5snU2RJN4JFK8

Does this one count (and still exist)? I believe those were the three: Portland Ave. NB (now gone), Exit 199 SB, and the Everett weigh station SB.

I would think so. It's not what most would consider a true "guide sign", but it's still button copy, and that's cool.

I had completely forgotten about that weigh station sign. I have seen it before (many times), but it didn't register in my mind as being unique as I was so used to seeing that Portland Ave sign in Tacoma, day-in and day-out for years and years.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: thefraze_1020 on May 29, 2019, 01:57:13 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on May 26, 2019, 09:49:16 PM
Here's a better photo of the last known I-5 button copy sign in Washington, southbound near Marysville.

To get this photo, I didn't want to pull over and merge back in to traffic, and pedestrians are not allowed, so I rode my bike on the freeway shoulder several hundred feet from the previous entrance.  Maybe I was considered a pedestrian for the moments I stopped my bike and stood on my feet.  The State Patrol never came by.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47939733211_8fe2dafd9e_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2g3gEuk)

You are awesome! Thanks for getting that pic. You didn't happen to look at the back of the sign did you? If so, was there any sort of fabrication sticker on the back?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: thefraze_1020 on May 29, 2019, 02:00:58 PM
Although not on the mainline of I-5, there is this sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.2394963,-122.4117622,3a,34.2y,234.37h,87.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7GcQS1kDLIZCmWKYsB-i8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

It's at the corner of Portland Ave E and E 27th St, at the on-ramp to I-5 SB, across the street from the La Quinta. It has been moved around multiple times for the construction project there. I emailed the contractor last summer to ask what would happen to the sign once the project wrapped up. He referred me to WSDOT. So I emailed them to ask the same question. They said the sign would be re-hung in a permanent location once the project was complete. Ya...sure...re-hung in a scrap yard maybe.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 29, 2019, 06:03:03 PM
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on May 29, 2019, 01:57:13 PM
You are awesome! Thanks for getting that pic. You didn't happen to look at the back of the sign did you? If so, was there any sort of fabrication sticker on the back?

Judging by the back of the sign, it's old enough that the exit tab came later. Or maybe that's just how it was built.




Quote from: thefraze_1020 on May 29, 2019, 02:00:58 PM
Although not on the mainline of I-5, there is this sign:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.2394963,-122.4117622,3a,34.2y,234.37h,87.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7GcQS1kDLIZCmWKYsB-i8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

It's at the corner of Portland Ave E and E 27th St, at the on-ramp to I-5 SB, across the street from the La Quinta. It has been moved around multiple times for the construction project there. I emailed the contractor last summer to ask what would happen to the sign once the project wrapped up. He referred me to WSDOT. So I emailed them to ask the same question. They said the sign would be re-hung in a permanent location once the project was complete. Ya...sure...re-hung in a scrap yard maybe.

I drive past that sign on a near-regular basis. I am stunned that it's still standing, given its age and the enveloping construction. I wouldn't be surprised if they kept it up. It's lasted this long already!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Hurricane Rex on May 30, 2019, 01:00:22 AM
Said sign is a part of history now. It'll be up to the last possible moment like the Columbia street US 99 sign

SM-J737T

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on May 31, 2019, 12:17:20 AM
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on May 29, 2019, 01:57:13 PM

You are awesome! Thanks for getting that pic. You didn't happen to look at the back of the sign did you? If so, was there any sort of fabrication sticker on the back?

No sticker, just the number 62 on the lower section, and a much cleaner 95 on the exit tab.  It's possible those were the years of fabrication, though I didn't think they were still making button copy in Washington in 1995.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on May 31, 2019, 12:23:32 AM
There have been enough questions about the Marysville button copy sign sign, so here is the back, with the exit tab obviously added later.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47970083956_43ee611685_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2g5XdH3)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on June 03, 2019, 12:30:54 AM
Now that I've been clued in to look for a separately attached exit tab, I saw the back of this sign last night and checked it again just now because the exit tab was added on.  Yes, it is yet another I-5 button copy sign, this one northbound approaching Bellingham. (https://goo.gl/maps/njNABLi7VCYMrspf9)  This one would be a tad harder to get to by bicycle, so I'll let someone else have the chance for glory.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 03, 2019, 02:23:34 AM
That's not button copy.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 03, 2019, 03:08:13 AM
If this side view is any indication, it certainly appears to be a standard retro-reflective guide sign: https://goo.gl/maps/Csy4bpeBhzPDmjQe8
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 04, 2019, 12:36:10 AM
I made this poster for one of my classes this quarter at UW-T. It's about some of the abandoned or unbuilt highways in Tacoma.

Just for the record, I've made this poster for a group of people who don't know a damn thing about roads. Any inaccuracies will go unnoticed. I do have sources for the information as well.

I did all the visuals myself.

(image scaled way down...click for full resolution)

(https://i.imgur.com/V3q66ms.png) (https://i.imgur.com/jr6KGxy.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on June 09, 2019, 07:22:37 PM
It looks like the proposed alignment of the SR 7 freeway would have diverged from the railroad soon after the built section, according to this mid-1970s Gousha map:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48033148923_1af4b9cb18.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gbwrJ4)

Also, the same map shows the SR 7 / SR 512 cloverleaf as a done deal:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48033172888_e6bda4629e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gbwyRf)

This 1961 map shows the future as-built SR 16 interchange off I-5, before I-5 was shown being built closer to Downtown Tacoma.  Perhaps the state was planning this as a local exit in addition to the more northerly routing to the Narrows Bridge.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48033130001_ffee52d3ee_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gbwm6P)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 10, 2019, 09:40:53 PM
Sweet finds! Where did you acquire those maps? I've been looking for some detailed maps of where exactly the Highway 7 was supposed to go (close up with interchange info), but I don't know if this was ever created. Its entirely possible that they never planned the freeway south of S 46th St, except for that interchange at 512.

For the record, my squiggly line for my Hwy 7 routing was entirely fictional. I know it was supposed to go to the Roy Y, but I don't know the exact route it was to use, to get there.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on June 11, 2019, 05:32:44 PM
^^^^^^^^
If possible, would someone with access to the material scanned above please post a more complete map of the Tacoma area in the same timeframe, indicating how WA 16 as well as other state routes were aligned in the downtown Tacoma area.  Thanks in advance for any action in this regard! 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 11, 2019, 06:19:15 PM
The WSDOT Digital Library has some of the annual highway maps from the 1960s and 1970s. https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll18/search
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on June 14, 2019, 12:19:46 AM
I got the mid-70s map new at a gas station.  Just walked or biked there and bought it from a vending machine.  They weren't free any more, but at least they were in color again.  I got several 1961 maps from an antique store in Pullman, Washington when I was going to WSU.

Here's the routing 16 used to take, when it was called 14.  Before I knew much about Tacoma, I wondered why it didn't take a more direct route, and it was because of the steep hill west of downtown.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48059285347_9504ae8be6_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gdQpb4)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Kacie Jane on June 15, 2019, 10:06:00 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on June 09, 2019, 07:22:37 PMThis 1961 map shows the future as-built SR 16 interchange off I-5, before I-5 was shown being built closer to Downtown Tacoma.  Perhaps the state was planning this as a local exit in addition to the more northerly routing to the Narrows Bridge.

I'm doubtful that current SR 16 and the 12th/15th freeway were ever proposed at the same time. (Don't think I've ever seen them on the same map.) Seems more likely to me that the one built was a replacement for the older proposal after it was deemed too expensive.

(Shame though. A direct connection from the Narrows to downtown might have taken some of the congestion off I-5 through Tacoma.)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 29, 2019, 04:14:25 PM
I was watching this video on YouTube (https://youtu.be/6Bfp34CH_70) showing old footage of the Waterfront Streetcar, when I noticed one of the old bridges that used to cross over Alaskan Way. This bridge below, which connected to Lenora Street, was used to transport goods over what I'm guessing was a very busy Alaskan Way, back when it was built.

There's plenty of photos of these old bridges (https://pauldorpat.com/2010/08/01/seattle-now-then-the-bell-street-overpass/) online, but I thought this screen-cap was cool because it showed the bridge free-standing, after the pier it was connected to was demolished in the 1980s, but before it was demolished to make way for the stairclimb that exists there now. Here's a link to Historic Aerials (1980) (https://www.historicaerials.com/location/47.609985876304854/-122.34616126945527/1980/18), where you can see the old pier it connected to. Jump forward to 1990, and you can see the bridge standing there without any western connection. Jump again to 1998, and you can see that it's gone (replaced by the existing stairclimb).

(https://i.imgur.com/3JsIz4M.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on July 14, 2019, 02:59:56 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 22, 2019, 04:46:31 PM
New roundabout coming to SR-20 @ Banta Road (https://goo.gl/maps/3mMFEmRCkFc2sFNE7), the primary northern access point to NAS Whidbey. Construction starts next Wednesday...should be complete by fall:

http://wsdot.wa.gov/news/2019/05/22/roundabout-coming-landing-oak-harbor (http://wsdot.wa.gov/news/2019/05/22/roundabout-coming-landing-oak-harbor)

This will be the fifth roundabout on SR-20, including the two in Port Townsend and two new ones at Sharpes and Howards Corners.


The Banta Rd Roundabout was finished a week before the Independence Day Holiday.  They are to be doing the fog seal and permanent markings this week.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 14, 2019, 05:00:50 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 14, 2019, 02:59:56 PM
The Banta Rd Roundabout was finished a week before the Independence Day Holiday.  They are to be doing the fog seal and permanent markings this week.

Damn quick work...gotta love summer construction season!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 19, 2019, 12:37:27 AM
East Link catenary supports are being installed on the East Channel Bridge.

(https://i.imgur.com/kvui9iu.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 19, 2019, 06:29:00 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 19, 2019, 12:37:27 AM
East Link catenary supports are being installed on the East Channel Bridge.

https://i.imgur.com/kvui9iu.jpg

I was reading that some of the catenary supports for the Tacoma Link extension will start going up this year. There's certainly a lot of light rail construction in this state right now!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 19, 2019, 11:10:45 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 19, 2019, 06:29:00 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 19, 2019, 12:37:27 AM
East Link catenary supports are being installed on the East Channel Bridge.

https://i.imgur.com/kvui9iu.jpg

I was reading that some of the catenary supports for the Tacoma Link extension will start going up this year. There's certainly a lot of light rail construction in this state right now!

There's also tree clearing underway on I-5 between Northgate and Lynnwood, and Federal Way should kick off soon.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 23, 2019, 01:48:13 AM
A few acres of trees at the I-5 / SR 529 interchange in southern Marysville have been clearcut to make way for the new ramps and a salmon habitat restoration project (https://www.heraldnet.com/news/local-state-agencies-have-the-same-goal-to-save-the-salmon/). Looks pretty ugly now.

(https://i.imgur.com/s1nPzzX.jpg)

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 23, 2019, 12:31:45 PM
The preliminary design for the rebuild I-405 / NE 85th interchange in Kirkland, to cost $300 million to add ETL ramps and a small bus stop.

https://twitter.com/danjryan/status/1152455852382543872

It's really overkill for a place that will have almost no bus activity.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Kacie Jane on July 23, 2019, 03:57:13 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 23, 2019, 12:31:45 PM
It's really overkill for a place that will have almost no bus activity.

I don't disagree that it's overkill, but the second half of your sentence is wrong.

It's true that the freeway stops at 70th (there currently aren't any at 85th) have little to no activity, but that's precisely because they're on the wrong side of the freeway now.

The plan for these stops would be to have them served by all the routes that currently serve the stops at 128th -- which sees plenty of activity -- plus the new BRT line.

(Though admittedly "plus" might be the wrong word, since the BRT should replace at least one of the current Sound Transit lines.)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 23, 2019, 06:08:10 PM
Route 535 will be replaced by the new BRT (Stride), but there will be little connecting transit. Ridership projections have less than a thousand boardings per day at the NE 85th Station, which is ridiculously low.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on July 24, 2019, 02:27:24 AM
It's a cool interchange though! Very British, too. I personally think it's neat, though I do agree that it's overkill for buses.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 24, 2019, 02:52:34 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on July 24, 2019, 02:27:24 AM
It's a cool interchange though! Very British, too. I personally think it's neat, though I do agree that it's overkill for buses.

That's what I was thinking. Basically some form of a three-level roundabout.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 27, 2019, 04:54:54 PM
I made a quick visit to Tacoma yesterday and noticed a lot of weird choices on the temporary BGS. Stretched city names and odd-shaped shields.

Also, this in Federal Way/Kent:

(https://i.imgur.com/cYhg8C2.png)

Sea-Tac, Seatac, Sea-tac...
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 27, 2019, 05:48:20 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 27, 2019, 04:54:54 PM
I made a quick visit to Tacoma yesterday and noticed a lot of weird choices on the temporary BGS. Stretched city names and odd-shaped shields.

Yeah, the lane configurations have changed a bit recently. They've come with some terrible signs (click to enlarge):

(https://i.imgur.com/lSeubrb.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/o2pgGfg.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Henry on August 02, 2019, 10:40:19 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 27, 2019, 05:48:20 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 27, 2019, 04:54:54 PM
I made a quick visit to Tacoma yesterday and noticed a lot of weird choices on the temporary BGS. Stretched city names and odd-shaped shields.

Yeah, the lane configurations have changed a bit recently. They've come with some terrible signs (click to enlarge):

(https://i.imgur.com/lSeubrb.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/o2pgGfg.jpg)
Isn't that Series F? Out of the regular FHWA fonts, it is the ugliest! But at least it's not Clearview...
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 02, 2019, 05:08:22 PM
Quote from: Henry on August 02, 2019, 10:40:19 AM
Isn't that Series F? Out of the regular FHWA fonts, it is the ugliest! But at least it's not Clearview...

I think it's just stretched Series E. But I could be wrong. Either way, dammit it's bad.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 04, 2019, 01:44:48 AM
Noticed quite a few Historic US 10 shields on a few exits on I-90 between George and Ritzville, and a few on the side roads. Who is leading this campaign?

(https://i.imgur.com/EjWGaRI.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ClassicHasClass on August 04, 2019, 01:52:11 PM
Is old US 10 actually signed in Ritzville? I just remember Business 90 shields when I was there last (about three years ago).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 04, 2019, 03:37:05 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 04, 2019, 01:44:48 AM
Noticed quite a few Historic US 10 shields on a few exits on I-90 between George and Ritzville, and a few on the side roads. Who is leading this campaign?

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

The Historic Route 10 signs came about after District 9 Senator Mark Schoesler secured $50k for their installations (http://markschoesler.src.wastateleg.org/legislature-backs-effort-promote-historic-u-s-10-route/) in 2017. He indicates that he was inspired by other historic signs in places like California.

I can't find anything on the Historic 99 signs.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 05, 2019, 12:16:54 AM
Another thing I noticed in Spokane: the bike route for SR 291 is well signed and extends all the way to downtown (unlike the road version).

(https://i.imgur.com/3mX4jau.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 06, 2019, 10:13:30 PM
In a remarkably unprecedented move, WSDOT has actually installed another official arrow-per-lane (APL) sign in Tacoma, as part of the reconfiguration works in the area. This, I believe, will be only the second official APL in the state (second to the 5/205 split in Vancouver). There are some others with some slight variation, but none that fit MUTCD specs.

Not sure if there will be a second through lane or not.

(https://i.imgur.com/rOhQ9z3.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: thefraze_1020 on August 09, 2019, 01:42:00 AM
Does anybody know what the story is with the new white signs that have gone up at bridges along I-5? They say something along the lines of "emergency vehicle axle weight restriction". What is concerning is that the first one I saw it for was Stilliguamish River bridge on I-5 southbound (the older bridge), which had its deck completely rebuilt only a few years ago.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 09, 2019, 02:58:40 AM
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on August 09, 2019, 01:42:00 AM
Does anybody know what the story is with the new white signs that have gone up at bridges along I-5? They say something along the lines of "emergency vehicle axle weight restriction". What is concerning is that the first one I saw it for was Stilliguamish River bridge on I-5 southbound (the older bridge), which had its deck completely rebuilt only a few years ago.

Do you know which bridges specifically, beyond the Stilliguamish crossing, that you've seen the sign on? I can't recall seeing any such signs down here in the south sound.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 09, 2019, 03:53:53 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 09, 2019, 02:58:40 AM
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on August 09, 2019, 01:42:00 AM
Does anybody know what the story is with the new white signs that have gone up at bridges along I-5? They say something along the lines of "emergency vehicle axle weight restriction". What is concerning is that the first one I saw it for was Stilliguamish River bridge on I-5 southbound (the older bridge), which had its deck completely rebuilt only a few years ago.

Do you know which bridges specifically, beyond the Stilliguamish crossing, that you've seen the sign on? I can't recall seeing any such signs down here in the south sound.

Lots of overpasses on I-5 in Snohomish County have them. I snapped a picture of one a few days ago (and will edit this post to include it once I get home).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on August 09, 2019, 03:58:13 PM
I've also seen this sign on I-5 NB on the Lowell Road overpass in Everett, and I think on one of the I-5 bridges over Ebey Slough (can't remember which one). I've also seen one on I-405 NB in either Newcastle or north Renton.

I do find it kinda strange that these signs are popping up all over the place all of a sudden.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: thefraze_1020 on August 09, 2019, 06:22:45 PM
The four I specifically remember are I-5 southbound at Stilliguamish River, I-5 southbound over SR 529 (Marysville), I-5 northbound at Lowell Road, and US 2 westbound at the Hewitt Ave Trestle. I recall seeing others on non-freeway state routes, but I cannot remember where.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 09, 2019, 11:38:11 PM
Here's the Lowell one (NB):

(https://i.imgur.com/xq3h3pG.jpg)

They are all over Marysville and Everett, though I'd wish that we'd get some HOV signs instead.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 11, 2019, 01:22:16 PM
I was in Vancouver yesterday, and saw a bunch on my drive up. Some with names, some without. Some along 405, many along I-5.

True to my word, I did not see any in Pierce County, on either I-5, 512, or 167 during my drive yesterday. Perhaps it's a NW Region thing?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: BloonsTDFan360 on August 12, 2019, 04:55:47 AM
We have one in SW region too. I-5 between La Center and Woodland has one of those for one of the Lewis River bridges.

We drove all the way up to Mt. Vernon a couple weeks ago and can confirm that none of these signs were out there between Woodland and Snohomish County.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on August 13, 2019, 12:29:18 AM
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on August 09, 2019, 01:42:00 AM
Does anybody know what the story is with the new white signs that have gone up at bridges along I-5? They say something along the lines of "emergency vehicle axle weight restriction". What is concerning is that the first one I saw it for was Stilliguamish River bridge on I-5 southbound (the older bridge), which had its deck completely rebuilt only a few years ago.

Load Rating for the FAST Act's Emergency Vehicles (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/loadrating/161103.cfm)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on August 13, 2019, 12:36:42 AM
Even though the above link says the signs are meant for bridges on the Interstate System, or roads one mile from the Interstates, this neighborhood bridge, Williams Avenue over the Cedar River in Renton, was made an exception.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48525676717_43d2a1abf7_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2gW3M5z)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: nexus73 on August 13, 2019, 12:37:28 AM
Has there been any news about WSDOT upgrading the last 4-lane section of I-5 between Puget Sound and PDX to 6-lanes?

Rick
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on August 13, 2019, 10:01:30 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on August 13, 2019, 12:37:28 AM
Has there been any news about WSDOT upgrading the last 4-lane section of I-5 between Puget Sound and PDX to 6-lanes?

Rick

It's six lanes to Centralia and four lanes south of there.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 13, 2019, 01:46:12 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on August 13, 2019, 10:01:30 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on August 13, 2019, 12:37:28 AM
Has there been any news about WSDOT upgrading the last 4-lane section of I-5 between Puget Sound and PDX to 6-lanes?

Rick

It's six lanes to Centralia and four lanes south of there.

There are some other brief six lane sections, which I assume were built in preparation for future widening. Around Labree Road for instance. Northbound at Mulford Road as well. They don't have far to go, since the six lane section from the OR border goes all the way to the Toutle River rest area (around 53 miles).

I have been rummaging through WSDOT's website, especially looking through long-range plans and TIP awards, but cannot find anything. I know I've seen at least one document that listed every future project for like 30 years, several years ago. Among widening I-5 to six lanes, it listed other things like rebuilding the I-5/WA-512 interchange (something I cannot find any reference to now either).

I don't plan to give up looking for it, as it was a rather impressive list. Problem is, I don't remember what it was called, but it was a very basic PDF that listed every project with the state route number on the left (starting at 2, then 3, then 4, and so on, all the way to the last state route), with the details to the right of that, expected cost, expected construction date, etc. Not a lot of detail beyond that, but it summed up everything pretty well.

EDIT: the worst part about WSDOT is how often they kill a link. Seems like half of my bookmarks that go to wsdot.wa.gov give me a 404 error. Luckily I have the Wayback Machine, but it's only any good if they've actually archived those pages.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: thefraze_1020 on August 13, 2019, 03:50:02 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on August 13, 2019, 12:29:18 AM
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on August 09, 2019, 01:42:00 AM
Does anybody know what the story is with the new white signs that have gone up at bridges along I-5? They say something along the lines of "emergency vehicle axle weight restriction". What is concerning is that the first one I saw it for was Stilliguamish River bridge on I-5 southbound (the older bridge), which had its deck completely rebuilt only a few years ago.

Load Rating for the FAST Act's Emergency Vehicles (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/loadrating/161103.cfm)

Thank you! I guess I misunderstood the meaning of the signs. I thought it referred to emergency restrictions because they discovered something alarming on a bridge inspection. Apparently the "emergency" refers emergency vehicles.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 21, 2019, 12:33:56 AM
Spotted in the wild (and came back to photograph it): a recent state-name I-405 shield in Canyon Park.

(https://i.imgur.com/QYWNpdw.jpg)

Located here (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.7912071,-122.2188418,3a,48.4y,87.96h,87.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqSpiuz-U3NyDOT2kcjE9XA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) on westbound 228th Street at 10th Avenue.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 21, 2019, 10:36:32 PM
In a few months, we should be seeing a few of these signs popping up near certain cities:

(https://i.imgur.com/yWF2Je9.png)

ArtsWA (the state art agency) is now charged with designating creative cities to recognize cities that have done well at raising a distinct arts community. Edmonds was the first to receive the honor; so far, Port Townsend and Olympia are the only other major Puget Sound cities to earn the title.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 22, 2019, 01:16:14 AM
The Everett Herald has a short article about the criteria WSDOT use to determine whether an intersection needs to be redesigned. Good for laymen explanations.

https://www.heraldnet.com/news/how-and-why-an-intersection-gets-redesigned-in-washington/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 22, 2019, 02:40:26 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 21, 2019, 12:33:56 AM
Spotted in the wild (and came back to photograph it): a recent state-name I-405 shield in Canyon Park.

(https://i.imgur.com/QYWNpdw.jpg)

Located here (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.7912071,-122.2188418,3a,48.4y,87.96h,87.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqSpiuz-U3NyDOT2kcjE9XA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) on westbound 228th Street at 10th Avenue.

I was totally caught off-guard when I spotted that assembly a couple years ago. I posted it over in the state-named shields thread.

Strangely, it was not always a state-named shield (https://goo.gl/maps/grNmu3VCWjqefk1p7) (even though the assembly is otherwise identical to the old one, which looked brand-new before it was replaced).

Quote from: jakeroot on May 23, 2017, 12:10:09 AM
It's not a reassurance shield, but it does have the state name. It's also not cut-out (**jabs eye with pencil**). Whatever, I'll take it...

This assembly has existed only for a few years. No idea why it's 2di-width (though I do prefer it). Too bad it's not cutout! This would be a great sign.

https://goo.gl/uISB9S

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWHVDa8X.jpg&hash=ae224dd8c3648e8ad27fd76d1c043d0991e3f017)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 27, 2019, 12:21:49 AM
From the 1978 state highway map: metric demonstration signs

(https://i.imgur.com/oJ4tGLD.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ClassicHasClass on August 27, 2019, 12:44:29 AM
There was still a "dual" sign at Laurier for US 395, at least as of a couple years ago.

http://www.floodgap.com/roadgap/395/u30/#img_40
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 29, 2019, 01:05:20 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 27, 2019, 12:21:49 AM
From the 1978 state highway map: metric demonstration signs

https://i.imgur.com/oJ4tGLD.jpg

That's a great find, Bruce. Seattle Public Library archives?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 29, 2019, 10:51:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 29, 2019, 01:05:20 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 27, 2019, 12:21:49 AM
From the 1978 state highway map: metric demonstration signs

https://i.imgur.com/oJ4tGLD.jpg

That's a great find, Bruce. Seattle Public Library archives?

WSDOT has been uploading its official highway maps to the digital repository (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll18/search). It's fairly complete for anything in the 1950s and 1960s.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on August 29, 2019, 11:30:08 PM
(Cross post from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly)  I can't seem to find the thread where someone was looking at US Routing through Downtown Seattle, but this photo seems to fit here.  December 1941.  This is northbound 4th Ave at Westlake.  The normal 99 routing is forward (left) of here, but this sign includes an arrow to the right at the top of the sign.  "Aurora" is on top where "US" should be, and "US" is next where the state should be.  In the background workers are installing an air raid siren and in the foreground is a drinking fountain with a working dog trough.  From the Seattle Times.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48645421091_285fe3a484_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2h7CuUK)Aurora US 99 neon shield (https://flic.kr/p/2h7CuUK) by Arthur Allen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/116988743@N07/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 30, 2019, 12:03:26 AM
Quote from: Bruce on August 29, 2019, 10:51:16 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 29, 2019, 01:05:20 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 27, 2019, 12:21:49 AM
From the 1978 state highway map: metric demonstration signs

https://i.imgur.com/oJ4tGLD.jpg

That's a great find, Bruce. Seattle Public Library archives?

WSDOT has been uploading its official highway maps to the digital repository (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll18/search). It's fairly complete for anything in the 1950s and 1960s.

Cool website. More on there than I remember! I'll be browsing through there for a while.

Quote from: ErmineNotyours on August 29, 2019, 11:30:08 PM
(Cross post from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly)  I can't seem to find the thread where someone was looking at US Routing through Downtown Seattle, but this photo seems to fit here.  December 1941.  This is northbound 4th Ave at Westlake.  The normal 99 routing is forward (left) of here, but this sign includes an arrow to the right at the top of the sign.  "Aurora" is on top where "US" should be, and "US" is next where the state should be.  In the background workers are installing an air raid siren and in the foreground is a drinking fountain with a working dog trough.  From the Seattle Times.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48645421091_285fe3a484_c.jpg

Hard to believe anyone would have seen that arrow atop the shield. But I *love* that shield with "Aurora" written on top of that. So cool.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on August 30, 2019, 12:42:59 AM
the "US" is in the correct spot...
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 30, 2019, 01:54:42 PM
I was reading about future changes to Seattle's 23/24 Ave E corridor (http://www.seattle.gov/visionzero/projects/23rd-ave-e) (for Vision Zero), and saw that they planned to install a "protected eastbound left-turn signal phase" for the left turn off John to northbound 23 Ave E.

I find this rather interesting, as the left turn is already protected (https://goo.gl/maps/DBYVxWw1WYMekbRAA).

Image of the "change" below...

(https://i0.wp.com/www.capitolhillseattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Screen-Shot-2019-08-25-at-7.17.08-PM.png)

The only real change might be the installation of a compliant signal. I'm fairly certain that the current left turn signal does not meet federal standards, though the left is still technically protected.

I've seen this intersection on webcam many times, and I fail to see how this change will reduce the number of collisions. Operationally, nothing will change about the intersection. My suggestion would be to install signals on the poles, so they might be more visible in one's peripheral vision whilst they are using their cell phone.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 04, 2019, 01:58:33 AM
Today's Seattle Times had a front page feature on Highway 9 and its woes.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/washingtons-unofficial-freeway-highway-9-in-lake-stevens-strains-under-a-suburban-boom/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on September 19, 2019, 10:47:34 PM
I just got a request from local historian Feliks Banel (https://mynorthwest.com/author/feliks-banel/) asking me about the origin of the name "Sunset Highway" (US 10) and I was wondering if anyone here knew.  I then came across Max's post on the Oregon Sunset Highway, reminding me of the duplicated use of the name there.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on September 19, 2019, 11:31:19 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on September 19, 2019, 10:47:34 PM
I just got a request from local historian Feliks Banel (https://mynorthwest.com/author/feliks-banel/) asking me about the origin of the name "Sunset Highway" (US 10) and I was wondering if anyone here knew.  I then came across Max's post on the Oregon Sunset Highway, reminding me of the duplicated use of the name there.

That's cool. Sunset Highway on Mercer Island (the short stretch of arterial)? Or Sunset Blvd in Renton? Or Sunset Highway in Oregon?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on September 20, 2019, 12:24:09 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 19, 2019, 11:31:19 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on September 19, 2019, 10:47:34 PM
I just got a request from local historian Feliks Banel (https://mynorthwest.com/author/feliks-banel/) asking me about the origin of the name "Sunset Highway" (US 10) and I was wondering if anyone here knew.  I then came across Max's post on the Oregon Sunset Highway, reminding me of the duplicated use of the name there.

That's cool. Sunset Highway on Mercer Island (the short stretch of arterial)? Or Sunset Blvd in Renton? Or Sunset Highway in Oregon?

The request seemed to imply Sunset Highway in Washington, in which the short Mercer Island stretch was a part because US 10 used to go through Renton before it was rerouted over the Mercer Island Floating Bridge.  He wants the information soon, before he delivers his report Friday morning on 97.3 FM.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 20, 2019, 01:10:07 AM
If you need a history of the Sunset Highway with citations, I wrote up quite a bit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_90_in_Washington#Sunset_Highway_and_national_routes) 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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on September 20, 2019, 01:45:09 PM
All Over The Map: Cruising with the ghosts of Sunset Highway (https://mynorthwest.com/1520467/all-over-the-map-cruising-with-the-ghosts-of-sunset-highway/)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 22, 2019, 03:12:10 AM
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
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on September 22, 2019, 04:31:23 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 22, 2019, 03:12:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on September 22, 2019, 07:16:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2019, 04:31:23 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 22, 2019, 03:12:10 AM
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).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on September 22, 2019, 07:45:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2019, 04:31:23 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 22, 2019, 03:12:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on September 22, 2019, 11:40:24 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 22, 2019, 07:16:05 PM
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 (https://i.imgur.com/nOT6hk0.jpg) and HOV lanes, plus a bunch of different ramp configurations. The updated EIS from 2018 (https://i.imgur.com/v4V3R1t.jpg), 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.

Quote from: stevashe on September 22, 2019, 07:45:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 24, 2019, 11:27:13 PM
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
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: corco on September 24, 2019, 11:29:27 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 24, 2019, 11:27:13 PM
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)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 26, 2019, 02:11:19 AM
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/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on September 26, 2019, 02:26:00 AM
Quote from: corco on September 24, 2019, 11:29:27 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 24, 2019, 11:27:13 PM
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.

Quote from: Bruce on September 26, 2019, 02:11:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on September 26, 2019, 10:46:57 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 26, 2019, 02:11:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 26, 2019, 11:46:34 AM
Quote from: kkt on September 26, 2019, 10:46:57 AM
Quote from: Bruce on September 26, 2019, 02:11:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on September 26, 2019, 03:21:29 PM
I'm guessing the Pacific Street Bridge alternative is no longer on the table?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Kacie Jane on September 26, 2019, 08:24:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 26, 2019, 02:26:00 AM
Quote from: corco on September 24, 2019, 11:29:27 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 24, 2019, 11:27:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on September 26, 2019, 09:32:47 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 26, 2019, 08:24:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 26, 2019, 02:26:00 AM
Quote from: corco on September 24, 2019, 11:29:27 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 24, 2019, 11:27:13 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on September 26, 2019, 10:19:50 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 26, 2019, 08:24:55 PM
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.

Quote from: sparker on September 26, 2019, 09:32:47 PM
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).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on September 26, 2019, 11:55:44 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 26, 2019, 02:26:00 AM

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.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsrimages.wsdot.wa.gov%2FStateRoute%2FPictureLog%2F2018%2FNC%2F173%2FM%2FM%2FI%2F00%2FPM%2F00013PM.JPG&hash=2817324ffbd74e78dd926031864a960535831a7e)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Kacie Jane on September 28, 2019, 08:18:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 26, 2019, 10:19:50 PM(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
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on September 28, 2019, 09:36:31 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 28, 2019, 08:18:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 26, 2019, 10:19:50 PM(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
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Kacie Jane on September 28, 2019, 09:49:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on September 29, 2019, 01:22:17 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 28, 2019, 09:49:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Kacie Jane on September 29, 2019, 12:53:47 PM
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).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on September 29, 2019, 03:28:20 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 29, 2019, 12:53:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on September 30, 2019, 06:59:01 PM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on September 28, 2019, 09:49:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 02, 2019, 01:12:07 AM
The not-a-groundbreaking-but-close-to-it for Puget Sound Gateway was today. I'm still skeptical on the need for the SR 509 sections, especially south of Sea-Tac where it will interfere with the light rail alignment. https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/news/2019/10/01/wsdot-celebrates-major-milestone-puget-sound-gateway-program
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 02, 2019, 07:30:51 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 02, 2019, 01:12:07 AM
The not-a-groundbreaking-but-close-to-it for Puget Sound Gateway was today. I'm still skeptical on the need for the SR 509 sections, especially south of Sea-Tac where it will interfere with the light rail alignment. https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/news/2019/10/01/wsdot-celebrates-major-milestone-puget-sound-gateway-program

I don't think they interfere. They are being designed to pass around each other. It could interfere with the neighborhood that would benefit from the light rail line, but I think the affected properties are primarily automotive-centric anyways.

I also believe the 509 extension has been in planning stages for far longer than the light rail line, so one could easily say that the light rail's southerly extension is interfering with the 509. But that's obviously ridiculous anyway, since we're talking about bridging over or tunneling beneath a freeway, which is hardly a difficult task.

The Tacoma Dome extension also cuts through the 509 Spur extension; I'm interested to see how that's being considered.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on October 03, 2019, 12:00:18 PM
I remember reading about 509 when I was a freshman in college.  It is certainly needed, but as long as there is the freeway/expressway gap along 1st Avenue, it will only be a real benefit to South Seattle and maybe West Seattle.


I'm glad that both programs are finally getting off the ground, as both are needed.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 05, 2019, 12:30:42 AM
HOV lane extension coming for I-5...on the north end! Everett to Marysville, instead of the peak shoulder project, to be complete in 2022.

https://wsdotblog.blogspot.com/2019/10/improvements-coming-to-northbound-i-5.html
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 05, 2019, 02:21:29 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on October 03, 2019, 12:00:18 PM
I remember reading about 509 when I was a freshman in college.  It is certainly needed, but as long as there is the freeway/expressway gap along 1st Avenue, it will only be a real benefit to South Seattle and maybe West Seattle.

You mean East Marginal? That stretch may not be freeway, but the timing along it is excellent IMO.

Quote from: Bruce on October 05, 2019, 12:30:42 AM
HOV lane extension coming for I-5...on the north end! Everett to Marysville, instead of the peak shoulder project, to be complete in 2022.

Was this out of left field, or did I just miss a bunch of studies?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 05, 2019, 03:01:06 AM
This morning's semi truck fire in the I-5 express lanes seem to have melted the small guide signs in the double-decker section. Sad loss.

(https://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-10-04-semi-crash-1-WSP-768x576.jpg)

https://twitter.com/wspd2pio/status/1180109685573079040

The driver has been cited for negligent driving for speeding and being erratic, according to The Seattle Times (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/truck-fire-blocks-southbound-i-5-express-lanes-at-mercer-street-lanes-to-remain-closed-throughout-friday-morning-commute/).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 05, 2019, 03:02:00 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2019, 02:21:29 AM
Quote from: Bruce on October 05, 2019, 12:30:42 AM
HOV lane extension coming for I-5...on the north end! Everett to Marysville, instead of the peak shoulder project, to be complete in 2022.

Was this out of left field, or did I just miss a bunch of studies?

This was born out of the earlier plan to build a peak shoulder lane on NB I-5, which was part of the Connecting Washington package alongside new ramps at the SR 529 interchange in Marysville. It was decided to just go all-in on a regular HOV lane because it would be less confusing.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on October 10, 2019, 07:10:00 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 02, 2019, 01:12:07 AM
The not-a-groundbreaking-but-close-to-it for Puget Sound Gateway was today. I'm still skeptical on the need for the SR 509 sections, especially south of Sea-Tac where it will interfere with the light rail alignment. https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/news/2019/10/01/wsdot-celebrates-major-milestone-puget-sound-gateway-program

A few months ago I noticed the metering signal on the southbound 200th St on ramp were moved to a wooden post, which looked like King County 509 construction would be eminent.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on October 11, 2019, 09:00:29 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 05, 2019, 03:02:00 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 05, 2019, 02:21:29 AM
Quote from: Bruce on October 05, 2019, 12:30:42 AM
HOV lane extension coming for I-5...on the north end! Everett to Marysville, instead of the peak shoulder project, to be complete in 2022.

Was this out of left field, or did I just miss a bunch of studies?

This was born out of the earlier plan to build a peak shoulder lane on NB I-5, which was part of the Connecting Washington package alongside new ramps at the SR 529 interchange in Marysville. It was decided to just go all-in on a regular HOV lane because it would be less confusing.

I'm so glad they decided to build a whole new lane instead of that peak shoulder lane. The lane would have had to be open more often than not in order to handle all the traffic.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 20, 2019, 11:07:05 PM
Here's what SR 513 looks like on Husky gamedays. Off to stage left is a long line for entering the light rail station.

(https://i.imgur.com/gMKDtDR.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 21, 2019, 01:19:03 AM
^^^^^
I haven't been up that way for a while. What did they do to the road markings? Looks like they shortened the left turn, and replaced it with something on the eastern edge. Just can't see around the buses.




Looks like WSDOT has finished the I-90 Medical Lake roundabouts. Apparently it took ten days. Judging from the end of the video below (showing off the northern two roundabouts), it includes one or more roundabout diagrammatics, something not installed by the state in seemingly forever. Many of the first roundabouts had them, but they fell out of favour at some point, being largely replaced by guide signs with those hook arrows next to the destination (indicating which turn to use).

https://youtu.be/h1d9oDpWZMk
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on October 21, 2019, 04:01:14 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 20, 2019, 11:07:05 PM
Here's what SR 513 looks like on Husky gamedays. Off to stage left is a long line for entering the light rail station.

(https://i.imgur.com/gMKDtDR.jpg)

Almost looks like a RR passenger station at peak commute time!   Been a long time since I've been on that section of 513; the new transit accommodations make it unrecognizable from the '90's, when I was up there at least once every couple of months for several years.   I notice double overhead catenary; by chance would those be for electric buses -- that system is (necessarily with rubber tires) longstanding in S.F.     
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 21, 2019, 04:58:42 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 21, 2019, 04:01:14 PM
I notice double overhead catenary; by chance would those be for electric buses -- that system is (necessarily with rubber tires) longstanding in S.F.   

There are a substantial number of trolley bus lines in Seattle. what I don't recall is whether these have been in place immediately following the discontinuation of standard trolleys in the 1940s, or came later (following the introduction of diesel buses).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 21, 2019, 07:26:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2019, 01:19:03 AM
^^^^^
I haven't been up that way for a while. What did they do to the road markings? Looks like they shortened the left turn, and replaced it with something on the eastern edge. Just can't see around the buses.

There is a new northbound bus-only lane, which will be paired with a new bus stop to support inbound routes from the Eastside as part of an upcoming service restructure.

And yes, the trolleybuses in Seattle did come online immediately after the streetcars were canned from 1937 to 1941. They underwent a small contraction in 1963, a rehabilitation in 1978, and were saved with new coaches that debuted in 2016. Only two routes serve UW Station: Route 44, which continues all the way to Ballard; and Route 43, which has been downgraded since Link replaced its main purpose of connecting the U District to Downtown.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 27, 2019, 08:46:51 PM
SB SR 99 on the Aurora Bridge is being reduced to two lanes because an inspection found advanced steel deterioration. Fun times ahead for morning commuters.

(https://i.imgur.com/6y1bnOO.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on November 02, 2019, 11:29:47 PM
Northbound is now reduced to two lanes as well as they've had to take an additional lane for the contractor crews after work began on the repairs, so fun now extends to the evening commute as well!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 18, 2019, 10:29:03 PM
Just a normal day on I-5 near JBLM.

(https://i.redd.it/oscjrd4a5hz31.jpg)

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/nb-i-5-closed-at-lakewood-due-to-semi-fire-and-a-fleeing-suv-that-hit-firetrucks-and-cop-cars/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 19, 2019, 12:39:29 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tacomadailyindex.com%2Ffiles%2F2018%2F01%2FMountainIsOutWEB.jpg&hash=186569cf6b7a014105803ae6a346e99f1763e80a)
[Morf Morford]
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 21, 2019, 01:09:58 PM
Looks like some projects will be delayed unless new funding is found:

QuoteOLYMPIA — State lawmakers will look to trim $478 million out of the transportation budget in the coming session as they grapple with the effects of Initiative 976, which is scheduled to become law on Dec. 5 after receiving voter approval this month.

"Our job is to balance the budget, and that's just what we're going to do,"  Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens, said after the panel got a review of the different programs facing cuts.

- https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/nov/20/state-to-prepare-for-478-million-in-transportation/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 21, 2019, 11:13:47 PM
How to shut down Seattle freeways: spill some kind of animal or food product.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/some-of-the-weirdest-things-that-have-caused-major-traffic-jams-in-the-greater-seattle-area/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on November 22, 2019, 02:36:01 PM
I'm surprised the article didn't mention the Amtrak train.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Kacie Jane on November 24, 2019, 09:59:44 PM
All the ones listed are actually in Seattle, except for one in Lynnwood, which is about 18 miles from downtown. The Amtrak derailment was close to 50 miles away, so I guess it was too far to count.

(Plus, including a disaster where three people died would change the tone of the article considerably.)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 25, 2019, 01:29:31 AM
Some interesting proposals to "fix" SR 240 congestion in Richland:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/7822/33560150988_067eaee61c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/T8AxEU)SR 240 Open house boards (https://flic.kr/p/T8AxEU) by Washington State Dept of Transportation (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 25, 2019, 01:42:54 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 25, 2019, 01:29:31 AM
Some interesting proposals to "fix" SR 240 congestion in Richland:

Interesting that the budget allows for "solutions" ranging from $2 million to $260 million.

Or are they considering doing all of this simultaneously? I'm really confused, tbh.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on November 27, 2019, 12:34:32 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 25, 2019, 01:42:54 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 25, 2019, 01:29:31 AM
Some interesting proposals to "fix" SR 240 congestion in Richland:

Interesting that the budget allows for "solutions" ranging from $2 million to $260 million.

Or are they considering doing all of this simultaneously? I'm really confused, tbh.
It's a bunch of possibilities, each with a cost and a benefit. They have a suite to select from and they'll assemble the final package of projects from it.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on November 28, 2019, 12:41:00 PM
Honestly not sure where else to post this...


Island County recently completed a new bypass of SR 525, in a hopes of creating a bypass of the highway in the event the road becomes impassable.  Prior to this road being constructed, you actually could not travel north-south without spending a significant time on the highway.  However, this new road is a bit odd, as it contains design elements that I've never seen before.  Pardon the narration...


https://youtu.be/rmlguA0tfD4
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: nexus73 on November 28, 2019, 05:40:48 PM
35 MPH?  That is a 60 MPH road from the looks of it.  The even bigger puzzle are the tiny divided sections.  Did an engineer get a case of supertwoitis?  Lovely countryside by the way.

Rick
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on November 28, 2019, 07:02:17 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on November 28, 2019, 05:40:48 PM
35 MPH?  That is a 60 MPH road from the looks of it.  The even bigger puzzle are the tiny divided sections.  Did an engineer get a case of supertwoitis?  Lovely countryside by the way.

Rick


Well it is a county road.  I drove it yesterday, and it is a bit of a struggle to keep in the lane much over 40.  There are a TON of deer.  The 4 divided sections seem to be bioswails, rain gardens, or something similar to collect water, and infiltrate it on site.  They have plants in them, and a drain.  The grassy areas with the gravel that switch sides of the road are suppose to collect water and have it infiltrate as well.


I've just never seen this much engineering on any road, and those divided sections are weird.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: nexus73 on November 28, 2019, 09:02:00 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on November 28, 2019, 07:02:17 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on November 28, 2019, 05:40:48 PM
35 MPH?  That is a 60 MPH road from the looks of it.  The even bigger puzzle are the tiny divided sections.  Did an engineer get a case of supertwoitis?  Lovely countryside by the way.

Rick


Well it is a county road.  I drove it yesterday, and it is a bit of a struggle to keep in the lane much over 40.  There are a TON of deer.  The 4 divided sections seem to be bioswails, rain gardens, or something similar to collect water, and infiltrate it on site.  They have plants in them, and a drain.  The grassy areas with the gravel that switch sides of the road are suppose to collect water and have it infiltrate as well.


I've just never seen this much engineering on any road, and those divided sections are weird.

Thank you for the explanation of the road's features!

Rick
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 28, 2019, 11:07:21 PM
The center divisions could be placeholders for future turn lanes or perhaps plantings. These can also help slow down traffic when approaching the curves, so I'm all for it. Smart planning.

But was there really a need to construct this road in the first place? I thought it would be a longer bypass from the looks of things. Does SR 525 get blocked that often in that spot?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 29, 2019, 02:22:27 AM
This might be an unpopular opinion here but if this road needed lower speeds why cut so many trees down? I understand the technical reason for safety but then it creates a situation with no regard to the environment for such a small road. They should have left trees as close as a foot away from the road.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on November 29, 2019, 02:11:32 PM

Quote from: Bruce on November 28, 2019, 11:07:21 PM[/font]The center divisions could be placeholders for future turn lanes or perhaps plantings. These can also help slow down traffic when approaching the curves, so I'm all for it. Smart planning.But was there really a need to construct this road in the first place? I thought it would be a longer bypass from the looks of things. Does SR 525 get blocked that often in that spot?
[/font]


It isn't that it gets blocked often, but it is the only place where there isn't an alternate route.  There have been other storms that have blocked the highway for days at a time, and the county has been concerned for some time (40+ years) about it being an issue in the future.  The center dividers seem to be for nothing more than for water control.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 29, 2019, 02:22:27 AM
This might be an unpopular opinion here but if this road needed lower speeds why cut so many trees down? I understand the technical reason for safety but then it creates a situation with no regard to the environment for such a small road. They should have left trees as close as a foot away from the road.


They needed the space for the water management systems.  Our local illogical environmental lobby (WEAN), forced the county to infiltrate all possible runoff on site.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 01, 2019, 06:22:02 PM
The Herald takes a look at traffic in Sultan, including some proposals about what to do with US 2.

https://www.heraldnet.com/news/gridlock-keeps-many-in-sultan-feeling-trapped-in-their-homes/

The freeway proposal is a joke, the bypass won't happen, and the couplet seems to be the most likely even if it will make the downtown strip a mess.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 01, 2019, 07:28:52 PM
Why not convert Main Street into one way heading west and 2 one way going East though the town and linking the roads together where it goes back to a 2 lane, two way street? This creates a 4 lane corridor through town.

Is that bypass proposal needed? That would be really cool to see a freeway built along with HSR but mega projects like that seem like pipe dreams in the US at the moment. Seems like short freeway bypasses of local towns could be a long term goal.

Pardon my ignorance but where is this traffic coming and going? Could a passenger rail line not alleviate some of the congestion?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 01, 2019, 07:56:58 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 01, 2019, 07:28:52 PM
Why not convert Main Street into one way heading west and 2 one way going East though the town and linking the roads together where it goes back to a 2 lane, two way street? This creates a 4 lane corridor through town.

Is that bypass proposal needed? That would be really cool to see a freeway built along with HSR but mega projects like that seem like pipe dreams in the US at the moment. Seems like short freeway bypasses of local towns could be a long term goal.

Pardon my ignorance but where is this traffic coming and going? Could a passenger rail line not alleviate some of the congestion?

The traffic is heading east from the Seattle area to Stevens Pass for skiing, Leavenworth to visit the tourist village, or to various trailheads for recreation. It's high during summer and the early winter, but lower at other times. We do have Amtrak service on the corridor, but it's once a day and arrives in the middle of the night...Leavenworth has the only station in the area and it is fairly popular, but there is no capacity with the current tracks (owned by BNSF and used for their freight services, including oil shipments to the refineries).

A bypass would be unnecessary, since traffic volumes average out to around 16,000 vehicles per day. Monroe is a bit further west and has ROW for a bypass, but there hasn't been funding found despite it being a bit more justified. A passenger rail corridor would likely swing further south on Stampede Pass because it has an easier pathway into Seattle (and would link well with the primary north-south line), so there's not much hope in that department. A full-fledged freeway would be devastating for the area and would be worse than throwing cash into a fire.

The couplet proposal would ruin the Main Street in Sultan, which is quiet and pleasant to walk around. If they add enough bulbs and mid-block crossings, then people are going to whine about it being a slower drive (even if there is no change in travel times).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 01, 2019, 08:05:17 PM
So I wonder then if double tracking and running more trains would work. More stations added and surely if ridership was justified then increasing service weekly as demand justifies.

My proposal for a one way street conversion shouldn't ruin the streetscape at all. It would just make the street through town one way East and US 2 one way west.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 01, 2019, 09:28:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 01, 2019, 08:05:17 PM
So I wonder then if double tracking and running more trains would work. More stations added and surely if ridership was justified then increasing service weekly as demand justifies.

My proposal for a one way street conversion shouldn't ruin the streetscape at all. It would just make the street through town one way East and US 2 one way west.

The bridge across the Sultan River would have to be widened or twinned, and the rest of the highway to Monroe would need to be four lanes. Not a good option when it hugs the river and railroad pretty closely.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 01, 2019, 10:05:45 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 01, 2019, 08:05:17 PM
My proposal for a one way street conversion shouldn't ruin the streetscape at all. It would just make the street through town one way East and US 2 one way west.

There's a couple issues with the couplet:

1) it will introduce through-traffic to Main St (where there currently is none);
2) lack of opposing traffic will likely increase the average speed along the corridor.

The couplet would improve traffic flow, yes, but at what cost to the community? If Main St goes from "occasional car" to "US route", that's a huge change. People can probably jaywalk across Main for the time being, but that would be prohibitively difficult if a one-way couplet were installed because of all the new traffic.

For businesses, all the extra traffic isn't necessarily an improvement. Yes, there's more traffic passing along the road in front of their businesses, but who's to say traffic will actually stop? In fact, if my last paragraph is true, locals may actually be less apt to spend time downtown if their quiet main road is suddenly this one-way busy street. At least outside of visits for necessities.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 01, 2019, 10:16:23 PM
Something obviously has to be done. If none of these options are good then a bypass is the only option. This shouldn't be acceptable, IMO.

Is there too much freight traffic to run 2-3 trains a day each way on a double tracked rail line?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 01, 2019, 10:25:43 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 01, 2019, 10:16:23 PM
Something obviously has to be done. If none of these options are good then a bypass is the only option. This shouldn't be acceptable, IMO.

Is there too much freight traffic to run 2-3 trains a day each way on a double tracked rail line?

The problem is that there are other bottlenecks on the corridor. BNSF also owns all the relevant tracks between Seattle and Leavenworth (and beyond), so they have no incentive to allow any more passenger rail service. The most likely corridor for new east-west service for the state would be Stampede Pass, which is south of I-90/Snoqualmie.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 01, 2019, 11:00:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 01, 2019, 10:16:23 PM
Something obviously has to be done. If none of these options are good then a bypass is the only option. This shouldn't be acceptable, IMO.

Which reminds me...

Quote from: Bruce on December 01, 2019, 09:28:35 PM
The bridge across the Sultan River would have to be widened or twinned, and the rest of the highway to Monroe would need to be four lanes. Not a good option when it hugs the river and railroad pretty closely.

Monroe will eventually get their bypass, even if it takes another twenty years. It's not unreasonable to think that US-2 could be twinned around Sultan if the Monroe Bypass does eventually happen. It would be a natural extension of that road. There are areas where it's quite tight (especially near 153rd), but that doesn't mean twinning wouldn't be a good option (at least long term).

IMO, the traffic issues around Sultan are caused by the traffic lights and the roundabout. Widening US-2 through Sultan seems like a reasonable option. It would help keep traffic off Main St, and would help with throughput at the signals and roundabout (all of which would need rebuilding). The Sultan River Bridge would need replacing, but it could be designed in a way that would allow it to be narrowed and made more ped-friendly in the future, should a bypass of Sultan occur.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on December 02, 2019, 07:08:06 PM
A bypass of Sultan would have to either be south of the River, requiring two expensive bridges, or north of the city, requiring massive eminent domain to accomplish.


From an overhead view, it looks like Main and Stevens were originally designed to be a couplet, or that US 2 was originally on Main St. As much of Main St. appears to be commercial, a little creative engineering could be able to allow traffic to flow without a major impact to the businesses in the negative.


The existing bridge over the Sultan River is massively too small for modern vehicles, and under serves traffic, as well as preventing true pedestrian crossing of the river.  Ideally, a well designed bridge could improve safety, provide pedestrian access to Sultan, and be able to accommodate whatever is decided for the Monroe to Sultan section of US 2.


As for the portion heading east, towards the roundabout, that is going to need to be 4 lanes, to increase safety, then rather than rebuilding the roundabout, EB traffic could use 339th to bypass the area, and provide for more opportunities in the area.


What I find odd, is that in my many drives through here, Startup and Goldbar seem to have fewer problems, even though they likely have the same traffic numbers.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 02, 2019, 08:31:28 PM
US 2 was originally routed onto Main Street and moved closer to the river in the 1960s. The area has seen a population increase (like most areas of the region) because of sprawling development, so the higher traffic volumes in Sultan can also be blamed on people commuting in via Highway 2. The transit service out there is hourly at best, which is not a good sign.

Sultan is already constructing a pedestrian bridge across the river to connect its two parks that is scheduled to open next year
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 02, 2019, 10:36:03 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 02, 2019, 08:31:28 PM
US 2 was originally routed onto Main Street and moved closer to the river in the 1960s.

I noticed in Street View that the Hwy 2 bridge over the Sultan River was built in 1940 (https://goo.gl/maps/KivPVwKanEaJ44uS8), and aligns with the southerly "bypass" of Sultan. According to Historic Aerials, this road was opened by at least 1952 (https://www.historicaerials.com/location/47.86153484902781/-121.81437815125467/1952/16). The "new" bridge being aligned the way it is, indicates to me that the Hwy 2 bypass was actually opened in the early 1940s. The original bridge (see imagery from 1938) was pointed directly at Main St.

Quote from: TEG24601 on December 02, 2019, 07:08:06 PM
The existing bridge over the Sultan River is massively too small for modern vehicles, and under serves traffic, as well as preventing true pedestrian crossing of the river.  Ideally, a well designed bridge could improve safety, provide pedestrian access to Sultan, and be able to accommodate whatever is decided for the Monroe to Sultan section of US 2.

The current bridge is definitely not designed to modern standards, but appears to be structurally sound. I'm not sure how soon it was going to get replaced, but it's likely not high up on the list of necessities. If it were, it might be easier to consider replacing it with something that could accommodate more traffic and pedestrians.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 02, 2019, 11:00:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 02, 2019, 10:36:03 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 02, 2019, 08:31:28 PM
US 2 was originally routed onto Main Street and moved closer to the river in the 1960s.

I noticed in Street View that the Hwy 2 bridge over the Sultan River was built in 1940 (https://goo.gl/maps/KivPVwKanEaJ44uS8), and aligns with the southerly "bypass" of Sultan. According to Historic Aerials, this road was opened by at least 1952 (https://www.historicaerials.com/location/47.86153484902781/-121.81437815125467/1952/16). The "new" bridge being aligned the way it is, indicates to me that the Hwy 2 bypass was actually opened in the early 1940s. The original bridge (see imagery from 1938) was pointed directly at Main St.


Whoops, I stand corrected. I thought it had been much later.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on December 03, 2019, 04:21:52 PM
Or family owns a cabin upstream from Index, so we have to deal with US 2 traffic every time we come home on Sundays and the traffic has been bad for over ten years. There are frequently ten mile backups east of Sultan. The road needs to be widened to four lanes between Monroe and Gold Bar. Period. It's really frustrating that nothing has been done.

It may very well be possible to cram four lanes plus a left turn lane onto the current alignment of US 2 thru Sultan without needing to do the one way couplet, but it would be tight. Narrowing the lanes wouldn't be such a bad thing as that would encourage people to slow down through town, as it's currently easy to exceed the 35 mph speed limit.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 10, 2019, 11:57:27 PM
SDOT is lowering the speed limits on arterial streets(*) to 25 mph, to take immediate effect.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/seattle-to-lower-speed-limits-amid-rising-number-of-traffic-deaths/

(*) Excluding Aurora Avenue (SR 99) and Lake City Way (SR 522), which are both maintained by WSDOT. Unsure if this also excludes 145th Street (SR 523).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 11, 2019, 12:21:38 AM
Yes, clearly the irresponsible 30mph limits are totally to blame.

Nothing will change except the new speed limit signs. Mark my words.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 11, 2019, 12:25:26 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 11, 2019, 12:21:38 AM
Yes, clearly the irresponsible 30mph limits are totally to blame.

Nothing will change except the new speed limit signs. Mark my words.

The bright side is that now SDOT can bend around the 85th percentile rules a bit more and design streets that make sense for 25 mph.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 11, 2019, 02:59:43 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 11, 2019, 12:25:26 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 11, 2019, 12:21:38 AM
Yes, clearly the irresponsible 30mph limits are totally to blame.

Nothing will change except the new speed limit signs. Mark my words.

The bright side is that now SDOT can bend around the 85th percentile rules a bit more and design streets that make sense for 25 mph.

I will concede that, yes. Streets with limits far less or far more than their design speed are likely to be ignored (eg I-5 with a 15 mph limit, or a residential street with a 60 mph limit). If we want drivers to go faster or slower, the street designs absolutely need to reflect that.

For residential streets, we need chicanes, speed tables, raised crossings, traffic circles, and narrow lanes. For arterials, you can at least narrow the lanes and reduce the number of areas with center turn lanes (i.e. 10-foot traversable medians).

Looking at a road like 23rd/24th between Montlake and Madison, I would narrow the road by half its current width: one lane each direction (two 10-foot lanes), meandering slightly to create some curves, two-way cycle track on one side, widened sidewalks, and street trees. Yeah, the capacity is reduced, but honestly, who cares? If Vision Zero is 100% about safety, capacity has absolutely no place in street design anymore.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on December 11, 2019, 08:07:40 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 11, 2019, 02:59:43 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 11, 2019, 12:25:26 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 11, 2019, 12:21:38 AM
Yes, clearly the irresponsible 30mph limits are totally to blame.

Nothing will change except the new speed limit signs. Mark my words.

The bright side is that now SDOT can bend around the 85th percentile rules a bit more and design streets that make sense for 25 mph.

I will concede that, yes. Streets with limits far less or far more than their design speed are likely to be ignored (eg I-5 with a 15 mph limit, or a residential street with a 60 mph limit). If we want drivers to go faster or slower, the street designs absolutely need to reflect that.

For residential streets, we need chicanes, speed tables, raised crossings, traffic circles, and narrow lanes. For arterials, you can at least narrow the lanes and reduce the number of areas with center turn lanes (i.e. 10-foot traversable medians).

Looking at a road like 23rd/24th between Montlake and Madison, I would narrow the road by half its current width: one lane each direction (two 10-foot lanes), meandering slightly to create some curves, two-way cycle track on one side, widened sidewalks, and street trees. Yeah, the capacity is reduced, but honestly, who cares? If Vision Zero is 100% about safety, capacity has absolutely no place in street design anymore.
May as well go with zero lanes in that case.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 11, 2019, 02:14:05 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 11, 2019, 08:07:40 AM
May as well go with zero lanes in that case.

I'm not a complete animal. You'd still need some public ROW for essential services.

Expanding on your thought, I think many overplay the importance of pedestrianized spaces. So many have been abject failures (Fresno, Tacoma, etc) and although there have been many successful implementations, the people were already there to inhabit the space. Less cars ≠ more pedestrians.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on December 14, 2019, 06:12:08 PM
Ugh, I hate 25 mph speed limits on arterials. I for one will not be following these new speed limits except in downtown, which is probably the only place where such slow speed limits make sense.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on December 19, 2019, 12:28:19 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on December 14, 2019, 06:12:08 PM
Ugh, I hate 25 mph speed limits on arterials. I for one will not be following these new speed limits except in downtown, which is probably the only place where such slow speed limits make sense.

Well the downtown streets were already at 25 mph as of 2016 anyway. And really you can't go fast on most arterials within Seattle anyway outside of the industrial areas, not that changing the number on a sign will make much of a difference anyway.

In other news, as of this week I'm actually working as a contractor at SDOT through my company, so it'll be interesting getting more of an inside look on what's going on there.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on December 19, 2019, 03:07:17 AM
^ Sure, you can't go much faster than 30 or 35 on most arterials in Seattle, but for whatever reason, going 25 just seems painfully slow compared to 30. I do have no problem driving 25 on most residential streets in Seattle, but arterials? Kill me now.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on January 13, 2020, 11:05:43 PM
https://twitter.com/wsdot_traffic/status/1215419667457572864

SR520 was closed overnight last week to remove a damaged sign bridge west of the Montlake Blvd exit, just got a picture of the temporary sign for the wesbound Montlake Exit today:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49382716511_5bc0875bd8_c.jpg)

This is what was there before, for reference: https://goo.gl/maps/d2e944zKbUuqDwun7. There was also a separate "Last exit before toll" sign just before these signs. Didn't get a good look to see if any signs for I-5 were present in the other direction unfortunately. (https://flic.kr/p/2ieMk9K)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kwellada on February 07, 2020, 04:42:44 PM
http://www.southsoundtalk.com/2020/02/07/always-under-construction-the-origins-of-i-5/ (http://www.southsoundtalk.com/2020/02/07/always-under-construction-the-origins-of-i-5/)

Interesting article I just came across regarding I-5 in Tacoma: "Always under construction"
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 08, 2020, 05:53:32 AM
Quote from: kwellada on February 07, 2020, 04:42:44 PM
http://www.southsoundtalk.com/2020/02/07/always-under-construction-the-origins-of-i-5/ (http://www.southsoundtalk.com/2020/02/07/always-under-construction-the-origins-of-i-5/)

Interesting article I just came across regarding I-5 in Tacoma: "Always under construction"

Great article. Love a bit of history reading.

I get why construction in Tacoma is annoying, but I don't think there's enough credit given to what has been done. I-5 and 16 are basically unrecognizable from what they used to look like. Hell, 16 had a left turn at Center Street until the early 90s, IIRC.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kwellada on February 08, 2020, 06:16:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 08, 2020, 05:53:32 AM

I get why construction in Tacoma is annoying, but I don't think there's enough credit given to what has been done. I-5 and 16 are basically unrecognizable from what they used to look like. Hell, 16 had a left turn at Center Street until the early 90s, IIRC.

I've lived in Tacoma only 3 years and I barely remember what that area looked like then!  I am fortunate, however, in that my house is in a spot where I can avoid the curve and get off the freeway at 56th or 38th going north, or Highway 7 or Portland Ave if I'm coming south.   So the project has been less of a hassle for me than most.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 08, 2020, 07:00:02 PM
Quote from: kwellada on February 08, 2020, 06:16:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 08, 2020, 05:53:32 AM

I get why construction in Tacoma is annoying, but I don't think there's enough credit given to what has been done. I-5 and 16 are basically unrecognizable from what they used to look like. Hell, 16 had a left turn at Center Street until the early 90s, IIRC.

I've lived in Tacoma only 3 years and I barely remember what that area looked like then!  I am fortunate, however, in that my house is in a spot where I can avoid the curve and get off the freeway at 56th or 38th going north, or Highway 7 or Portland Ave if I'm coming south.   So the project has been less of a hassle for me than most.

I too am fortunate, but only because I walk almost everywhere here near downtown. I use my car only a couple days a week at most. But everywhere has definitely changed a lot!

The Eastside really is well-connected on all sides.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 09, 2020, 11:26:11 PM
Just came across this while searching some Spokane newspaper archives: in the early 1960s, a few cities in Grant County wanted to have a "US 2 Alt" on the western section of what is now SR 28 from Wenatchee to Soap Lake, continuing onto SR 17 to Coluee City. The group originally wanted to reroute US 2 entirely, but settled on lobbying for an alternate designation. (Spokesman-Review, April 18, 1963 (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/43959754/route_plan_cheers_basin_area_group/))

Even the revised plan was opposed by business interests in Wenatchee and Waterville, and it was denied by the U.S. Numbering Committee. (Spokane Chronicle, July 9, 1963 (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/43960537/us_2_route_plan_suffers_setback/))
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on February 10, 2020, 06:14:44 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 09, 2020, 11:26:11 PM
Just came across this while searching some Spokane newspaper archives: in the early 1960s, a few cities in Grant County wanted to have a "US 2 Alt" on the western section of what is now SR 28 from Wenatchee to Soap Lake, continuing onto SR 17 to Coluee City. The group originally wanted to reroute US 2 entirely, but settled on lobbying for an alternate designation. (Spokesman-Review, April 18, 1963 (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/43959754/route_plan_cheers_basin_area_group/))

Even the revised plan was opposed by business interests in Wenatchee and Waterville, and it was denied by the U.S. Numbering Committee. (Spokane Chronicle, July 9, 1963 (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/43960537/us_2_route_plan_suffers_setback/))

That's an interesting find! Especially seeing as Wenatchee opposed it despite the fact that an Alt US-2 would have met back up with US-2 across the river from Wenatchee due to its routing through downtown at the time. And given US-2's current route that bypasses Wenatchee completely with the bridge across the Columbia that was built north of town, maybe they're regretting their decision as Alt US-2 could have taken over the downtown alignment instead of being left with just a state highway!  :-D
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 22, 2020, 11:40:54 PM
The recent rainstorms have blocked SR 706 (the road to Paradise and Mount Rainier NP) with a few landslides

https://wsdotblog.blogspot.com/2020/02/sr706-road-to-paradise-muddy-debris.html

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on February 24, 2020, 11:34:56 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 22, 2020, 11:40:54 PM
The recent rainstorms have blocked SR 706 (the road to Paradise and Mount Rainier NP) with a few landslides

https://wsdotblog.blogspot.com/2020/02/sr706-road-to-paradise-muddy-debris.html



And now open again, alternating one-way traffic, during the day.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: CtrlAltDel on February 26, 2020, 03:29:44 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 22, 2020, 11:40:54 PM
The recent rainstorms have blocked SR 706 (the road to Paradise and Mount Rainier NP) with a few landslides

https://wsdotblog.blogspot.com/2020/02/sr706-road-to-paradise-muddy-debris.html

I'm amazed the power lines stayed up.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on March 14, 2020, 10:18:21 PM
Add this to the list of "This road to be extended in the future": Lacey (https://goo.gl/maps/cbuK5A5syhencKCu6).  "Future street connection."
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: BloonsTDFan360 on March 16, 2020, 09:15:42 PM
^^^
If you really want more examples of that I have a few that I know of from Clark County.

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.688054,-122.6277094,3a,15y,171.82h,85.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saDHcKaUWTr1aV0OsaSQDuw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.6876863,-122.6371158,3a,15y,81.62h,85.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWvi8wW8hZf7pcPR87plpiw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5966998,-122.4691818,3a,39.8y,175.2h,86.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_CRBL_8Tlabhm6Q6dtI0YQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (this is the old Sharp factory entrance on the Vancouver-Camas border)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 16, 2020, 11:47:25 PM
There seems to be a ton of these in Washington State (I've posted a bunch of examples of the forum already). Yet, I can't recall seeing even one example outside WA. Some exist I'm sure, but they're still much more rare.

That last one (the old Sharp entrance) seems like a really odd one, since the road is already there. Where else would it be extended? If anything, it looks to be closed for reconstruction.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on March 23, 2020, 07:12:23 PM
Seattle's West Seattle Bridge will close at 7pm until further notice for emergency repairs: West Seattle Blog (https://westseattleblog.com/2020/03/just-announced-west-seattle-bridge-closing-because-of-deterioration/).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 23, 2020, 08:57:22 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on March 23, 2020, 07:12:23 PM
Seattle's West Seattle Bridge will close at 7pm until further notice for emergency repairs: West Seattle Blog (https://westseattleblog.com/2020/03/just-announced-west-seattle-bridge-closing-because-of-deterioration/).

Really great timing with the governor's new announcement about "stay-in" order.

I'll be interested to see how they will allow freight onto the Spokane Street Viaduct without allowing personal vehicles. "Trucks only" VMSs?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jay8g on March 24, 2020, 01:46:32 AM
I've been listening to the KCM radio (http://kcmscanner.ddns.net/) this evening and the coordinators have been telling drivers that the West Seattle Bridge closure is expected to last at least a year. I really hope that's not actually going to happen and it's just a miscommunication between SDOT and Metro, but if it's real, this could be a very bad situation. I certainly hope that the coronavirus craziness won't last that long, at least...
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on March 24, 2020, 01:13:12 PM
The West Seattle Bridge was just built in 1984.  It doesn't seem like it should have severe cracking so soon.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 24, 2020, 04:32:00 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 24, 2020, 01:13:12 PM
The West Seattle Bridge was just built in 1984.  It doesn't seem like it should have severe cracking so soon.

Gets me thinking: 1984 bridge...closed for a year? Some serious shit must be going on. Kind of stuff that makes you wonder if the damn thing needs total replacement (again). Weekend closures for maintenance are one thing. Year-long closures? That's more than unusual, and not a good sign.

On the flip-side, the traffic-coordination nerd side of me is looking forward to how the Lower Bridge and West Marginal are going to handle increased traffic demands. Or, better put, how SDOT is going to manage it.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on March 26, 2020, 12:40:35 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 24, 2020, 04:32:00 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 24, 2020, 01:13:12 PM
The West Seattle Bridge was just built in 1984.  It doesn't seem like it should have severe cracking so soon.

Gets me thinking: 1984 bridge...closed for a year? Some serious shit must be going on. Kind of stuff that makes you wonder if the damn thing needs total replacement (again). Weekend closures for maintenance are one thing. Year-long closures? That's more than unusual, and not a good sign.

On the flip-side, the traffic-coordination nerd side of me is looking forward to how the Lower Bridge and West Marginal are going to handle increased traffic demands. Or, better put, how SDOT is going to manage it.


A couple engineer friends of mine are amazed it ever opened in the first place, given the number of problems with the engineering and construction.  They were very surprised when it survived the Nisqually Earthquake, and not surprised by the cracking, at all.  They tell stories about how that bridge was screwed up from jump.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 26, 2020, 03:10:52 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on March 26, 2020, 12:40:35 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 24, 2020, 04:32:00 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 24, 2020, 01:13:12 PM
The West Seattle Bridge was just built in 1984.  It doesn't seem like it should have severe cracking so soon.

Gets me thinking: 1984 bridge...closed for a year? Some serious shit must be going on. Kind of stuff that makes you wonder if the damn thing needs total replacement (again). Weekend closures for maintenance are one thing. Year-long closures? That's more than unusual, and not a good sign.

On the flip-side, the traffic-coordination nerd side of me is looking forward to how the Lower Bridge and West Marginal are going to handle increased traffic demands. Or, better put, how SDOT is going to manage it.

A couple engineer friends of mine are amazed it ever opened in the first place, given the number of problems with the engineering and construction.  They were very surprised when it survived the Nisqually Earthquake, and not surprised by the cracking, at all.  They tell stories about how that bridge was screwed up from jump.

That's not terrifying at all :-/ Hopefully they're exaggerating a bit.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on March 26, 2020, 09:09:04 PM
The first cracks were noticed by inspectors in 2013 and filled with epoxy in 2019. An inspection earlier this month noted that the cracks were growing faster, so that may be why the closure was announced only now.

https://www.kuow.org/stories/city-has-known-about-cracks-in-west-seattle-bridge-since-2013
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 06, 2020, 04:34:41 PM
Switching to Spokane: the state is taking input on urban design elements of the Wellesley and Euclid roadways beneath the NSC. If interested, the link is in this press release:

https://wsdot.wa.gov/news/2020/03/23/wsdot-seeks-public-input-north-spokane-corridor-design-concepts

I took it, and recommended simpler design elements that wouldn't be too distracting. As well, I suggested fewer full-blown murals that could easily be defaced.

Overall, not really the most tasteful designs. Simpler the better! The life-size train mural I thought was pretty cool, but only if they could simplify it so that it was less like a drawing.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: bing101 on April 09, 2020, 04:29:09 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 26, 2020, 09:09:04 PM
The first cracks were noticed by inspectors in 2013 and filled with epoxy in 2019. An inspection earlier this month noted that the cracks were growing faster, so that may be why the closure was announced only now.

https://www.kuow.org/stories/city-has-known-about-cracks-in-west-seattle-bridge-since-2013 (https://www.kuow.org/stories/city-has-known-about-cracks-in-west-seattle-bridge-since-2013)

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/west-seattle-bridge-was-on-a-road-to-collapse-engineers-reports-show/ (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/west-seattle-bridge-was-on-a-road-to-collapse-engineers-reports-show/)

Now there is a warning that the West Seattle Bridge was on a road to collapse if it was not closed.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kwellada on April 09, 2020, 07:33:29 PM
Quote from: bing101 on April 09, 2020, 04:29:09 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 26, 2020, 09:09:04 PM
The first cracks were noticed by inspectors in 2013 and filled with epoxy in 2019. An inspection earlier this month noted that the cracks were growing faster, so that may be why the closure was announced only now.

https://www.kuow.org/stories/city-has-known-about-cracks-in-west-seattle-bridge-since-2013 (https://www.kuow.org/stories/city-has-known-about-cracks-in-west-seattle-bridge-since-2013)

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/west-seattle-bridge-was-on-a-road-to-collapse-engineers-reports-show/ (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/west-seattle-bridge-was-on-a-road-to-collapse-engineers-reports-show/)

Now there is a warning that the West Seattle Bridge was on a road to collapse if it was not closed.

One has to wonder if there had never been a pandemic, would they have noticed in time?  Presumably so, since I imagine it was part of a routine inspection, but it's still scary to think of a worst case scenario in normal rush hour times.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 11, 2020, 11:34:50 PM
A view of the empty bridge:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/West_Seattle_Bridge_closure%2C_seen_from_west_side_-_April_2020.jpg/1280px-West_Seattle_Bridge_closure%2C_seen_from_west_side_-_April_2020.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 12, 2020, 12:15:35 AM
Great photo! Makes me wish I had a proper zoom lens.

I managed to grab a shot of some of the cracks from West Marginal (see if you can spot them :-D):

(https://i.imgur.com/vtLDTRW.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on April 12, 2020, 01:02:58 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2020, 12:15:35 AM
Great photo! Makes me wish I had a proper zoom lens.

I managed to grab a shot of some of the cracks from West Marginal (see if you can spot them :-D):

And yeah, that's why it's closed.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 12, 2020, 04:08:34 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 12, 2020, 01:02:58 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2020, 12:15:35 AM
Great photo! Makes me wish I had a proper zoom lens.

I managed to grab a shot of some of the cracks from West Marginal (see if you can spot them :-D):

And yeah, that's why it's closed.

More joking about the fact that, without using digital zoom, that was the best photo I could get. Not least without Bruce's zoom lens. Still, it's highly visible compared to Street View imagery, where I'm not seeing any cracking in Sep-2018 (https://goo.gl/maps/2PrhUjXhnniSgxpFA).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on April 13, 2020, 01:25:22 PM
Whew!  Looks like my West Seattle friends dodged a bullet when they moved up to Anacortes a few years back.  They (a mother-daughter combination) regularly used that bridge to get to work daily;  likewise myself on my several-times-per-year visits from the early '80's to the mid '00's.  Obviously this sort of thing occurs without public notice, since the bridge was nearly thirty years old before anyone noticed the cracks -- and another six years before anything was done about it!  That in itself is surprising, considering the fact that concrete deterioration is not uncommon on structures and streets in that area (e.g. the Aurora bridge over the ship channel), likely due to the aggregate -- and consistent --  amount of moisture they must endure over years of use (Portland is likewise afflicted).  The PNW is green and lush for a reason -- one that's not always kind to facilities.   
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 13, 2020, 04:06:01 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 13, 2020, 01:25:22 PM
The PNW is green and lush for a reason -- one that's not always kind to facilities.   

I've heard another common complaint, one that's not necessarily related to longevity: everything has a sort of "grimy" appearance (https://goo.gl/maps/sgPd3BmsejoWZDo28) after a while. Streaks from rain, discoloration from being wet all the time, etc.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on April 13, 2020, 10:48:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2020, 04:08:34 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 12, 2020, 01:02:58 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2020, 12:15:35 AM
Great photo! Makes me wish I had a proper zoom lens.

I managed to grab a shot of some of the cracks from West Marginal (see if you can spot them :-D):

And yeah, that's why it's closed.

More joking about the fact that, without using digital zoom, that was the best photo I could get. Not least without Bruce's zoom lens. Still, it's highly visible compared to Street View imagery, where I'm not seeing any cracking in Sep-2018 (https://goo.gl/maps/2PrhUjXhnniSgxpFA).

Cracks visible (https://goo.gl/maps/k6nUBGFPH6VBbEaV6) June 2019.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on April 13, 2020, 11:09:09 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on April 13, 2020, 10:48:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2020, 04:08:34 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 12, 2020, 01:02:58 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 12, 2020, 12:15:35 AM
Great photo! Makes me wish I had a proper zoom lens.

I managed to grab a shot of some of the cracks from West Marginal (see if you can spot them :-D):

And yeah, that's why it's closed.

More joking about the fact that, without using digital zoom, that was the best photo I could get. Not least without Bruce's zoom lens. Still, it's highly visible compared to Street View imagery, where I'm not seeing any cracking in Sep-2018 (https://goo.gl/maps/2PrhUjXhnniSgxpFA).

Cracks visible (https://goo.gl/maps/k6nUBGFPH6VBbEaV6) June 2019.

The Seattle Times article said the cracks were made much more visible when an epoxy was used to seal them up in 2019. If they actually got that big that fast then we'd be looking at a pile of rubble soon, if not already.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on April 14, 2020, 03:51:21 AM
I believe WA has a similar, if not identical, shelter-in-place order to what we have down here in CA.  Re the West Seattle Bridge sitation -- if traffic levels are similarly reduced, the bridge closure could not (ironically) have come at a better time; the low-level Duwamish/Spokane Ave. bridge should readily handle the reduced traffic load between West Seattle and downtown.  Given that, I wonder what type of "permanent" (non-epoxy-fill!) solution will be devised -- absent a complete teardown and reconstruction of the bridge deck. 

BTW, who actually owns and is responsible for the bridge -- WDOT, King County, the City of Seattle, or the port?   :confused:
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: MikieTimT on April 14, 2020, 09:06:30 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 14, 2020, 03:51:21 AM
I believe WA has a similar, if not identical, shelter-in-place order to what we have down here in CA.  Re the West Seattle Bridge sitation -- if traffic levels are similarly reduced, the bridge closure could not (ironically) have come at a better time; the low-level Duwamish/Spokane Ave. bridge should readily handle the reduced traffic load between West Seattle and downtown.  Given that, I wonder what type of "permanent" (non-epoxy-fill!) solution will be devised -- absent a complete teardown and reconstruction of the bridge deck. 

BTW, who actually owns and is responsible for the bridge -- WDOT, King County, the City of Seattle, or the port?   :confused:

This bridge was inspected, maintained, and owned by the city.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 14, 2020, 09:56:55 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 14, 2020, 03:51:21 AM
LRe the West Seattle Bridge sitation -- if traffic levels are similarly reduced, the bridge closure could not (ironically) have come at a better time; the low-level Duwamish/Spokane Ave. bridge should readily handle the reduced traffic load between West Seattle and downtown.

The current low-level bridge is being limited to transit, freight, and emergency services. Passenger vehicles must detour via the 1st Avenue South Bridge (Hwy 99) if they want to head north.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on April 14, 2020, 05:56:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2020, 09:56:55 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 14, 2020, 03:51:21 AM
LRe the West Seattle Bridge sitation -- if traffic levels are similarly reduced, the bridge closure could not (ironically) have come at a better time; the low-level Duwamish/Spokane Ave. bridge should readily handle the reduced traffic load between West Seattle and downtown.

The current low-level bridge is being limited to transit, freight, and emergency services. Passenger vehicles must detour via the 1st Avenue South Bridge (Hwy 99) if they want to head north.

Interesting -- either the lower-level lift bridge mechanism is nearing (or at!) its useful lifespan, and the city simply wants to keep it in working order until more permanent repairs to the newer structure can be completed -- or it's a way to distribute and disperse traffic during the COVID emergency.  I guess West Seattle folks are or will be busy discovering the "back ways" to get over to Marginal and I-5!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 14, 2020, 07:57:48 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 14, 2020, 05:56:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 14, 2020, 09:56:55 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 14, 2020, 03:51:21 AM
LRe the West Seattle Bridge sitation -- if traffic levels are similarly reduced, the bridge closure could not (ironically) have come at a better time; the low-level Duwamish/Spokane Ave. bridge should readily handle the reduced traffic load between West Seattle and downtown.

The current low-level bridge is being limited to transit, freight, and emergency services. Passenger vehicles must detour via the 1st Avenue South Bridge (Hwy 99) if they want to head north.

Interesting -- either the lower-level lift bridge mechanism is nearing (or at!) its useful lifespan, and the city simply wants to keep it in working order until more permanent repairs to the newer structure can be completed -- or it's a way to distribute and disperse traffic during the COVID emergency.  I guess West Seattle folks are or will be busy discovering the "back ways" to get over to Marginal and I-5!

The Seattle area really hasn't seen massive drops in traffic like what I'm seeing in California (significant, yes, just not massive). When I went up to the area on Saturday, there were cars everywhere. If they were trying to put them all over the *swing bridge, the traffic would be pretty hideous. As it is, I think SDOT was seeing AADT's of around 15,000 vehicles last week, before they started to more strictly enforce the restrictions; capacity is about 20,000.

From what I saw, the current system seems to make sense (your second theory): there's not enough bus, freight, nor emergency vehicles to put the bridge over-capacity, but adding in passenger vehicles would change that. So by having regular drivers head down West Marginal to Highland Park Way, they're able to disperse things a bit better. Other than an awkward lane drop southbound along West Marginal (https://westseattleblog.com/2019/10/followup-sdot-tries-low-cost-revision-to-address-safety-by-duwamish-longhouse/) that comes right back, the detour is pretty reasonable. The lights along East Marginal (Hwy 99 north of the 1st Ave So. Bridge) are also very well timed; other than the left turn from West Marginal onto Highland Park (a double left, thankfully), it's a pretty smooth experience, especially getting onto northbound Hwy 99 with the underpass and slip lane. It just adds some time.

The question, of course, is what happens after we get a vaccine: the vast majority of people will likely return to their old habits. As it stands for commuting, that probably means going into the office instead of working from home. Long-term, I suspect there to be some traffic snarling around the West Marginal/Highland Park intersection, which may encourage usage of those buses that are able to use the lower bridge. With regular traffic, taking the bus from West Seattle could easily shave 20+ minutes off a commute by using that detour. Maybe some people will start hiding in tractor-trailers too. There's also the water taxis, which I'm sure will see more use, assuming they aren't permanently removed from service without the funding to operate them.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on April 15, 2020, 12:28:12 AM
Quote from: MikieTimT on April 14, 2020, 09:06:30 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 14, 2020, 03:51:21 AM
I believe WA has a similar, if not identical, shelter-in-place order to what we have down here in CA.  Re the West Seattle Bridge sitation -- if traffic levels are similarly reduced, the bridge closure could not (ironically) have come at a better time; the low-level Duwamish/Spokane Ave. bridge should readily handle the reduced traffic load between West Seattle and downtown.  Given that, I wonder what type of "permanent" (non-epoxy-fill!) solution will be devised -- absent a complete teardown and reconstruction of the bridge deck. 

BTW, who actually owns and is responsible for the bridge -- WDOT, King County, the City of Seattle, or the port?   :confused:

This bridge was inspected, maintained, and owned by the city.

Things reached a crisis in 1979 when one bridge in the the four lane, twin drawspans was struck by a ship and was stuck in the up position.  Some creative types thought of having West Seattle become its own separate city so that the state would have to build a bridge to connect them.  Not a bad idea now.  In the meantime, the police can't keep general traffic off the current two-lane low-level bridge.  Maybe they should make it part of the Good To Go photo toll system.  Non-authorized vehicles would be sent a $124 fine.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 15, 2020, 12:46:46 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on April 15, 2020, 12:28:12 AM
Maybe they should make [the Spokane Street Swing Bridge] part of the Good To Go photo toll system.  Non-authorized vehicles would be sent a $124 fine.

To be fair to drivers, the ramps leading up to the bridge are a bit confusing. Short of playing "lemmings", it's hard to process all the signage when traffic is moving at regular speeds. At least I struggled a bit, trying to recall exactly which road names correspond to which roads, etc.

(https://i.imgur.com/O5eM4NH.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 15, 2020, 03:11:29 AM
There are police officers posted at the west end of the low-level bridge who are standing in the ramp unless they see an authorized vehicle to wave through. The east end was kind of a free-for-all when I last drove it (on Thursday).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jay8g on April 15, 2020, 06:51:58 PM
Today was a big news day (https://westseattleblog.com/2020/04/happening-now-west-seattle-bridge-may-not-be-fixable-says-sdot-even-if-it-is-closure-will-last-at-least-until-2022/) for the West Seattle Bridge:

I'm definitely starting to wonder whether SDOT may just decide to start from scratch with a new bridge here... of course, with the whole COVID recession that's starting, I have no idea where they'll be able to get the money for that! (The current estimate is $33 million just for early repairs and shoring -- not even for full repairs to reopen the bridge, let alone replacement.)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 15, 2020, 07:28:41 PM
The lower bridge will need to have automated camera enforcement, since keeping cops there for hours a day would not work in post-pandemic Seattle.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kwellada on April 15, 2020, 08:12:01 PM
It occurs to me that another side effect of the pandemic is that the new Seattle tunnel is likely not generating near the toll revenue they probably expected, which pushes back how long that'll take to pay off.  I don't envy the highway dept budget planners.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on April 15, 2020, 08:38:13 PM
Quote from: jay8g on April 15, 2020, 06:51:58 PM
Today was a big news day (https://westseattleblog.com/2020/04/happening-now-west-seattle-bridge-may-not-be-fixable-says-sdot-even-if-it-is-closure-will-last-at-least-until-2022/) for the West Seattle Bridge:

  • Not expected to open until at least 2022
  • SDOT isn't sure whether it will be able to be fixed at all or if it will need full replacement
  • If it is able to be repaired, repairs will provide "up to 10 years of additional use" before it will need replacement

I'm definitely starting to wonder whether SDOT may just decide to start from scratch with a new bridge here... of course, with the whole COVID recession that's starting, I have no idea where they'll be able to get the money for that! (The current estimate is $33 million just for early repairs and shoring -- not even for full repairs to reopen the bridge, let alone replacement.)

We need another ship to run into it so we can justify some replacement money.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 12:06:29 AM
Wow. Just wow. Really incredible news, and not in a good way.

What I would like to know, is where along the current span the viaducts end, and the bridge begins. I can't imagine the entire span from 99 to Admiral Way, other than the bit over the Duwamish, would need replacing. But I don't know.

I'll be very interested to see how, with a potentially devastating recession looming, what an entirely new bridge could look like, assuming a giant chunk of the original bridge needs removing. Narrower than the current bridge? Maybe a new dualled lower span more akin to the original setup? Or perhaps a rebuild with an equal number of inbound and outbound lanes (unlike the current bridge, with its unequal number of lanes).

Quote from: Bruce on April 15, 2020, 07:28:41 PM
The lower bridge will need to have automated camera enforcement, since keeping cops there for hours a day would not work in post-pandemic Seattle.

Agreed, though I think you'd need some form of decal for that to work. Otherwise, the state would have to keep a database of permitted vs non-permitted plates in its system; that would be a titanic undertaking.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 16, 2020, 12:52:40 AM
The new bridge could be made a bit lower, since the original height (140 ft) was meant to allow for the tallest masts for a ship of the time (in the 1980s) at the insistence of Senator Magnuson, according to his biography (https://www.postalley.org/2020/04/02/a-bridge-too-high-how-warren-magnuson-overbuilt-the-west-seattle-bridge/). I've checked my own copy of the book and it matches what this article mentions.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 01:51:52 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 16, 2020, 12:52:40 AM
The new bridge could be made a bit lower, since the original height (140 ft) was meant to allow for the tallest masts for a ship of the time (in the 1980s) at the insistence of Senator Magnuson, according to his biography (https://www.postalley.org/2020/04/02/a-bridge-too-high-how-warren-magnuson-overbuilt-the-west-seattle-bridge/). I've checked my own copy of the book and it matches what this article mentions.

Thanks for the link. I particularly like this line:

Quote
the bridge design was high enough to allow passage of "the highest mast conceivable for a ship at that time; higher than has ever been remotely needed".

:-D :-D Gotta love Magnuson!

I see the article mentions that it was too steep for rail or monorail transit. Were those, at some point, proposed to cross over the bridge?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 16, 2020, 02:51:11 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 01:51:52 AM
I see the article mentions that it was too steep for rail or monorail transit. Were those, at some point, proposed to cross over the bridge?

In the early 2000s plan (the Green Line), they wanted a single-track monorail on top of the bridge median.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 12:59:48 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 16, 2020, 02:51:11 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 01:51:52 AM
I see the article mentions that it was too steep for rail or monorail transit. Were those, at some point, proposed to cross over the bridge?

In the early 2000s plan (the Green Line), they wanted a single-track monorail on top of the bridge median.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that giant project. Didn't realize the plan was to utilize the West Seattle Bridge.

Here's a video from Youtube showing a double-track simulation going over the bridge (jump to 1:55):

https://youtu.be/TUoqeRADp4Q?t=115
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: nexus73 on April 16, 2020, 02:48:41 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 12:59:48 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 16, 2020, 02:51:11 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 01:51:52 AM
I see the article mentions that it was too steep for rail or monorail transit. Were those, at some point, proposed to cross over the bridge?

In the early 2000s plan (the Green Line), they wanted a single-track monorail on top of the bridge median.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that giant project. Didn't realize the plan was to utilize the West Seattle Bridge.

Here's a video from Youtube showing a double-track simulation going over the bridge (jump to 1:55):

https://youtu.be/TUoqeRADp4Q?t=115

If Shelbyville has a monorail, then Springfield wants one as well...LOL!

Rick
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 04:43:24 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on April 16, 2020, 02:48:41 PM
If Shelbyville has a monorail, then Springfield wants one as well...LOL!

I grew up a huge Simpsons fan. My cousin still sings the Monorail song when we're in Seattle and he spots the Link train. I can't imagine how psyched he'd be if there were legit monorails flying around Seattle! At least beyond the current one.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on April 16, 2020, 05:29:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 04:43:24 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on April 16, 2020, 02:48:41 PM
If Shelbyville has a monorail, then Springfield wants one as well...LOL!

I grew up a huge Simpsons fan. My cousin still sings the Monorail song when we're in Seattle and he spots the Link train. I can't imagine how psyched he'd be if there were legit monorails flying around Seattle! At least beyond the current one.

But the Link is not a monorail!  (Doh!)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 07:46:26 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 16, 2020, 05:29:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 04:43:24 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on April 16, 2020, 02:48:41 PM
If Shelbyville has a monorail, then Springfield wants one as well...LOL!

I grew up a huge Simpsons fan. My cousin still sings the Monorail song when we're in Seattle and he spots the Link train. I can't imagine how psyched he'd be if there were legit monorails flying around Seattle! At least beyond the current one.

But the Link is not a monorail!  (Doh!)

Well no, but it's a big white train with people on it, going up and down major corridors. Close enough for the uneducated :-D
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on April 17, 2020, 12:04:49 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 12:06:29 AM
What I would like to know, is where along the current span the viaducts end, and the bridge begins. I can't imagine the entire span from 99 to Admiral Way, other than the bit over the Duwamish, would need replacing. But I don't know.


If you look you can spot the older sections of freeway and the new 1984 bridge.  It's not that old, and the age difference is still apparent.  (Slightly unrelated is this ramp stub. (https://goo.gl/maps/1uoSZYeykvBqSuRMA))

How to pay for it?  Easy, sell bonds to be paid off with tolls.  We've already shown a willingness to toll more lanes than we used to not long ago.  See if the state will go for a reduced Alaskan Way Tunnel toll for drivers that use both the bridge and the tunnel, to ease some of the burden.  The state won't pay off their tunnel bonds quickly if they don't have a West Seattle Bridge to feed traffic to it.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 17, 2020, 12:25:12 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on April 17, 2020, 12:04:49 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 16, 2020, 12:06:29 AM
What I would like to know, is where along the current span the viaducts end, and the bridge begins. I can't imagine the entire span from 99 to Admiral Way, other than the bit over the Duwamish, would need replacing. But I don't know.

If you look you can spot the older sections of freeway and the new 1984 bridge.  It's not that old, and the age difference is still apparent.  (Slightly unrelated is this ramp stub. (https://goo.gl/maps/1uoSZYeykvBqSuRMA))

How to pay for it?  Easy, sell bonds to be paid off with tolls.  We've already shown a willingness to toll more lanes than we used to not long ago.  See if the state will go for a reduced Alaskan Way Tunnel toll for drivers that use both the bridge and the tunnel, to ease some of the burden.  The state won't pay off their tunnel bonds quickly if they don't have a West Seattle Bridge to feed traffic to it.

All my time looking at maps, and I never spotted that stub. Looks like it was the old off-ramp to Spokane Street? Before being realigned because of conflicting ramps, it seems.

I would think that a toll bridge is almost a certainty. With good luck, SDOT will be able to use WSDOT's tolling equipment. I'd really rather not go through the trouble of acquiring a separate decal or transponder just to use this bridge. Other states have figured it out; I'm not used to seeing Good to Go along anything except state highways, hence my curiosity. At any rate, you're right that it's in WSDOT's interest to ensure this bridge continues operating, to keep toll revenue rolling through (particularly when faced with drivers switching to other modes to avoid driving the five-mile detour). Perhaps this interest could extend to the route becoming a state highway?

Of course, there could be the possibility that the bridge could be up for federal replacement funds again. Maybe there's some insurance on the bridge? I assume there will be a lawsuit as well, against...well I'm not sure who just yet, but the city will certainly take legal action. The bridge clearly isn't lasting anywhere near the length of time that was originally promised, and its failure to reach that longevity was not the fault of the city.

I've seen a bunch of people talking about the uneven number of lanes going over the bridge. Was this a recent change? Old imagery online seems to suggest that it's been 4+3 lanes for a quite a while.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on April 17, 2020, 01:19:40 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 17, 2020, 12:25:12 AM

All my time looking at maps, and I never spotted that stub. Looks like it was the old off-ramp to Spokane Street? Before being realigned because of conflicting ramps, it seems.


To be fair, Jake, the stub was created relatively recently. This Street View (https://goo.gl/maps/K4bppYZtu3dzVkqC9) shows that ramp still in use before the reconstruction of the Spokane St Viaduct east of SR 99 was completed. And even more recently, that ramp was still showing up on Google's map before I reported it and got it changed!

Not open again until at least 2022 though? Man that's going to be a traffic nightmare... I don't envy anyone living in West Seattle, that's for sure! Will probably avoid going on many trips over there myself as well...

Also, since we now know this will be a bit of a longer-term topic, might we want to spin this discussion off to its own thread?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on April 17, 2020, 01:23:36 PM
While, yes, the current bridge is overkill in its height, the bridge it replaced was a draw bridge, and much like the Zilwaukee Bridge in MI, it was overkill, and shortly after it opened was no longer needed.  However, lowering it too much, would make the approach from West Seattle a little awkward.  Perhaps a slanted bridge would be best, that has a nice steady grade from the viaduct to West Seattle.


I can see this as a chance for WSDOT to take over and actually connect the Fontleroy Ferry Terminal by an actual state route, and we can actually call it the "West Seattle Freeway" again. :)


Then again, WSDOT can barely figure out how to replace and manage their own bridges at this point, or build replacements for some ancient bridges in the system that seriously need work, bypassing, or replacement.







Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on April 17, 2020, 02:07:03 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on April 17, 2020, 01:23:36 PM
While, yes, the current bridge is overkill in its height, the bridge it replaced was a draw bridge, and much like the Zilwaukee Bridge in MI, it was overkill, and shortly after it opened was no longer needed.  However, lowering it too much, would make the approach from West Seattle a little awkward.  Perhaps a slanted bridge would be best, that has a nice steady grade from the viaduct to West Seattle.


I can see this as a chance for WSDOT to take over and actually connect the Fontleroy Ferry Terminal by an actual state route, and we can actually call it the "West Seattle Freeway" again. :)


Then again, WSDOT can barely figure out how to replace and manage their own bridges at this point, or build replacements for some ancient bridges in the system that seriously need work, bypassing, or replacement.









Actually, bringing Fauntleroy/Spokane St. viaduct into the state system from I-5 to the ferry terminal is simply formalizing what has been a reality for several decades.  Washington law stipulates that at least one end of a state ferry "route" connect to a land-based state highway.  Interestingly, the Fauntleroy ferry makes a stop at the north end of Vashon Island before heading west to Southworth over on the Olympic peninsula, where it segues onto WA 160.  I guess this means that the state considers the entire route of the ferry to be the "route" in question rather than just the leg to Vashon, which doesn't include a signed state highway.  But it's likely WDOT, like most state highway agencies, would rather relinquish city street mileage than adopt more (although they've done both in the Seattle area in the past couple of decades -- i.e., shedding most of 513 and adding 523).  But if it would get a new (and hopefully improved) West Seattle bridge completed sooner than later, tolls or not, ceding the route to WDOT, probably as an extension of WA 160, might be something to be considered. 

Several years back before my West Seattle friends made the move up to Anacortes, I had the occasion to use Fauntleroy frequently; their home was in the Gatewood area overlooking the intersection of Fauntleroy and California.  I was struck by the physical similarity of that street to a number of CA state highways occupying city streets -- particularly the old jointed concrete center lanes flanked by asphalt outer ones, obviously added later in a facility expansion.  And that configuration ended at the approach to the ferry terminal, indicating that the function of the original road was to connect the terminal to central Seattle.  Sometime later during my tenure in grad school in Portland, I had occasion to contact WDOT at their Olympia HQ regarding some research I was undertaking.  I slipped in a question about Fauntleroy and the state system; the answer was that they had considered taking Fauntleroy and the bridge continuum into the state system on more than one occasion, but they never could come to an agreement with the city of Seattle regarding a number of details like channeling; signal timing, and the like -- so it never happened.  Apparently the original construction in the late '30's was a joint state/city effort, but WDOT never formally brought the street into the system.  With the issues with the bridge and the expense of a replacement, maybe it's finally time!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 19, 2020, 08:31:08 PM
The Times summarized a few of the mitigation ideas floating around for West Seattle: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/everything-has-to-be-on-the-table-getting-around-without-the-west-seattle-bridge/

I think the addition of more water taxis and buses (with dedicated lanes) is the most realistic option. There's also been word that the lower bridge might be closed if the high bridge structure poses a risk to it, which would make the situation even worse.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 20, 2020, 02:21:06 AM
I think SDOT may want to reconsider the single-lane stretch of southbound Marginal outside the tribal center. While driving southbound last weekend, traffic spread to two lanes, but then had to merge back over about 1/3 of a mile later; it currently goes 2 lanes > 1 lane > 2 lanes > 1 lane > 2 lanes, which is incredibly confusing and absurdly awkward. There was even one point where a left turn lane was so poorly marked, one driver started driving in the oncoming lane thinking that they had entered a through lane (because the road widened and they thought a second lane had formed).

These "bugs" will be worked out in good time, but I think there's some steps that could be taken to improve the situation:

* Normalize the number of southbound lanes along Marginal. There can only be one southbound lane beneath the low bridge because of a width restriction, but widen it two lanes after that until Highland Park or keep it as one lane until after the tribal center.
* Chelan and West Marginal should become a continuous through movement, with an advanced green arrow for West Marginal towards the low bridge to accommodate trucks from industrial sites to the south along West Marginal destined for the low bridge.
* Modify the left turn phasing for southbound Marginal at Highland Park to protected/permissive (northbound W Marginal is heavy being the main route from the bridge, and the southbound left is heavy as traffic turns towards the First Ave South Bridge). Seattle has precedence for this kind of phasing, and visibility is excellent; alternatively, institute lagging phasing for the left turns if it must remain protected.

SDOT's plan to work on channelization, bus queue jumps, and repaving are all well-advised and I'm glad they're accomplishing those tasks. Truthfully, for as annoying as the detour is, there should be enough capacity (with slight modifications) in the area to reduce jams and keep the detour length to a minimum. With any luck, there should be fewer cars overall with hopefully higher transit usage and higher rates of teleworking. That interchange at the First Ave South Bridge should be able to easily handle the number of cars that will at some point be asked of it. The trick will be the weaving once traffic enters the northbound bridge.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 20, 2020, 10:46:08 PM
Right on queue: the lower bridge could close if the situation on the high bridge worsens.

https://twitter.com/MikeLindblom/status/1252419569316069381
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 20, 2020, 11:16:09 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 20, 2020, 10:46:08 PM
Right on queue

Bus signals on your mind? :-D




Pretty terrifying to think the cracks could get bad enough to warrant the closure of the lower span.

This situation is going from bad to real bad way faster than I would have imagined.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 21, 2020, 12:56:43 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 20, 2020, 11:16:09 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 20, 2020, 10:46:08 PM
Right on queue

Bus signals on your mind? :-D

Indeed, we need a million queue jumps in West Seattle. That's my cue to push more transit.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 28, 2020, 03:29:30 AM
Temporary signage is up at the Marginal/Delridge/Chelan/Spokane intersection, which also got some fresh asphalt and paint.

https://twitter.com/seattledot/status/1254847810241024003
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 28, 2020, 04:51:12 AM
Thank you for sharing a tweet that didn't involve Sesame Street color references. I saw the tweet earlier thanks to Mike Lindblom.

I'm really confused about what they did. It seems they've modified the signals so that...

* westbound is LT + THRU/RT
* eastbound is LT + THRU + THRU + BUS + RT

...effectively removing a through westbound lane purely so they could add protected-only left turns (from their own lanes) onto the lower bridge and Chelan Ave. Doing so eliminated the left westbound through lane (used to be a shared left/straight lane), forcing all traffic into the right lane. Westbound traffic was already piling into one lane early on because of a merge after the intersection, but traffic would have spread out over time as drivers became more familiar with the intersection. Now, if a driver makes the mistake of using the left lane along West Marginal for too long, they'll end up getting to a point where they can't turn left because they're not a truck or bus, but can't go straight either because there's only one through lane. That's not good design at all. At least with regular lanes that become right or left turns, drivers can make the turns and turn around. Not possible here.

Now, realistically, traffic should be pretty light for a while. But if that's the case, why so many drastic modifications? They could have easily fixed the current intersection by simply modifying the traffic signals to allow left turns on green. It would have been that simple. There were already two through lanes in each direction; the problem was the split-phasing, and that's an easy fix when there aren't double left turns. If visibility was an issue for eastbound left turns, simply eliminate that movement (those cars and trucks can go up the lower bridge and turn left at the signal right before the actual bridge).

I love SDOT (very "progressive" agency), but then they do stuff like this, and I'm sitting here wondering A) what they were smoking, but more importantly B) how in the hell they found the money to do all this, which long term won't be as effective as simply modifying the left turn phasing.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on April 29, 2020, 02:09:49 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 28, 2020, 04:51:12 AM
Thank you for sharing a tweet that didn't involve Sesame Street color references. I saw the tweet earlier thanks to Mike Lindblom.

I'm really confused about what they did. It seems they've modified the signals so that...

* westbound is LT + THRU/RT
* eastbound is LT + THRU + THRU + BUS + RT

...effectively removing a through westbound lane purely so they could add protected-only left turns (from their own lanes) onto the lower bridge and Chelan Ave. Doing so eliminated the left westbound through lane (used to be a shared left/straight lane), forcing all traffic into the right lane. Westbound traffic was already piling into one lane early on because of a merge after the intersection, but traffic would have spread out over time as drivers became more familiar with the intersection. Now, if a driver makes the mistake of using the left lane along West Marginal for too long, they'll end up getting to a point where they can't turn left because they're not a truck or bus, but can't go straight either because there's only one through lane. That's not good design at all. At least with regular lanes that become right or left turns, drivers can make the turns and turn around. Not possible here.

Now, realistically, traffic should be pretty light for a while. But if that's the case, why so many drastic modifications? They could have easily fixed the current intersection by simply modifying the traffic signals to allow left turns on green. It would have been that simple. There were already two through lanes in each direction; the problem was the split-phasing, and that's an easy fix when there aren't double left turns. If visibility was an issue for eastbound left turns, simply eliminate that movement (those cars and trucks can go up the lower bridge and turn left at the signal right before the actual bridge).

I love SDOT (very "progressive" agency), but then they do stuff like this, and I'm sitting here wondering A) what they were smoking, but more importantly B) how in the hell they found the money to do all this, which long term won't be as effective as simply modifying the left turn phasing.

I think you're forgetting about a leg of the 5-way intersection, Jake. The WB LT lane is meant mainly for traffic headed to Delridge, which seems to make tons of sense to me as I wouldn't expect that many trucks heading to Harbor Island to come from W Marginal anyway, and I'm sure SDOT put pre-COVID traffic volumes into analysis software to verify their design, you don't just go changing lanes willy-nilly. I actually helped with another lane-redo at Holden/SW 16th that added some left turn lanes which was already going to happen and had funding but got sped up due to the bridge closure, I wouldn't be surprised if a similar situation happened here.

See the drawing below for a more clear view of the new layout.

(https://sdotblog.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2020/04/Chelan-5-way-lane-design.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 29, 2020, 02:55:01 AM
Quote from: stevashe on April 29, 2020, 02:09:49 AM
I think you're forgetting about a leg of the 5-way intersection, Jake. The WB LT lane is meant mainly for traffic headed to Delridge, which seems to make tons of sense to me as I wouldn't expect that many trucks heading to Harbor Island to come from W Marginal anyway, and I'm sure SDOT put pre-COVID traffic volumes into analysis software to verify their design, you don't just go changing lanes willy-nilly. I actually helped with another lane-redo at Holden/SW 16th that added some left turn lanes which was already going to happen and had funding but got sped up due to the bridge closure, I wouldn't be surprised if a similar situation happened here.

See the drawing below for a more clear view of the new layout.

(https://sdotblog.seattle.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2020/04/Chelan-5-way-lane-design.png)

You're right! I did forget about Delridge. That's exceedingly embarrassing, but what has been said, has been said. I've been to West Seattle more times in the last few weeks than I have in the years before, so I'm still getting used to things. Probably should have kept that in mind when I started offering proposals. :banghead:

I guess it would be a bit more unusual to allow permissive lefts from one street towards two different streets, although I don't think it would have been too unusual. I would still think my point applies a bit, minus the bit about getting stuck (since that left turn also allows movements towards Delridge). They've continued to allow two through lanes eastbound, likely because the left turn signal from that direction will reduce available green time for eastbound traffic.

I drew up my channelization plan (does not show signalization but through traffic would proceed simultaneously):

(https://i.imgur.com/MaiORPp.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on May 07, 2020, 10:29:02 PM
Seattle is expanding its Healthy Streets program, which has temporarily blocked residential streets to thru traffic to allow for pedestrian/bicycle priority, into a permanent one. 20 miles with no-thru-traffic signs, and maybe some actual blockades later on.

Sorely needed, given how some of these neighborhoods lack large enough parks.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/seattle-will-permanently-close-20-miles-of-residential-streets-to-most-vehicle-traffic/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on May 08, 2020, 02:53:27 AM
Quote from: Bruce on May 07, 2020, 10:29:02 PM
Seattle is expanding its Healthy Streets program, which has temporarily blocked residential streets to thru traffic to allow for pedestrian/bicycle priority, into a permanent one. 20 miles with no-thru-traffic signs, and maybe some actual blockades later on.

Sorely needed, given how some of these neighborhoods lack large enough parks.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/seattle-will-permanently-close-20-miles-of-residential-streets-to-most-vehicle-traffic/

Some of the roads chosen are just ridiculous, including Lake Washington Blvd, which sees heavy traffic, and is one of the most scenic roads in the city. It's also one of my favorite roads in Seattle, and it's quite sad that they're considering closing this to thru traffic.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on May 08, 2020, 03:38:41 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on May 08, 2020, 02:53:27 AM
Quote from: Bruce on May 07, 2020, 10:29:02 PM
Seattle is expanding its Healthy Streets program, which has temporarily blocked residential streets to thru traffic to allow for pedestrian/bicycle priority, into a permanent one. 20 miles with no-thru-traffic signs, and maybe some actual blockades later on.

Sorely needed, given how some of these neighborhoods lack large enough parks.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/seattle-will-permanently-close-20-miles-of-residential-streets-to-most-vehicle-traffic/

Some of the roads chosen are just ridiculous, including Lake Washington Blvd, which sees heavy traffic, and is one of the most scenic roads in the city. It's also one of my favorite roads in Seattle, and it's quite sad that they're considering closing this to thru traffic.

So how is the city intending to implement these closures, seeing as how residents will continue to be able to physically access their homes?  Doing it by signage/active enforcement only would entail a huge level of manpower; an alternative would be regular permanent barriers to render through traffic impossible -- essentially expanding on the old 1960's Berkeley "schematic", which shunted traffic so that through movements couldn't be made, largely through use of diagonal barriers at intersections.  Question -- were the residents along the affected streets made part of the decision chain, or was this a top-down policy-driven mandate?  If the residents -- or an overwhelming majority of them -- acceded to the plan, it may well be considered valid; if imposed from above by well-meaning officials absent local input, not so much!  Perhaps the traffic lull resultant from the COVID problem was too much of an opportunity to ignore.  It'll be interesting to see the overall public reaction once the policy is fully instituted!     
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 08, 2020, 05:00:56 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 08, 2020, 03:38:41 AM
Question -- were the residents along the affected streets made part of the decision chain, or was this a top-down policy-driven mandate?  If the residents -- or an overwhelming majority of them -- acceded to the plan, it may well be considered valid; if imposed from above by well-meaning officials absent local input, not so much!  Perhaps the traffic lull resultant from the COVID problem was too much of an opportunity to ignore.  It'll be interesting to see the overall public reaction once the policy is fully instituted!     

It's very unlike Seattle not to impart their plans with local residents and develop goals based around their needs prior to any project (even smaller stuff). The more unusual thing here is the speed at which we went from no Healthy Streets, to permanent through-traffic closures. That indicates to me that public input was limited; the "Seattle process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_process)" usually precludes quick choices.

My guess is that blow-back will be stiff starting tomorrow, as more people become aware of the news. Local residents are likely indifferent to the decision, since they will continue to have access anyhow, but some roads like Lake Washington Blvd are not just scenic routes, but also important arterials, and redirected traffic could easily begin to ruin other streets, particularly as traffic returns back to original levels (which sucks, but it will absolutely happen).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on May 08, 2020, 06:26:47 PM
Lake Washington Boulevard is indeed scenic, which is why it should be opened to pedestrian and cyclist traffic. It's already like that on Sundays in summer and doesn't cause massive gridlock. Simply requiring regular cars to turn off where possible (and use alternative routes that are also scenic) would have little effect on traffic but come with a huge boost in livability.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 09, 2020, 03:17:02 AM
Quote from: Bruce on May 08, 2020, 06:26:47 PM
Lake Washington Boulevard is indeed scenic, which is why it should be opened to pedestrian and cyclist traffic. It's already like that on Sundays in summer and doesn't cause massive gridlock. Simply requiring regular cars to turn off where possible (and use alternative routes that are also scenic) would have little effect on traffic but come with a huge boost in livability.

One thing they've taught us in Urban Design is to not simply remove roadways, not least without serious consideration of traffic flow in the area; pushing cars off of one road is simply pushing them onto another, resulting in an increase of livability for one stretch, but a marked decrease for another.

Lake Washington Blvd isn't much of an arterial south/east of 49th, so I could see removing that stretch. But the rest is relatively important for north/south travel. Removing that road may result in an increase of traffic along Rainier, itself already experiencing plenty of issues. We don't need to be adding more cars to it, or adjacent neighborhood greenways. Let things balance out a bit. No reason to cram everyone onto one road, when we can design roads that allow car travel while not being a ruinous experience for pedestrians.

Down in the Tacoma Dome District, we are working on preliminary plans to close East 25th, between East D and the exit from the Sound Transit garage. This area has the Amtrak, Sounder, and Tacoma Link stations. Very heavy use by transit, and lots of pedestrians. The case is good. I just don't think SDOT has made the case for closing many of their roads. Not long term, at least.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on May 11, 2020, 09:57:48 PM
The Seattle Times: What cracked the West Seattle Bridge? Hidden design problem may have doomed it all along (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/what-cracked-the-west-seattle-bridge-suspects-include-heavy-traffic-a-jammed-bearing-and-something-called-creep/)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on May 22, 2020, 12:08:24 AM
Seattle Now & Then: West Seattle drawbridges, 1978 (https://pauldorpat.com/2020/05/21/seattle-now-then-bridges-to-west-seattle-1978/)

Someone asked earlier about the capacity of the older lower-level bridges.  The article said they were eight lanes, but the older photo shows the disabled bridge had three lanes.  They funneled the traffic onto four narrowed lanes on the remaining bridge.  Also the succession plans of West Seattle is discussed.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 22, 2020, 12:25:04 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on May 22, 2020, 12:08:24 AM
Seattle Now & Then: West Seattle drawbridges, 1978 (https://pauldorpat.com/2020/05/21/seattle-now-then-bridges-to-west-seattle-1978/)

Someone asked earlier about the capacity of the older lower-level bridges.  The article said they were eight lanes, but the older photo shows the disabled bridge had three lanes.  They funneled the traffic onto four narrowed lanes on the remaining bridge.  Also the succession plans of West Seattle is discussed.

Cool article.

This video from Seattle Archives (which may not have aged well :-D) shows the old bridge in operation. Four lanes each way. Far left westbound lane was half concrete, half asphalt (see 1:12). Old aerial imagery (https://www.historicaerials.com/location/47.57153506444323/-122.35120922327044/1940/18) suggests it was originally three lanes.

https://youtu.be/3pQ7LcpMrf8

By the way: fantastic video for anyone that hasn't seen it, irrespective of the current situation.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on May 23, 2020, 12:14:17 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on May 11, 2020, 09:57:48 PM
The Seattle Times: What cracked the West Seattle Bridge? Hidden design problem may have doomed it all along (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/what-cracked-the-west-seattle-bridge-suspects-include-heavy-traffic-a-jammed-bearing-and-something-called-creep/)


Several engineer friends I know were really upset that the anchor cables don't cover the full span, and always told me that they way they did the tensioning was considered by many to be a ticking time-bomb.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 08, 2020, 04:28:25 AM
The traffic lights on Pine Street have been covered up with plastic bags during protests.

(https://i.imgur.com/rYm6s1h.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: mrsman on June 08, 2020, 10:49:35 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 08, 2020, 04:28:25 AM
The traffic lights on Pine Street have been covered up with plastic bags during protests.

(https://i.imgur.com/rYm6s1h.jpg)
Why?  Is the street closed to traffic at all times?

Nexus 5X

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 08, 2020, 03:16:00 PM
Maybe while the protestors are at it, they can forcibly remove the signals and place them on the corners so I can fucking see the signals when there's a bus ahead of me. Since right now, I'm blind approaching every intersection in my Golf.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on June 09, 2020, 01:01:28 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 08, 2020, 10:49:35 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 08, 2020, 04:28:25 AM
The traffic lights on Pine Street have been covered up with plastic bags during protests.

(https://i.imgur.com/rYm6s1h.jpg)
Why?  Is the street closed to traffic at all times?

I believe the street has been closed 24/7 since the protests began here, yes.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 09, 2020, 01:04:16 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 08, 2020, 10:49:35 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 08, 2020, 04:28:25 AM
The traffic lights on Pine Street have been covered up with plastic bags during protests.

(https://i.imgur.com/rYm6s1h.jpg)
Why?  Is the street closed to traffic at all times?

Nexus 5X



Yep, a few streets around the East Precinct on Capitol Hill are blocked at practically all times by the police barricades, and the west entry on Pine Street is where the main protest is.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: roadfro on June 09, 2020, 11:34:51 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 09, 2020, 01:04:16 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 08, 2020, 10:49:35 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 08, 2020, 04:28:25 AM
The traffic lights on Pine Street have been covered up with plastic bags during protests.

(https://i.imgur.com/rYm6s1h.jpg)
Why?  Is the street closed to traffic at all times?

Yep, a few streets around the East Precinct on Capitol Hill are blocked at practically all times by the police barricades, and the west entry on Pine Street is where the main protest is.

Doesn't seem necessary to bag the signals though. Just flash them red or turn them off...
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 09, 2020, 05:39:17 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 09, 2020, 11:34:51 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 09, 2020, 01:04:16 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 08, 2020, 10:49:35 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 08, 2020, 04:28:25 AM
The traffic lights on Pine Street have been covered up with plastic bags during protests.

(https://i.imgur.com/rYm6s1h.jpg)
Why?  Is the street closed to traffic at all times?

Yep, a few streets around the East Precinct on Capitol Hill are blocked at practically all times by the police barricades, and the west entry on Pine Street is where the main protest is.

Doesn't seem necessary to bag the signals though. Just flash them red or turn them off...

I'm thinking they are trying to protect them.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on June 09, 2020, 08:18:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 09, 2020, 05:39:17 PM
Quote from: roadfro on June 09, 2020, 11:34:51 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 09, 2020, 01:04:16 AM
Quote from: mrsman on June 08, 2020, 10:49:35 AM
Why?  Is the street closed to traffic at all times?

Yep, a few streets around the East Precinct on Capitol Hill are blocked at practically all times by the police barricades, and the west entry on Pine Street is where the main protest is.

Doesn't seem necessary to bag the signals though. Just flash them red or turn them off...

I'm thinking they are trying to protect them.

Probably. Just saw some that were flashing red on the news just now though, so I'm thinking they only did this at the one intersection at the center of the gatherings.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 10, 2020, 11:36:36 PM
Pine Street has a new sign for the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone:

(https://i.imgur.com/7qlSqJU.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on June 11, 2020, 01:32:10 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 10, 2020, 11:36:36 PM
Pine Street has a new sign for the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone:

(https://i.imgur.com/7qlSqJU.jpg)
The one I saw in the news had an upside-down Washington:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaMBmdqUYAIhs7f.jpg
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: mrsman on June 12, 2020, 09:19:33 AM
So this sign was fabricated and made just for these latest protests?  It seems like an unnecessary detail given all that is happening.

Although, if they do make a truly autonomous zone, I suppose they would need border crossings and the like, similar to other DMZs out there in the real world.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 13, 2020, 12:50:02 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 11, 2020, 01:32:10 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 10, 2020, 11:36:36 PM
Pine Street has a new sign for the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone:

(https://i.imgur.com/7qlSqJU.jpg)
The one I saw in the news had an upside-down Washington:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaMBmdqUYAIhs7f.jpg

That one is on Pike Street (which I saw today). This one was at Pine and Nagle.

Quote from: mrsman on June 12, 2020, 09:19:33 AM
So this sign was fabricated and made just for these latest protests?  It seems like an unnecessary detail given all that is happening.

Although, if they do make a truly autonomous zone, I suppose they would need border crossings and the like, similar to other DMZs out there in the real world.

A random person made it and put it up. It's art even if it isn't MUTCD compliant.

If CHAZ ends up existing long-term, there wouldn't be hard borders but it would likely be treated like Freetown Christiania in Copenhagen (before it was normalized). At most I see Pine Street being closed to thru traffic (except buses, potentially), which would be a boon for the neighborhood.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: mrsman on June 14, 2020, 06:39:55 PM
Quote from: Bruce on June 13, 2020, 12:50:02 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 11, 2020, 01:32:10 AM
Quote from: Bruce on June 10, 2020, 11:36:36 PM
Pine Street has a new sign for the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone:

(https://i.imgur.com/7qlSqJU.jpg)
The one I saw in the news had an upside-down Washington:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaMBmdqUYAIhs7f.jpg

That one is on Pike Street (which I saw today). This one was at Pine and Nagle.

Quote from: mrsman on June 12, 2020, 09:19:33 AM
So this sign was fabricated and made just for these latest protests?  It seems like an unnecessary detail given all that is happening.

Although, if they do make a truly autonomous zone, I suppose they would need border crossings and the like, similar to other DMZs out there in the real world.

A random person made it and put it up. It's art even if it isn't MUTCD compliant.

If CHAZ ends up existing long-term, there wouldn't be hard borders but it would likely be treated like Freetown Christiania in Copenhagen (before it was normalized). At most I see Pine Street being closed to thru traffic (except buses, potentially), which would be a boon for the neighborhood.

So there is an artistic roadgeek in CHAZ.  How interesting!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Thunderbyrd316 on June 17, 2020, 06:09:40 PM
Quote from: Bruce on June 10, 2020, 11:36:36 PM
Pine Street has a new sign for the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone:

(https://i.imgur.com/7qlSqJU.jpg)

   Does anyone have any insights in to the meaning of either "EXIT 1312" or route number "F12"?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on June 17, 2020, 07:26:16 PM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on June 17, 2020, 06:09:40 PM
Quote from: Bruce on June 10, 2020, 11:36:36 PM
Pine Street has a new sign for the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone:

(https://i.imgur.com/7qlSqJU.jpg)

   Does anyone have any insights in to the meaning of either "EXIT 1312" or route number "F12"?
Yes, but those are political in nature and so I would direct you outside this forum.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: mrsman on June 17, 2020, 08:50:52 PM
Quote from: Alps on June 17, 2020, 07:26:16 PM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on June 17, 2020, 06:09:40 PM
Quote from: Bruce on June 10, 2020, 11:36:36 PM
Pine Street has a new sign for the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone:

(https://i.imgur.com/7qlSqJU.jpg)

   Does anyone have any insights in to the meaning of either "EXIT 1312" or route number "F12"?
Yes, but those are political in nature and so I would direct you outside this forum.
You have to look them up in the urban dictionary.  I just did and now it makes sense.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 21, 2020, 04:54:55 AM
A sinkhole opened a few days ago next to EB I-82 near Zillah and has been repaired by WSDOT.

https://twitter.com/WSDOT_East/status/1274446621732794368
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 24, 2020, 08:02:02 PM
WSP doing the right thing by not escalating the nightly protests on I-5 (which haven't inconvenienced people that much, given how late they are).

https://mynorthwest.com/1973919/washington-state-patrol-i5-protesters/

WSDOT has also been using their VMS near I-405 to post this message:

(https://i.imgur.com/k3uhUWU.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 25, 2020, 01:58:03 AM
Some protestors wandered onto the 705 in Tacoma about a week ago. I happened to be a few cars back, on my way to Arby's :-D

State Patrol went down and blocked the freeway, before the protestors wandered down the off-ramp. They were down there for about 10 minutes, before wandering back up and then down the 509 into the Port.

(https://i.imgur.com/XTuVVGM.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 30, 2020, 11:05:01 PM
More street signs at CHOP (soon to be defunct):

(https://i.imgur.com/40cveFc.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 07, 2020, 08:37:59 PM
WSDOT is now allowing cities and counties to designate "safe, healthy, and active streets" on state highways that meet certain criteria. This means temporary closures or partial closures so that people have more room to spread out.

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/news/2020/07/07/new-initiative-opens-some-low-speed-state-roadways-healthy-uses

Seattle's program has been successful over the past two months and other suburbs have followed suit. Glad to see it finally move statewide.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 07, 2020, 11:29:29 PM
A bit of history:

in December 1963, there was a small push to name I-5 from Dearborn to the Ship Canal Bridge after John F. Kennedy.

(https://i.imgur.com/HPx71YW.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 14, 2020, 02:26:07 AM
I'm almost finished writing a history of I-5 for Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_5_in_Washington#History

It was pretty hard to keep this contained, and even then it's much too long. Someday I'd love to write a book about the whole thing.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 14, 2020, 02:20:14 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 14, 2020, 02:26:07 AM
I'm almost finished writing a history of I-5 for Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_5_in_Washington#History

It was pretty hard to keep this contained, and even then it's much too long. Someday I'd love to write a book about the whole thing.

HOLY SHIT

That's an incredible write-up man. Still reading it but I am completely in awe of your researching abilities.

Favorite part so far has been reading the original news stories through Access World News. The one about drivers using the Midway-Tacoma section of 5 before it opened was pretty funny. Especially since the reporter went and drove it themselves :-D

If you do write a book, you may end up getting a bridge named after you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Morgan_Bridge).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on July 15, 2020, 12:10:14 AM
Washington State Department of Highways Opening Day Celebration Materials (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll3/search).  Though not a complete record of every section of highway opening, it does offer fascinating background.  I found this when I was looking for the toll schedule for the 1940 Mercer Island Floating Bridge.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 15, 2020, 04:39:25 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 14, 2020, 02:20:14 PM
If you do write a book, you may end up getting a bridge named after you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Morgan_Bridge).

Thanks for the compliments.

I call dibs on the Snohomish River bridges on I-5 or SR 529.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 20, 2020, 02:53:23 AM
Preliminary plans to build a transit center at the northwest corner of the shrunken I-405 / SR 522 interchange in Bothell.

(https://i.imgur.com/9Mdm3gx.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 24, 2020, 01:59:02 AM
The first DDI in Washington (at I-5 / SR 510 in Lacey) will open after this weekend's closure.

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/news/2020/07/21/washingtons-first-diverging-diamond-interchange-open-marvin-road-and-i-5-lacey
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on July 24, 2020, 02:09:04 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 24, 2020, 01:59:02 AM
The first DDI in Washington (at I-5 / SR 510 in Lacey) will open after this weekend's closure.

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/news/2020/07/21/washingtons-first-diverging-diamond-interchange-open-marvin-road-and-i-5-lacey

Nice! I might have to stop by and check it out since I'll be going down to Olympia on Monday.

Edit: Reading the article, looks like the closure is actually NEXT weekend, darn it! I still think  it would be worth stopping by though since it's almost finished.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 24, 2020, 06:38:09 PM
They definitely have a lot of work to do. I went through there on Sunday, and they didn't even have more than a couple new traffic signals up. I'm guessing they will be using wire-strung temp signals. And that actual, final work will only be completed much later in the year.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 24, 2020, 06:50:40 PM
Separate reply to not mix unrelated topics...

Quote from: Bruce on July 20, 2020, 02:53:23 AM
Preliminary plans to build a transit center at the northwest corner of the shrunken I-405 / SR 522 interchange in Bothell.

(https://i.imgur.com/9Mdm3gx.jpg)

Damn, I really like transit. But is there really enough transit need along this corridor to demand this massive of a rebuild? They are spending loads of money for, at the very least, a massive drop in GP capacity, and at most, some increase in transit capacity. I'm assuming that, by installing all these new signals and signalized turns, that GP capacity is dropping off. I think more free-flow maneuvers could have remained.

My only hope here is that the urban design aspect is as good as it looks, and some grade separation of the pathways is considered.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on July 24, 2020, 08:40:13 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 24, 2020, 06:50:40 PM
Separate reply to not mix unrelated topics...

Quote from: Bruce on July 20, 2020, 02:53:23 AM
Preliminary plans to build a transit center at the northwest corner of the shrunken I-405 / SR 522 interchange in Bothell.

(https://i.imgur.com/9Mdm3gx.jpg)

Damn, I really like transit. But is there really enough transit need along this corridor to demand this massive of a rebuild? They are spending loads of money for, at the very least, a massive drop in GP capacity, and at most, some increase in transit capacity. I'm assuming that, by installing all these new signals and signalized turns, that GP capacity is dropping off. I think more free-flow maneuvers could have remained.

My only hope here is that the urban design aspect is as good as it looks, and some grade separation of the pathways is considered.

It appears that of all the priorities underlying projects of this sort, maintenance of general "free-flow" is either (a) way down the priority list or (b) contradictory to planners' aims to discourage automotive traffic.   But regardless of motive, instituting maximally feasible separation of non-motorized from motorized modes at transit hubs is a worthy goal. 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on July 24, 2020, 10:24:56 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 24, 2020, 06:50:40 PM
Separate reply to not mix unrelated topics...

Quote from: Bruce on July 20, 2020, 02:53:23 AM
Preliminary plans to build a transit center at the northwest corner of the shrunken I-405 / SR 522 interchange in Bothell.

(https://i.imgur.com/9Mdm3gx.jpg)

Damn, I really like transit. But is there really enough transit need along this corridor to demand this massive of a rebuild? They are spending loads of money for, at the very least, a massive drop in GP capacity, and at most, some increase in transit capacity. I'm assuming that, by installing all these new signals and signalized turns, that GP capacity is dropping off. I think more free-flow maneuvers could have remained.

My only hope here is that the urban design aspect is as good as it looks, and some grade separation of the pathways is considered.

That was my knee-jerk reaction when I saw they were taking out some of the free-flow movements at the 522/405 interchange as well, but thinking about it, there should still be plenty of capacity, since 522 mainline traffic is already handled nicely with lights just to the west, so adding lights here really just moves the start of the freeway a bit to the east. The majority of traffic related to 522 through the interchange is going from 405 NB to 522 EB and vice versa, not the mainline, especially during peak commuting times. Plus, they aren't just removing ramps for the transit improvements, it's also for the planned expansion of the express toll lanes on 405 as well, which definitely is needed, and unfortunately the design of the interchange doesn't allow for that without removing ramps, but I don't think traffic counts justify the cost of complete reconstruction. That project also ties in with the transit upgrade since it includes direct ramps to the express lanes which, the graphic shows have stops for Sound Transit's upcoming 405 BRT line among other routes.

Quote from: sparker on July 24, 2020, 08:40:13 PM
It appears that of all the priorities underlying projects of this sort, maintenance of general "free-flow" is either (a) way down the priority list or (b) contradictory to planners' aims to discourage automotive traffic.   But regardless of motive, instituting maximally feasible separation of non-motorized from motorized modes at transit hubs is a worthy goal. 

As I alluded to above, the removal of free-flow from 522, isn't just driven by the transit improvements, but rather mainly by the express lane upgrade, which is definitely higher on the priority list due to the much higher traffic volume on 405. In fact, rereading Bruce's post, it sounds like the transit center is merely taking advantage of the extra space freed up, as opposed to being a reason for the reconfiguration at all.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on July 24, 2020, 11:14:14 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 22, 2020, 06:03:12 PM
We do need more meaningful and well-used names in Washington. Valley Freeway (SR 167) is pretty much the only freeway in the Seattle area with a current and popular name.

So this post from Bruce in the Oregon thread gave me some inspiration to think of potential freeway names for the Seattle area, my suggestions below...

I-5: Puget Sound Freeway (Maybe a part of it that is on an old US 99 alignment could be Evergreen State Freeway if we want to copy California :-D)
I-90: Cascade Freeway
I-405: Eastside Freeway

US 2: Snohomish Freeway (More relevant if it ever gets expanded, "The Trestle" describes the majority of the true freeway portion as it is currently.)
SR 526: Boeing Freeway
SR 525: Mukilteo Speedway
SR 522: Monroe Freeway
SR 520: Evergreen Point Freeway
SR 99/599: West Marginal Freeway* or South Park Freeway*
SR 509: Burien Freeway*
SR 518: Airport Freeway
SR 167: Valley Freeway
SR 410: Sumner Freeway
SR 512: Puyallup Freeway
SR 7/I-705: Tacoma Dome Freeway*
SR 16: Tacoma Narrows Freeway
SR 3: Kitsap Freeway
US 101/SR 8/US 12: Grays Harbor Freeway/Expressway

Italics indicating names already in at least semi-regular use

If anyone else has their own ideas, feel free to share! I'm not particularly attached to these, and I'm especially not sold on those marked with a *. The ones just named after cities could probably get more creative names as well.

The 99 Tunnel could also use a proper name, as was noted in the Oregon thread as well, and I supposed there is a small section of freeway south of it as well that could use a name. (maybe SODO Freeway?)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on July 25, 2020, 01:21:40 AM
I-5 through Seattle is known as the Seattle Freeway.  kinda boring, but descriptive.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 25, 2020, 03:31:55 AM
"Skykomish Freeway" would fit US 2 better than Snohomish, which can also be used to describe the entire county.

I think "Overlake Freeway" also works better for SR 520, especially since it literally goes over the lake.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 25, 2020, 04:06:27 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 25, 2020, 03:31:55 AM
"Skykomish Freeway" would fit US 2 better than Snohomish, which can also be used to describe the entire county.

I think "Overlake Freeway" also works better for SR 520, especially since it literally goes over the lake.

I love both of these. Overlake especially. Has a nice sound to it.

Quote from: stevashe on July 24, 2020, 11:14:14 PM
I-5: [...] (Maybe a part of it that is on an old US 99 alignment could be Evergreen State Freeway if we want to copy California :-D)

I think this would be a great name for the entire length of I-5. It's a great-sounding name. Even if it is a little derivative.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on July 25, 2020, 05:45:01 PM
I thought US 2 was Steven's Pass Highway.

Also, with WA 14 being the Evergreen Highway already, calling I-5 the Evergreen State Freeway would be confusing.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on July 25, 2020, 06:04:19 PM
I may be in the minority, but I highly dislike naming routes other than their functional names.


Yes, US 2 is already the Steven's Pass Highway.


SR 526 is also known as the "Casino Freeway"
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on July 25, 2020, 10:12:15 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 25, 2020, 03:31:55 AM
"Skykomish Freeway" would fit US 2 better than Snohomish, which can also be used to describe the entire county.

I think "Overlake Freeway" also works better for SR 520, especially since it literally goes over the lake.

I like Overlake Freeway, good idea!

Skykomish seems a bit too far off where the freeway ends to me, but I do like the name. I'd suggest "Skykomish Highway" but as others have pointed out, there is already "Stevens Pass Highway". I could see renaming the freeway portion though once it opens past Monroe.

Quote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2020, 04:06:27 PM

Quote from: stevashe on July 24, 2020, 11:14:14 PM
I-5: [...] (Maybe a part of it that is on an old US 99 alignment could be Evergreen State Freeway if we want to copy California :-D)

I think this would be a great name for the entire length of I-5. It's a great-sounding name. Even if it is a little derivative.

I do agree, I'm a bit torn between the two names. Maybe we could apply "Evergreen State Highway" to WA 99 and give "Puget Sound Freeway" to the length of I-5 in between its two ends. Sort of like how CA 99 takes over the "Golden State" name north of Wheeler Ridge. Heck, then we could call the 99 Tunnel "Evergreen State Tunnel", while we're at it!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 26, 2020, 03:43:19 AM
Quote from: stevashe on July 25, 2020, 10:12:15 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 25, 2020, 03:31:55 AM
"Skykomish Freeway" would fit US 2 better than Snohomish, which can also be used to describe the entire county.

I think "Overlake Freeway" also works better for SR 520, especially since it literally goes over the lake.

I like Overlake Freeway, good idea!

Skykomish seems a bit too far off where the freeway ends to me, but I do like the name. I'd suggest "Skykomish Highway" but as others have pointed out, there is already "Stevens Pass Highway". I could see renaming the freeway portion though once it opens past Monroe.


Skykomish here not referring to the tiny town but the entire river valley from Monroe up to Skykomish (the town). The Sky Valley is a pretty well defined area.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 26, 2020, 11:33:50 AM
Quote from: stevashe on July 25, 2020, 10:12:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2020, 04:06:27 PM
Quote from: stevashe on July 24, 2020, 11:14:14 PM
I-5: [...] (Maybe a part of it that is on an old US 99 alignment could be Evergreen State Freeway if we want to copy California :-D)

I think this would be a great name for the entire length of I-5. It's a great-sounding name. Even if it is a little derivative.

I do agree, I'm a bit torn between the two names. Maybe we could apply "Evergreen State Highway" to WA 99 and give "Puget Sound Freeway" to the length of I-5 in between its two ends. Sort of like how CA 99 takes over the "Golden State" name north of Wheeler Ridge. Heck, then we could call the 99 Tunnel "Evergreen State Tunnel", while we're at it!

I notice that you really want to apply "Evergreen State xxx" to the original route of US-99. Is there any particular reason for that? Seems like a great name for the current route of I-5, border to border. After all, it is the only border-to-border freeway in WA. If any freeway is deserving of that name, it would be I-5.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: nexus73 on July 26, 2020, 11:39:50 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 26, 2020, 11:33:50 AM
Quote from: stevashe on July 25, 2020, 10:12:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2020, 04:06:27 PM
Quote from: stevashe on July 24, 2020, 11:14:14 PM
I-5: [...] (Maybe a part of it that is on an old US 99 alignment could be Evergreen State Freeway if we want to copy California :-D)

I think this would be a great name for the entire length of I-5. It's a great-sounding name. Even if it is a little derivative.

I do agree, I'm a bit torn between the two names. Maybe we could apply "Evergreen State Highway" to WA 99 and give "Puget Sound Freeway" to the length of I-5 in between its two ends. Sort of like how CA 99 takes over the "Golden State" name north of Wheeler Ridge. Heck, then we could call the 99 Tunnel "Evergreen State Tunnel", while we're at it!

I notice that you really want to apply "Evergreen State xxx" to the original route of US-99. Is there any particular reason for that? Seems like a great name for the current route of I-5, border to border. After all, it is the only border-to-border freeway in WA. If any freeway is deserving of that name, it would be I-5.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Rick
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on July 30, 2020, 10:39:08 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 26, 2020, 11:33:50 AM
I notice that you really want to apply "Evergreen State xxx" to the original route of US-99. Is there any particular reason for that? Seems like a great name for the current route of I-5, border to border. After all, it is the only border-to-border freeway in WA. If any freeway is deserving of that name, it would be I-5.

Not really, it was just a way I thought of to make the name still be able to go border to border but add in my "Puget Sound Freeway" idea, and it kinda parallels what happens in CA, as I mentioned. Oh and I guess a (very) small portion of current SR 99 is already routed on Evergreen Way, didn't mention that because it's only for like a mile but it did help give me the idea. As for the tunnel, I was mostly joking, it was just the first time I had any inspiration for a name for it beyond something dull like "Downtown Tunnel".

By the way, I'm not opposed to calling all of I-5 "Evergreen State Freeway", I was just throwing out other ideas.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on July 30, 2020, 11:22:27 PM
Quote from: stevashe on July 24, 2020, 02:09:04 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 24, 2020, 01:59:02 AM
The first DDI in Washington (at I-5 / SR 510 in Lacey) will open after this weekend's closure.

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/news/2020/07/21/washingtons-first-diverging-diamond-interchange-open-marvin-road-and-i-5-lacey

Nice! I might have to stop by and check it out since I'll be going down to Olympia on Monday.

Edit: Reading the article, looks like the closure is actually NEXT weekend, darn it! I still think it would be worth stopping by though since it's almost finished.

I did go visit it and got some pictures, definitely looks like it's coming along, they even have some overhead signs up! (but covered for now) Pictures aren't the best quality but didn't really have time to get proper ones unfortunately.

Album link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/184498735@N04/albums/72157715302823788

Quote from: jakeroot on July 24, 2020, 06:38:09 PM
They definitely have a lot of work to do. I went through there on Sunday, and they didn't even have more than a couple new traffic signals up. I'm guessing they will be using wire-strung temp signals. And that actual, final work will only be completed much later in the year.

It's possible they could still get the other signals up in time, I did spot at least one foundation for a signal on the opposite side of the freeway from where the new signal was already up (circled in picture below). To my knowledge, prepping/pouring the foundations and waiting for the concrete to cure takes a lot of time, but once that's done putting up the mast arms is pretty quick. It does looks like the also need to do final paving, I assume that might the work that is planned during the weekend closure.

(https://i.imgur.com/x0qdzPv.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 03, 2020, 01:49:31 AM
Apparently this is on US 2 at Eagle Falls:

(https://i.imgur.com/dvYi8dM.png)

Source is from a KING 5 report: https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/wsp-will-tow-cars-parked-illegally-on-highway-2/281-48290f98-d38c-4dae-828b-4dee7c1adc18
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on August 03, 2020, 09:02:56 PM
Mmm, the wrong shield and oversized number combo!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 04, 2020, 03:41:53 AM
I mean, it always has been "highway 2". Even legally!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on August 04, 2020, 12:31:52 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on August 03, 2020, 09:02:56 PM
Mmm, the wrong shield and oversized number combo!

That number may be large, but WSDOT's specs do actually call for larger numerals for single digit state highways compared to the two and three digit variants, and this appears to be the correct size for that. Here's an example on SR 3: https://goo.gl/maps/uEiN5fveaL2h9dXX7

However, the US Route shield specs do call for numerals 1 inch smaller than for state route single digits, so the number is larger in that sense, in addition to being series C instead of series D.

Also, that sign looks pretty new, and I don't see it in streetview of the area from last summer, so it must have been installed quite recently.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: KEK Inc. on August 05, 2020, 07:43:30 PM
Yeah, I've been doing a lot of hikes during covid in that region and I get triggered seeing that sign driving back to Seattle.  I was going to snap a picture, but I keep forgetting. 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on August 06, 2020, 01:21:05 PM
Even after making WSDOT aware, they still have the Green Guide Signs (can't really qualify as a BSG), for the ramps to NB SR 525 from Alderwood Mall Pkwy., are marked as SR 525 West.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 18, 2020, 07:26:37 PM
WSDOT uploaded this picture of the Marvin Road DDI to their Flickr. Pretty cool shot

(XL image -- too big to post here (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50221597748_e4733aa055_5k.jpg))

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50221597748_a12a32f271_h.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 08, 2020, 04:37:59 PM
The Manning-Rye Covered Bridge, one of only two left in the state, was destroyed in this week's wildfires.

https://twitter.com/WAStateArchives/status/1303417311206846464
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on September 08, 2020, 09:50:25 PM
 :angry:
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Dougtone on October 09, 2020, 07:20:13 AM
Come visit the Concrete Historic Byway, which is mostly an interesting and historic alignment of WA 20 in Concrete, Washington.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/10/concrete-historic-byway.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/10/concrete-historic-byway.html)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 09, 2020, 03:42:41 PM
Great write-up, Doug. When did you visit the area?

Cool to know about that Byway. Is it signed anywhere along WA-20 from what you could see?

I've only ever known Concrete because of the zig-zag markings on WA-20 approaching an unsignalized crosswalk (something that's fairly unusual), so this is a nice addition to my individual knowledge of the city :-D.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Dougtone on October 09, 2020, 05:13:44 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 09, 2020, 03:42:41 PM
Great write-up, Doug. When did you visit the area?

Cool to know about that Byway. Is it signed anywhere along WA-20 from what you could see?

I've only ever known Concrete because of the zig-zag markings on WA-20 approaching an unsignalized crosswalk (something that's fairly unusual), so this is a nice addition to my individual knowledge of the city :-D.

I visited Concrete in late August while on vacation. I don't recall seeing anything posted about the byway from WA 20. The silo is seen off of WA 20, but I found the old concrete bridge while I was trying to find my way to Lake Shannon to get some photos of Mount Baker from the lake shore. Of course I had to get photos of the bridge, and as I was doing my research for the blog article, found out more about what to see around the town.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 09, 2020, 08:23:22 PM
Quote from: Dougtone on October 09, 2020, 05:13:44 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 09, 2020, 03:42:41 PM
Great write-up, Doug. When did you visit the area?

Cool to know about that Byway. Is it signed anywhere along WA-20 from what you could see?

I've only ever known Concrete because of the zig-zag markings on WA-20 approaching an unsignalized crosswalk (something that's fairly unusual), so this is a nice addition to my individual knowledge of the city :-D.

I visited Concrete in late August while on vacation. I don't recall seeing anything posted about the byway from WA 20. The silo is seen off of WA 20, but I found the old concrete bridge while I was trying to find my way to Lake Shannon to get some photos of Mount Baker from the lake shore. Of course I had to get photos of the bridge, and as I was doing my research for the blog article, found out more about what to see around the town.

It's nice to know this sleepy part of the country can still surprise. I've never been up there but I have a reason now. Thanks again for the write-up.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 10, 2020, 04:55:21 PM
I stopped by the byway recently while up in the area for work. The bridge is really nice but a bit scary, especially with the blind hook before the one-way section begins.

Also, there's a lot of zig-zag crosswalk markings popping up in Seattle as of late. At least 5 I know about in West Seattle.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 10, 2020, 08:58:11 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 10, 2020, 04:55:21 PM
Also, there's a lot of zig-zag crosswalk markings popping up in Seattle as of late. At least 5 I know about in West Seattle.

Can you think of any locations off the top of your head? I don't recall seeing any, but it's been a while since I've been to West Seattle
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 18, 2020, 06:15:13 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 10, 2020, 08:58:11 PM
Quote from: Bruce on October 10, 2020, 04:55:21 PM
Also, there's a lot of zig-zag crosswalk markings popping up in Seattle as of late. At least 5 I know about in West Seattle.

Can you think of any locations off the top of your head? I don't recall seeing any, but it's been a while since I've been to West Seattle

9th Ave SW has two at Trenton and Henderson, and then Henderson has its own in the area.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 28, 2020, 01:54:12 AM
Some photos of the reconstruction of the Thorne Lane and Berkeley St interchanges in Lakewood (posted respectively). Posted to WSDOT's Flickr (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/).

In the last image, traffic is still in the ditch beneath Berkeley St. Traffic has since been moved to ground level as WSDOT levels out the freeway.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50514581267_0e577a4e13_3k.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50521543146_0b3a83770a_4k.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50513722903_4f6be91a36_3k.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: thefraze_1020 on October 28, 2020, 01:24:24 PM
I found another shield with the same mistake as this one under the Hewitt Ave Trestle. https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9783107,-122.162302,3a,36.1y,285.49h,90.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC9aXYYHN4k8m43yRQnE5EA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en


Quote from: Bruce on August 03, 2020, 01:49:31 AM
Apparently this is on US 2 at Eagle Falls:

(https://i.imgur.com/dvYi8dM.png)

Source is from a KING 5 report: https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/wsp-will-tow-cars-parked-illegally-on-highway-2/281-48290f98-d38c-4dae-828b-4dee7c1adc18
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 31, 2020, 02:13:55 PM
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on October 28, 2020, 01:24:24 PM
I found another shield with the same mistake as this one under the Hewitt Ave Trestle. https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9783107,-122.162302,3a,36.1y,285.49h,90.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC9aXYYHN4k8m43yRQnE5EA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

Nice find. There's actually two on the frontage road under the trestle.

(https://i.imgur.com/YwEhRrR.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on November 02, 2020, 12:41:33 AM
Are those signs under the trestle relatively new? It seems like someone at WSDOT thinks US 2 is just a state route, not a US route.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on November 12, 2020, 01:51:31 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on November 02, 2020, 12:41:33 AM
Are those signs under the trestle relatively new? It seems like someone at WSDOT thinks US 2 is just a state route, not a US route.


Technically is is both... See the US 12 Overpass on I-5 being labeled as "SR-12" through most of the '00s, if not beyond.  More than likely the ordered some signs for SR-2, and the contractor took it literally.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 13, 2020, 03:05:01 AM
WSDOT has a virtual open house with some concepts for improving the SR 526 corridor in Everett: https://wsdot.wa.gov/news/2020/11/10/public-invited-attend-sr-526-virtual-open-house

Among them is a ramp meter on the EB 526 to NB I-5 ramp, which I think would be one of the first freeway-to-freeway ramp meters in the state. That would be an insanely busy one.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 13, 2020, 12:43:57 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 13, 2020, 03:05:01 AM
WSDOT has a virtual open house with some concepts for improving the SR 526 corridor in Everett: https://wsdot.wa.gov/news/2020/11/10/public-invited-attend-sr-526-virtual-open-house

Among them is a ramp meter on the EB 526 to NB I-5 ramp, which I think would be one of the first freeway-to-freeway ramp meters in the state. That would be an insanely busy one.

Thanks for the link.

There's quite a few freeway-to-freeway ramp meters in the south sound now. Northbound 167 to Northbound 405 (https://goo.gl/maps/xp7A9XDnib3zyvCU7) in Renton; Westbound 512 to Southbound I-5 (https://goo.gl/maps/aU2X23j1MZkCZfUv5) in Lakewood; Eastbound 518 to Southbound I-5 (https://goo.gl/maps/fe6vjyCgMQySr9tA6) in Tukwila; Westbound 18 to Southbound I-5 (https://goo.gl/maps/FotvrgtrPrFtWvSV7) in Federal Way (eventually...no signal heads yet but the mast arm is there).

In my experience, the one in Tukwila and the one in Lakewood are activated everyday as part of the regular rush. I'm not 100% sure the one in Renton is active yet, but everything is there for it to be activated last I checked.

The Tukwila example was easily the first, installed around 2000. And yeah, it gets crazy when you combine traffic avoiding I-5 southbound out of Seattle (using 99 to 518) and airport traffic. The one from 512 can also get pretty crazy, with traffic easily backing up past Steele towards Pac Ave on westbound 512 during particularly busy days and holidays.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on November 14, 2020, 10:35:45 PM
There's a few freeway-to-freeway ramp meters in the north as well.

First, there's Southbound SR 525 & Northbound I-405 to Southbound I-5 (https://goo.gl/maps/XgpS93VWNuMadDvc7) in Lynnwood complete with single section greens for the two outer HOV bypass lanes, then there's Westbound SR 522 to Northbound I-405 (https://goo.gl/maps/zbTKHwTcL5xdpAZn9) (though the fact that this meter is actually for freeway-to-freeway traffic is obscured by the c/d with exit 24).

The Eastbound SR 522 to Southbound I-405 (https://goo.gl/maps/ByYEFvrpN5rzGURFA) and Westbound SR 522 to Northbound I-405 (https://goo.gl/maps/YNmYYZfdVqZzZX1YA) ramps also have meters, but it's debatable whether these really count as "freeway-to-freeway" since the traffic is coming from the start of 522's freeway segment so the previous intersection was a stoplight.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 15, 2020, 12:40:06 PM
Quote from: stevashe on November 14, 2020, 10:35:45 PM
There's a few freeway-to-freeway ramp meters in the north as well.

First, there's Southbound SR 525 & Northbound I-405 to Southbound I-5 (https://goo.gl/maps/XgpS93VWNuMadDvc7) in Lynnwood complete with single section greens for the two outer HOV bypass lanes, then there's Westbound SR 522 to Northbound I-405 (https://goo.gl/maps/zbTKHwTcL5xdpAZn9) (though the fact that this meter is actually for freeway-to-freeway traffic is obscured by the c/d with exit 24).

The Eastbound SR 522 to Southbound I-405 (https://goo.gl/maps/ByYEFvrpN5rzGURFA) and Westbound SR 522 to Northbound I-405 (https://goo.gl/maps/YNmYYZfdVqZzZX1YA) ramps also have meters, but it's debatable whether these really count as "freeway-to-freeway" since the traffic is coming from the start of 522's freeway segment so the previous intersection was a stoplight.

The ramp meter from Westbound 522 to Northbound 405 may either tie or even be older than the Eastbound 518 to Southbound 5 ramp meter. Or possibly, they were both installed simultaneously to test the effectiveness of freeway-to-freeway ramp meters.

I'm still looking for articles on the exact date (these things tend to make the paper), but in doing so, I did find this article from the Seattle Times about ramp metering between I-5 and I-90:

(full article PDF (https://1drv.ms/b/s!AkAX3tC9LrKc6HyCtZA2FWlq44TT))
Quote from: Seattle Times 03 Jan 1992: "INTERFREEWAY METERING IS DELAYED UNTIL NEEDED"
Ramp meters have been in use around here for about 10 years - the first ones went in on I-5 in 1981.

And recently it's looked as if meters were being put in where I-5 meets I-90.

But it's not going to happen. In fact, the metering lights there are going to be removed in the next few weeks.

"We're unsure about freeway-to-freeway metering, so we're going to take the heads down," says Pete Briglia, manager of the Department of Transportation's Traffic Systems Management Center.

That's not a big deal. It just involves removing the traffic-light signals.

The ramp meters appeared just before the holidays because original designs, done years ago, called for such devices.

But now, with other changes taking place along the freeways, such as HOV-lane construction, it seems premature to try ramp metering at the same time, says Briglia.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 15, 2020, 01:54:54 PM
Looks like I totally forgot about all the other ramp meters, since they blend into the background.

Still, this one would be extremely busy but I'm all for it. I-5 gets nasty at the Boeing merge and it doesn't help with the lack of exits for 7 miles.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on November 18, 2020, 11:41:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 13, 2020, 12:43:57 PM
[snip]

Northbound 167 to Northbound 405 (https://goo.gl/maps/xp7A9XDnib3zyvCU7) in Renton;

[snip]

In my experience, the one in Tukwila and the one in Lakewood are activated everyday as part of the regular rush. I'm not 100% sure the one in Renton is active yet, but everything is there for it to be activated last I checked.

[snip]

I've seen the one in Renton activated when the signal was still hooded, and people followed it.  Now that its out in the open, I've never seen it turned on even when the entrance from Talbot Road is metered.

And SB 599 to SB I-5 used to be metered, and the warning light post is still standing (https://goo.gl/maps/kgeENJXxhXc1Egpj7), but the state soon figured that was a dumb idea.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on November 19, 2020, 01:54:16 AM
That article Jake posted reminds me, there actually are ramp meters at the I-90/I-5 interchange now, but they are for the ramps from "Eastbound I-90" to NB and SB I-5, so they fall into the same category as the two 522/405 meters since the freeway only just started.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 19, 2020, 03:17:00 AM
Quote from: stevashe on November 19, 2020, 01:54:16 AM
That article Jake posted reminds me, there actually are ramp meters at the I-90/I-5 interchange now, but they are for the ramps from "Eastbound I-90" to NB and SB I-5, so they fall into the same category as the two 522/405 meters since the freeway only just started.

That's a very good point. Those signals look to have been added in the early 90s, perhaps around the time those ramps opened (see the backside of this signal (https://goo.gl/maps/UDn6QZrVidRhVpbS6) as proof). The numbers may say 94 and 95 but my hunch is that these were added later to clarify a couple things for drivers.

Quote from: ErmineNotyours on November 18, 2020, 11:41:43 PM
And SB 599 to SB I-5 used to be metered, and the warning light post is still standing (https://goo.gl/maps/kgeENJXxhXc1Egpj7), but the state soon figured that was a dumb idea.

I didn't know about this one, but I can see (https://goo.gl/maps/r9KpooJyA7FpPPV86) the old cutouts for the sensors in the pavement, as well as the old mounting base for the pole-mounted signal off on the shoulder. The only remaining evidence for the right-side ramp appears to be those old mounting bases (https://goo.gl/maps/rS1b9qZHFMymuyW8A).

As a side-note: I really miss the old standard of using pole-mounted signals for double-lane ramp meters. One was recently installed at the southbound on-ramp from 200th onto I-5, but it was shortly thereafter replaced by overhead ramp meters. I always find the overhead ones harder to see.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 19, 2020, 03:19:32 AM
Anyone know what this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/Q1rPz8eMPHEev3cT6) is meant to indicate on the I-90 northbound ramp to I-5?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50620121442_6aa89540d7_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Algorithm on November 19, 2020, 04:49:53 AM
That indicates that that bridge previously carried US-10 in addition to I-90, before US-10 was decommissioned.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 19, 2020, 12:28:57 PM
Quote from: Algorithm on November 19, 2020, 04:49:53 AM
That indicates that that bridge previously carried US-10 in addition to I-90, before US-10 was decommissioned.

I thought that might have been the case, but I didn't realize there was any overlap in I-90 and US-10 in this area. I figured the completion of I-90 signalled the end of US-10, so posting both routes on the sign seems redundant.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on November 19, 2020, 12:40:21 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 19, 2020, 12:28:57 PM
Quote from: Algorithm on November 19, 2020, 04:49:53 AM
That indicates that that bridge previously carried US-10 in addition to I-90, before US-10 was decommissioned.

I thought that might have been the case, but I didn't realize there was any overlap in I-90 and US-10 in this area. I figured the completion of I-90 signalled the end of US-10, so posting both routes on the sign seems redundant.


When the bridges over I-5 were built, they knew the route would be I-90, but it was also US-10.  The bridges were not connected to anything for decades, on either side, so technically, they only ever carried I-90, but they were originally built for I-90/US 10.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on November 19, 2020, 04:18:50 PM
Quote
90/10
WCD

This is probably obvious to everyone else, but I puzzled over it for a few minutes.  The WCD probably stands for Westbound Collector/Distributor, yes?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 19, 2020, 05:16:48 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on November 19, 2020, 12:40:21 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 19, 2020, 12:28:57 PM
Quote from: Algorithm on November 19, 2020, 04:49:53 AM
That indicates that that bridge previously carried US-10 in addition to I-90, before US-10 was decommissioned.

I thought that might have been the case, but I didn't realize there was any overlap in I-90 and US-10 in this area. I figured the completion of I-90 signalled the end of US-10, so posting both routes on the sign seems redundant.


When the bridges over I-5 were built, they knew the route would be I-90, but it was also US-10.  The bridges were not connected to anything for decades, on either side, so technically, they only ever carried I-90, but they were originally built for I-90/US 10.

Do you think that sign predates the completion of I-90? I thought it was placed there at the time they finished I-90 in the late 80s or early 90s.

Quote from: kkt on November 19, 2020, 04:18:50 PM
Quote
90/10
WCD

This is probably obvious to everyone else, but I puzzled over it for a few minutes.  The WCD probably stands for Westbound Collector/Distributor, yes?

Not obvious to me; I was actually curious if someone else was going to ask about it. I have no idea what it stands for (your guess is as good as mine).

EDIT: Yes, Westbound Collector Distributor is correct. Also, "WBCD". See this PDF from WSDOT (https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M23-09/BridgeList.pdf) (it's their list of bridges, and it has dozens of abbreviations from page 23 onwards).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on November 19, 2020, 07:07:33 PM
Thank you for the reassurance and for the link to the bridge list :)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 19, 2020, 07:17:52 PM
No worries!

And looking through that list, honestly, I have more questions than when I started.

For example, the I-5 Puyallup River Bridges, between Fife and Tacoma, is listed as "5/45X" (where X represents the individual bridge and other nearby ramps). There has never been, eg, "WA-456" and there never has been, to the best of my knowledge.

With this in mind, is the "10" in "90/10" actually to reference old US(SR)-10? It's still listed as "90/10" in that bridge list. Surely if US-10 were long decommissioned, as we all know it is, that "10" should have been dumped. Plus, the second number after the slash doesn't seem to have any bearing on route numbers; every bridge in that list has a slash followed by another number, yet only a handful of bridges (or sets of bridges) are actually duplexes and/or the location of another former route IF we are to exclude the former PSH/SSH system.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on November 19, 2020, 09:15:05 PM
The 10 probably means it's the 10th structure on the highway.

In other news, sign crews will now have to sign Lumen Field.  Starting in 2000 it was Kingdome, Seahawks Stadium, Qwest Field, Century Link Field and now Lumen Field, in the middle of the NFL season.  We'll see how fast they act.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 20, 2020, 12:19:13 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on November 19, 2020, 09:15:05 PM
In other news, sign crews will now have to sign Lumen Field.  Starting in 2000 it was Kingdome, Seahawks Stadium, Qwest Field, Century Link Field and now Lumen Field, in the middle of the NFL season.  We'll see how fast they act.

Roughly how many signs are we talking? At least three on I-90 and I-5, and I think at least another at the end of I-90 @ 4th Ave.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on November 20, 2020, 01:12:25 AM
I hate Naming Rights stadiums.  The naming rights should belong to either the primary user, or the entity that put in the most money to build it.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on November 20, 2020, 12:53:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 19, 2020, 05:16:48 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on November 19, 2020, 12:40:21 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 19, 2020, 12:28:57 PM
Quote from: Algorithm on November 19, 2020, 04:49:53 AM
That indicates that that bridge previously carried US-10 in addition to I-90, before US-10 was decommissioned.

I thought that might have been the case, but I didn't realize there was any overlap in I-90 and US-10 in this area. I figured the completion of I-90 signalled the end of US-10, so posting both routes on the sign seems redundant.
[/font]


The signs on the bridges are usually installed when the bridges were built, not when they are opened for use.  And when the bridges were built, they didn't have plans to decommission the US routes.  We are lucky they are post 1960, or it would have said 90/10/2.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 20, 2020, 01:06:22 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on November 20, 2020, 12:53:10 PM
The signs on the bridges are usually installed when the bridges were built, not when they are opened for use.  And when the bridges were built, they didn't have plans to decommission the US routes.  We are lucky they are post 1960, or it would have said 90/10/2.

Well, that's fine and dandy, but ErmineNotyours above pretty much spelled out that the second number (after the slash) is the n-th structure along that highway. It's just by chance that I found one that said 90/10.

If you go to the PDF I linked to above, see page 189. The bridge list for I-90 begins on that page. Although there is no 90/01, you can see the second number progressively increase as you go further east along I-90.

About 3/4 of the way down page 189, you can see the bridge I linked (emphasis mine):

"WESTBOUND I-90 TO NORTHBOUND I-5:
90/10WCD W-NBCD RAMP OVER DEARBORN 0007565L 865 CBox
"
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jay8g on November 22, 2020, 02:53:48 AM
Regarding the bridge numbers, typically the signs look more like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.7233914,-122.3449072,3a,15y,100.75h,85.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sslCW1BcSrEq_WGWEydbAyg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en), with the state route number on the top and the bridge number on the bottom. I'm not sure how the bridge numbers are determined -- they typically increase with increasing mileposts, but they're generally not sequential or based on mileposts in any obvious way, and they also sometimes have decimal points (which I really don't understand -- sometimes they seem to be when bridges are added when there are two with sequential numbers, but sometimes they're used on their own). Letter suffixes are used for divided highways, bridges on ramps, and pedestrian bridges (P suffix). I really wish there was a bit more documentation on how the numbering system worked.

Regarding ramp meters on freeway-to-freeway connections, there's soon to be another example -- I-90 to northbound I-5, on the collector-distributor lanes! The plans can be seen here (http://ftp://ftp.wsdot.wa.gov/contracts/9622-NBSenecaStVictoSR520MobilityImprovements/Plans%20&%20Specifications/). Unless I'm missing something, this also means that people coming from the Dearborn and Edgar Martinez ramps could have to go through two separate ramp meters to get onto northbound I-5! The southbound CD lanes also had ramp meter-style loops (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5936582,-122.3211323,3a,43y,187.68h,76.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVA7vtdX5qET6PCfSU8iXFQ!2e0!5s20190601T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) installed recently, but I haven't seen any indication that the ramp meters themselves will be installed anytime soon.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: thefraze_1020 on November 22, 2020, 07:51:14 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 03, 2020, 01:49:31 AM
Apparently this is on US 2 at Eagle Falls:

(https://i.imgur.com/dvYi8dM.png)

Source is from a KING 5 report: https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/wsp-will-tow-cars-parked-illegally-on-highway-2/281-48290f98-d38c-4dae-828b-4dee7c1adc18
.

I drove from Lake Wenatchee to Everett on US 2 earlier today, and I can confirm this sign has been replaced with the correct sign. They did a nice job on it too, it's nicely formatted.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 23, 2020, 02:47:45 PM
Quote from: jay8g on November 22, 2020, 02:53:48 AM
Regarding ramp meters on freeway-to-freeway connections, there's soon to be another example -- I-90 to northbound I-5, on the collector-distributor lanes! The plans can be seen here (http://ftp://ftp.wsdot.wa.gov/contracts/9622-NBSenecaStVictoSR520MobilityImprovements/Plans%20&%20Specifications/). Unless I'm missing something, this also means that people coming from the Dearborn and Edgar Martinez ramps could have to go through two separate ramp meters to get onto northbound I-5! The southbound CD lanes also had ramp meter-style loops (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5936582,-122.3211323,3a,43y,187.68h,76.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVA7vtdX5qET6PCfSU8iXFQ!2e0!5s20190601T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) installed recently, but I haven't seen any indication that the ramp meters themselves will be installed anytime soon.

I would like to think that, if there was to be metering along the collector/distributer lanes, that they would remove the other ones? Having two sets of meters for all movements except freeway-to-freeway seems excessive.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 23, 2020, 03:22:21 PM
I don't have any photos, because I am an idiot, but there is going to a four-lane meter at the on-ramp from 150th/SE 37th in Bellevue. It's part of the I-90 Eastgate to SR-900 auxiliary lane improvements. It will be in the same location as what I believe was the state's first three-lane ramp meter (https://goo.gl/maps/Fee8WjJjQfdtNjwJ6), only followed much later by the Mercer Street three-lane meter for traffic heading southbound on I-5.

Also in ramp meter news, at least a couple three lane meters are being installed in the JBLM area. I think both will be from Berkeley St. There may be another at Steilacoom-Dupont Rd once that interchange is rebuilt. The plan seems to be to meter the HOV lane, which for the longest time was a big no-no around here (the only one I know of is the westbound I-90 on-ramp from Mercer Way on Mercer Island).

I also think there may be a three-lane meter from Marvin Road in Lacey (at the new DDI).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jay8g on November 24, 2020, 04:12:03 PM
It seems like WSDOT is not as into HOV bypasses as they once were. They recently added a meter to the one at NE 45th St southbound, and removed the ones at 85th and 130th southbound (they're both now 2-lane standard meters, but they aren't in Street View yet). The new ones at Cherry St (2 lanes) and the northbound CD lanes (3 lanes) won't have HOV bypasses either. I wonder if they're getting tired of HOV violators, since I've never seen any enforcement of ramp HOV lanes...
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 24, 2020, 08:19:42 PM
Quote from: jay8g on November 24, 2020, 04:12:03 PM
It seems like WSDOT is not as into HOV bypasses as they once were. They recently added a meter to the one at NE 45th St southbound, and removed the ones at 85th and 130th southbound (they're both now 2-lane standard meters, but they aren't in Street View yet). The new ones at Cherry St (2 lanes) and the northbound CD lanes (3 lanes) won't have HOV bypasses either. I wonder if they're getting tired of HOV violators, since I've never seen any enforcement of ramp HOV lanes...

I shall imagine that it's not just the violators, but also the general growth in popularity of HOV. Eventually, the entire purpose of a meter is defeated when there is so much HOV traffic bypassing the meter signals that the entrance ramp becomes a steady flow as it may have been pre-metering.

There may be other states that have typically allowed HOV traffic to ignore the meter signal, but it's limited. Minnesota, possibly? California has many HOV lanes at their ramp meters, but I've not seen a single example that didn't have a meter signal for that lane.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: KEK Inc. on November 29, 2020, 05:41:21 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 23, 2020, 03:22:21 PM
I don't have any photos, because I am an idiot, but there is going to a four-lane meter at the on-ramp from 150th/SE 37th in Bellevue. It's part of the I-90 Eastgate to SR-900 auxiliary lane improvements. It will be in the same location as what I believe was the state's first three-lane ramp meter (https://goo.gl/maps/Fee8WjJjQfdtNjwJ6), only followed much later by the Mercer Street three-lane meter for traffic heading southbound on I-5.

Also in ramp meter news, at least a couple three lane meters are being installed in the JBLM area. I think both will be from Berkeley St. There may be another at Steilacoom-Dupont Rd once that interchange is rebuilt. The plan seems to be to meter the HOV lane, which for the longest time was a big no-no around here (the only one I know of is the westbound I-90 on-ramp from Mercer Way on Mercer Island).

I also think there may be a three-lane meter from Marvin Road in Lacey (at the new DDI).
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201129/2905009cbc8def685d1ca08a1f4e315d.jpg)

Took this on my way to hiking.  The fog was thick this morning.


iPhone
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: mrsman on November 30, 2020, 06:32:50 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 24, 2020, 08:19:42 PM
Quote from: jay8g on November 24, 2020, 04:12:03 PM
It seems like WSDOT is not as into HOV bypasses as they once were. They recently added a meter to the one at NE 45th St southbound, and removed the ones at 85th and 130th southbound (they're both now 2-lane standard meters, but they aren't in Street View yet). The new ones at Cherry St (2 lanes) and the northbound CD lanes (3 lanes) won't have HOV bypasses either. I wonder if they're getting tired of HOV violators, since I've never seen any enforcement of ramp HOV lanes...

I shall imagine that it's not just the violators, but also the general growth in popularity of HOV. Eventually, the entire purpose of a meter is defeated when there is so much HOV traffic bypassing the meter signals that the entrance ramp becomes a steady flow as it may have been pre-metering.

There may be other states that have typically allowed HOV traffic to ignore the meter signal, but it's limited. Minnesota, possibly? California has many HOV lanes at their ramp meters, but I've not seen a single example that didn't have a meter signal for that lane.

There are still examples in CA where the HOV lane can bypass the metering signal.  The purpose of ramp metering is to get even flow on entrance ramps to reduce mainline crowding by putting the crowiding at the on-ramps (to whatever extent they could).  The small HOV bypasses were designed to allow HOVs to bypass the entering crowding.  You are correct that if too many people use the bypass, it will just cause overall congestion.

Here's an example on Woodman Ave at ramps to US 101 south in Sherman Oaks, CA that still allows HOV bypass of the meter.  Signs indicate that the left lane is carpool only when metered.  Other signs say "<>Left Lane Do not Stop"

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1553174,-118.429898,3a,75y,59.36h,80.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s08UV8Xyrbx_1JDDLEmK4nA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 01, 2020, 01:03:09 AM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on November 29, 2020, 05:41:21 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 23, 2020, 03:22:21 PM
I don't have any photos, because I am an idiot, but there is going to a four-lane meter at the on-ramp from 150th/SE 37th in Bellevue. It's part of the I-90 Eastgate to SR-900 auxiliary lane improvements. It will be in the same location as what I believe was the state's first three-lane ramp meter (https://goo.gl/maps/Fee8WjJjQfdtNjwJ6), only followed much later by the Mercer Street three-lane meter for traffic heading southbound on I-5.

Also in ramp meter news, at least a couple three lane meters are being installed in the JBLM area. I think both will be from Berkeley St. There may be another at Steilacoom-Dupont Rd once that interchange is rebuilt. The plan seems to be to meter the HOV lane, which for the longest time was a big no-no around here (the only one I know of is the westbound I-90 on-ramp from Mercer Way on Mercer Island).

I also think there may be a three-lane meter from Marvin Road in Lacey (at the new DDI).
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201129/2905009cbc8def685d1ca08a1f4e315d.jpg)

Took this on my way to hiking.  The fog was thick this morning.

Thank you. Maybe one day I can get a picture of my own lol.

I'll be very interested to see how it operates once they activate the meter. I think two of the four approaches are HOV.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 01, 2020, 01:07:30 AM
Quote from: mrsman on November 30, 2020, 06:32:50 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 24, 2020, 08:19:42 PM
Quote from: jay8g on November 24, 2020, 04:12:03 PM
It seems like WSDOT is not as into HOV bypasses as they once were. They recently added a meter to the one at NE 45th St southbound, and removed the ones at 85th and 130th southbound (they're both now 2-lane standard meters, but they aren't in Street View yet). The new ones at Cherry St (2 lanes) and the northbound CD lanes (3 lanes) won't have HOV bypasses either. I wonder if they're getting tired of HOV violators, since I've never seen any enforcement of ramp HOV lanes...

I shall imagine that it's not just the violators, but also the general growth in popularity of HOV. Eventually, the entire purpose of a meter is defeated when there is so much HOV traffic bypassing the meter signals that the entrance ramp becomes a steady flow as it may have been pre-metering.

There may be other states that have typically allowed HOV traffic to ignore the meter signal, but it's limited. Minnesota, possibly? California has many HOV lanes at their ramp meters, but I've not seen a single example that didn't have a meter signal for that lane.

There are still examples in CA where the HOV lane can bypass the metering signal.  The purpose of ramp metering is to get even flow on entrance ramps to reduce mainline crowding by putting the crowiding at the on-ramps (to whatever extent they could).  The small HOV bypasses were designed to allow HOVs to bypass the entering crowding.  You are correct that if too many people use the bypass, it will just cause overall congestion.

Here's an example on Woodman Ave at ramps to US 101 south in Sherman Oaks, CA that still allows HOV bypass of the meter.  Signs indicate that the left lane is carpool only when metered.  Other signs say "<>Left Lane Do not Stop"

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1553174,-118.429898,3a,75y,59.36h,80.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s08UV8Xyrbx_1JDDLEmK4nA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

That's very interesting. I've never seen a full-blown HOV bypass in California. At least the style often used in Washington. Even for CA, this must be rare, given the supplementary "do not stop" sign.

I've always thought ramp meters for HOV lanes made sense. I get that having the ability to bypass the meter is a big bonus for HOV traffic, but eventually there's just too much traffic bypassing the meter for that "do not stop" style of metering to make any sense. Luckily, it seems that most of WSDOT's HOV bypasses still have pressure plates in the ground for later conversion to HOV metering. And for the meters that don't have much HOV traffic, the wait at the meter won't be too bad. But trying to merge with HOV traffic that is flying by you in the immediately adjacent lane, usually at 60+, is quite difficult and fairly dangerous. I say: make everyone stop.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 01, 2020, 01:48:09 AM
WSDOT uses a similar "Do Not Stop for Signal" sign at some ramp meters, like I-5 & 220th in Mountlake Terrace.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 01, 2020, 12:36:23 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 01, 2020, 01:48:09 AM
WSDOT uses a similar "Do Not Stop for Signal" sign at some ramp meters, like I-5 & 220th in Mountlake Terrace.

And now that you mention it, I was thinking of the southbound on-ramp from 405 and 525 onto I-5, where the HOV bypasses are on the outer edges and there are single-head signals over the HOV lanes (not sure what color) with accompanying "HOV Shoulder Do Not Stop" signs. Pretty unusual design.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: roadfro on December 03, 2020, 11:05:08 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 01, 2020, 01:07:30 AM
I've always thought ramp meters for HOV lanes made sense. I get that having the ability to bypass the meter is a big bonus for HOV traffic, but eventually there's just too much traffic bypassing the meter for that "do not stop" style of metering to make any sense. Luckily, it seems that most of WSDOT's HOV bypasses still have pressure plates in the ground for later conversion to HOV metering. And for the meters that don't have much HOV traffic, the wait at the meter won't be too bad. But trying to merge with HOV traffic that is flying by you in the immediately adjacent lane, usually at 60+, is quite difficult and fairly dangerous. I say: make everyone stop.

I noticed the sentence bolded above. I'm hoping WSDOT doesn't actually use pressure plates...as that's a fairly old technology now (which I understand wasn't particularly reliable and had maintenance issues). Might they actually use inductive loops embedded in the pavement? (Street View example: inductive loop sensors in a square-ish pattern in Reno, NV (https://goo.gl/maps/KGi6mEihsNJpfTVa8))
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 03, 2020, 12:57:18 PM
Quote from: roadfro on December 03, 2020, 11:05:08 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 01, 2020, 01:07:30 AM
I've always thought ramp meters for HOV lanes made sense. I get that having the ability to bypass the meter is a big bonus for HOV traffic, but eventually there's just too much traffic bypassing the meter for that "do not stop" style of metering to make any sense. Luckily, it seems that most of WSDOT's HOV bypasses still have pressure plates in the ground for later conversion to HOV metering. And for the meters that don't have much HOV traffic, the wait at the meter won't be too bad. But trying to merge with HOV traffic that is flying by you in the immediately adjacent lane, usually at 60+, is quite difficult and fairly dangerous. I say: make everyone stop.

I noticed the sentence bolded above. I'm hoping WSDOT doesn't actually use pressure plates...as that's a fairly old technology now (which I understand wasn't particularly reliable and had maintenance issues). Might they actually use inductive loops embedded in the pavement? (Street View example: inductive loop sensors in a square-ish pattern in Reno, NV (https://goo.gl/maps/KGi6mEihsNJpfTVa8))

Yeah, I meant to say inductive loops. I just watched a video on detection methods and I flip-flipped the terminology.

Unlike that NV example, WSDOT uses perfectly circular (https://goo.gl/maps/K7TSSFQLKT1vvzS96) inductive loops. They are manufactured by Reno A&E.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: roadfro on December 05, 2020, 05:05:29 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 03, 2020, 12:57:18 PM
Quote from: roadfro on December 03, 2020, 11:05:08 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 01, 2020, 01:07:30 AM
I've always thought ramp meters for HOV lanes made sense. I get that having the ability to bypass the meter is a big bonus for HOV traffic, but eventually there's just too much traffic bypassing the meter for that "do not stop" style of metering to make any sense. Luckily, it seems that most of WSDOT's HOV bypasses still have pressure plates in the ground for later conversion to HOV metering. And for the meters that don't have much HOV traffic, the wait at the meter won't be too bad. But trying to merge with HOV traffic that is flying by you in the immediately adjacent lane, usually at 60+, is quite difficult and fairly dangerous. I say: make everyone stop.

I noticed the sentence bolded above. I'm hoping WSDOT doesn't actually use pressure plates...as that's a fairly old technology now (which I understand wasn't particularly reliable and had maintenance issues). Might they actually use inductive loops embedded in the pavement? (Street View example: inductive loop sensors in a square-ish pattern in Reno, NV (https://goo.gl/maps/KGi6mEihsNJpfTVa8))

Yeah, I meant to say inductive loops. I just watched a video on detection methods and I flip-flipped the terminology.

Unlike that NV example, WSDOT uses perfectly circular (https://goo.gl/maps/K7TSSFQLKT1vvzS96) inductive loops. They are manufactured by Reno A&E.

Ah, much better!

Nevada's newer installs are now using round loops as well...a recent change adopted in the last couple years.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on December 05, 2020, 05:51:23 PM
Quote from: roadfro on December 05, 2020, 05:05:29 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 03, 2020, 12:57:18 PM
Quote from: roadfro on December 03, 2020, 11:05:08 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 01, 2020, 01:07:30 AM
I've always thought ramp meters for HOV lanes made sense. I get that having the ability to bypass the meter is a big bonus for HOV traffic, but eventually there's just too much traffic bypassing the meter for that "do not stop" style of metering to make any sense. Luckily, it seems that most of WSDOT's HOV bypasses still have pressure plates in the ground for later conversion to HOV metering. And for the meters that don't have much HOV traffic, the wait at the meter won't be too bad. But trying to merge with HOV traffic that is flying by you in the immediately adjacent lane, usually at 60+, is quite difficult and fairly dangerous. I say: make everyone stop.

I noticed the sentence bolded above. I'm hoping WSDOT doesn't actually use pressure plates...as that's a fairly old technology now (which I understand wasn't particularly reliable and had maintenance issues). Might they actually use inductive loops embedded in the pavement? (Street View example: inductive loop sensors in a square-ish pattern in Reno, NV (https://goo.gl/maps/KGi6mEihsNJpfTVa8))

Yeah, I meant to say inductive loops. I just watched a video on detection methods and I flip-flipped the terminology.

Unlike that NV example, WSDOT uses perfectly circular (https://goo.gl/maps/K7TSSFQLKT1vvzS96) inductive loops. They are manufactured by Reno A&E.

Ah, much better!

Nevada's newer installs are now using round loops as well...a recent change adopted in the last couple years.

Simply a matter of physics -- round air/nonmagnetic cores can be manufactured to much tighter tolerances than square-section types, which have an irregular field within the loop itself (I manufacture loudspeakers, and have to regularly deal with this in regards to crossover filter components); a square-section coil is more sensitive to outside interference as well.  But I can see how rectangular loops would find favor with DOT's -- if the idea is to simply detect a vehicle above it, stretching a rectangle across the lane would get the job done with less wire (likely cheaper) -- but it would also be more prone to produce "false" signals from vehicles passing near but not over the loop.  And since the "trigger" is the measured difference between no car over the loop and a car over the loop, adjacent vehicles setting it off isn't a desirable condition.  So switching to a circular coil is a step in the right direction -- and apparently, it allows purchase from an in-state vendor, so it's a "win-win" scenario.     
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 08, 2020, 04:51:06 PM
I got a couple more photos of the four-head ramp meter on eastbound I-90 from 150th Ave/SE 37th in Eastgate. No HOV bypasses from the looks of it:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50696584227_55bf101296_o.jpg)

This is the current state of the ramp (aka, not finished):

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50695754208_23ae70e293_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 11, 2020, 01:57:50 PM
I saw from the WSDOT blog (which I should check more but often forget to) that the SR-18/I-90 DDI was pushed back a year:

https://wsdotblog.blogspot.com/2020/11/new-timeline-for-i-90sr-18-interchange.html

The blog did have a cool render showing the actual plans, including the lane configuration and planned channelization. The four-lane section of SR-18 looks to be getting pushed further south than it is right now. Gotta wonder if they're planning to tie in the northbound two-lane stretch into the existing two-lane stretch that ends just after the last hill (https://goo.gl/maps/BbUbnYzhs95tH4Av6)?

From a pedestrian point of view, we can also see that they plan to put the pedestrian pathway along the west side of the road, instead of in the center as is typical for DDIs. I like this change.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nhkXHvUQA2Y/X7b6SvskGMI/AAAAAAAABK0/VT_OQxHcSq83VMwt04Kej36fg9mjV0OJgCLcBGAsYHQ/s2048/I90SR18_AerialMap_061620-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on December 19, 2020, 02:43:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 11, 2020, 01:57:50 PM
Gotta wonder if they're planning to tie in the northbound two-lane stretch into the existing two-lane stretch that ends just after the last hill (https://goo.gl/maps/BbUbnYzhs95tH4Av6)?

(From the project's page (https://wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I90/SR18ICImprove/default.htm))
Quote from: WSDOT
In addition, this project will widen nearly 1.5 miles of SR 18 to four lanes from the interchange to Deep Creek.

Yup! in fact, looks like 1.5 miles works out to the start of that climbing lane at the bottom of that hill.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on December 27, 2020, 10:32:34 PM
Pardon if it's buried in a thread I couldn't find, but with I-5 being Exit 2 from I-90 (and apparently mile 2.48), where was the theoretical Mile 0 from which the highway was mileposted?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 27, 2020, 10:49:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 27, 2020, 10:32:34 PM
Pardon if it's buried in a thread I couldn't find, but with I-5 being Exit 2 from I-90 (and apparently mile 2.48), where was the theoretical Mile 0 from which the highway was mileposted?

I'm sure it would have been WA-99. There were ramp stubs on the viaduct that would have connected to the freeway had it been built as originally imagined.

Just to be clear, I recognize that the viaduct was only about a mile west, but there's really nowhere else it could have begun. Unless the mileage was based on the surface street routings from the ferry terminal or something.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on December 27, 2020, 11:29:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 27, 2020, 10:49:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 27, 2020, 10:32:34 PM
Pardon if it's buried in a thread I couldn't find, but with I-5 being Exit 2 from I-90 (and apparently mile 2.48), where was the theoretical Mile 0 from which the highway was mileposted?

I'm sure it would have been WA-99. There were ramp stubs on the viaduct that would have connected to the freeway had it been built as originally imagined.

Just to be clear, I recognize that the viaduct was only about a mile west, but there's really nowhere else it could have begun. Unless the mileage was based on the surface street routings from the ferry terminal or something.
SPUI's theory is that it used the old state highway 2 mileage that reflected US 10 without adjusting for the revised terminus.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 28, 2020, 03:03:16 AM
Quote from: Alps on December 27, 2020, 11:29:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 27, 2020, 10:49:58 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 27, 2020, 10:32:34 PM
Pardon if it's buried in a thread I couldn't find, but with I-5 being Exit 2 from I-90 (and apparently mile 2.48), where was the theoretical Mile 0 from which the highway was mileposted?

I'm sure it would have been WA-99. There were ramp stubs on the viaduct that would have connected to the freeway had it been built as originally imagined.

Just to be clear, I recognize that the viaduct was only about a mile west, but there's really nowhere else it could have begun. Unless the mileage was based on the surface street routings from the ferry terminal or something.
SPUI's theory is that it used the old state highway 2 mileage that reflected US 10 without adjusting for the revised terminus.

If there's an answer, Bruce will have it. I don't recall where PSH-2 started.

Looking at the highway logs, the distance between the accumulated route mileage (actual mileage) and the mileposts varies, from 1.94 miles at 4th Ave S to 2.31 miles by the ID border. No clue where this other gap would be.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on December 28, 2020, 04:35:22 PM
A pictorial of the connection from I-90 to the Alaskan Way Viaduct is shown here:

https://www.historylink.org/file/9977

They call it the Connecticut Street Viaduct.  Connecticut Street was the former name of Royal Brougham Way.  The proposed viaduct was planned a lot like the Alaskan Way Viaduct - two decks of expressway above the street, small if any shoulders.  They had in mind connections to both directions of the Alaskan Way Viaduct plus entrances/exits at First Ave. South and it looks like Utah Ave. South.  Still unclear where the missing couple of miles could have gone.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 29, 2020, 01:36:50 PM
Looking at that historylink article...a few questions:

(1) that second-to-last photo shows "'CBD' ramps" ... I wonder when that term fell out of favor. I recognize that CBD was common at some point. At least in writing.

(2) where is the rest of Connecticut Street? I get that it was renamed to Royal Brougham Way, but there are streets to the east that would have lined up with it, yet none use the name. Judkins being the closest. Neither Holgate nor Lander line up perfectly with their grid extensions to the east, but they still keep the name.

(3) does anyone have a photo of the traffic light at Mercer and Aurora? I see that the underpass was built by the late 50s.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on December 29, 2020, 04:27:28 PM
(2) There wasn't much more of Connecticut St.  It formerly existed west of Alaskan Way but that was closed by the Port of Seattle.  I'm looking at a Shell street map from 1956 thanks to David Ramsey.  Some east-west streets in that area have their names continued in West Seattle but where Connecticut St. might have gone is instead California Way and California Lane.  East of the hospital on 12th Ave. some names are again repeated, but the space where Connecticut might be seems to be used by Judkins St.

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on December 29, 2020, 06:13:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 29, 2020, 01:36:50 PM
Looking at that historylink article...a few questions:

(1) that second-to-last photo shows "'CBD' ramps" ... I wonder when that term fell out of favor. I recognize that CBD was common at some point. At least in writing.

(2) where is the rest of Connecticut Street? I get that it was renamed to Royal Brougham Way, but there are streets to the east that would have lined up with it, yet none use the name. Judkins being the closest. Neither Holgate nor Lander line up perfectly with their grid extensions to the east, but they still keep the name.

(3) does anyone have a photo of the traffic light at Mercer and Aurora? I see that the underpass was built by the late 50s.
As to 1), I think we understand better now, or times have changed, that economic and residential commercial centers are dispersed.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: thefraze_1020 on December 29, 2020, 10:03:07 PM
I have looked through my map collection, and I have a map of Seattle for every single year from 1945-1970 (past 1970 is not relevant here, I don't think), plus Seattle maps for 1937, 39 and 41.

The state road system existed prior to 1937. In 1937, the PSH and SSH system began, of course being used until 1964 in the field and 1970 in the legislature.

My 1937 and 1939 maps show the western terminus of US-10/ PSH 2 at the intersection of 4th Ave S and Jackson St (4th Ave S of course being US-99/ PSH 1):
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.599181,-122.3291956,145m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

By 1941, the western terminus of US-10/ PSH 2 had been moved to 4th Ave S and what's now Seattle Blvd S:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5964824,-122.3293404,145m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

This remained the case through 1956. In 1957, the Gousha map shows 4th Ave S as being Business US-99, with the mainline moved to 1st Ave S and the viaduct. It does not indicate where US-10/ PSH 2 end. However, a Rand McNally map from the same year (1957) shows US-10/ PSH 2 turning north on 4th Ave and continuing to a terminus where Business US-99 and mainline US-99 merge at the north portal of the Battery Street Tunnel:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6187424,-122.3440336,145m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

It was not until the 1962 map that Gousha actually specified that PSH 2 followed Business US-99 north through downtown.
For 1964 and on, maps do not show PSH/ SSH numbers, because they were no longer signed in the field.

At that time, from 1957 until the death of US-10 in 1969, from it's western terminus, eastbound US-10 ran south from US-99 at the north end of the Battery Street Tunnel, southwest on Wall Street, then a left turn on 2nd Ave, merged onto 4th Ave S on the north side of King Street Station, took a left on Seattle Blvd S and an immediate left on S Dearborn St. Before the I-90 interchange was completed in the early 90's, I-90 effectively began under I-5 at Dearborn. If I were to draw a line from the north end of the Battery Street Tunnel to that spot under I-5, using the route I just mentioned, Google Maps says that is 2.3 miles.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/47.618558,-122.3438444/47.5958239,-122.3203656/@47.6078591,-122.32617,4646m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!4m8!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d-122.3293838!2d47.5988553!3s0x54906abb43339bbf:0xf08bb758b661cc76!1m0!3e0?hl=en

If we were to assume the exit numbers on the current incarnation of I-90 were based off of the route mileage when the renumbering occurred in 1964, that exit number (2) would line up with a terminus at the north end of the Battery Street Tunnel.

I would usually say this is my $0.02 worth, but since I wrote an essay, I am going to call it my $0.04 worth.  :)

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on December 30, 2020, 01:58:46 AM
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on December 29, 2020, 10:03:07 PM
At that time, from 1957 until the death of US-10 in 1969, from it's western terminus, eastbound US-10 ran south from US-99 at the north end of the Battery Street Tunnel, southwest on Wall Street, then a left turn on 2nd Ave, merged onto 4th Ave S on the north side of King Street Station, took a left on Seattle Blvd S and an immediate left on S Dearborn St. Before the I-90 interchange was completed in the early 90's, I-90 effectively began under I-5 at Dearborn. If I were to draw a line from the north end of the Battery Street Tunnel to that spot under I-5, using the route I just mentioned, Google Maps says that is 2.3 miles.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/47.618558,-122.3438444/47.5958239,-122.3203656/@47.6078591,-122.32617,4646m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!4m8!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d-122.3293838!2d47.5988553!3s0x54906abb43339bbf:0xf08bb758b661cc76!1m0!3e0?hl=en

If we were to assume the exit numbers on the current incarnation of I-90 were based off of the route mileage when the renumbering occurred in 1964, that exit number (2) would line up with a terminus at the north end of the Battery Street Tunnel.

I would usually say this is my $0.02 worth, but since I wrote an essay, I am going to call it my $0.04 worth.  :)

To put your claim to the test I've measured the distance along your stated route from the Rainier Ave Bridge on I-90, since that's where the previous and current routings of (Temp) I-90 converge (map below). The state highway log says this point is at milepost 3.30, and we get exactly 3.30 miles right at the point where the ramp branched off north of the Battery St tunnel's north portal, so I think you might just be correct! Great detective work there.

(https://i.imgur.com/GcLBIQn.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: thefraze_1020 on December 30, 2020, 02:09:02 AM
Quote from: stevashe on December 30, 2020, 01:58:46 AM
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on December 29, 2020, 10:03:07 PM
At that time, from 1957 until the death of US-10 in 1969, from it's western terminus, eastbound US-10 ran south from US-99 at the north end of the Battery Street Tunnel, southwest on Wall Street, then a left turn on 2nd Ave, merged onto 4th Ave S on the north side of King Street Station, took a left on Seattle Blvd S and an immediate left on S Dearborn St. Before the I-90 interchange was completed in the early 90's, I-90 effectively began under I-5 at Dearborn. If I were to draw a line from the north end of the Battery Street Tunnel to that spot under I-5, using the route I just mentioned, Google Maps says that is 2.3 miles.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/47.618558,-122.3438444/47.5958239,-122.3203656/@47.6078591,-122.32617,4646m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!4m8!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d-122.3293838!2d47.5988553!3s0x54906abb43339bbf:0xf08bb758b661cc76!1m0!3e0?hl=en

If we were to assume the exit numbers on the current incarnation of I-90 were based off of the route mileage when the renumbering occurred in 1964, that exit number (2) would line up with a terminus at the north end of the Battery Street Tunnel.

I would usually say this is my $0.02 worth, but since I wrote an essay, I am going to call it my $0.04 worth.  :)

To put your claim to the test I've measured the distance along your stated route from the Rainier Ave Bridge on I-90, since that's where the previous and current routings of (Temp) I-90 converge (map below). The state highway log says this point is at milepost 3.30, and we get exactly 3.30 miles right at the point where the ramp branched off north of the Battery St tunnel's north portal, so I think you might just be correct! Great detective work there.

(https://i.imgur.com/GcLBIQn.png)

Well done! That's an even better conclusion than I came up with.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on December 30, 2020, 02:20:35 AM
Oh that makes a lot of sense! I'd always wondered how they ended calling the first exit on I-90 exit 2.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on December 31, 2020, 09:48:28 PM
The opposite of the first exits on I-5.  Since Washington is afraid of Exit Zero, we get Exits 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D in Vancouver.   :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on January 05, 2021, 11:36:29 PM
I thought this was cool. Tacoma is fairly well known for their "Court" alleys: Court A, Commerce, Court C, Court D. They're pretty darn wide, and as this image from 1968 shows (Richards Studio D154000-268, from Tacoma Public Library), Court A was wide enough to be striped as two lanes. It still acted as an alley, with stop signs at the major intersections and no signals or even crosswalks. I'm guessing the southbound left lane was primarily parking. Still, definitely never seen this before!

For traffic geeks, have fun counting all the little differences compared to today: one way streets, different markings, lots of double turns...

EDIT: the alley (Court A in this case) is the road second from the bottom-right in the image, and is one-way going towards the bottom-left of the image. The street on the bottom-right edge parallel with the alley is A St, and the image on the other side of the alley (the two way street) is Pacific Ave.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50805781381_da1a24f583_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: SkyPesos on January 06, 2021, 06:12:13 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on December 31, 2020, 09:48:28 PM
The opposite of the first exits on I-5.  Since Washington is afraid of Exit Zero, we get Exits 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D in Vancouver.   :rolleyes:
I thought high exit 1 suffixes are common, because of the lack of an exit 0. I-75 in Cincy goes up to 1G and I-170 in St. Louis goes up to 1F.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Henry on January 07, 2021, 11:08:57 AM
Quote from: SkyPesos on January 06, 2021, 06:12:13 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on December 31, 2020, 09:48:28 PM
The opposite of the first exits on I-5.  Since Washington is afraid of Exit Zero, we get Exits 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D in Vancouver.   :rolleyes:
I thought high exit 1 suffixes are common, because of the lack of an exit 0. I-75 in Cincy goes up to 1G and I-170 in St. Louis goes up to 1F.
I-277 in Charlotte goes up to 1E, and not only that, every damn exit number on that freeway has a suffix (well, except for 4).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on January 20, 2021, 12:10:45 PM
State legislature is now debating a $25.8 billion transportation package designed to last 16 years. Would be funded by a few sources (http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/Budget/Detail/2020/stBalanceSheet_0205.pdf), including a gas tax hike of 18 cents per gallon. (Source (https://www.heraldnet.com/news/house-democrats-lay-out-massive-26b-transportation-package/))

Among the projects on the preliminary list: attempt 2 at the Columbia River Crossing in Vancouver/Portland, hybrid electric ferries, replacement of the westbound US 2 trestle in Everett.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on January 20, 2021, 01:07:52 PM
Good.  The Columbia River Crossing pretty much has to happen unless we want it to fall into the river at the next earthquake and obstruct shipping.  So's the US 2 trestle.  Too bad it depends so heavily on gas taxes, but it is what it is.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on January 20, 2021, 01:42:30 PM
I read recently that the 99 tunnel is falling short of its expected earnings and may need to be bailed out. Probably a good indication that tolling isn't necessarily a great plan for major projects.

I am personally fine with a gas tax hike, but only because compared to other sources, it seems to be more reliable.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 20, 2021, 03:29:26 PM
I believe the tolls were implemented to keep the SR 99 tunnel from becoming congested. Depending on how much traffic would use the tunnel if it wasn't tolled, I'm sure it would see more congestion and possibly even gridlock. Of course, I have never been to Seattle and have no idea what area traffic flow is like, but I imagine the tunnel would not be a quick (even if expensive at times) bypass through downtown if it wasn't tolled.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on January 20, 2021, 04:43:15 PM
At least tolling where there are free parallel routes isn't necessarily a great plan.   :spin:

But the 99 tunnel may start to get more traffic once Covid eases up and the other routes are more congested.

For myself I'd be okay with a gas tax, but there are a lot of not very well off people who are forced into long commutes by high rents in the city or need a truck for their work.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: SkyPesos on January 20, 2021, 09:46:09 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 20, 2021, 04:43:15 PM
At least tolling where there are free parallel routes isn't necessarily a great plan.   :spin:
*cough* Louisville
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on January 22, 2021, 09:22:54 PM
Quote from: Bruce on January 20, 2021, 12:10:45 PM
State legislature is now debating a $25.8 billion transportation package designed to last 16 years. Would be funded by a few sources (http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/Budget/Detail/2020/stBalanceSheet_0205.pdf), including a gas tax hike of 18 cents per gallon. (Source (https://www.heraldnet.com/news/house-democrats-lay-out-massive-26b-transportation-package/))

Among the projects on the preliminary list: attempt 2 at the Columbia River Crossing in Vancouver/Portland, hybrid electric ferries, replacement of the westbound US 2 trestle in Everett.

While that news article is new, the document showing revenue sources and expenditures is from last February, so it's pretty out of date. It even shows impacts from I-976, which was thankfully ruled unconstitutional late last year, so I'd take that list with a big grain of salt; there will definitely be changes.

Quote from: jakeroot on January 20, 2021, 01:42:30 PM
I read recently that the 99 tunnel is falling short of its expected earnings and may need to be bailed out. Probably a good indication that tolling isn't necessarily a great plan for major projects.

I think it was (probably) doing okay before COVID, but it's hard to say since that was only a few months. Regardless, COVID-related impacts to travel demand will be blamed before tolling itself so I wouldn't hold my breath about it changing any tolling plans, but I would be elated if the tolling plans for Puget Sound Gateway were dropped, maybe they could seek funding from a potential infrastructure stimulus instead?

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 20, 2021, 03:29:26 PM
I believe the tolls were implemented to keep the SR 99 tunnel from becoming congested. Depending on how much traffic would use the tunnel if it wasn't tolled, I'm sure it would see more congestion and possibly even gridlock. Of course, I have never been to Seattle and have no idea what area traffic flow is like, but I imagine the tunnel would not be a quick (even if expensive at times) bypass through downtown if it wasn't tolled.

We already know exactly what would happen since it was free for the first 9 months after it opened. I took it a few times during rush hour and it moved at ~20 mph at the slowest which is not great but certainly better than downtown streets, and that's just the worst-case scenario. Also, the toll is never expensive; it tops out at $2.25, which is pretty cheap even if you don't have Good-to-Go! and pay the extra $2 fee.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on March 11, 2021, 02:16:20 AM
A 1966 view of the Broadway Interchange in Everett, where I-5 now meets SR 99, SR 526 (not yet built), and SR 527. Bonus view of the 41st Street interchange, which remained relatively unchanged until WSDOT's reconstruction in the 2000s:

(https://i.imgur.com/6mHnNxj.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 11, 2021, 03:01:10 AM
In many respects, I do believe I prefer the original 41st Street interchange. Not least because the old design didn't punish HOV traffic by forcing them through that seagull intersection with the 41st St connector road.

It is funny because, IMO, the new design with three signals has significantly more conflict points than the old design, yet WSDOT is all about reducing conflict points through DDIs and roundabouts. I really don't get it...
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on March 14, 2021, 10:58:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 11, 2021, 03:01:10 AM
In many respects, I do believe I prefer the original 41st Street interchange. Not least because the old design didn't punish HOV traffic by forcing them through that seagull intersection with the 41st St connector road.

It is funny because, IMO, the new design with three signals has significantly more conflict points than the old design, yet WSDOT is all about reducing conflict points through DDIs and roundabouts. I really don't get it...

I disagree with that. If you were basing your opinion just off the newspaper aerial then it isn't really apparent, but there are multiple points in the old configuration with weaving or cross traffic that no longer exist. Comparing just the amount of conflict points isn't really fair either since 41st street is a full exit now compared to being just half (to and from the north) before, and they did use a SPUI so that certainly jives with keeping conflict points down.

I certainly agree that making HOV traffic stop while general purpose gets a free ride is not ideal, but it still beats having to merge over through a wall of traffic if there wasn't an exit on the left! I've taken the HOV exit a few times (in peak afternoon traffic) and you don't have to wait long at the light even if it is red anyway. It is only a two-phase signal after all. Also - the old design only had the left-side offramp to Broadway so if WSDOT had kept that design when adding the HOV lane, I think that would have "punished" them more by making the HOV lane discontinuous similar to the Corson Ave left exit in South Seattle.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 15, 2021, 01:14:38 AM
Quote from: stevashe on March 14, 2021, 10:58:32 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 11, 2021, 03:01:10 AM
In many respects, I do believe I prefer the original 41st Street interchange. Not least because the old design didn't punish HOV traffic by forcing them through that seagull intersection with the 41st St connector road.

It is funny because, IMO, the new design with three signals has significantly more conflict points than the old design, yet WSDOT is all about reducing conflict points through DDIs and roundabouts. I really don't get it...

I disagree with that. If you were basing your opinion just off the newspaper aerial then it isn't really apparent, but there are multiple points in the old configuration with weaving or cross traffic that no longer exist. Comparing just the amount of conflict points isn't really fair either since 41st street is a full exit now compared to being just half (to and from the north) before, and they did use a SPUI so that certainly jives with keeping conflict points down.

I certainly agree that making HOV traffic stop while general purpose gets a free ride is not ideal, but it still beats having to merge over through a wall of traffic if there wasn't an exit on the left! I've taken the HOV exit a few times (in peak afternoon traffic) and you don't have to wait long at the light even if it is red anyway. It is only a two-phase signal after all. Also - the old design only had the left-side offramp to Broadway so if WSDOT had kept that design when adding the HOV lane, I think that would have "punished" them more by making the HOV lane discontinuous similar to the Corson Ave left exit in South Seattle.

So I have to admit: I actually didn't notice the right-side GP exit was missing from the original design. I can certainly see how the addition of that ramp, in addition to the HOV lanes being added to I-5 and the new HOV-only ramps, does make the whole interchange significantly better. However, looking a bit more deeply, I still don't fully agree that the new interchange was totally superior.

For one, the old interchange did allow northbound Broadway traffic to reach northbound I-5. The new design does not support this maneuver in any way. Second, the old interchange featured primarily right turns, with only a few maneuvers using left turns. Those that did use left turns were fairly quiet, apart from the eastbound 41st to northbound I-5 movement. Third, although weaving was more apparent in the old design, I would argue it wasn't necessarily a bad thing given that the weaving occurred along city streets that would have had low speeds, and several of the weaves were actually quite lengthy; the worst weaves could have easily been fixed through modifications elsewhere.

I would also argue that the old design was a full interchange. I suspect the old design had two separate exit numbers, but there were no missing movements: Broadway and 41st were equally accessible from I-5 no matter which direction you were proceeding, although a few of the movements were slightly more circuitous before than now.

Personally, I think a modified version of the original interchange design would have been the best option, even considering the eastern 41st St extension that had been in planning for years. Maybe I'll draw that up if I have some time. Certainly it would require a couple of new two-phase signals, and definitely some bridge replacements. But I don't think anything as dramatic as what was actually built was truly necessary. Especially since traffic to and from the west is far heavier than from the east, yet the SPUI treats them equally.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on March 15, 2021, 10:45:59 PM
Kitsap Sun is reporting on a $500 million proposal to fill the gap between SR 3 and SR 16 in Gorst with a freeway (behind a paywall):

https://twitter.com/joshfarley/status/1371491881662570514
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on March 18, 2021, 05:25:32 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 15, 2021, 10:45:59 PM
Kitsap Sun is reporting on a $500 million proposal to fill the gap between SR 3 and SR 16 in Gorst with a freeway (behind a paywall):

https://twitter.com/joshfarley/status/1371491881662570514

Wow. I had kind of assumed that the gap there would remain indefinitely since they went through the trouble of putting those flyovers in and there isn't much room for a freeway upgrade. Good to know they're at least looking at it.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 18, 2021, 07:04:44 PM
Since I'll get in trouble, I'll just share the important bit:

Quote
For years, state lawmakers pushed a bridge over Sinclair Inlet as a solution for the traffic woes. But improving the intersection of highways 3 and 16 has emerged as the clear choice among the coalition because of fears Gorst is increasingly vulnerable in catastrophes and because of the rising economic importance of the area around Bremerton National Airport.

It calls for using a state Department of Transportation plan to elevate the highway through Gorst, making the corridor durable against storms, flooding and climate change, as well as earthquakes and tsunamis. A railroad trestle, long used by the Navy, could also be replaced and additional lane capacity added to alleviate traffic.

The rock cliffs at Windy Point and the railroad tracks northward make a tight squeeze north of Gorst. But that could also be helped by the project's additional lane if the funding is there.

[Rep Derek] Kilmer pointed out that he's been fighting for a congressional fund that serves transportation projects around military installations, and he sees promise in the Puget Sound Industrial Center and other burgeoning businesses near the Bremerton National Airport. Amazon, for instance, added a last-mile delivery center in the area this past year.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 18, 2021, 07:12:04 PM
Now for my opinion:

Gorst is an eye-sore, and an entirely elevated SR-3/16 will only serve to worsen any remaining appeal.

Building a bridge over Sinclair Inlet (ideally Ross Point -> SR-3/Charleston Blvd interchange), and then improving the seawall and local connections in Gorst (esp. pedestrian flow) seems like the best option.

This would be a very expensive band-aid. One of the few projects I honestly think I'd rather they didn't go through with. Save the funds for a better, more permanent solution.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 18, 2021, 10:14:07 PM
Threw this together out of frustration:

(full version (https://flic.kr/p/2kMc715))

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51050879876_3df8a3f4d0_k.jpg)

EDIT: my description:

Quote from: jakeroot on Flickr
Talk of a bridge over the Sinclair Inlet in Bremerton, WA has persisted for decades. The current route between Tacoma and Bremerton passes through Gorst at the tip of the inlet, to the west. It is largely at-grade and not fit for the traffic that it handles.

This proposal conceptualizes a new bridge proceeding north from the WA-16/Tremont St/Old Clifton Rd interchange, passing through dense forest, before turning north-north-west at Ross Point, where it would cross the inlet. It would meet the WA-3/WA-304 (Charleston Blvd) interchange with a modified trumpet-style design, with movements kept north of the shoreline to limit the number of structural supports necessary in the water, and to avoid interfering with the railway line along the shore.

The current WA-3/WA-304 (Charleston Blvd) interchange is missing a southbound to eastbound movement; this proposal would add that missing movement.

Upgrading the entire route to freeway would qualify it for either a 60 or 70 mph speed limit.

Roads in the Gorst area would be narrowed considerably, with crosswalks added and the overall infrastructure heavily pedestrianized. The new through movement would be WA-3. The seawall would be improved to reduce flooding and business/highway damage.

edit 2: fixed to say "Tacoma to Bremerton" instead of "Gig Harbor".
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on March 22, 2021, 07:21:42 PM
I like that idea for the bridge. It would be a great way to solve the problem in Gorst as well as the issue with WA 3 being so crammed on the north end of Sinclair Inlet. I don't think that that inlet is very deep compared to other parts of Puget Sound so I don't think building a bridge would be that difficult and it's past the naval shipyard so the navy wouldn't have any problems with a bridge being built there.

I'm surprised that the current proposal is to build an elevated highway through Gorst. Didn't we just tear down an elevated highway here in Washington? :P
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: 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 (https://wsdot.wa.gov/projects/us12/ninemilehilltofrenchtown/home); Paywalled news report (https://www.union-bulletin.com/news/next-phase-of-u-s-highway-12-breaks-ground/article_5c5df3e8-8dcb-11eb-a78f-cf9109375051.html))

(https://i.imgur.com/9Xoxo7m.jpg)

The final phase to Wallula (including a new interchange for US 730) only has funding for planning and ROW acquisition.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 06, 2021, 12:20:00 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on March 22, 2021, 07:21:42 PM
I like that idea for the bridge. It would be a great way to solve the problem in Gorst as well as the issue with WA 3 being so crammed on the north end of Sinclair Inlet. I don't think that that inlet is very deep compared to other parts of Puget Sound so I don't think building a bridge would be that difficult and it's past the naval shipyard so the navy wouldn't have any problems with a bridge being built there.

I'm surprised that the current proposal is to build an elevated highway through Gorst. Didn't we just tear down an elevated highway here in Washington? :P

Yeah, I don't think a bridge across the Sinclair Inlet would be exceptionally difficult. It is relatively shallow compared to other parts of Puget Sound. I'm sure the catalyst for such a bridge would have been a freeway to/from Vashon, but traffic growth along 16 and the increasing issues in Gorst may be highlighting the need for a modern-day reconsideration of a bridge across the inlet.

I would quite like to see some rough sketches of their plans. I simply cannot grasp what an elevated highway might look like. The best I can envision is something like the Spokane Street Viaduct...which is honestly not something I would want to build elsewhere, if at all possible.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: 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 (https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2021/02/17/US-12-Map-Phase-7-Project-Accessible.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 (https://wsdot.wa.gov/projects/us12/ninemilehilltofrenchtown/home); Paywalled news report (https://www.union-bulletin.com/news/next-phase-of-u-s-highway-12-breaks-ground/article_5c5df3e8-8dcb-11eb-a78f-cf9109375051.html))

(https://i.imgur.com/9Xoxo7m.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on April 06, 2021, 05:01:58 PM
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 (https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2021/02/17/US-12-Map-Phase-7-Project-Accessible.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 (https://wsdot.wa.gov/projects/us12/ninemilehilltofrenchtown/home); Paywalled news report (https://www.union-bulletin.com/news/next-phase-of-u-s-highway-12-breaks-ground/article_5c5df3e8-8dcb-11eb-a78f-cf9109375051.html))

(https://i.imgur.com/9Xoxo7m.jpg)

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. 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on April 06, 2021, 11:20:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Joshua Whitman on April 12, 2021, 01:38:47 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@48.4435723,-122.335317,19.57z
Google Maps seems to think US-99 still exists in Washington  :-|
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: 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!).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 12, 2021, 06:22:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 13, 2021, 01:17:31 AM
The Herald reports on widening SR 524 between Lynnwood and Bothell (https://www.heraldnet.com/news/house-transportation-package-proposes-widening-highway-524/), 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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 13, 2021, 01:41:11 AM
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 (https://www.heraldnet.com/news/house-transportation-package-proposes-widening-highway-524/), 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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 14, 2021, 12:55:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 20, 2021, 01:42:06 AM
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 (https://www.heraldnet.com/news/as-amazon-moves-in-arlingtons-roads-are-already-strained/).

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:

(https://i.imgur.com/5NGGoPs.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on April 20, 2021, 11:25:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on April 28, 2021, 02:10:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 28, 2021, 12:56:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on April 28, 2021, 09:12:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: 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!?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: 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)?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 07, 2021, 07:07:35 PM
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).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 26, 2021, 01:31:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 26, 2021, 01:37:50 PM
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).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on May 27, 2021, 01:32:51 PM
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
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 27, 2021, 02:03:12 PM
Quote from: stevashe on May 27, 2021, 01:32:51 PM
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.

*takes a closer look*

Well, I'll be damned. WSDOT just doesn't care about shoulders anymore, do they? :-D

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on May 28, 2021, 02:34:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 27, 2021, 02:03:12 PM
Quote from: stevashe on May 27, 2021, 01:32:51 PM
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.

*takes a closer look*

Well, I'll be damned. WSDOT just doesn't care about shoulders anymore, do they? :-D

It certainly seems that way. This wouldn't be the first time they've added lanes by simply narrowing the shoulder.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on May 28, 2021, 05:23:48 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on May 28, 2021, 02:34:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 27, 2021, 02:03:12 PM

*takes a closer look*

Well, I'll be damned. WSDOT just doesn't care about shoulders anymore, do they? :-D

It certainly seems that way. This wouldn't be the first time they've added lanes by simply narrowing the shoulder.

They sure don't seem to care! You could probably find portions of every freeway in the Seattle area with narrowed shoulders. Also, I don't get how the current project to add auxiliary lanes on I-90 between Bellevue and Issaquah is allowed on an interstate, violating both the shoulder and lane width standards, and yet stuff like CA 210 and CA 15 can't be signed as interstates for minor lapses in their shoulders??

EDIT: To be fair to the project at hand, it looks like NB 167 in this area has a 12 right shoulder and 10 foot left shoulder, which is considerably wider than the 10 foot right/4 foot left called for by interstate standards for a two-lane roadway. Of course, this still isn't quite enough width for 3 standard lanes and shoulders, but still. Interestingly, the SB side does not have these wider shoulders, so whenever they get around to adding HOV or express lanes there, it will cost significantly more.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 29, 2021, 02:01:54 AM
Quote from: stevashe on May 28, 2021, 05:23:48 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on May 28, 2021, 02:34:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 27, 2021, 02:03:12 PM

*takes a closer look*

Well, I'll be damned. WSDOT just doesn't care about shoulders anymore, do they? :-D

It certainly seems that way. This wouldn't be the first time they've added lanes by simply narrowing the shoulder.

They sure don't seem to care! You could probably find portions of every freeway in the Seattle area with narrowed shoulders. Also, I don't get how the current project to add auxiliary lanes on I-90 between Bellevue and Issaquah is allowed on an interstate, violating both the shoulder and lane width standards, and yet stuff like CA 210 and CA 15 can't be signed as interstates for minor lapses in their shoulders??

EDIT: To be fair to the project at hand, it looks like NB 167 in this area has a 12 right shoulder and 10 foot left shoulder, which is considerably wider than the 10 foot right/4 foot left called for by interstate standards for a two-lane roadway. Of course, this still isn't quite enough width for 3 standard lanes and shoulders, but still. Interestingly, the SB side does not have these wider shoulders, so whenever they get around to adding HOV or express lanes there, it will cost significantly more.

I find one of the hairier spots to be southbound I-5 just past Orillia Rd (https://goo.gl/maps/9py3WjMwmERCqx6r8). The left lanes seem to narrow up to between 10 and 11 feet, and there is virtually zero shoulder on the left. It was quite clearly added on later (I think in the 1990s) by narrowing the roadway and filling in the shoulder. This is okay for three lane freeways, but seems unwise on five or six lane freeways.

The northbound 167 lanes were originally the bi-directional two-lane highway before it was twinned in the late 80s. As it was bi-directional, shoulders along both outside edges were...very important. The southbound lanes were designed to the 10/4 rule, being built as a single-directional carriageway from the start.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on May 30, 2021, 01:22:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 29, 2021, 02:01:54 AM
Quote from: stevashe on May 28, 2021, 05:23:48 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on May 28, 2021, 02:34:15 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 27, 2021, 02:03:12 PM

*takes a closer look*

Well, I'll be damned. WSDOT just doesn't care about shoulders anymore, do they? :-D

It certainly seems that way. This wouldn't be the first time they've added lanes by simply narrowing the shoulder.

They sure don't seem to care! You could probably find portions of every freeway in the Seattle area with narrowed shoulders. Also, I don't get how the current project to add auxiliary lanes on I-90 between Bellevue and Issaquah is allowed on an interstate, violating both the shoulder and lane width standards, and yet stuff like CA 210 and CA 15 can't be signed as interstates for minor lapses in their shoulders??

EDIT: To be fair to the project at hand, it looks like NB 167 in this area has a 12 right shoulder and 10 foot left shoulder, which is considerably wider than the 10 foot right/4 foot left called for by interstate standards for a two-lane roadway. Of course, this still isn't quite enough width for 3 standard lanes and shoulders, but still. Interestingly, the SB side does not have these wider shoulders, so whenever they get around to adding HOV or express lanes there, it will cost significantly more.

I find one of the hairier spots to be southbound I-5 just past Orillia Rd (https://goo.gl/maps/9py3WjMwmERCqx6r8). The left lanes seem to narrow up to between 10 and 11 feet, and there is virtually zero shoulder on the left. It was quite clearly added on later (I think in the 1990s) by narrowing the roadway and filling in the shoulder. This is okay for three lane freeways, but seems unwise on five or six lane freeways.

The northbound 167 lanes were originally the bi-directional two-lane highway before it was twinned in the late 80s. As it was bi-directional, shoulders along both outside edges were...very important. The southbound lanes were designed to the 10/4 rule, being built as a single-directional carriageway from the start.


I think they did the same thing on the NB side as well. I recall driving either in the HOV or adjacent to it, and my tires would keep catching the seams between concrete panels, or between concrete and asphalt (in the HOV lanes).  I would have to fight sometimes to stay in the lane.  I hope one day they all get resurfaced, and they think if they really need all of those lanes.


Semi-related, when they replaced the pavement on SR 525 and sections of SR 20 about 3-4 years ago, WSDOT and their contractors, just carved out the roadway between the fog lines +/- 12", then repaved.  Something I had never seen done before.  I asked WSDOT, and they said it was normal procedure.  One side effect, is if you hit it with your tires, you can start to travel in a direction you did not intend.  Sort of dangerous with all the bike and motorcycle traffic we have.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on May 31, 2021, 08:10:50 PM
I-5 between 516 and almost Federal Way: Shortly after they rebuilt the railings of the 1959 overpasses, they demolished them and made the bridges wider for an HOV project.  Before the actual lanes were built, there was another anti-tax initiative passed, and the work was wasted as they simply narrowed the lanes and used the left shoulder.  The bridges were kept narrow with portable Jersey barriers blocking off the improvements (https://goo.gl/maps/5TbrcpcxbvUJct3q8).  But apparently petition-signers know better, and it's not a waste after all. :banghead:  South of there they had Sound Transit money, and the widening was done first class.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on May 31, 2021, 11:58:44 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on May 30, 2021, 01:22:54 PM
Semi-related, when they replaced the pavement on SR 525 and sections of SR 20 about 3-4 years ago, WSDOT and their contractors, just carved out the roadway between the fog lines +/- 12", then repaved.  Something I had never seen done before.  I asked WSDOT, and they said it was normal procedure.  One side effect, is if you hit it with your tires, you can start to travel in a direction you did not intend.  Sort of dangerous with all the bike and motorcycle traffic we have.

Are you talking about this here? https://goo.gl/maps/9SqzoJuFVcK9tbzk9

That is indeed standard practice to not repave the shoulder if the pavement there is still in good condition, they'll probably repave the shoulder next time the main lanes need it :P

You can see something similar on I-5 from when they repaved it in 2017: https://goo.gl/maps/b2b1DGHHKRFNvydp9 But they did go a few feet beyond the fog line on the right to replace the rumble strip.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on June 01, 2021, 12:07:47 AM
Quote from: stevashe on May 31, 2021, 11:58:44 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on May 30, 2021, 01:22:54 PM
Semi-related, when they replaced the pavement on SR 525 and sections of SR 20 about 3-4 years ago, WSDOT and their contractors, just carved out the roadway between the fog lines +/- 12", then repaved.  Something I had never seen done before.  I asked WSDOT, and they said it was normal procedure.  One side effect, is if you hit it with your tires, you can start to travel in a direction you did not intend.  Sort of dangerous with all the bike and motorcycle traffic we have.

Are you talking about this here? https://goo.gl/maps/9SqzoJuFVcK9tbzk9

That is indeed standard practice to not repave the shoulder if the pavement there is still in good condition, they'll probably repave the shoulder next time the main lanes need it :P

You can see something similar on I-5 from when they repaved it in 2017: https://goo.gl/maps/b2b1DGHHKRFNvydp9 But they did go a few feet beyond the fog line on the right to replace the rumble strip.

Go a bit further north and you can see scraped, unrepaved road in progress. (https://goo.gl/maps/ndxfd81xg6oPZCqJ6)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 04, 2021, 02:09:05 AM
There's a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge planned to be installed over I-5 near Northgate Mall (to serve the new light rail station) in a few weeks.

Seattle city councilmember Debora Juarez has suggested naming it for Rep John Lewis...probably not the best way to honor the man, but would be on-brand for a state and county named for out-of-town people.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/councilmember-suggests-naming-new-light-rail-station-bridge-for-rep-john-lewis/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 04, 2021, 12:06:48 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on May 31, 2021, 08:10:50 PM
I-5 between 516 and almost Federal Way: Shortly after they rebuilt the railings of the 1959 overpasses, they demolished them and made the bridges wider for an HOV project.  Before the actual lanes were built, there was another anti-tax initiative passed, and the work was wasted as they simply narrowed the lanes and used the left shoulder.  The bridges were kept narrow with portable Jersey barriers blocking off the improvements (https://goo.gl/maps/5TbrcpcxbvUJct3q8).  But apparently petition-signers know better, and it's not a waste after all. :banghead:  South of there they had Sound Transit money, and the widening was done first class.

Another interesting thing about that bridge-widening project would be the support pillars. Below the overpass on 272nd, the pillars force the road down to four lanes, making the turn lanes very short. Ideally, there would be room for five lanes beneath the overpass and the turn lanes could transition half-way (or there-about). The pillars installed around 2001/2002 are the in the same location as the original pillars. I'm not even sure if it's technically advisable to change the positioning of pillars when widening a bridge, relative to other support pillars, but it would have been nice to start working towards a wider underpass there.

I suggested to WSDOT that these left turns should be FYA signals, to reduce the frequency of left-turning traffic blocking the left through lane; after some initial communication, they fell silent. Initially there was some worry about oncoming visibility westbound, and then it was an issue around the mast arms not being strong enough. Still, there aren't any "no left turn on red" signs, so it's not like it's not already somewhat legal to make a permissive left. Of course, not many people know about that law.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 04, 2021, 12:08:45 PM
Quote from: Bruce on June 04, 2021, 02:09:05 AM
There's a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge planned to be installed over I-5 near Northgate Mall (to serve the new light rail station) in a few weeks.

Seattle city councilmember Debora Juarez has suggested naming it for Rep John Lewis...probably not the best way to honor the man, but would be on-brand for a state and county named for out-of-town people.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/councilmember-suggests-naming-new-light-rail-station-bridge-for-rep-john-lewis/

Seems like an odd thing to give a name, but I'm for it. As long as it's something like "John Lewis Bridge"; something long like "Representative John Lewis Memorial Pedestrian Bridge" is too long and will never catch on.

There's a lot of memorial highways in this state, and I'm not aware of any that actually entered the public lexicon. It's a real shame since named roadways are, at least in my opinion, a nice change from the usual numbering.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 04, 2021, 06:11:29 PM
Here is one of the new three-lane meters at I-5 and Tillicum. Rare example of a metered HOV lane. The next on-ramp at Thorne Lane has a non-metered HOV lane.

Anyone know why they are placing the traffic lights in this way? Really awkward placement.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51224535072_080715039e_o.png)
Ramp Meter, Tillicum (https://flic.kr/p/2m3x8Db) by Jake Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: duaneu2 on June 07, 2021, 09:16:26 PM
Maybe it gives them the option of metering the HOV lane or just leaving the light solid green.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on June 19, 2021, 10:37:01 AM
Looks like WSDOT is negating basically everything they gained from the Sharps Corner Roundabout on SR 20.


Part of the reason they went with a roundabout instead of an overpass was to be able to increase capacity going west to south, at a lower cost.  Apparently, however, the people going eastbound through the roundabout, can't read pavement markings, and keep jumping in front of drivers, so they are reducing the west to south movement to 1 lane.  It won't stop the eastbound drivers from jumping in front of those in the circle, just reduce capacity, and undo all of the work they accomplished by building the roundabout in the first place.


(https://imgur.com/Vjyv5f2.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 19, 2021, 12:36:28 PM
Multi-lane roundabouts tend to experience high crash rates. Raise your hand if you saw this coming. 🖐

This goskagit.com article (https://www.goskagit.com/anacortes/crashes-piling-up-in-newest-roundabouts/article_6590d32e-4a9b-11e9-9d84-37afd04670c2.html) from 2019 highlighted the developing issues.

I also noticed a pretty severe path overlap issue on the eastbound entrance when the roundabout first opened. Drivers seemed to routinely drift from the outside lane of the westbound entrance to the inside lane of the roundabout. WSDOT "fixed" this with new guidance markings (https://goo.gl/maps/1NWYcdarGJay6DkH6). I do wonder if there is a connection. Certainly eastbound traffic was more important, so reducing the left turn capacity was the only option if that specific crossover was the issue.

I like roundabouts, but multi-lane variants are just so problematic. My prediction is that WSDOT will continue to modify the roundabout until there is effectively just one through lane. Which would clearly be inadequate for 30k cars, so their actual best option would be to remove the roundabout at that point and reinstate the continuous green-T with an improved double left turn. Or some sort of flyover for eastbound traffic.

Also: where did that graphic come from?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on June 19, 2021, 02:38:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2021, 12:36:28 PM
Multi-lane roundabouts tend to experience high crash rates. Raise your hand if you saw this coming. 🖐


Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on June 19, 2021, 04:20:31 PM
Makes me wonder how we'll handle the SR 9/SR 204 roundabout in Lake Stevens. The amount of traffic it has to handle is going to make it an amusing sight.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48719055772_bfb46dbc9a_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2he8TWd)SR 9/SR 204 Intersection Preferred Alternative Design (https://flic.kr/p/2he8TWd) by Washington State Dept of Transportation (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on June 19, 2021, 04:41:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 19, 2021, 12:36:28 PM
Multi-lane roundabouts tend to experience high crash rates. Raise your hand if you saw this coming. 🖐

This goskagit.com article (https://www.goskagit.com/anacortes/crashes-piling-up-in-newest-roundabouts/article_6590d32e-4a9b-11e9-9d84-37afd04670c2.html) from 2019 highlighted the developing issues.

I also noticed a pretty severe path overlap issue on the eastbound entrance when the roundabout first opened. Drivers seemed to routinely drift from the outside lane of the westbound entrance to the inside lane of the roundabout. WSDOT "fixed" this with new guidance markings (https://goo.gl/maps/1NWYcdarGJay6DkH6). I do wonder if there is a connection. Certainly eastbound traffic was more important, so reducing the left turn capacity was the only option if that specific crossover was the issue.

I like roundabouts, but multi-lane variants are just so problematic. My prediction is that WSDOT will continue to modify the roundabout until there is effectively just one through lane. Which would clearly be inadequate for 30k cars, so their actual best option would be to remove the roundabout at that point and reinstate the continuous green-T with an improved double left turn. Or some sort of flyover for eastbound traffic.

Also: where did that graphic come from?


That graphic came from the Facebook Post from the former WSDOT North Spokesperson.


They nixed the flyover early in the design process, as it was inadequate for growing demand and the costs associated with it.  The biggest problem is that the original design had a fly under for eastbound traffic, which was removed in the final design.  That being said, the overall design has been perfect, just the poor drivers coming from the West who can't read signs, lane markings, or traffic movements are the problem.  The crashes are also far less severe than those from the light, which were often T-bones, instead of side-swipes.


WSDOT needs to just keep it as is, and if anything, remove an eastbound lane, rather than a southbound lane.



Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 19, 2021, 07:37:14 PM
Quote from: Bruce on June 19, 2021, 04:20:31 PM
Makes me wonder how we'll handle the SR 9/SR 204 roundabout in Lake Stevens. The amount of traffic it has to handle is going to make it an amusing sight.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48719055772_bfb46dbc9a_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2he8TWd)SR 9/SR 204 Intersection Preferred Alternative Design (https://flic.kr/p/2he8TWd) by Washington State Dept of Transportation (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/), on Flickr

It'll probably handle the traffic quite well, but there will be a significant number of crashes. WSDOT will make minor modifications, but it'll likely become a crash hotspot. Most multi-lane roundabouts are crash hotspots.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 19, 2021, 07:41:06 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 19, 2021, 04:41:19 PM
That graphic came from the Facebook Post from the former WSDOT North Spokesperson.

They nixed the flyover early in the design process, as it was inadequate for growing demand and the costs associated with it.  The biggest problem is that the original design had a fly under for eastbound traffic, which was removed in the final design.  That being said, the overall design has been perfect, just the poor drivers coming from the West who can't read signs, lane markings, or traffic movements are the problem.  The crashes are also far less severe than those from the light, which were often T-bones, instead of side-swipes.

WSDOT needs to just keep it as is, and if anything, remove an eastbound lane, rather than a southbound lane.

What's their name? Is it a public post?

Unfortunately, though the bolded statement may be true, there is a significant amount of evidence that this is the case at virtually all multi-lane roundabouts country-wide, and the engineers should have known this would be a problem. I'm sure engineers and planners are totally stumped by this. I know I am. But it's true, pretty much everywhere. The only multi-lane roundabouts that seem to work are 2x1 roundabouts, where each crossover has no more than three paths crossing (as opposed to the current eastbound entrance, which has four paths crossing (2 over 2)).

The crashes may be less severe, but I may argue the total economic loss is actually greater. Even the most minor crashes usually involve some level of insurance claim, and can also negatively affect vehicle values. Crashes are expensive, and we shouldn't be constructing intersections that routinely cause them. Especially when the old intersection did not have a history of major crashes.

For the record: T-Bone collisions are absolutely possible at roundabouts, but especially multi-lane roundabouts. All drivers have to do is ignore the lane lines (say, by failing to notice the approaching roundabout) and head straight-on into circulating traffic. It's actually quite easy. If drivers followed the rules, of course this wouldn't be the case. But if drivers followed rules, we wouldn't have crashes now, would we?!?!

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51259008320_dc7977739f_c.jpg)


WSDOT could reduce the eastbound entry to one lane, but that would decrease SR-20 Spur to SR-20 to one lane in each direction, half the capacity of the original signal (and then some...traffic is moving slower now as well). Factor in the possibility for continued crashes with less capacity, and we're left with...well:

(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/JoyfulRemarkableBillygoat-size_restricted.gif)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 02, 2021, 03:26:58 PM
Some decisions have been made with regards to I-5 through Chehalis:

https://wsdot.wa.gov/news/2021/06/30/travelers-are-invited-learn-about-future-safety-improvements-change-how-you-travel

- Southbound I-5 will be widened to three lanes between Chamber Way and WA-6 (no word on northbound I-5).

- Roundabouts will be installed at the ramp terminals and adjacent intersections at both WA-6 and Chamber Way.

- Ramp meters will be installed at:
  * 13th St
  * WA-6
  * Chamber Way
  * Mellen St
  * southbound Harrison Ave

The plan to meter the southbound on-ramp from Harrison Ave is a bit confusing to me. Are they intending to widen the C/D lanes? If they don't, that meter will conflict with traffic going between Harrison Ave and Mellen St, despite not playing a role in I-5 congestion.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: KEK Inc. on July 02, 2021, 10:40:22 PM
I-5 desperately needs to be 6 lanes between Napavine and Castle Rock.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 10, 2021, 12:44:19 PM
The new bridge over I-5 in Fife has opened. It is called Wapato Way north of 20th St E, and thus it's the "Wapato Way Bridge":

https://youtu.be/P-k_ENoBT-U




As it's a route I currently drive with some frequency, I have driven over it numerous times already. Here's my thoughts:

* the approach chicanes from Pacific Hwy are too aggressive, forcing trucks to "take the lane" far too early;
* the roundabout itself flows better than the old 70th Ave signal, but not massively;
* overall it's well striped. No strangeness in that way;
* the new bridge carries an extension of the Interurban Trail, and users have to cross the roundabout to reach Pacific Hwy. This involves either three or four separate crossings, overall not a very enjoyable experience.

Overall, I think I would have preferred a signal here. The sheer number of trucks seems to overwhelm the roundabout, making it single-lane quite often. Won't be long before one tips over, I'm sure.

Hopefully, when the new 167 Fwy opens, there will be less trucks through here, but the proposed placement of the exit and entrance ramps means that arterial streets will still be carrying freight traffic for some time.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 15, 2021, 09:56:01 PM
The I-5 offramp to Pacific Avenue (SR 529) in Everett was blocked for a bit today while firefighters investigated a 45-foot-long tunnel that someone had dug by hand under the ramp. No one was found, but a few pieces of clothing and other personal items were recovered.

https://www.heraldnet.com/news/collapsed-tunnel-in-everett-leads-to-3-alarm-rescue-effort/

https://twitter.com/RyanKIRO7/status/1415758052947501057
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on July 27, 2021, 11:40:00 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on November 18, 2020, 11:41:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 13, 2020, 12:43:57 PM
[snip]

Northbound 167 to Northbound 405 (https://goo.gl/maps/xp7A9XDnib3zyvCU7) in Renton;

[snip]

In my experience, the one in Tukwila and the one in Lakewood are activated everyday as part of the regular rush. I'm not 100% sure the one in Renton is active yet, but everything is there for it to be activated last I checked.

[snip]

I've seen the one in Renton activated when the signal was still hooded, and people followed it.  Now that its out in the open, I've never seen it turned on even when the entrance from Talbot Road is metered.


The 167 to north I-405 meter is now active.  https://mynorthwest.com/3055425/new-167-ramp-meter-merge-with-i405/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 27, 2021, 01:28:33 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on July 27, 2021, 11:40:00 AM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on November 18, 2020, 11:41:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 13, 2020, 12:43:57 PM
[snip]

Northbound 167 to Northbound 405 (https://goo.gl/maps/xp7A9XDnib3zyvCU7) in Renton;

[snip]

In my experience, the one in Tukwila and the one in Lakewood are activated everyday as part of the regular rush. I'm not 100% sure the one in Renton is active yet, but everything is there for it to be activated last I checked.

[snip]

I've seen the one in Renton activated when the signal was still hooded, and people followed it.  Now that its out in the open, I've never seen it turned on even when the entrance from Talbot Road is metered.


The 167 to north I-405 meter is now active.  https://mynorthwest.com/3055425/new-167-ramp-meter-merge-with-i405/

Neat, thanks for sharing.

Judging by current traffic cameras, either they aren't turned on, or everyone is mindlessly using only one lane...my guess is the latter.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51339320498_6af16d51c3_o.jpg)

I'm not a big fan of "shoulder use permitted when metered" as drivers don't seem to figure it out. The on-ramp from Mercer is a great example of an underutilized ramp meter shoulder. Also the on-ramp from Sunset Blvd (https://goo.gl/maps/jjwKAitcNoFMa8Bs7) in Renton.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on July 27, 2021, 05:22:23 PM
^ ^ ^
No, the radio was saying that the motorists weren't using both lanes this morning.  I've also seen the same problem on I-405 south from Bronson.  Which is fine; since nobody else uses the shoulder lane, I scoot into it and hardly have to wait at all.  The downside is that the shoulder lane is so rarely used that it's filled with debris.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 28, 2021, 06:50:49 PM
Seattle's new Fairview Ave Bridge opened this past weekend. I took some photos today:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWhP8oj

Here are some of my favorites. There are also some videos at that link that I can't post here without uploading to YouTube:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51340916472_62e5833c56_k.jpg)
Looking south down Fairview Ave and the bridge (https://flic.kr/p/2mdPBM3) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51341863353_a1b0394923_k.jpg)
Under the new bridge (https://flic.kr/p/2mdUtfz) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51341640061_253b52773d_k.jpg)
Bikes Merge Right (https://flic.kr/p/2mdTjSH) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on July 29, 2021, 01:33:46 AM
Yay for the bridge reopening!

Nice photos, thanks for posting :)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 29, 2021, 03:21:18 AM
Quote from: kkt on July 29, 2021, 01:33:46 AM
Yay for the bridge reopening!

Nice photos, thanks for posting :)

Amazingly, the bypass along Aloha St seemed to work quite well. Still, for those on bikes or walking, it was a hilly detour, so it's great to have Fairview back open.

Thanks a bunch :D
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 02, 2021, 01:28:28 PM
Pardon me while I toot my on horn :)...

For anyone interested in an update on construction in the South Sound, I made a ride-along video from Downtown Tacoma to Lacey, and then back.

Highlight of the video is the reconstructed bit of I-5 through the bases. I filmed this on 31 July. No music, no annotations. Just chapters and original sound (aka: road noise!)

https://youtu.be/5hmho4IuHL8
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 07, 2021, 09:13:37 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 02, 2021, 01:28:28 PM
Pardon me while I toot my on horn :)...

For anyone interested in an update on construction in the South Sound, I made a ride-along video from Downtown Tacoma to Lacey, and then back.

Highlight of the video is the reconstructed bit of I-5 through the bases. I filmed this on 31 July. No music, no annotations. Just chapters and original sound (aka: road noise!)

https://youtu.be/5hmho4IuHL8

Nice video. I was recently near JBLM for the first time in a while and was surprised at some of the changes. It's still a mess, though.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 07, 2021, 09:14:26 PM
Four-week closure of the Montlake Bridge is beginning soon. Only pedestrians, cyclists, and ambulances will be allowed to cross while the steel decks are replaced.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/montlake-bridge-is-about-to-close-for-a-month-heres-how-to-navigate-the-detours/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: roadfro on August 08, 2021, 12:01:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 28, 2021, 06:50:49 PM
Seattle's new Fairview Ave Bridge opened this past weekend. I took some photos today:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWhP8oj

Here are some of my favorites. There are also some videos at that link that I can't post here without uploading to YouTube:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51340916472_62e5833c56_k.jpg)
Looking south down Fairview Ave and the bridge (https://flic.kr/p/2mdPBM3) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr

This is a neat sign, but it appears to be designed incorrectly for this point of application. The black cross suggests warning of a four-way vehicular intersection, but this appears to be a "T" intersection. Also, it depicts the cycle path to the left of the through road, but the path is clearly on the right. Looking through your other photos, it appears the installers may have mixed up the sign here with the one in the median for the opposing traffic. Doesn't address the issue with the cross street symbol, although that's something a little FYG reflective tape could fix in the interim. The warning sign in the median is also a little odd given it's technically past the intersection, and could maybe do with a left-facing arrow placard underneath (if it can't be moved to a point in advance of the intersection).

But other than this, overall, it looks like a fairly good multi-modal design scheme from what I can tell.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 08, 2021, 08:56:01 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 07, 2021, 09:13:37 PM
Nice video. I was recently near JBLM for the first time in a while and was surprised at some of the changes. It's still a mess, though.

Thanks!

I've driven through the area a few times to check it out and figure out what's good / not so good about the new setup: so far, I'm very impressed. Traffic seems to flow through the area much better than before. Like, significantly better. Before, on a Sunday evening or Friday evening, at least one of the directions would be backed up. Not so this past weekend, and even during the week things moved along nicely.

I definitely wouldn't call the current setup a mess. If anything, I think WSDOT knocked it out of the park. Once they get I-5 through South Tacoma rebuilt, and the interchange at 512 modified with some flyovers, there will be an incredible HOV corridor from JBLM to Seattle. Of course, that's a way's away.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 14, 2021, 07:13:26 PM
Quote from: roadfro on August 08, 2021, 12:01:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 28, 2021, 06:50:49 PM
Seattle's new Fairview Ave Bridge opened this past weekend. I took some photos today:

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWhP8oj

Here are some of my favorites. There are also some videos at that link that I can't post here without uploading to YouTube:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51340916472_62e5833c56_k.jpg)
Looking south down Fairview Ave and the bridge (https://flic.kr/p/2mdPBM3) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr

This is a neat sign, but it appears to be designed incorrectly for this point of application. The black cross suggests warning of a four-way vehicular intersection, but this appears to be a "T" intersection. Also, it depicts the cycle path to the left of the through road, but the path is clearly on the right. Looking through your other photos, it appears the installers may have mixed up the sign here with the one in the median for the opposing traffic. Doesn't address the issue with the cross street symbol, although that's something a little FYG reflective tape could fix in the interim. The warning sign in the median is also a little odd given it's technically past the intersection, and could maybe do with a left-facing arrow placard underneath (if it can't be moved to a point in advance of the intersection).

But other than this, overall, it looks like a fairly good multi-modal design scheme from what I can tell.

I was also thinking that they may have inadvertently reversed which sign should have been placed in which location. If you check out the photos on Flickr, I do actually note as much in the descriptions. After riding my bike through a few times, it became pretty clear they just reversed the locations. Oh well.

I also agree on the imperfect design. It should not show a fourth leg. I don't know how this happened, frankly. But oddly, it seems that almost all of these signs across Seattle show a fourth leg. I cannot find any three-leg examples.

This example in North Seattle (https://goo.gl/maps/8GBzAvSTTwpG3JBp8) also shows a bike path on the wrong side, but the opposing sign is correct (showing on the left). So it would appear they may get this wrong more often than we realize!

The other point about poor placement (beyond the point where drivers need to actually take care to yield to the cycle path) is also well-spotted. I didn't consider this when I saw it in person. Moving the sign back to somewhere on the bridge may be better, but then installing a small "LEFT TURN YIELD TO CYCLE PATH" sign in the median may be better. Or at least more correct from a regulatory perspective.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 14, 2021, 07:51:25 PM
One of the worst ramps in Seattle (Rainier Ave SB to EB I-90) is finally getting a fix. Reduced to one lane at the crosswalk and widening out to 2 lanes with a metered shoulder.

https://twitter.com/wsdot_traffic/status/1426687579932463115

Having crossed this one more than a few times and never seeing anyone properly yield, it's a long time coming.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 14, 2021, 09:24:03 PM
The crossing currently has RRFBs (and has for at least seven years), and those normally have very high compliance. It is rather odd that traffic wasn't yielding.

Looking at the setup, it seems that they could have at least painted yield lines (sharks teeth) leading up to the crosswalk.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on August 15, 2021, 01:04:29 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 14, 2021, 09:24:03 PM
The crossing currently has RRFBs (and has for at least seven years), and those normally have very high compliance. It is rather odd that traffic wasn't yielding.

Looking at the setup, it seems that they could have at least painted yield lines (sharks teeth) leading up to the crosswalk.

I suspect the lack of yielding has to do with it being a freeway onramp. I don't know of many RRFBs being used at such locations, and I know I for one am usually thinking more about and focused on accelerating to freeway speed than looking out for pedestrians when turning onto an onramp. The changes should definitely help, though
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 25, 2021, 05:41:04 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 15, 2018, 02:17:00 AM
Came across something interesting while poking around some of the Hanford-area highways: the site itself has its own internal numbered highway system (as described in this technical report (https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-6415rev16.pdf)).

Highway 11A seems to be directly referencing the old Secondary State Highway 11A, which ran across the Hanford site until 1943; the rest of 11A became SR 24 in 1964.

(https://i.imgur.com/bXbwWF7.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/DjdCcqz.png)

These highways are even signed, using what looks to be a California spade. Or is it the USBR spade?

(https://i.imgur.com/oSr0cZi.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on August 25, 2021, 06:16:01 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 25, 2021, 05:41:04 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 15, 2018, 02:17:00 AM
Came across something interesting while poking around some of the Hanford-area highways: the site itself has its own internal numbered highway system (as described in this technical report (https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-6415rev16.pdf)).

Highway 11A seems to be directly referencing the old Secondary State Highway 11A, which ran across the Hanford site until 1943; the rest of 11A became SR 24 in 1964.

(https://i.imgur.com/bXbwWF7.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/DjdCcqz.png)

These highways are even signed, using what looks to be a California spade. Or is it the USBR spade?

(https://i.imgur.com/oSr0cZi.jpg)

Definitely not a CA spade (at least for D4); they got the number location and kerning correct!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: myosh_tino on September 03, 2021, 06:57:48 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 25, 2021, 06:16:01 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 25, 2021, 05:41:04 PM
These highways are even signed, using what looks to be a California spade. Or is it the USBR spade?

(https://i.imgur.com/oSr0cZi.jpg)

Definitely not a CA spade (at least for D4); they got the number location and kerning correct!

My first impression was that it *is* a California spade just without the CALIFORNIA banner arched across the top.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: sparker on September 03, 2021, 08:23:26 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 03, 2021, 06:57:48 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 25, 2021, 06:16:01 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 25, 2021, 05:41:04 PM
These highways are even signed, using what looks to be a California spade. Or is it the USBR spade?

(https://i.imgur.com/oSr0cZi.jpg)

Definitely not a CA spade (at least for D4); they got the number location and kerning correct!

My first impression was that it *is* a California spade just without the CALIFORNIA banner arched across the top.

There's a definite possibility that these were purchased Caltrans "spare" spade punches, although the green surface looks a bit washed out compared with new actual signage I've seen in the last year or so, which is about the brightest green so far during the reflectorized era.  But, still, kudos to whoever is placing the numbers on the shields; they could give most Caltrans districts lessons!  But.....thinking about it, the "washed-out" appearance may just be due to where these signs are located; they may have started out as pristine CA-spec "blanks"!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 04, 2021, 02:47:44 AM
They've been baking in the desert sun for at least a decade (if not longer), so a bit of discoloration is to be expected.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 06, 2021, 08:07:33 PM
Interesting that WSDOT's General State Highway Map for 2020 (https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/products/maps_pdf/GeneralHighwayMapStatewideAndPugetSound_36X75.pdf) still shows plans for a Monroe bypass:

(https://i.imgur.com/iZxrE2x.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Concrete Bob on September 08, 2021, 01:44:41 AM
I'll admit I don't keep up with every essence of the Puget Sound's freeway planning like I do for municipalities in California, but the US 2 bypass of Monroe along with the extension of WA 522 to US 2 seem like a very logical, orderly wrap up of a basic freeway system northeast of the Seattle metro area.  Has there been very much vocal opposition to these plans, or are there simply just funding issues holding up these roads? 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 08, 2021, 02:18:58 AM
Quote from: Concrete Bob on September 08, 2021, 01:44:41 AM
I'll admit I don't keep up with every essence of the Puget Sound's freeway planning like I do for municipalities in California, but the US 2 bypass of Monroe along with the extension of WA 522 to US 2 seem like a very logical, orderly wrap up of a basic freeway system northeast of the Seattle metro area.  Has there been very much vocal opposition to these plans, or are there simply just funding issues holding up these roads? 

Funding and being a fairly low priority even in its own corridor.

The bigger issue right now is replacing the westbound Hewitt Avenue Trestle (carrying US 2 between I-5 and SR 204), which is expected to cost $2 billion. SR 522 is also not a complete freeway, with one at-grade junction and several undivided sections that take higher priority.

And if the state were looking at cheaper project to relieve US 2 traffic, then doing something about the backups in Sultan and Gold Bar would score more political brownie points and actually would help. The Monroe section of US 2 is only a problem during the state fair or when a train breaks down. Otherwise it's way less of a problem than Sultan/Gold Bar.

Also, this bypass would only be a two-lane highway, maybe with a concrete barrier but otherwise not up to full freeway standards.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on September 08, 2021, 03:14:55 AM
I don't recall hearing the bypass as being cancelled. I also don't remember it being kosher to show unbuilt roadways on those general maps, to be fair. Seeing as isn't cancelled, it would still make sense to show it on the map, right?

I would have thought that it was low priority, but WSDOT has invested quite heavily in the WA-522 corridor (new Maltby interchange, dualled section south from Monroe), and parts of the US-2 corridor as well (Bickford Ave interchange, new US-2 trestle, etc). Doesn't seem insane to construct the Monroe Bypass. The state owns most of the land, IIRC.

Gold Bar and Sultan bypasses are 100% necessary but perhaps more political and likely much more expensive.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on September 09, 2021, 02:33:54 AM
Interesting to see the Monroe Bypass showing up as proposed on Washington's highway map. I don't think I've seen that before. Maybe it will finally get built in the next few years.

I do agree that Sultan also really needs a bypass, given that the lights in the town cause traffic backups every Sunday afternoon in the summer that often extend well east of Gold Bar. The thing about a Sultan bypass is, where do you put it? You could either loop around the north part of the town, but since pretty much the entire town is located north of US 2, you'd have to make it go way out of the way as well as up and then down some hills. Or you could have it cross the Skykomish River and run on the south side of the river, which would be a more direct route, but it would have course require two bridges and would be in the floodplain of the Skykomish River. I think if WSDOT were to build a Sultan bypass, looping it around the north end of the town would probably be the most feasible.

What needs to happen with US 2 between Monroe and Gold Bar is that it needs to be four lanes. The stretch just east of Monroe carries 18,000 vehicles per day (probably more on weekends), which is easily enough to warrant a four lane road. I think there is enough space to do it without tearing down any buildings; the only place where it would be a bit tight is through Startup.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 11, 2021, 03:38:14 AM
Just about finished with another major research project: the full history of Interstate 182 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_182).

Also came across this image of a Temp I-182 sign in the Tri-City Herald from January 9, 1986:

(https://i.imgur.com/J89y6Ea.png)

Also a front-page article from August 9, 1986 about Kennewick's irritation at being left off as a control city:

(https://i.imgur.com/6oIZWKk.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ClassicHasClass on September 11, 2021, 01:03:00 PM
Nice find!  :clap:
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: KEK Inc. on September 12, 2021, 04:19:24 AM
Has a new Duwamish crossing ever been assessed? 

Current:
(https://i.imgur.com/7QPA6qf.png)


I think a crossing here could be viable:
(https://i.imgur.com/SydCMpr.png)

I also rerouted WA-99 back to E Marginal and Tukwila Int'l. 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on September 12, 2021, 04:39:22 AM
I can see a lot of possible pushback from routing a freeway through the Duwamish Greenbelt and from South Seattle College.
You might have to bore the facility under the Greebelt and the channel.

Also, I can't endorse this unless WA 99's restored to US 99 ;)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 12, 2021, 05:15:15 AM
While a high-level crossing to replace the 1st Ave mess would be nice, it's probably not worth destroying the greenbelt and the likely-decade of disruption this would cause.

Nice maps, though.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on September 12, 2021, 01:57:51 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 11, 2021, 03:38:14 AM
Just about finished with another major research project: the full history of Interstate 182 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_182).

Without quoting the rest, just wanting to say that this was a great read-through. I really appreciate you taking the time to research and write this out since there isn't a lot who might take the time to do it. 182 really is interesting given how much back-and-forth there was over the routing of 82.

I'm willing to go in on a really in-depth research project for I-705/Tacoma Spur if anyone wants to help me out. What's on Wikipedia now is really good but I'd love to go another level deeper.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: KEK Inc. on September 12, 2021, 02:44:51 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on September 12, 2021, 04:39:22 AM
I can see a lot of possible pushback from routing a freeway through the Duwamish Greenbelt and from South Seattle College.
You might have to bore the facility under the Greebelt and the channel.

Also, I can't endorse this unless WA 99's restored to US 99 ;)

Just make it the Duwamish Parkway all the way to I-5.  lol
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on September 12, 2021, 02:47:08 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on September 12, 2021, 04:19:24 AM
Has a new Duwamish crossing ever been assessed? 

Cool map, thank you for sharing.

I've never been fully satisfied with how 599, 99, and 509 come together at the First Ave So. Bridge. It seems to work decently, even under duress as we've been witnessing. As a way out of Seattle, it's very much a "back way" south and I love the idea of continuing to improve it. But then I'm rarely bothered by it now. As long as it's open, things usually fly. Usually.

What would happen with the current bridge? I'm not sure the bonds would even be paid off yet. I'm also not sure how pushing a freeway through a steep greenbelt could be justified. Like others, a bored tunnel seems much more likely to succeed given ROW issues, terrain, and seismic restrictions.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: KEK Inc. on September 12, 2021, 03:39:21 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 06, 2021, 08:07:33 PM
Interesting that WSDOT's General State Highway Map for 2020 (https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/products/maps_pdf/GeneralHighwayMapStatewideAndPugetSound_36X75.pdf) still shows plans for a Monroe bypass:

(https://i.imgur.com/iZxrE2x.png)

I made some mock-up signs  a while back for a "what-if" situation if US-2 were to be a divided freeway to Gold Bar.

(https://i.imgur.com/fADjyBK.png)

WSDOT probably wouldn't add exit numbers.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 12, 2021, 05:12:57 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 12, 2021, 01:57:51 PM
Quote from: Bruce on September 11, 2021, 03:38:14 AM
Just about finished with another major research project: the full history of Interstate 182 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_182).

Without quoting the rest, just wanting to say that this was a great read-through. I really appreciate you taking the time to research and write this out since there isn't a lot who might take the time to do it. 182 really is interesting given how much back-and-forth there was over the routing of 82.

I'm willing to go in on a really in-depth research project for I-705/Tacoma Spur if anyone wants to help me out. What's on Wikipedia now is really good but I'd love to go another level deeper.

Thanks. I've been planning to eventually overhaul the I-705 article (which was written well before we had reliable access to Tacoma's News Tribune archives) as part of my series on Northwest Interstates. So far I have I-5, I-82, I-182, and Portland's I-405 done.

Newspapers.com now has good coverage in Spokane, Tacoma, and Boise, so I don't have to do as much digging around for AP/UPI mentions in other papers, or god forbid spending hours at a microfilm machine at the library. We have it real easy these days.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on September 19, 2021, 03:34:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 02, 2021, 01:28:28 PM
Pardon me while I toot my on horn :)...

For anyone interested in an update on construction in the South Sound, I made a ride-along video from Downtown Tacoma to Lacey, and then back.

Highlight of the video is the reconstructed bit of I-5 through the bases. I filmed this on 31 July. No music, no annotations. Just chapters and original sound (aka: road noise!)

https://youtu.be/5hmho4IuHL8

Within the same area as your video there Jake, I took a short one going through the new DDI at I-5 and SR510. Meant to post this a while ago since it was taken in July, but I was busy/lazy/on vacation :P

https://youtu.be/bXYw2Wr5VOY
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Mdcastle on September 22, 2021, 06:56:25 PM
What did 1920s era highway markers look like? Oldest I can find pictures of is the 1938 spec.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: bing101 on September 27, 2021, 12:41:06 AM

Here is Interstate Kyles Tour of I-5 to Blane,WA
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on September 28, 2021, 07:25:06 PM
Quote from: Mdcastle on September 22, 2021, 06:56:25 PM
What did 1920s era highway markers look like? Oldest I can find pictures of is the 1938 spec.

I've been pondering this post since you shared it. I've been searching various image archives that I'm familiar with but have not found anything that old. I'm not 100% sure anything was signed before the late 30s. But if I ever come across anything, I'll be sure to share it.

There is this rather neat image of South Tacoma Way from 1939 showing a US-99 and US-410 shield. I cannot find any old PSH, SSH, or State Road shield imagery anywhere, even from the 1930s.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51528238877_baea1667fa_o.jpg)
South Tacoma Way, 1939 (https://flic.kr/p/2mvnGcF) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 04, 2021, 11:35:36 PM
While trawling through the Revised Code of Washington (as one does on a Monday evening), I stumbled across some weird laws on the books regarding approach highways to the UW and WSU main campuses: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=47.20&full=true

RCW 47.20.590 (https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=47.20&full=true#47.20.590) authorized the creation of a highway approach to the UW campus from Roosevelt Way to 15th Avenue NE (a short distance in the U District), complete with "an underpass beneath the surface of Roosevelt Way, and necessary approaches to the underpass". Obviously this was never built, but it was written into law in 1945 and remained on the books through several revisions, as recently as 1984.

The section also has some nice information about the SR 109 extension that was never built, which was authorized in the 1980s long after the first protests shot it down. A famous 1958 protest included sitting US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who hiked a 22-mile section of the coastline to protest the highway (which was apparently to be US 101?).

The toll section (https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=47.56.895) also has a brief description of how the numbering for the Puget Sound Gateway might work with SR 509 Spur running from the new I-5 / SR 167 in Fife to SR 509.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on October 05, 2021, 12:52:41 AM
Is that when Campus Parkway was built?  It does make a quicker connection from Roosevelt to 15th Ave. than most other streets, with fewer intersections, and it does have an underpass to get to the southbound side of Roosevelt.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 05, 2021, 12:58:56 AM
Quote from: kkt on October 05, 2021, 12:52:41 AM
Is that when Campus Parkway was built?  It does make a quicker connection from Roosevelt to 15th Ave. than most other streets, with fewer intersections, and it does have an underpass to get to the southbound side of Roosevelt.


Looks like you're right. Campus Parkway opened in 1950 with state money. Apparently it had been first brought up by Sen. Robert McDonald in 1939 and took until 1945 to be passed.

Source: Nelson, Stub (September 29, 1949). "Officials Explain New Parkway Is 'Approach'". Seattle Post-Intelligencer, p. 8.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 09, 2021, 01:19:13 AM
Saw a very high toll on southbound 167 just before Ellingson today. Not sure I've ever seen the toll this high this far south:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51567985894_2ebf50b257_o.png)
WA-167 $8 HOT Lane Toll (https://flic.kr/p/2myTpB5) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr

(And no, your eyes are not deceiving you. It definitely looks like a painting of sorts. I mucked up the anti-noise setting but did not notice until after upload.)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Thunderbyrd316 on October 30, 2021, 04:05:20 PM
   I have been meaning to post this for the past three weeks but every time I make it to the library, I forget to. On Sat., Oct. 9 I drove up to Walla Walla for Crashmania and while I saw no evidence of any work on the west end yet, They appear to have made great progress on the newest segment of the US 12 expressway on the east end of the project where the temporary connection to the old highway connects the newest completed expressway segment. (To be fair, I could not see just how far back the impressive amount of progress actually extended as the rolling landscape impeded my long distance view.)

   From looking at the WSDOT website, it looks as though the segment bypassing Touchet and Lowden (officially named as the "Nine Mile Hill to Frenchtown Vicinity" segment and also known as "Phase 7" of the project to connect the Tri-Cities with Walla Walla with a modern super highway) will be constructed to full freeway standards. (Click on the pdf link at this page to see why I say that. Link: https://wsdot.wa.gov/projects/us12/ninemilehilltofrenchtown/map )When completed only "Phase 8" will remain incomplete, the bypass of Wallula and the junction with US 730.

   I am hopeful that at some point in the future, possibly not until the entire project is complete, that perhaps a speed limit higher than 60 mph could be posted on this highway, at least east of Wallula. (I am also surprised that I have not seen anyone else comment on this project on the forum. I have been eagerly awaiting this project since the mid 1980's and what has been completed so far is generally very decent.)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 30, 2021, 05:14:04 PM
Quote from: Thunderbyrd316 on October 30, 2021, 04:05:20 PM
I am also surprised that I have not seen anyone else comment on this project on the forum. I have been eagerly awaiting this project since the mid 1980's and what has been completed so far is generally very decent.

We brought it up a few months ago: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18003.msg2593282;topicseen#msg2593282
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 02, 2021, 02:13:44 AM
Starting next week, WSDOT will have a new website.

https://wsdotblog.blogspot.com/2021/11/new-wsdot-website-goes-live-nov-7.html

Start archiving those links with the Wayback Machine, since I assume they'll be broken in no time.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 04, 2021, 03:05:27 AM
A small find in the WSDOT archives: in December 1967 (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll14/id/505/rec/7), the Department of Highways awarded a contract to build an offramp from northbound I-5 to (what is now) SR 529 in Marysville and a corresponding southbound onramp.

For some reason it was never built, but is now finally planned to be constructed (https://wsdot.wa.gov/projects/i5/marine-view-sr-529/home) in 2024.

(Also the new project will finally fix the US 2-to-NB I-5 merge in Everett: https://wsdot.wa.gov/projects/i5/marine-view-sr-529/map)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on November 04, 2021, 03:07:13 AM
Quote from: Bruce on November 04, 2021, 03:05:27 AM
A small find in the WSDOT archives: in December 1967 (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll14/id/505/rec/7), the Department of Highways awarded a contract to build an offramp from northbound I-5 to (what is now) SR 529 in Marysville and a corresponding southbound onramp.

For some reason it was never built, but is now finally planned to be constructed (https://wsdot.wa.gov/projects/i5/marine-view-sr-529/home) in 2024.

(Also the new project will finally fix the US 2-to-NB I-5 merge in Everett: https://wsdot.wa.gov/projects/i5/marine-view-sr-529/map)

Rome wasn't built in a day :)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 05, 2021, 01:03:41 AM
And speaking of revived plans: I didn't realize this earlier, but WSDOT is moving forward with a bypass of Belfair that will carry SR 3. The current route through town would become a business loop, and presumably part of it would carry an extended SR 300 to meet SR 3.

https://wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr3/freight/home

(https://i.imgur.com/CINJXPU.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 05, 2021, 02:15:07 AM
Also, if anyone else is researching recent-ish WSDOT history, the Completed Contracts (https://www.wsdot.gov/publications/fulltext/construction/projectreports/Completed.pdf-en-us.pdf) list is extremely useful. Everything since 1990 with costs and completion dates listed.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 05, 2021, 03:19:26 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 05, 2021, 02:15:07 AM
Also, if anyone else is researching recent-ish WSDOT history, the Completed Contracts (https://www.wsdot.gov/publications/fulltext/construction/projectreports/Completed.pdf-en-us.pdf) list is extremely useful. Everything since 1990 with costs and completion dates listed.

Hugely fun to look through. Thank you a bunch for sharing.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 13, 2021, 06:30:15 PM
The University Bridge is stuck open because of a transformer failure, just in time for the Huskies home game. Looks real fun down there in the U District.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 14, 2021, 03:33:24 AM
A nice documentary from WSDOT about the I-90 Snoqualmie Pass East project, with the focus on wildlife crossings:

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Dougtone on December 11, 2021, 09:13:36 PM
Checking out WA 100 and Cape Disappointment near Ilwaco, Washington, at the southwest corner of Washington State. You will certainly not be disappointed in what WA 100 and Cape Disappointment have to offer. Between a loop highway at the southwestern corner of Washington State, a historic fort, two lighthouses and more, the only disappointing thing was leaving.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/washington-state-route-100-and-cape.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/washington-state-route-100-and-cape.html)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 23, 2021, 10:29:58 PM
Note to self: do not park my car under the Ship Canal Bridge.

The parks under the bridge have closed due to pieces of concrete falling from the bridge deck. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/falling-bits-of-concrete-lead-state-to-shut-parks-under-ship-canal-bridge/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 24, 2021, 03:57:51 AM
Spotted this a while ago on I-405, but we now have a new anti-litter slogan apparently:

(https://i.imgur.com/px2jWmg.jpeg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: pderocco on December 26, 2021, 05:45:52 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 24, 2021, 03:57:51 AM
Spotted this a while ago on I-405, but we now have a new anti-litter slogan apparently:

(https://i.imgur.com/px2jWmg.jpeg)

I don't recall them ever charging for Washington litter.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on December 26, 2021, 07:31:41 PM
Quote from: pderocco on December 26, 2021, 05:45:52 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 24, 2021, 03:57:51 AM
Spotted this a while ago on I-405, but we now have a new anti-litter slogan apparently:

(https://i.imgur.com/px2jWmg.jpeg)

I don't recall them ever charging for Washington litter.

:-D

It really should have been hyphenated: "Litter-Free"
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on January 07, 2022, 06:35:18 PM
This week's storm has been a doozy.

All mountain passes closed, leaving SR 14 as the only way across the state. I-5 closed for a bit between Chehalis and Grand Mound due to flooding. Mudslides reported all over western Washington.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: FrCorySticha on January 08, 2022, 11:15:16 PM
Quote from: Bruce on January 07, 2022, 06:35:18 PM
This week's storm has been a doozy.

All mountain passes closed, leaving SR 14 as the only way across the state. I-5 closed for a bit between Chehalis and Grand Mound due to flooding. Mudslides reported all over western Washington.

I was visiting my parents in Ellensburg during the storms, including over a foot of snow Wednesday evening through Thursday morning. SR 14 and I-84 through the Gorge were both closed for a little while, so there was a point where any traffic from Eastern to Western Washington would have to go all the way down to Bend, OR, to cross the Cascades. When I left Ellensburg yesterday, there were trucks parked anywhere they could find room, including on the shoulder of Canyon Rd. under exit 109.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on January 10, 2022, 03:18:07 AM
Snoqualmie and Blewett passes have reopened, first for critical freight and then for general traffic. The surface isn't totally cleared, so there's a posted 45 mph speed limit at the summit. White Pass could open today and Stevens Pass in two days (the latter has some snow slides of up to 35 feet to deal with).

On Sunday, I took a little detour to see the west end of the closure:

(https://i.imgur.com/7e61ojy.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/clr2wZH.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/QBpjceS.jpeg)

(https://i.imgur.com/5q9BJ20.jpeg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on January 10, 2022, 07:27:22 PM
why are these people not turning around and going somewhere that isn't sleeping in their cars
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on January 10, 2022, 08:08:23 PM
Quote from: Alps on January 10, 2022, 07:27:22 PM
why are these people not turning around and going somewhere that isn't sleeping in their cars

At the time, the only viable route was WA 14, a 230-mile detour.

I really don't understand it myself, as staying in Seattle or the eastern suburbs would be a better option for the non-trucks. Cheaper food and fuel, things to keep you occupied, and it's not like the reopening information won't be posted online or via the radio.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on January 10, 2022, 09:30:22 PM
I used to have a coworker who lived in North Bend and commuted to North Seattle.  Once or twice a year I-90 would close before she could get home for the night.  Then one time I-90 closed in both directions leaving her stuck in Bellevue.  All hotels were full.  Fortunately she had a different co-worker's phone number who let her stay on their couch, a much better option than sleeping in the car.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on January 10, 2022, 11:45:05 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 10, 2022, 09:30:22 PM
I used to have a coworker who lived in North Bend and commuted to North Seattle.  Once or twice a year I-90 would close before she could get home for the night.  Then one time I-90 closed in both directions leaving her stuck in Bellevue.  All hotels were full.  Fortunately she had a different co-worker's phone number who let her stay on their couch, a much better option than sleeping in the car.

Was it common for I-90 to close west of North Bend? I always thought it closed near Tanner.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on January 11, 2022, 02:23:41 AM
Once or twice a year was her experience.  Not often enough to be worth moving.  They liked skiing.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on January 11, 2022, 11:08:27 AM
I honestly can't ever remember a formal closure for snow west of North Bend in the past 15-20 years, so what she was referring to must have been due to accidents, or just being impractical to make it up the hills to North Bend in the snow storm. Plus unlike the pass, there are alternate routes to get to North Bend like SR 202, so I-90 being closed wouldn't strand her in itself, it seems more like she just didn't want to risk getting stuck (which is probably the right move given how many cars seem to end up abandoned on the side of the road when a snow storm messes up the evening commute here).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on January 11, 2022, 12:54:53 PM
^^^
I had the same thoughts, I don't see why interstate 90 would have been closed west of North bend for weather. I get certain spots like Tiger Mountain, but I-90 in general isn't high enough at any point west of North Bend have any regular snow that would cause even twice-a-year closures.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on January 13, 2022, 04:00:55 PM


Here's a video of the Traffic and Mobility Improvements along I-5 in the Centralia/Chehalis area.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on January 13, 2022, 10:06:23 PM
State-named shields in that video. I think there may be a roadgeek running the graphics department!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on January 29, 2022, 10:53:37 PM
Sound Transit has approved its share of funding for the redeveloped I-405 / NE 85th Street interchange in Kirkland as part of the Stride bus rapid transit program. The existing cloverleaf will be demolished and replaced by a three-level interchange with a dogbone for regular traffic and an upper level for BRT and toll lane traffic. It is scheduled to open in 2026.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/triple-deck-287m-kirkland-interchange-gets-sound-transits-green-light/

(https://i.imgur.com/nCWvgK5.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on January 30, 2022, 12:02:11 AM
Can anyone explain why the ramps are all bulbous? That seems like it would be really awkward to navigate.

Overall, it seems so over the top and unnecessary.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on January 30, 2022, 12:28:10 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 30, 2022, 12:02:11 AM
Can anyone explain why the ramps are all bulbous? That seems like it would be really awkward to navigate.

Overall, it seems so over the top and unnecessary.
It looks like it'd flow super-well for the HOV and BRT traffic they're trying to prioritize, and otherwise it's just a standard diamond.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: thefraze_1020 on January 31, 2022, 12:10:32 AM
There are two button-copy I-405 BGS's on the overpass, seen heading each way on 85th. Someone needs to convince WSDOT to save them!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on February 02, 2022, 12:15:08 AM
I love how British that interchange will be.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Algorithm on February 02, 2022, 01:02:59 PM
Hopefully it won't end up looking like the diagram; having two lanes at the far ends of the lower dogbone is just asking for collisions.  People will think "hey, I need to turn left, so I should be in the left lane" and then need to cut through three lanes of merging traffic at the last minute.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 08, 2022, 06:47:26 PM
WA Democrats unveiled their $16.8 billion, 16-year transportation package. Some highlights (sourced from The Seattle Times (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/wa-democrats-propose-16b-for-transportation-hoping-to-boost-highways-transit-and-ferries/) and the LEAP summaries (http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/budget/detail/2022/st2022Supp.asp)):

Funded by a 6-cent tax on exported fuel and additional fees on vehicle registrations/tabs, as well as the existing Climate Commitment Act of 2021.

$3 billion for transit, mainly for local grants with some active capital projects, such as safety improvements for corridors like Aurora Avenue in Seattle. Free fares for people under 18, which could also apply to ferries and Amtrak. $150 million to kickstart a high-speed rail line too.

Plenty of suburban and rural multi-use trails, particularly in Bellevue, Whatcom County, Spokane, and Tacoma.

$1 billion towards the I-5 Columbia River Bridge Replacement
$1.4 billion to fill funding gaps for existing projects, including the I-405/SR 167 Corridor, I-90 expansion over Snoqualmie Pass, the Puget Sound Gateway, the SR 520 Rest of West program, and I-5 HOV lanes extended to Marysville.
$640 million for widening SR 18 from Issaquah-Hobart Road to Raging River Road
$210 million for the US 2 Westbound Trestle replacement in Everett
$244 million for the I-5 JBLM HOV expansion
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 08, 2022, 10:42:55 PM
Also included in the package is a bit of the funding needed to eliminate some intersections on US 101 east of Sequim: https://engage.wsdot.wa.gov/us-101-east-sequim/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 18, 2022, 01:30:19 AM
Also, this package's main funding source will heavily affect Oregon, which sources 90 percent of its consumer gasoline and diesel from Washington refineries. https://www.opb.org/article/2022/02/09/washington-state-legislators-propose-tax-on-oregon-drivers-fuel/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on February 18, 2022, 11:01:23 AM
Quote from: Bruce on February 08, 2022, 06:47:26 PM
WA Democrats unveiled their $16.8 billion, 16-year transportation package. Some highlights (sourced from The Seattle Times (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/wa-democrats-propose-16b-for-transportation-hoping-to-boost-highways-transit-and-ferries/) and the LEAP summaries (http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/budget/detail/2022/st2022Supp.asp)):

Funded by a 6-cent tax on exported fuel and additional fees on vehicle registrations/tabs, as well as the existing Climate Commitment Act of 2021.

$3 billion for transit, mainly for local grants with some active capital projects, such as safety improvements for corridors like Aurora Avenue in Seattle. Free fares for people under 18, which could also apply to ferries and Amtrak. $150 million to kickstart a high-speed rail line too.

Plenty of suburban and rural multi-use trails, particularly in Bellevue, Whatcom County, Spokane, and Tacoma.

$1 billion towards the I-5 Columbia River Bridge Replacement
$1.4 billion to fill funding gaps for existing projects, including the I-405/SR 167 Corridor, I-90 expansion over Snoqualmie Pass, the Puget Sound Gateway, the SR 520 Rest of West program, and I-5 HOV lanes extended to Marysville.
$640 million for widening SR 18 from Issaquah-Hobart Road to Raging River Road
$210 million for the US 2 Westbound Trestle replacement in Everett
$244 million for the I-5 JBLM HOV expansion


Is WB 2 really in that need of replacement?  I just drove it recently, and it seemed to be in good shape, I just know there is too much traffic, but they won't fix that by adding more lanes adding a BRT, or light rail out to Lake Stevens.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 18, 2022, 05:04:45 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on February 18, 2022, 11:01:23 AM
Is WB 2 really in that need of replacement?  I just drove it recently, and it seemed to be in good shape, I just know there is too much traffic, but they won't fix that by adding more lanes adding a BRT, or light rail out to Lake Stevens.

A decade ago, WSDOT had to make emergency repairs to deteriorating parts (described as "concrete falling off in chunks and rusting rebar (https://www.heraldnet.com/news/fixing-an-aging-trestle/)"). It's nearing the end of its lifespan and was also poorly designed from the start: the merging of the 20th Street and SR 204 onramps don't provide enough space, the awkward way to reach Hewitt from WB US 2 (requiring two turns), and the lack of a shoulder. It also isn't seismically stable and since it goes over a delta that is primed for liquefaction, I can't think of another place in the county that I would feel less safe when the Big One hits.

I think a replacement keeping two GP lanes with better ramp geometry and a shoulder that can be used all-day by buses would be the best solution here. Toll it during peak periods and keep it free off-peak, and we've probably got enough funding to make it happen. Lake Stevens can't really support BRT yet, but better frequency on Route 280 is long overdue.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: duaneu2 on February 19, 2022, 02:38:53 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 30, 2022, 12:02:11 AM
Can anyone explain why the ramps are all bulbous? That seems like it would be really awkward to navigate.

Overall, it seems so over the top and unnecessary.

They're roundabouts.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 19, 2022, 03:01:37 PM
Quote from: duaneu2 on February 19, 2022, 02:38:53 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 30, 2022, 12:02:11 AM
Can anyone explain why the ramps are all bulbous? That seems like it would be really awkward to navigate.

Overall, it seems so over the top and unnecessary.

They're roundabouts.

Yes....I can see that. Doesn't explain the large curves approaching and leaving them. Both directions of NE 85th approach the roundabout at nearly a right angle, yet the freeway ramps have massive curves, especially to the north. My running guess right now is due to the ramps needing extra length to reach the 405 mainline, but then why not have the ramp splits occur a little further north? There's quite a while until NE 124th. I can understand the issue with NE 70th, though.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 19, 2022, 03:03:34 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 18, 2022, 05:04:45 PM
I think a replacement keeping two GP lanes with better ramp geometry and a shoulder that can be used all-day by buses would be the best solution here. Toll it during peak periods and keep it free off-peak, and we've probably got enough funding to make it happen. Lake Stevens can't really support BRT yet, but better frequency on Route 280 is long overdue.

My only concern with a bus shoulder lane would be conflicts with traffic accessing I-5 northbound.

How about an HOV lane on the left? You could design a direct-access ramp to the left lane of the westbound trestle from southbound SR-204, and then have all movements to I-5 occur on the right. The left HOV lane and another lane could be designed to directly access Hewitt Ave. You could even go mad, and install a direct access HOV ramp to southbound I-5!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 19, 2022, 03:26:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 19, 2022, 03:03:34 PM
Quote from: Bruce on February 18, 2022, 05:04:45 PM
I think a replacement keeping two GP lanes with better ramp geometry and a shoulder that can be used all-day by buses would be the best solution here. Toll it during peak periods and keep it free off-peak, and we've probably got enough funding to make it happen. Lake Stevens can't really support BRT yet, but better frequency on Route 280 is long overdue.

My only concern with a bus shoulder lane would be conflicts with traffic accessing I-5 northbound.

How about an HOV lane on the left? You could design a direct-access ramp to the left lane of the westbound trestle from southbound SR-204, and then have all movements to I-5 occur on the right. The left HOV lane and another lane could be designed to directly access Hewitt Ave. You could even go mad, and install a direct access HOV ramp to southbound I-5!

A left ramp would conflict with the Ebey Island ramps, though they could be moved to the side if we're going for a full rebuild. Either way, I'd rather keep a similar setup to the eastbound trestle.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 22, 2022, 07:28:25 PM
Could anyone here help me?

In parts of Everett, there are these very elaborate signal mast arm assemblies. They are the giant green ones along Evergreen Way and Everett Mall Way. There may be more as well.

The mast arm assemblies are certainly unique, they seem to have been constructed in the 1980s when many of the area roads were rebuilt. I would love to know more about what inspired these contraptions, if anyone knows.

One other things that really piques my curiosity are the 5-section signals on the far left corner of many of the intersections (particularly 4th Ave W and Everett Mall Way (https://goo.gl/maps/2jKe9yFCnrBC9uAM7)). Normally, 5-section signals are reserved for protective-permissive left turn displays, where the top three are red-amber-green orbs, and the bottom two are amber and green arrows. But these are all fully protected, with two unused signal faces (the third and second to the top). Does anyone know if these left turns were previously protected-permissive? Apart from dedicated left turn signals (protected-only or flashing yellow arrow signals), which are quite common on the far left corner of intersections, signals that display green orbs on the far left corner of intersections are quite unusual in Washington (apart from Spokane), reserved only for those situations where visibility is an issue; it would seem that Everett went and installed a bunch of them without worrying too much. UNLESS they were always protected left turns?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51897250497_4b2f446ae0_o.png)
Unusual Left Turn Signal (https://flic.kr/p/2n4YYuZ) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr

The unusual mast arm, also in question:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51898214726_9ea88962e9_o.png)
Unique Mast Arm Assembly (https://flic.kr/p/2n54V8C) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on February 23, 2022, 06:21:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 22, 2022, 07:28:25 PM
Could anyone here help me?
The two yellow lenses look like what you would do for a Flashing Yellow setup. I wonder if the protected arrows fire GYR during normal operation, but then when you have a pedestrian call on the crosswalk it goes Flashing Yellow, Yellow, Red. I would expect an arrow instead of a ball in head 3 if that was the case though.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Algorithm on February 24, 2022, 04:13:35 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 19, 2022, 03:01:37 PM
Yes....I can see that. Doesn't explain the large curves approaching and leaving them. Both directions of NE 85th approach the roundabout at nearly a right angle, yet the freeway ramps have massive curves, especially to the north. My running guess right now is due to the ramps needing extra length to reach the 405 mainline, but then why not have the ramp splits occur a little further north? There's quite a while until NE 124th. I can understand the issue with NE 70th, though.

Moving the splits further from the interchange would require property acquisition; the current design is entirely within the existing interchange's footprint.  As for why the ramps bow inwards, that's because they're being routed under the bridges from 85th to the HOV ramps.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on February 24, 2022, 10:57:32 AM
Quote from: Algorithm on February 24, 2022, 04:13:35 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 19, 2022, 03:01:37 PM
Yes....I can see that. Doesn't explain the large curves approaching and leaving them. Both directions of NE 85th approach the roundabout at nearly a right angle, yet the freeway ramps have massive curves, especially to the north. My running guess right now is due to the ramps needing extra length to reach the 405 mainline, but then why not have the ramp splits occur a little further north? There's quite a while until NE 124th. I can understand the issue with NE 70th, though.

Moving the splits further from the interchange would require property acquisition; the current design is entirely within the existing interchange's footprint.  As for why the ramps bow inwards, that's because they're being routed under the bridges from 85th to the HOV ramps.

I think it's important to realize that this is just a graphic that the newspaper did up themselves, so it's likely not completely accurate on these kinds of details. I looks to me like the ramps, especially on the north side, are bowing out to the location of the existing ramps, which are way out there because of the cloverleaf that is present now, so it's possible that this graphic was created by taking the existing cloverleaf, erasing most of the interchange, and then just drawing lines to connect to the north and south, creating the strange looking bulb-out ramps.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 24, 2022, 04:32:29 PM
Quote from: stevashe on February 24, 2022, 10:57:32 AM
Quote from: Algorithm on February 24, 2022, 04:13:35 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 19, 2022, 03:01:37 PM
Yes....I can see that. Doesn't explain the large curves approaching and leaving them. Both directions of NE 85th approach the roundabout at nearly a right angle, yet the freeway ramps have massive curves, especially to the north. My running guess right now is due to the ramps needing extra length to reach the 405 mainline, but then why not have the ramp splits occur a little further north? There's quite a while until NE 124th. I can understand the issue with NE 70th, though.

Moving the splits further from the interchange would require property acquisition; the current design is entirely within the existing interchange's footprint.  As for why the ramps bow inwards, that's because they're being routed under the bridges from 85th to the HOV ramps.

I think it's important to realize that this is just a graphic that the newspaper did up themselves, so it's likely not completely accurate on these kinds of details. I looks to me like the ramps, especially on the north side, are bowing out to the location of the existing ramps, which are way out there because of the cloverleaf that is present now, so it's possible that this graphic was created by taking the existing cloverleaf, erasing most of the interchange, and then just drawing lines to connect to the north and south, creating the strange looking bulb-out ramps.

More or less, this is actually the right answer. Other visuals from more "official" sources show far less curvy ramps:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51901002517_a1348027c0_o.png)
NE 85th Interchange Concept (https://flic.kr/p/2n5jcQZ) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr

From: https://www.kirklandwa.gov/files/sharedassets/public/boards-and-commissions/i-405-ne-85th-st-interchange-inline-brt-station-and-interchange.pdf
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 24, 2022, 04:39:28 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 23, 2022, 06:21:55 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 22, 2022, 07:28:25 PM
Could anyone here help me?
The two yellow lenses look like what you would do for a Flashing Yellow setup. I wonder if the protected arrows fire GYR during normal operation, but then when you have a pedestrian call on the crosswalk it goes Flashing Yellow, Yellow, Red. I would expect an arrow instead of a ball in head 3 if that was the case though.

I can see that, although the left turn is already fully-protected.

I think my best bet is to reach out to the City of Everett and see if I can get in touch with whoever had a hand in the original project.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jay8g on February 27, 2022, 03:02:25 AM
The red-yellow-yellow-yellow-green configuration of the side-mounted signals is certainly rather strange. My best guess is that they were protected-permissive signals using a version of the old Seattle configuration (https://flickr.com/photos/57844255@N03/25674567552/) without a bimodal yellow/green arrow. Of course, if that was the case, that means the overhead left turn signals would have been replaced at some point, and those 3Ms look very old themselves, so who knows...
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 28, 2022, 11:35:22 AM
Quote from: jay8g on February 27, 2022, 03:02:25 AM
The red-yellow-yellow-yellow-green configuration of the side-mounted signals is certainly rather strange. My best guess is that they were protected-permissive signals using a version of the old Seattle configuration (https://flickr.com/photos/57844255@N03/25674567552/) without a bimodal yellow/green arrow. Of course, if that was the case, that means the overhead left turn signals would have been replaced at some point, and those 3Ms look very old themselves, so who knows...

That's actually quite a good theory, and would explain why the signals appear old enough to have not been retrofitted (thus as they were originally installed, apart from the red arrow). Still, yeah, doesn't quite explain the also-old three-section signals overhead, and also the three-section signals post mounted at some of the intersection (Evergreen @ 4th Ave W has a 5-section signal for the westbound left turn, but a three section signal for the eastbound left turn...could be that only one of the directions was permissive...)

As a side note, as long as we're talking about Snohomish County, does anyone know why so many signals up there have orange beacons on the signal masts? Example here (https://goo.gl/maps/J5Ln8pXaCExsU4iSA) (small orange light below the street blade).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jay8g on February 28, 2022, 08:13:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2022, 11:35:22 AM
As a side note, as long as we're talking about Snohomish County, does anyone know why so many signals up there have orange beacons on the signal masts? Example here (https://goo.gl/maps/J5Ln8pXaCExsU4iSA) (small orange light below the street blade).

I've always assumed those are for emergency vehicle preemption, similar to the more common little white lights (https://www.google.com/maps/@48.113081,-123.4189952,3a,15y,65.58h,104.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ5r4dphvNIhfzwlHfs0NdA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en), but I can't be sure. (I see that intersection does have Opticom detectors, so that would be a reasonable guess.)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 01, 2022, 12:37:15 AM
Quote from: jay8g on February 28, 2022, 08:13:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2022, 11:35:22 AM
As a side note, as long as we're talking about Snohomish County, does anyone know why so many signals up there have orange beacons on the signal masts? Example here (https://goo.gl/maps/J5Ln8pXaCExsU4iSA) (small orange light below the street blade).

I've always assumed those are for emergency vehicle preemption, similar to the more common little white lights (https://www.google.com/maps/@48.113081,-123.4189952,3a,15y,65.58h,104.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ5r4dphvNIhfzwlHfs0NdA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en), but I can't be sure. (I see that intersection does have Opticom detectors, so that would be a reasonable guess.)

Any idea how they would work? Would they work in tandem with the Opticom system?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jay8g on March 01, 2022, 04:23:24 PM
The white lights I'm used to just light up/flash (depending on the signal) when an emergency vehicle is detected. Not sure about the orange beacons.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 03, 2022, 06:31:32 PM
I spotted this relatively-ancient I-405 shield in SeaTac today. Dates to 1983. It's in the middle of a suburban neighborhood at S 170 St eastbound right before 51 Ave S.

https://goo.gl/maps/cKKqy51HwiweXSrX7

I followed 51 Ave S, didn't see any additional route guidance signs to the 405. If there were any, they're long gone.

Pictures are huge, click the links below for full-res.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51916612723_e1c0eeff25_5k.jpg)
"To I-405" shield, 1983-spec. SeaTac, WA. (https://flic.kr/p/2n6Gddt) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51917135865_7b89539310.jpg)
"To I-405" shield, 1983-spec. SeaTac, WA. (https://flic.kr/p/2n6JTJa) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 03, 2022, 06:49:23 PM
Speaking of ancient shields, does anyone know what happened to the old state-named I-5 shield that was along Cedardale Road in Mount Vernon? It appears to have been 1957-spec.

https://goo.gl/maps/dWdCrTDiEmNuN6iy7

As far as I know, it was the last-remaining cut-out state-named shield in the state, and possibly the oldest route shield posted anywhere in Washington. Seems to have been removed in 2021.

Bit curious if anyone actually grabbed a picture of it. I only went past it about a thousand times and never grabbed a picture :pan:.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on March 03, 2022, 08:56:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2022, 06:31:32 PM
I spotted this relatively-ancient I-405 shield in SeaTac today. Dates to 1983. It's in the middle of a suburban neighborhood at S 170 St eastbound right before 51 Ave S.

https://goo.gl/maps/cKKqy51HwiweXSrX7

I followed 51 Ave S, didn't see any additional route guidance signs to the 405. If there were any, they're long gone.

Pictures are huge, click the links below for full-res.

Interesting!  Both I-405 and I-5 were completed well before 1983, yet now 51st Ave. S doesn't go very far and isn't a particularly good route to I-405.  I wonder if 51st Ave. S used to connect through what is now Crystal Springs Park to connect with the 51st Ave. S overpass over WA 518 for no longer existing access to I-405.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on March 03, 2022, 09:01:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2022, 06:49:23 PM
Speaking of ancient shields, does anyone know what happened to the old state-named I-5 shield that was along Cedardale Road in Mount Vernon? It appears to have been 1957-spec.

https://goo.gl/maps/dWdCrTDiEmNuN6iy7

As far as I know, it was the last-remaining cut-out state-named shield in the state, and possibly the oldest route shield posted anywhere in Washington. Seems to have been removed in 2021.

Bit curious if anyone actually grabbed a picture of it. I only went past it about a thousand times and never grabbed a picture :pan:.

When did they build the roundabout at Anderson Rd.?  Maybe they thought it would confuse people into turning left into the roundabout.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 03, 2022, 09:44:37 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2022, 08:56:43 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2022, 06:31:32 PM
I spotted this relatively-ancient I-405 shield in SeaTac today. Dates to 1983. It's in the middle of a suburban neighborhood at S 170 St eastbound right before 51 Ave S.

https://goo.gl/maps/cKKqy51HwiweXSrX7

I followed 51 Ave S, didn't see any additional route guidance signs to the 405. If there were any, they're long gone.

Pictures are huge, click the links below for full-res.

Interesting!  Both I-405 and I-5 were completed well before 1983, yet now 51st Ave. S doesn't go very far and isn't a particularly good route to I-405.  I wonder if 51st Ave. S used to connect through what is now Crystal Springs Park to connect with the 51st Ave. S overpass over WA 518 for no longer existing access to I-405.

From what I can tell from historic aerial photography, 51st has always ended where it does today, at S 160 St.

Particularly bizarre is the route that one would actually have to take to reach the 405: north on 51st Ave S, right on S 160 St, left on 53 Ave S, right on Klickitat Drive, left on Southcenter Parkway, and then all the way around the curve going east, past the 61 Ave S overpass, and then a left onto the 405. 518 is certainly much easier to reach....but then there is no sign for that, that I knew/know of.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 03, 2022, 09:48:42 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 03, 2022, 09:01:10 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2022, 06:49:23 PM
Speaking of ancient shields, does anyone know what happened to the old state-named I-5 shield that was along Cedardale Road in Mount Vernon? It appears to have been 1957-spec.

https://goo.gl/maps/dWdCrTDiEmNuN6iy7

As far as I know, it was the last-remaining cut-out state-named shield in the state, and possibly the oldest route shield posted anywhere in Washington. Seems to have been removed in 2021.

Bit curious if anyone actually grabbed a picture of it. I only went past it about a thousand times and never grabbed a picture :pan:.

When did they build the roundabout at Anderson Rd.?  Maybe they thought it would confuse people into turning left into the roundabout.

The roundabout opened in 2013. I don't know if the left arrow was confusing, and/or the reason for its removal, as most advanced signage for roundabouts use left/right/straight arrows (sometimes with "hook" arrows, sometimes not).

In fact, it seems the roundabout was modified to make it more permanent looking in late 2019/early 2020. New median, shoulder improvements. I think it was removed when that project occurred, as it was shown in street view prior to the reconstruction and was missing afterwards.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jay8g on March 06, 2022, 03:01:59 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 03, 2022, 09:44:37 PM
From what I can tell from historic aerial photography, 51st has always ended where it does today, at S 160 St.

Particularly bizarre is the route that one would actually have to take to reach the 405: north on 51st Ave S, right on S 160 St, left on 53 Ave S, right on Klickitat Drive, left on Southcenter Parkway, and then all the way around the curve going east, past the 61 Ave S overpass, and then a left onto the 405. 518 is certainly much easier to reach....but then there is no sign for that, that I knew/know of.
The truck route sign makes me suspect it's less about encouraging people to use 51st and more about discouraging them from continuing straight and using 53rd, perhaps because of this section (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.4541863,-122.2660784,3a,75y,60.73h,82.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6q_9FdJhqpQYWPABDOQNww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). That could explain why there aren't any further signs down the line (that's the only decision point they cared about). It's also close to the Tukwila-Seatac (which would have been unincorporated King County when the sign was installed) city limits, so perhaps Tukwila put up a fuss and got King County to direct people to stay on their side of the line.

Of course, I still have no idea why people (and especially trucks) would be on 170th looking for 405 in the first place...
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on March 11, 2022, 06:52:56 PM
The transportation package (Move Ahead WA) has been passed by the legislature, albeit with different funding methods due to opposition from Oregon and Idaho. No gas tax increase, just an increase in car tab and license fees.

https://www.knkx.org/2022-03-10/new-bridges-and-ferries-wider-highways-and-free-fares-in-freshly-passed-wa-transportation-package
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 12, 2022, 01:22:17 PM
I wonder if the next transport package will fund HOV direct access ramps at the 90/405, as shown in this render (circa 2008):

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51932990232_7b53d72c6d_o.jpg)
I-405/I-90 Master Plan, Circa 2008 (https://flic.kr/p/2n899Fj) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
Original image source: https://web.archive.org/web/20080822064052/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/i405/112thAvetoSE8th/Default.htm

Jokes aside, the master plan for 405 has really changed a lot in the last 15 years.

Then: HOV direct access ramps + 1 HOV + 4 GP lanes + C/D roadways
Now: two express toll lanes + two GP lanes + maybe C/D roadway for Coal Creek Parkway.

Based on this render, I do find it interesting that WSDOT built what they did in this area in the late 2000s (northbound HOV on old southbound lanes, new southbound carriageway), as it doesn't align at all with this master plan.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 12, 2022, 05:41:47 PM
Beautiful interchange. I hope it gets built!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on March 12, 2022, 05:51:55 PM
Do we even need direct HOV/HOT connections at Factoria? Probably not.

I'd rather see that money spent on fixing the mess at Coal Creek Parkway (not sure if this is being addressed with the current HOT/widening project) or rebuilding the weaves in Downtown Bellevue.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 12, 2022, 05:57:34 PM
Yes in order to get this interchange built it needs the direct connectors.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 12, 2022, 07:17:47 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 12, 2022, 05:51:55 PM
Do we even need direct HOV/HOT connections at Factoria? Probably not.

I'd rather see that money spent on fixing the mess at Coal Creek Parkway (not sure if this is being addressed with the current HOT/widening project) or rebuilding the weaves in Downtown Bellevue.

I don't truly think there is any "need" but I appreciate WSDOT's focus on improving capacity for carpools and transit. As evidenced by this being Washington's only stack interchange, most maneuvers in this interchange are relatively equal. The worst approaches seem to be from I-90 to I-405; the opposite is not as busy from what I've seen. So if direct access ramps were ever built, perhaps focus on getting HOV ramps from I-90 to I-405 (not the other way around) first before the whole system is built, as it may help relieve that afternoon and morning rush.

Given that the 405/167 corridor will ultimately become a very high capacity express lane corridor, I think some direct access ramps at both I-90 and I-5 in Lynnwood should be considered.

What weaving are you speaking of? I've always thought the loop from 520 to southbound 405 was pretty awful, I would love to see that fixed. Otherwise, downtown Bellevue is much better after all of the improvements in the early and late 2000s (collector roads, new HOV-only ramps, direct access ramp to 116th Ave SE, etc).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 12, 2022, 07:26:55 PM
Not sure how long ago this was published. WSDOT has made public their plans for 18 between Issaquah-Hobart (I-H) Road and Deep Creek known as part of its inclusion in the Move Ahead WA transport package. It's effectively the plan we all know from many variations past, but a couple of changes:

https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/search-projects/sr-18-issaquah-hobart-rd-deep-creek-widening

Big thing seems to be the elimination of any interchange at Tiger Mountain, opting instead for RIROs. The webpage literally states that it expects drivers to turn around either at I-H Road or I-90, with the DDI at I-90 and new roundabouts at I-H Road being intentional in order to fulfill this need.

Couple other changes include the elimination of truck climbing lanes, and slightly less stringent design standards. The road is likely to have a 50 mph limit. That's definitely a shame, as the SR-18 corridor from Auburn to I-H Road could be posted at 70, given its largely rural route and high design standards. Without the same level of design standards for the stretch over Tiger Mountain, I doubt they will ever bother to increase SR-18 any higher than 60 for the foreseeable future. At least until the stretch over Tiger Mountain is improved with a grade-separated interchange and truck climbing lanes.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jay8g on March 13, 2022, 03:44:51 AM
I get why they're doing that -- a full interchange at Tiger Mountain seems like serious overkill -- but yikes, that's quite a long detour to make a U-turn, especially on the I-90 end.

For the speed limit, I doubt WSDOT will want to increase it unless a direct freeway connection is built at the east end, and it seems like they've given up on that for now with the planned DDI.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Algorithm on March 13, 2022, 07:33:34 PM
If a full-size interchange is overkill for Tiger, then don't do a full-size interchange.  There's no freight or double-decker buses going there.  A simple culvert-style underpass with 10-12 feet of clearance is all that's needed.  If WSDOT cares about carbon expenditure at all, they shouldn't force nature lovers to waste gasoline by going 3+ miles out of their way and climbing the mountain twice.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on March 15, 2022, 01:46:10 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 12, 2022, 07:17:47 PM
What weaving are you speaking of? I've always thought the loop from 520 to southbound 405 was pretty awful, I would love to see that fixed. Otherwise, downtown Bellevue is much better after all of the improvements in the early and late 2000s (collector roads, new HOV-only ramps, direct access ramp to 116th Ave SE, etc).

Southbound I-405 has a fair bit between the onramps for NE 4th/8th and the offramp to SE 8th. It definitely contributes to some of the issues approaching I-90 (along with the backups stemming from the SB I-405 offramp to Coal Creek Parkway).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 18, 2022, 02:16:49 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 15, 2022, 01:46:10 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 12, 2022, 07:17:47 PM
What weaving are you speaking of? I've always thought the loop from 520 to southbound 405 was pretty awful, I would love to see that fixed. Otherwise, downtown Bellevue is much better after all of the improvements in the early and late 2000s (collector roads, new HOV-only ramps, direct access ramp to 116th Ave SE, etc).

Southbound I-405 has a fair bit between the onramps for NE 4th/8th and the offramp to SE 8th. It definitely contributes to some of the issues approaching I-90 (along with the backups stemming from the SB I-405 offramp to Coal Creek Parkway).

The 405/Coal Creek Parkway weave may well be my most hated in the state, I swear it contributes to virtually all of the pain experienced in South Bellevue.

I suppose you could reconfigure the ramps so that traffic for SE 8th could exit at the NE 8th exit, stay straight through the cloverleaf, and then construct some kind of barrier to prevent weaving after the onramp from NE 4th. Problem, of course, is the NE 8th ramp meters. Well, and the total lack of any available ROW.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on March 23, 2022, 02:18:11 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 12, 2022, 05:51:55 PM
I'd rather see that money spent on fixing the mess at Coal Creek Parkway (not sure if this is being addressed with the current HOT/widening project)

The current project will add an auxiliary lane on southbound I-405 from I-90 to 112th (matching the current northbound configuration), which should help at least a little with the Coal Creek weave since it will no longer be 2 lanes entering the immediately exiting, instead one of those lanes will continue.

Quote from: jakeroot on March 12, 2022, 01:22:17 PM
Jokes aside, the master plan for 405 has really changed a lot in the last 15 years.

Then: HOV direct access ramps + 1 HOV + 4 GP lanes + C/D roadways
Now: two express toll lanes + two GP lanes + maybe C/D roadway for Coal Creek Parkway.

This isn't entirely true, the master plan is still for 5 lanes total (two express + three GP, like the current setup from NE 6th St to SR 522), that just won't be happening with the current round of projects or anytime soon.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 23, 2022, 10:29:41 PM
Quote from: stevashe on March 23, 2022, 02:18:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 12, 2022, 01:22:17 PM
Jokes aside, the master plan for 405 has really changed a lot in the last 15 years.

Then: HOV direct access ramps + 1 HOV + 4 GP lanes + C/D roadways
Now: two express toll lanes + two GP lanes + maybe C/D roadway for Coal Creek Parkway.

This isn't entirely true, the master plan is still for 5 lanes total (two express + three GP, like the current setup from NE 6th St to SR 522), that just won't be happening with the current round of projects or anytime soon.

Still no plans for any HOV connections, and that is a shame for a express toll system that really should do everything in its power to both (a) attract people into those lanes, and then (b) keep them in those lanes, especially for safety's sake.

I do recall hearing about the possibility of C/D roadways near the Coal Creek Pkwy interchange but don't know how firm those plans are.

Quote from: stevashe on March 23, 2022, 02:18:11 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 12, 2022, 05:51:55 PM
I'd rather see that money spent on fixing the mess at Coal Creek Parkway (not sure if this is being addressed with the current HOT/widening project)

The current project will add an auxiliary lane on southbound I-405 from I-90 to 112th (matching the current northbound configuration), which should help at least a little with the Coal Creek weave since it will no longer be 2 lanes entering the immediately exiting, instead one of those lanes will continue.

Sounds like it could make exiting onto Coal Creek Parkway from southbound 405 a bit hairier. If it will eventually require two lane changes...yikes.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on March 25, 2022, 11:06:37 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 23, 2022, 10:29:41 PM
Quote from: stevashe on March 23, 2022, 02:18:11 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 12, 2022, 05:51:55 PM
I'd rather see that money spent on fixing the mess at Coal Creek Parkway (not sure if this is being addressed with the current HOT/widening project)

The current project will add an auxiliary lane on southbound I-405 from I-90 to 112th (matching the current northbound configuration), which should help at least a little with the Coal Creek weave since it will no longer be 2 lanes entering the immediately exiting, instead one of those lanes will continue.

Sounds like it could make exiting onto Coal Creek Parkway from southbound 405 a bit hairier. If it will eventually require two lane changes...yikes.

I believe it will be an option lane, so only one lane change, they're not that crazy!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 25, 2022, 02:11:34 PM
Quote from: stevashe on March 25, 2022, 11:06:37 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 23, 2022, 10:29:41 PM
Quote from: stevashe on March 23, 2022, 02:18:11 PM
Quote from: Bruce on March 12, 2022, 05:51:55 PM
I'd rather see that money spent on fixing the mess at Coal Creek Parkway (not sure if this is being addressed with the current HOT/widening project)

The current project will add an auxiliary lane on southbound I-405 from I-90 to 112th (matching the current northbound configuration), which should help at least a little with the Coal Creek weave since it will no longer be 2 lanes entering the immediately exiting, instead one of those lanes will continue.

Sounds like it could make exiting onto Coal Creek Parkway from southbound 405 a bit hairier. If it will eventually require two lane changes...yikes.

I believe it will be an option lane, so only one lane change, they're not that crazy!

Haha, of course! :facepalm: -- I don't know why I would have thought that they would make it a single exit-only lane.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on March 29, 2022, 06:54:29 AM
Quote from: Algorithm on March 13, 2022, 07:33:34 PM
If a full-size interchange is overkill for Tiger, then don't do a full-size interchange.  There's no freight or double-decker buses going there.  A simple culvert-style underpass with 10-12 feet of clearance is all that's needed.  If WSDOT cares about carbon expenditure at all, they shouldn't force nature lovers to waste gasoline by going 3+ miles out of their way and climbing the mountain twice.

There might still be logging access required for that exit, but the logging trucks can use the U-turn route.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 01, 2022, 10:36:52 PM
In not-April Fools news: the southbound I-5 bridge over the Puyallup River is now carrying all traffic. No HOV lane yet, but the slithering work zone is being removed.

https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article260014465.html
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 03, 2022, 10:43:20 PM
Another (mostly) complete research project: State Route 512 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_Route_512).

The last detail I'm missing is when the cloverleaf interchange at I-5 in Lakewood was reduced to a parclo with a traffic signal. Some sources suggest it was in 2002, but they were not firm enough to cite.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on April 04, 2022, 03:20:06 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 01, 2022, 10:36:52 PM
In not-April Fools news: the southbound I-5 bridge over the Puyallup River is now carrying all traffic. No HOV lane yet, but the slithering work zone is being removed.

https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article260014465.html

Got some photos of the new southbound configuration and signs yesterday:

Link to album (https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjzJo7i)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51981528777_3a27e472be_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ncqVuM)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51982535081_388c7742cb_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ncw5CR)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51982600688_f6fc692a48_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ncwq91)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51981528672_1fde9a9c71_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ncqVsY)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51982816349_05a39bd93c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ncxwfi)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51982816314_1ec755fe0f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ncxweG)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51982600588_fe9309a8f9_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ncwq7h)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51983085480_64ff27b15a_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ncyUfu)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 04, 2022, 06:20:13 PM
Looks great! Here's hoping we can get those HOV lanes open soon in the next few months.

I'm especially looking forward to a complete auxiliary lane system between the 705 and Portland Ave / River Road exits. There is currently one, but I think the final plan is for two (one to Portland Ave, another to River Road/167).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: thefraze_1020 on April 05, 2022, 12:20:55 AM
Always nice seeing WSDOT installing new signs that are properly formatted and not bizarre. These SR-167 signs look very good.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 07, 2022, 11:12:00 PM
I had always thought Seattle's old-style flashing yellow left turn signal (https://youtu.be/Ey27vyMxea4) was relegated to Seattle only. Apparently not. Here is a video showing the 518 back and forth to-from Burien. At the very end of the video (literally last 20 seconds of footage from about 9:25 onwards) you can actually see a Seattle-style flashing yellow arrow left turn signal at the point where westbound 518 turns left onto the southbound 509 on-ramp (Google Maps link (https://goo.gl/maps/wFE5iz1S9yYZL6Fx5)). This operated permissively until 2008, when it was turned into a double left turn. At some point, probably during the 1990s, the approach was modified so that the left turn used a 5-section doghouse, as was most common by that point.

https://youtu.be/H4zHsApLJ4A?t=565
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 18, 2022, 06:08:01 PM
WSDOT has awarded a $123 million contract for the I-5 HOV extension to Marysville and new ramps at SR 529. Set to begin construction this year and be complete by 2025.

https://www.heraldnet.com/news/i-5-hov-lane-highway-529-interchange-work-to-start-this-year/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on April 18, 2022, 06:25:40 PM
It seems like they should also add a GP lane or two while they're at it.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 18, 2022, 06:37:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 18, 2022, 06:25:40 PM
It seems like they should also add a GP lane or two while they're at it.

That would require rebuilding the bridges across the Snohomish River, Union Slough, Ebey Slough, and Steamboat Slough. Not to mention rebuilding the section through Everett again. All expensive and much more disruptive for little to no benefit.

We don't want to turn even more of SnoCo into endless sprawl. 6 lanes + 2 HOV is enough for our needs.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on April 18, 2022, 06:46:43 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 18, 2022, 06:37:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 18, 2022, 06:25:40 PM
It seems like they should also add a GP lane or two while they're at it.

That would require rebuilding the bridges across the Snohomish River, Union Slough, Ebey Slough, and Steamboat Slough. Not to mention rebuilding the section through Everett again. All expensive and much more disruptive for little to no benefit.

We don't want to turn even more of SnoCo into endless sprawl. 6 lanes + 2 HOV is enough for our needs.
I disagree. It would be worth it and the traffic shows. That stretch gets clogged too often.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on April 18, 2022, 08:59:49 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 18, 2022, 06:46:43 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 18, 2022, 06:37:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 18, 2022, 06:25:40 PM
It seems like they should also add a GP lane or two while they're at it.

That would require rebuilding the bridges across the Snohomish River, Union Slough, Ebey Slough, and Steamboat Slough. Not to mention rebuilding the section through Everett again. All expensive and much more disruptive for little to no benefit.

We don't want to turn even more of SnoCo into endless sprawl. 6 lanes + 2 HOV is enough for our needs.
I disagree. It would be worth it and the traffic shows. That stretch gets clogged too often.
Just an extra northbound lane is really all that's needed. That will eliminate the chokepoint just south of the Snohomish River Bridge. I don't think I've experienced too many backups going southbound.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on April 18, 2022, 10:34:38 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on April 18, 2022, 08:59:49 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 18, 2022, 06:46:43 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 18, 2022, 06:37:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 18, 2022, 06:25:40 PM
It seems like they should also add a GP lane or two while they're at it.

That would require rebuilding the bridges across the Snohomish River, Union Slough, Ebey Slough, and Steamboat Slough. Not to mention rebuilding the section through Everett again. All expensive and much more disruptive for little to no benefit.

We don't want to turn even more of SnoCo into endless sprawl. 6 lanes + 2 HOV is enough for our needs.
I disagree. It would be worth it and the traffic shows. That stretch gets clogged too often.
Just an extra northbound lane is really all that's needed. That will eliminate the chokepoint just south of the Snohomish River Bridge. I don't think I've experienced too many backups going southbound.
Yeah NB is really where it's needed the most.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on April 18, 2022, 11:32:31 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 18, 2022, 06:08:01 PM
WSDOT has awarded a $123 million contract for the I-5 HOV extension to Marysville and new ramps at SR 529. Set to begin construction this year and be complete by 2025.

https://www.heraldnet.com/news/i-5-hov-lane-highway-529-interchange-work-to-start-this-year/

Woo!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: KEK Inc. on April 19, 2022, 12:02:59 AM
Induced demand is a thing, but they should also improve the SR-9 corridor for N-S traffic.  I do think HOV lanes should be extended all the way to Smokey Point, but there's no real way to widen the bridge over the Snohomish River, so will it just be 2 GP and 1 HOV? 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 19, 2022, 01:03:35 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 18, 2022, 06:46:43 PM
I disagree. It would be worth it and the traffic shows. That stretch gets clogged too often.

It's really only the Boeing traffic that clogs it, plus anomalies like Tulip Festival. Otherwise it's as normal as other sections and doesn't warrant expensive expansions that sap funding from much needed work elsewhere (SR 529's bridges will soon be due for major replacement, for example).

Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 19, 2022, 12:02:59 AM
Induced demand is a thing, but they should also improve the SR-9 corridor for N-S traffic.  I do think HOV lanes should be extended all the way to Smokey Point, but there's no real way to widen the bridge over the Snohomish River, so will it just be 2 GP and 1 HOV? 

The shoulders and lane widths are being shaved to fit in the extra HOV lane, which I'm not all that enthused about. The narrowed lanes are definitely going to cause some side-swipes judging by how erratic the drivers in the area normally are.

Extending to Smokey Point would be unnecessary for now, as traffic doesn't normally jam up beyond SR 528. SR 9 needs more roundabouts and some passing sections, but otherwise doesn't need to be more expressway-like.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: KEK Inc. on April 19, 2022, 01:22:16 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 19, 2022, 01:03:35 AM
The shoulders and lane widths are being shaved to fit in the extra HOV lane, which I'm not all that enthused about. The narrowed lanes are definitely going to cause some side-swipes judging by how erratic the drivers in the area normally are.
I had the same thought for I-90 through Mercer Island, but it's not too bad.  Honestly, narrower lanes will make people less comfortable speeding.  As long as the lanes are at least 12'. 

Quote from: Bruce on April 19, 2022, 01:03:35 AM
Extending to Smokey Point would be unnecessary for now, as traffic doesn't normally jam up beyond SR 528. SR 9 needs more roundabouts and some passing sections, but otherwise doesn't need to be more expressway-like.
When I go hiking on Mtn. Loop Hwy, it's always a nightmare at Lake Stevens, but the two signals next to each other on 204 and 9 are awful. 

Seems like there were plans to extend SR-92 west to I-5 looking at the signals stubs.  Probably would help with all of the mining trucks and Seattle hikers if they made 92 go to 5.   
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 19, 2022, 04:32:56 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 19, 2022, 01:22:16 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 19, 2022, 01:03:35 AM
The shoulders and lane widths are being shaved to fit in the extra HOV lane, which I'm not all that enthused about. The narrowed lanes are definitely going to cause some side-swipes judging by how erratic the drivers in the area normally are.
I had the same thought for I-90 through Mercer Island, but it's not too bad.  Honestly, narrower lanes will make people less comfortable speeding.  As long as the lanes are at least 12'. 

I-90 drivers are a bit different than I-5 drivers. The narrowed lanes between Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace are nerve-wracking to drive through.

Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 19, 2022, 01:22:16 AM
Seems like there were plans to extend SR-92 west to I-5 looking at the signals stubs.  Probably would help with all of the mining trucks and Seattle hikers if they made 92 go to 5.   

There's no viable way to get SR 92 all the way to I-5. The current plan is to extend a city street to SR 92 and connect with 83rd Avenue, which would allow for access to Sunnyside Blvd. via several narrow country roads.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on April 19, 2022, 04:51:08 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 18, 2022, 06:46:43 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 18, 2022, 06:37:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 18, 2022, 06:25:40 PM
It seems like they should also add a GP lane or two while they're at it.

That would require rebuilding the bridges across the Snohomish River, Union Slough, Ebey Slough, and Steamboat Slough. Not to mention rebuilding the section through Everett again. All expensive and much more disruptive for little to no benefit.

We don't want to turn even more of SnoCo into endless sprawl. 6 lanes + 2 HOV is enough for our needs.
I disagree. It would be worth it and the traffic shows. That stretch gets clogged too often.
If you're at 6+2 and arguing for further widening, it's time to improve rail transit, both passenger and freight, because in addition to the costs of the larger ROW footprint, the threshold of diminishing returns is rapidly approaching in terms of flow and capacity.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on April 19, 2022, 04:55:29 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on April 19, 2022, 01:22:16 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 19, 2022, 01:03:35 AM
The shoulders and lane widths are being shaved to fit in the extra HOV lane, which I'm not all that enthused about. The narrowed lanes are definitely going to cause some side-swipes judging by how erratic the drivers in the area normally are.
I had the same thought for I-90 through Mercer Island, but it's not too bad.  Honestly, narrower lanes will make people less comfortable speeding.  As long as the lanes are at least 12'. 

Haha about that, the standard lane width is 12'... these narrowed lanes will only be 11. But you are saying I-90 across Mercer Island is okay and those lanes are also only 11', for reference.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 19, 2022, 05:05:35 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on April 19, 2022, 04:51:08 PM
If you're at 6+2 and arguing for further widening, it's time to improve rail transit, both passenger and freight, because in addition to the costs of the larger ROW footprint, the threshold of diminishing returns is rapidly approaching in terms of flow and capacity.

Exactly. The Snohomish River Delta is one of the natural barriers that make for ideal transit markets (https://humantransit.org/2010/01/a-carbonneutral-seattle.html). A public-private split to build replacements for the aging BNSF bridges with a DMU-based Sounder service to feed Link light rail at Everett Station would be a huge boost in capacity.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: bubblewhale on April 26, 2022, 03:06:49 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on April 18, 2022, 08:59:49 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 18, 2022, 06:46:43 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 18, 2022, 06:37:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 18, 2022, 06:25:40 PM
It seems like they should also add a GP lane or two while they're at it.

That would require rebuilding the bridges across the Snohomish River, Union Slough, Ebey Slough, and Steamboat Slough. Not to mention rebuilding the section through Everett again. All expensive and much more disruptive for little to no benefit.

We don't want to turn even more of SnoCo into endless sprawl. 6 lanes + 2 HOV is enough for our needs.
I disagree. It would be worth it and the traffic shows. That stretch gets clogged too often.
Just an extra northbound lane is really all that's needed. That will eliminate the chokepoint just south of the Snohomish River Bridge. I don't think I've experienced too many backups going southbound.

Typically, it isn't too bad going SB for most part, but I'd agree that NB would need some leeway. Last year NB was rough when they'd started to repaint Stillaguamish and backups started around US2/Marine View with pockets in between. I usually don't think it's too bad once you make it past Marine View, since the section is alright if there weren't any odd events happening.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 12, 2022, 12:07:50 PM
Cross-post from the 509/167 thread:

Quote from: jakeroot on May 12, 2022, 11:02:23 AM
New visualisations of the 509 extension at 188th and 160th.

Slight change to the interchange design at 188th (1/4 partial cloverleaf with roundabouts) and some new roundabouts at the existing partial cloverleaf at 160th.

Warning for the cartographers: both visuals are south-up, confusingly.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52067394556_14a3e16963_o.jpg)
SR 509 Completion Project Visualization: SR 509/South 160th Street Interchange (https://flic.kr/p/2nk21pf) by Washington State Dept of Transportation (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52066349982_59768ffa8f_o.jpg)
SR 509 Completion Project Visualization: SR 509/South 188th Street Interchange (https://flic.kr/p/2njVDTm) by Washington State Dept of Transportation (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on May 17, 2022, 03:20:44 PM
Metro Tacoma Parks is permanently closing the outer loop of File Mile Drive at Point Defiance Park to vehicle traffic due to erosion and slope instability. Pedestrians, bicyclists, and others on non-motorized wheels are allowed to continue using the scenic loop. Takes effect on May 20.

https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/matt-driscoll/article261496027.html
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on July 08, 2022, 04:48:53 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 04, 2022, 06:20:13 PM
Looks great! Here's hoping we can get those HOV lanes open soon in the next few months.

I'm especially looking forward to a complete auxiliary lane system between the 705 and Portland Ave / River Road exits. There is currently one, but I think the final plan is for two (one to Portland Ave, another to River Road/167).

Didn't take long on the second one! The auxiliary lanes are now open! https://wsdot.wa.gov/about/news/2022/i-5-tacoma-construction-nears-completion-opening-three-new-northbound-lanes
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 08, 2022, 06:25:05 PM
Quote from: stevashe on July 08, 2022, 04:48:53 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 04, 2022, 06:20:13 PM
Looks great! Here's hoping we can get those HOV lanes open soon in the next few months.

I'm especially looking forward to a complete auxiliary lane system between the 705 and Portland Ave / River Road exits. There is currently one, but I think the final plan is for two (one to Portland Ave, another to River Road/167).

Didn't take long on the second one! The auxiliary lanes are now open! https://wsdot.wa.gov/about/news/2022/i-5-tacoma-construction-nears-completion-opening-three-new-northbound-lanes

Just noticed passing through Tacoma last week.

Curiously, I have yet to see that traditional slowdown northbound after Hwy 16 since those lanes opened.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 12, 2022, 06:28:30 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 28, 2022, 11:35:22 AM
Quote from: jay8g on February 27, 2022, 03:02:25 AM
The red-yellow-yellow-yellow-green configuration of the side-mounted signals is certainly rather strange. My best guess is that they were protected-permissive signals using a version of the old Seattle configuration (https://flickr.com/photos/57844255@N03/25674567552/) without a bimodal yellow/green arrow. Of course, if that was the case, that means the overhead left turn signals would have been replaced at some point, and those 3Ms look very old themselves, so who knows...

That's actually quite a good theory, and would explain why the signals appear old enough to have not been retrofitted (thus as they were originally installed, apart from the red arrow). Still, yeah, doesn't quite explain the also-old three-section signals overhead, and also the three-section signals post mounted at some of the intersection (Evergreen @ 4th Ave W has a 5-section signal for the westbound left turn, but a three section signal for the eastbound left turn...could be that only one of the directions was permissive...)

This new video from our favorite historic-footage YouTuber would suggest that these five-section tower signals were, almost certainly, Seattle-style flashing yellow orb signals. Although the actual signal is, frustratingly, not yet installed (see 1:00:25), the video does show flashing yellow orb signals at the three intersections outside the Everett Mall, and they include supplemental signals on the left corner (unlike Seattle installs) (see 1:04:30); given this, I think it's safe to assume that the mystery five-section signals were Seattle-style flashing yellow orb left turn signals. Now, the ones active in the video are four-section with, presumably, bimodal bottoms lenses, but that doesn't mean they didn't attempt to use five section non-bimodal signals at any point during the 80s or 90s.

Unfortunately, I still don't have an explanation for the older 3M signals. My best guess is that Everett made a policy change in the 1990s that dictated a changeover to protected-only phasing at certain key intersections, resulting in not only the change to protected phasing at the intersections with the "mystery" five-section signals, but also those outside the Everett Mall, and probably other locations too. I have to assume the overhead signals were doghouse design, to match the number of lenses on the corner without the verticality of a tower; perhaps to avoid an unusual looking signal, they swapped the doghouse signals for a standard three-lens signal, but simply retrofitted the five-section signals on the corners.

https://youtu.be/QHJ032rcgvo?t=3619
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 13, 2022, 12:57:32 AM
The video also shows some of Everett's unusual traffic signal gantries being installed for the first time on Everett Mall Way. As well as the old SR 99 / SR 525 concurrency that was replaced with an interchange in 2000.

And some historic retail: the original Aurora Village mall, old-style Costco in Lynnwood (now a Business Costco), Dag's on Aurora, Top Food & Drug, Thrifty Foods, The Bon in Everett...
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 19, 2022, 08:09:27 PM
New sign on northbound 167, along the section with the new HOV lane....... https://wsdot.wa.gov/travel/roads-bridges/hov-lanes/hero-program

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52228053766_d59bfcc749_o.jpg)
New HOV HERO sign (https://flic.kr/p/2nzdqMC) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on July 20, 2022, 01:55:55 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 19, 2022, 08:09:27 PM
New sign on northbound 167, along the section with the new HOV lane....... https://wsdot.wa.gov/travel/roads-bridges/hov-lanes/hero-program

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52228053766_d59bfcc749_o.jpg)
New HOV HERO sign (https://flic.kr/p/2nzdqMC) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr

I love it, the plans for the project must have been done before WSDOT decided to end the program and no one caught it. Just goes to show how the long timelines of road projects can lead to signage relics of the past living well beyond their expiration date.

I suppose this brings the number of these signs standing in the wild is now back up to one, assuming they didn't miss any when taking them down originally. Any bets on how long until it's back to zero?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: MisterRoadgeek on July 23, 2022, 07:44:39 PM
Downtown Renton during my visit in October 2021.

(https://i.imgur.com/XHdXCtv.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/mxS2kzP.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/4D7VIdE.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8hxd0GH.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Liohwbk.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/dktKxnh.jpg)

Any updates of this? I don't live in the Pacific Northwest and I'm sort of curious of the downtown redesign.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: MisterRoadgeek on July 23, 2022, 07:47:34 PM
Is this near Auburn?

Quote from: jakeroot on July 19, 2022, 08:09:27 PM
New sign on northbound 167, along the section with the new HOV lane....... https://wsdot.wa.gov/travel/roads-bridges/hov-lanes/hero-program

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52228053766_d59bfcc749_o.jpg)
New HOV HERO sign (https://flic.kr/p/2nzdqMC) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: KEK Inc. on July 25, 2022, 07:20:31 PM
The hero program ended last September.  Why are they putting new signs out?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 25, 2022, 07:49:33 PM
Quote from: MisterRoadgeek on July 23, 2022, 07:44:39 PM
Downtown Renton during my visit in October 2021.
[clipped]
Any updates of this? I don't live in the Pacific Northwest and I'm sort of curious of the downtown redesign.

It is now finished, although there are plans for more extensive street reconstruction. Wells Ave and Williams Ave are both now two-way; that may have been the case when you took your photos, although I can't recall with complete certainty.

I'll take some photos next time I'm downtown.

Quote from: MisterRoadgeek on July 23, 2022, 07:47:34 PM
Is this near Auburn?

Quote from: jakeroot on July 19, 2022, 08:09:27 PM
New sign on northbound 167, along the section with the new HOV lane....... https://wsdot.wa.gov/travel/roads-bridges/hov-lanes/hero-program

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52228053766_d59bfcc749_o.jpg)
New HOV HERO sign (https://flic.kr/p/2nzdqMC) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr

Near Auburn, yes. It's actually Sumner, northbound between WA-410 and the 24th Ave interchange near Sumner's northern border with Pacific.

Quote from: KEK Inc. on July 25, 2022, 07:20:31 PM
The hero program ended last September.  Why are they putting new signs out?

Well, that's exactly why I posted the picture :-D.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on July 25, 2022, 08:00:09 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on July 25, 2022, 07:20:31 PM
The hero program ended last September.  Why are they putting new signs out?

Yeah, that's the joke :)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 25, 2022, 08:06:28 PM
As long as I'm posting Simpsons gifs elsewhere on AARoads...

(https://media3.giphy.com/media/xT9IgHCTfp8CRshfQk/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 26, 2022, 09:50:56 PM
Took this on Sunday from a dock near Madison Park:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52244416745_08c0b65f60_k.jpg)
Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (https://flic.kr/p/2nAEhVX) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: pderocco on July 26, 2022, 09:54:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2022, 07:49:33 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on July 25, 2022, 07:20:31 PM
The hero program ended last September.  Why are they putting new signs out?

Well, that's exactly why I posted the picture :-D.

I was always offended by that "hero" bit. We're all supposed to think it's noble to rat out people who drive illegally in the HOV lane, but there's no equivalent phone line and signage for reporting excessive speeding, spewing smoke, driving with lights off at night, texting, or even DUI. They're trying to relabel a social infraction as a moral outrage. Good riddance.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 26, 2022, 10:39:06 PM
Quote from: pderocco on July 26, 2022, 09:54:52 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2022, 07:49:33 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on July 25, 2022, 07:20:31 PM
The hero program ended last September.  Why are they putting new signs out?

Well, that's exactly why I posted the picture :-D.

I was always offended by that "hero" bit. We're all supposed to think it's noble to rat out people who drive illegally in the HOV lane, but there's no equivalent phone line and signage for reporting excessive speeding, spewing smoke, driving with lights off at night, texting, or even DUI. They're trying to relabel a social infraction as a moral outrage. Good riddance.

911 is the equivalent.

Illegal use of the HOV lane is also heinous in rush hour, since that one selfish person is holding up hundreds of people in carpools and buses. Enforcement should've been automated long ago.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on July 26, 2022, 10:49:54 PM
For excessive speed or DUI in the present moment, there's 911.

And I have used it for both brake lights not working on a 2-lane road.  Unless you've followed someone like that you may not appreciate how much you depend on the lights.  I did say the driver might not have been aware of it and I hope they get a warning or a fix-it ticket rather than a whopping fine.

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 27, 2022, 12:24:21 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 26, 2022, 10:39:06 PM
Illegal use of the HOV lane is also heinous in rush hour, since that one selfish person is holding up hundreds of people in carpools and buses. Enforcement should've been automated long ago.

I'm curious how you think it could best be automated. Even with the toll lanes on 405 and 167, it's entirely honor-system when it comes to drivers following HOV rules, and the 405 has cameras. Toll cameras, of course, but even that system is far from fool-proof, with the only real advantage being able to toll everyone without a toll tag.

Some examples of low HOV compliance I can think of:

* Northbound 1st Ave So. Bridge; I would guess that 75-85 percent of the cars are single occupancy.
* On-ramp to southbound 405 from Maple Valley Hwy; the left lane is HOV 24/7 (unlike the 405's HOV lane) but the ramp meter that it bypasses is almost never active, even during rush hour. Drivers seem to routinely use both lanes when the meter isn't active (including myself once or twice, to be honest).
* Non of the "3+" lanes (520, 405 ETL) seem to be observed. Traffic seems to be largely carpool, but 2 passengers seems like a lot of the traffic.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 01, 2022, 11:34:35 PM
https://twitter.com/theneedling/status/1554305937724153864
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on August 02, 2022, 12:27:36 AM
8 months early.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 02, 2022, 01:32:26 AM
Emmett Watson would be rolling in his grave.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on August 02, 2022, 05:04:40 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 02, 2022, 01:32:26 AM
Emmett Watson would be rolling in his grave.

  :nod:
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on August 02, 2022, 10:37:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 01, 2022, 11:34:35 PM
https://twitter.com/theneedling/status/1554305937724153864
I'd okay with this if it came with state-name shields and cut-out US shields...
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ClassicHasClass on August 03, 2022, 02:06:32 PM
I like it! Paging Caltrans ...
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 13, 2022, 12:46:48 PM
The new HOV lane on northbound 167 has mostly opened. Only the stretch over 410 remains closed.

https://wsdot.wa.gov/about/news/2022/northbound-sr-167-hov-lane-opening-sumner-auburn

Quote from: WSDOT: Northbound SR 167 HOV lane opening from Sumner to Auburn
This afternoon and evening, Graham Contracting, LTD crews working for the Washington State Department of Transportation are opening a 7-mile section of the new northbound SR 167 HOV lane, from Sumner to Auburn. The new HOV lane is expected to be open by 8 p.m. Friday night.

"This is a long-awaited improvement for people commuting on SR 167 in Pierce County,"  said WSDOT Project Engineer Justin Janke. "Opening the new northbound HOV lane will reduce travel times and increase capacity during peak commute hours."
Quote from: WSDOT: Northbound SR 167 HOV lane opening from Sumner to Auburn
While a large section of the HOV lane is now open, one small area at the south end of the project will remain closed through September. Crews are finishing drainage on the northbound SR 167 bridge that spans the SR 410 interchange near Sumner. Once that work is finished, the remaining section of HOV lane will open to travelers.

I've also noticed that the ramp meters have been made into two lanes at a couple spots in Pacific (Ellingson and Stewart Rd).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: myosh_tino on August 19, 2022, 10:42:46 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on August 03, 2022, 02:06:32 PM
I like it! Paging Caltrans ...

That should be "Paging So-Cal". :bigass:

Northern Californians or more specifically S.F. Bay Area residents, despise the "The <insert route number>" terminology when referring to freeways.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on August 19, 2022, 11:06:36 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 19, 2022, 10:42:46 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on August 03, 2022, 02:06:32 PM
I like it! Paging Caltrans ...

That should be "Paging So-Cal". :bigass:

Northern Californians or more specifically S.F. Bay Area residents, despise the "The <insert route number>" terminology when referring to freeways.

:clap:
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 20, 2022, 03:07:46 AM
WSDOT again confirms:

https://twitter.com/wsdot/status/1560293275117924352
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 20, 2022, 12:34:39 PM
Emmett Watson has rolled back over to his normal position.

I hear "the 405" all the time. In my defense, I live within a mile of it.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on August 20, 2022, 12:44:23 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 20, 2022, 12:34:39 PM
Emmett Watson has rolled back over to his normal position.

I hear "the 405" all the time. In my defense, I live within a mile of it.

I hear "405" a fair amount, but "the 405" pretty much never.  Of course I'm about 4 miles from it.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 20, 2022, 01:01:54 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 20, 2022, 12:44:23 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 20, 2022, 12:34:39 PM
Emmett Watson has rolled back over to his normal position.

I hear "the 405" all the time. In my defense, I live within a mile of it.

I hear "405" a fair amount, but "the 405" pretty much never.  Of course I'm about 4 miles from it.

You won't hear it in Seattle. Usage of the definite article within city limits is grounds for expulsion. Unless it relates to a bus line. Because those are "things" but freeways are not...apparently.

Lots of first and second gen immigrants in Renton and Tukwila. They say everything from "405" to "the 405" to "the I-405"; nothing is equally more common, frankly.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on August 20, 2022, 01:33:29 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 20, 2022, 01:01:54 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 20, 2022, 12:44:23 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 20, 2022, 12:34:39 PM
Emmett Watson has rolled back over to his normal position.

I hear "the 405" all the time. In my defense, I live within a mile of it.

I hear "405" a fair amount, but "the 405" pretty much never.  Of course I'm about 4 miles from it.

You won't hear it in Seattle. Usage of the definite article within city limits is grounds for expulsion. Unless it relates to a bus line. Because those are "things" but freeways are not...apparently.

Lots of first and second gen immigrants in Renton and Tukwila. They say everything from "405" to "the 405" to "the I-405"; nothing is equally more common, frankly.

:-D
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 22, 2022, 02:53:35 AM
Saw this sign a few weeks ago near Pothills State Park on SR 262. Are the scenic byways given a separate number?

(https://i.imgur.com/Ejuac3Y.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 22, 2022, 11:46:22 AM
Cool!

What would that be, SRH-10? :-D
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: KEK Inc. on August 22, 2022, 09:30:54 PM
Probably not the case, but did the sunset highway go through there?  I'd assume US-10 went through Moses Lake to the north.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 22, 2022, 09:39:59 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on August 22, 2022, 09:30:54 PM
Probably not the case, but did the sunset highway go through there?  I'd assume US-10 went through Moses Lake to the north.

US 10 was routed basically along modern I-90 + WA 171 + I-90 Business through Moses Lake.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 22, 2022, 05:42:39 PM
The SR 506 overpass is cursed, it seems. Southbound half was recently demolished because it was struck by a truck and had structural issues, and now the northbound half has been struck and damaged.

https://twitter.com/wsdot_sw/status/1573005024963469312
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on September 22, 2022, 09:46:18 PM
I don't suppose while they're rebuilding it they'll build it taller so that it doesn't get run into about once a year?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Henry on September 23, 2022, 12:52:51 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 22, 2022, 09:46:18 PM
I don't suppose while they're rebuilding it they'll build it taller so that it doesn't get run into about once a year?

Yeah, that's exactly what they need to do. Either that or lower the freeway so that this does not happen again.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Algorithm on September 23, 2022, 03:48:12 PM
Well, they were scheduled to set the girders for the south half this weekend, but hopefully that gets postponed now that the whole bridge needs replacing.  Once the new girders are in, any effort to raise the bridge deck becomes a lot harder.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on September 24, 2022, 01:27:36 AM
WSDOT decided to start expansion joint repairs on I-90 at 10 am on a Friday. Predictably, SR 520 and basically most highways around Bellevue were gridlocked for hours.

Apparently some people trying to reach Mercer Island or even I-90 EB from Bellevue Way were stuck for several hours.

https://twitter.com/wsdot_traffic/status/1573506154583699457
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on September 25, 2022, 02:09:35 PM
I was told to take 82 exit 122 and check out old pavement to the south on Bofer Canyon Road. So it's there... you bear left in a mile down a gravel road and there it is to the right of the gate in .4 miles. I drove it and I'm not sure I recommend the same... plant life... who else has been down there?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on September 25, 2022, 03:18:01 PM
Yay for Link light rail fixing the new fare machines!  When first installed in the spring they just beeped, whether you were going into the light rail system or out of it, and without showing anything about your fare balance.  Now it shows whether you were going in or out and what your remaining balance is, so you can see if your automatic debiting of your checking (or whatever) account is working before you get stuck unable to ride.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: pderocco on September 25, 2022, 08:07:35 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 25, 2022, 02:09:35 PM
I was told to take 82 exit 122 and check out old pavement to the south on Bofer Canyon Road. So it's there... you bear left in a mile down a gravel road and there it is to the right of the gate in .4 miles. I drove it and I'm not sure I recommend the same... plant life... who else has been down there?

Wow. In addition to the gravel, four different vintages of pavement (including the Interstate).

They really blew a wad on those frontage roads, with full striping.

I like the way the gravel road snakes through the circular farm fields further down.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on September 25, 2022, 10:24:29 PM
Quote from: pderocco on September 25, 2022, 08:07:35 PM
Quote from: Alps on September 25, 2022, 02:09:35 PM
I was told to take 82 exit 122 and check out old pavement to the south on Bofer Canyon Road. So it's there... you bear left in a mile down a gravel road and there it is to the right of the gate in .4 miles. I drove it and I'm not sure I recommend the same... plant life... who else has been down there?

Wow. In addition to the gravel, four different vintages of pavement (including the Interstate).

They really blew a wad on those frontage roads, with full striping.

I like the way the gravel road snakes through the circular farm fields further down.

The gravel is private really. I am guessing they either ripped out or overlaid the original pavement to the gate.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 07, 2022, 01:49:14 AM
Bellevue is moving forward with its "Grand Connection" plan, which will include a lid over I-405 between 4th and 6th streets in a later phase.

https://downtownbellevue.com/2022/11/11/amazon-matches-city-bellevues-2-5m-commitment-grand-connection-bridge-design/

(https://i.imgur.com/ORFOETP.jpeg)

Also, the Main Street overpass in downtown was partially reopened a few weeks ago. Took five months to rebuild as part of the widening/HOT lanes on I-405.

https://wsdot.wa.gov/about/news/2022/i-405-main-street-overpass-downtown-bellevue-partially-reopen-sunday-nov-20
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 07, 2022, 03:20:00 PM
WSDOT is looking to replace the triangle-shaped junction between US 195 and SR 26 in Colfax. Three design options at this open house (https://engage.wsdot.wa.gov/colfax-bridge-replacement/), which would all involve eliminating the very short and unsigned SR 26 Spur.

Personally, I think the roundabout is the best option.

(https://i.imgur.com/ofoqqd3.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ClassicHasClass on December 07, 2022, 10:26:39 PM
Reminds me of US 730 SPUR (at the US 12 junction).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 07, 2022, 10:57:14 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on December 07, 2022, 10:26:39 PM
Reminds me of US 730 SPUR (at the US 12 junction).

Another endangered route if US 12 is moved to a new alignment as planned in the far future (but not yet funded).

(https://i.imgur.com/Oq0dYKk.png)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ClassicHasClass on December 09, 2022, 11:23:00 AM
Yeah, I was thinking of that project. It's a good move generally though. Not a lot of space for US 12 down there.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Amaury on December 09, 2022, 07:19:02 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 07, 2022, 03:20:00 PMWSDOT is looking to replace the triangle-shaped junction between US 195 and SR 26 in Colfax. Three design options at this open house (https://engage.wsdot.wa.gov/colfax-bridge-replacement/), which would all involve eliminating the very short and unsigned SR 26 Spur.

Personally, I think the roundabout is the best option.

(https://i.imgur.com/ofoqqd3.jpg)

That's by the Chevron there, right? Where there's the narrow bridge with turning restrictions? https://goo.gl/maps/57pGJhH1EVEpDghW8 Personally, I don't see an issue with the current configuration. It's not that busy of a junction.

I didn't know SR 26 had a spur route, though. Is the spur route the road over the bridge?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 09, 2022, 07:42:02 PM
Quote from: Amaury on December 09, 2022, 07:19:02 PM
That's by the Chevron there, right? Where there's the narrow bridge with turning restrictions? https://goo.gl/maps/57pGJhH1EVEpDghW8 Personally, I don't see an issue with the current configuration. It's not that busy of a junction.

I didn't know SR 26 had a spur route, though. Is the spur route the road over the bridge?

The spur route is the western bridge in the junction. Both bridges have to be replaced due to their age and generally being in an inefficient layout. Despite how it looks, it does get rather busy during WSU holidays and gamedays, since SR 26 is the main route for students/fans to get to and from I-90, while US 195 is the way from Spokane.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Amaury on December 09, 2022, 07:47:09 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 09, 2022, 07:42:02 PMDespite how it looks, it does get rather busy during WSU holidays and gamedays, since SR 26 is the main route for students/fans to get to and from I-90, while US 195 is the way from Spokane.

Sounds like University Way here between Main Street and Maple Street when CWU students are moving into their dorms in the early fall and moving out of their dorms, for those who don't stay, in the late spring.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 09, 2022, 10:18:18 PM
Given that it's on a slower section of both routes, I think a roundabout makes sense.

I would prefer they replace the bridge rather than build next to it, as the graphic would suggest. That awkward bend is, well, really awkward. They could keep the other bridge and temporarily reconfigure the northern intersection while they replace the other, permanent bridge.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on February 10, 2023, 02:08:56 AM
Posted this in the Redesigning Interchanges thread, I suppose more people here would find this interesting:

Quote from: jakeroot on February 10, 2023, 02:04:58 AM
Here is a concept for redesigning the I-5 / WA-512 interchange in Lakewood, Washington.

Location: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.1620488,-122.4765356,1446m/data=!3m1!1e3

Currently, the WA-512 freeway ends at a cloverleaf with I-5, with the road continuing to South Tacoma Way. The current freeway has a signalized off-ramp from southbound I-5 to eastbound WA-512, replacing the original loop around 2000. Presently, the westbound 512 freeway gets very backed up approaching I-5 due to weaving from the last westbound on-ramp and the traffic light from southbound I-5.

Long-term plans call for HOV lanes along both I-5 and WA-512, so I developed this future concept with that in mind.

First, and by far most importantly, my concept separates traffic into two corridors, where there is currently one. Traffic destined for South Tacoma Way now exits at Steele St and uses a new road, which I've called South Tacoma Way, to connect to the existing South Tacoma Way (the road will become Pacific Hwy south of existing signal (far left of the image)). Traffic destined for I-5 stays on the existing WA-512, and can use a newly aligned trumpet-style interchange to connect directly with I-5 without interfering with South Tacoma Way traffic. All ramps to and from I-5 will be two lanes, and the westbound to southbound loop will be enlarged from the current loop to improve capacity and safety. Traffic from Steele St, South Tacoma Way, and other nearby roads can directly access I-5 using new ramps.

Second, there are HOV-only ramps at three locations: (1) WA-512 to/from I-5 to the north, (2) WA-512 to/from I-5 to the south, and (3) to/from the park and ride in the southwest quadrant of the existing interchange (Texas T). The HOV ramps between WA-512 and I-5 to the north (#1) are sunken below I-5, and the HOV ramps between WA-512 and I-5 to the south make a 270 degree loop and tie into the WA-512 carriageway. This keeps the entire interchange three levels, but without going above the current maximum clearance, to avoid interfering with the McChord AFB runway approach.

Third, direct-access ramps to Steele St (north south road on far right of image) will be built to connect WA-512 traffic with this important corridor, which ultimately connects to the heavily-used Spanaway Loop Road to the south. The eastbound to southbound ramp would be at the same height as WA-512, with Steele St and South Tacoma Way being elevated, but the northbound to eastbound loop ramp would be built one level below WA-512.

Fourth, demolition would be required in at least two locations: (a) portions of the Lakewood Business Park in the northwest quadrant of the interchange, and (b) businesses south of the existing WA-512 including Kent Gypsum Supply, Corona Steel, 24ResTech, and Harlow Construction.

Feedback would be appreciated.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52679221092_cece4b2dee_o.png)
I-5 @ WA-512 Interchange Concept (https://flic.kr/p/2og5M7C) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on February 13, 2023, 02:53:51 PM
I think this is overall a good interchange design. I like the creative way to separate traffic headed for South Tacoma Way from the I-5/SR 512 interchange. I also appreciate you squeezing in some direct connectors for future HOV lanes, though since your drawing is not to scale, I'm not sure whether they'd actually fit as you've drawn them. I'm also a little worried that the ramp to the P&R being so close would cause a weaving issue.

I do have one concern in that traffic currently backs up on the WB 512 to SB I-5 Ramp due to the tight curve on that loop ramp, which largely remains unchanged in this design. The HOV direct connector would help mitigate this by effectively adding another lane, but still being a loop ramp means the movement will have limited capacity regardless, due to the restricted speed around the tight curve. I see one reason you have for this design is to keep the clearance low for the McChord Field approach, however the interchange is about 4000 feet beyond the start of the approach surface for the runway, which gives a clearance of about 80 feet above the end of the runway at the surface's slope of 50 to 1, which should be more than enough to build a flyover bridge. There are certainly other issues that might make a flyover hard to fit in within the constraints of the interchange, especially without needing to take additional property, so the loop ramp option that you've drawn up still may be the best option.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jay8g on February 28, 2023, 09:31:22 PM
WSDOT released an update to their WSF service restoration plan today (https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/WSF-ServiceRestorationPlan-February2023Update.pdf), in which they say they don't expect to start serving Sidney, BC again until "at least spring 2030". Yikes.

Their February 14th update (https://web.archive.org/web/20230223014326/https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/WSF-ServiceRestorationPlanProgressReport-14February2023.pdf) listed the timelines for the remaining routes as "early 2023" for Fauntleroy/Vashon/Southworth, "spring 2023" for Seattle-Bremerton and Port Townsend-Coupeville, and "not... any sooner than Summer 2023" for Sidney, BC. All of those routes have been pushed back -- fall 2023 for F/V/S (with additional weekday service starting in the spring), October 2023 for Bremerton, and spring 2024 for Port Townsend.

And even those dates seem a little optimistic, since they're still having to cancel trips due to crew issues from time to time, primarily on the Point Defiance-Tahlequah and San Juan Islands routes, in addition to their well-documented shortage of reliable ferries.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on March 01, 2023, 12:43:18 AM
We do have a ferries thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=30325.0
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: webny99 on March 04, 2023, 11:53:40 AM
Random question... why are commercial vehicles (trucks/buses) banned from using the Peach Arch border crossing between BC and Washington? The only information I can find online is that it's been that way since 1970, but no explanation as to why that's the case. Any insight appreciated!
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on March 04, 2023, 12:37:40 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 04, 2023, 11:53:40 AM
Random question... why are commercial vehicles (trucks/buses) banned from using the Peach Arch border crossing between BC and Washington? The only information I can find online is that it's been that way since 1970, but no explanation as to why that's the case. Any insight appreciated!

There's a separate truck customs parallel to the Peace Arch crossing about 1/2 mile east.

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jay8g on March 05, 2023, 02:53:02 AM
The Peace Arch/Douglas (as the Canadian side is called) crossing isn't big enough to handle all the traffic through the area and can't really be expanded because the whole surrounding area is a park on both sides of the border (one where they generally won't hassle you if you cross the border, as long as you stay in the area between the two checkpoints and leave on the side you came from). I'm guessing they moved all commercial vehicles to the Pacific Highway crossing as a convenient way to split up the traffic by forcing commercial vehicles to use the slightly-less-convenient crossing.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 05, 2023, 04:10:53 AM
I think it's also advantageous as removing trucks from the Peace Arch Park area does make the park significantly more enjoyable.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: webny99 on March 05, 2023, 03:05:50 PM
Thanks, that does make sense. I was aware of the nearby truck crossing, but there are plenty of similar examples of two close crossings, so that doesn't seem like a reason to ban trucks. I was also aware of the Peace Arch park, but hadn't considered the impact of the trucks or a potential expansion on the park itself.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 05, 2023, 05:49:52 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 05, 2023, 03:05:50 PM
Thanks, that does make sense. I was aware of the nearby truck crossing, but there are plenty of similar examples of two close crossings, so that doesn't seem like a reason to ban trucks. I was also aware of the Peace Arch park, but hadn't considered the impact of the trucks or a potential expansion on the park itself.

Well, even if they wanted to have trucks, there are no commercial vehicle inspection facilities at Peace Arch / Douglas.

Edit: Which, to be clear, has been a conscious decision with trucks not being allowed. But this allows for more "regular" or NEXUS lanes too, which makes sense since most cars heading to that crossing are coming up I-5 or from BC-99, both freeways. Better to give as much capacity to regular cars as possible, and let trucks detour.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: roadman65 on March 06, 2023, 07:31:12 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/E3bERnVy4MwbTRnLA
What is the blurred out sign supposed to be in the image on I-5 south of customs?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 06, 2023, 08:27:30 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 06, 2023, 07:31:12 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/E3bERnVy4MwbTRnLA
What is the blurred out sign supposed to be in the image on I-5 south of customs?

:-D :-D

That's an art installation:

https://www.americansforthearts.org/by-program/networks-and-councils/public-art-network/public-art-year-in-review-database/non-sign-ii
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: webny99 on March 06, 2023, 12:15:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 05, 2023, 05:49:52 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 05, 2023, 03:05:50 PM
Thanks, that does make sense. I was aware of the nearby truck crossing, but there are plenty of similar examples of two close crossings, so that doesn't seem like a reason to ban trucks. I was also aware of the Peace Arch park, but hadn't considered the impact of the trucks or a potential expansion on the park itself.

Well, even if they wanted to have trucks, there are no commercial vehicle inspection facilities at Peace Arch / Douglas.

Edit: Which, to be clear, has been a conscious decision with trucks not being allowed. But this allows for more "regular" or NEXUS lanes too, which makes sense since most cars heading to that crossing are coming up I-5 or from BC-99, both freeways. Better to give as much capacity to regular cars as possible, and let trucks detour.

Yes, that all makes sense - just interesting that trucks were seemingly allowed prior to 1970, so there must have been a clear decision to reroute all truck traffic. No doubt the standards for commercial vehicle inspection have changed since then and there's probably lot more of it now too.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: roadman65 on March 06, 2023, 01:30:04 PM
I believe the Duty Free Shops are at the truck entryways as well. It looks like the Peace Arch entry has no such stores.

Interesting about that crossing not having commercial vehicle checkpoints in order to keep the park clutter free of semis.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on March 06, 2023, 07:44:53 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 06, 2023, 12:15:05 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 05, 2023, 05:49:52 PM
Quote from: webny99 on March 05, 2023, 03:05:50 PM
Thanks, that does make sense. I was aware of the nearby truck crossing, but there are plenty of similar examples of two close crossings, so that doesn't seem like a reason to ban trucks. I was also aware of the Peace Arch park, but hadn't considered the impact of the trucks or a potential expansion on the park itself.

Well, even if they wanted to have trucks, there are no commercial vehicle inspection facilities at Peace Arch / Douglas.

Edit: Which, to be clear, has been a conscious decision with trucks not being allowed. But this allows for more "regular" or NEXUS lanes too, which makes sense since most cars heading to that crossing are coming up I-5 or from BC-99, both freeways. Better to give as much capacity to regular cars as possible, and let trucks detour.

Yes, that all makes sense - just interesting that trucks were seemingly allowed prior to 1970, so there must have been a clear decision to reroute all truck traffic. No doubt the standards for commercial vehicle inspection have changed since then and there's probably lot more of it now too.

The Wikipedia Article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Highway_15) for WA 543/BC 15, and its sources, seem to imply that trucks were at least discouraged at Peace Arch even before 1970, as they state that before the current routing of SR543 was constructed, the truck route of US 99 "ran east—west along D Street from US 99 to the Pacific Highway border crossing" (the crossing a mile east of Peace Arch that trucks now must use). Said current routing was opened in 1970, so that may have been part of the reason for the truck ban at Peace Arch.

The main reasons as far as I can tell are the lack of space at Peace Arch to accommodate proper truck lanes and inspection areas, and the desire to separate trucks out into their own facility. Even at the Pacific Highway Crossing, the truck lanes split off and take a different route through the customs area.

Incidentally, the other end of I-5 actually has basically the same setup, where trucks are banned from the San Ysidro crossing at the end of I-5 and must use the Otay Mesa crossing to the east.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jay8g on March 06, 2023, 08:12:06 PM
WSDOT posted the RFP for the major I-5 paving project (roughly Downtown to Northgate) today, and included in that were the original ROW plans for the initial construction of I-5 (https://ftp.wsdot.wa.gov/contracts/9793-I5YeslerWaytoNE117thStPavementDeckandExpansionJointsProject/RFP/Appendices/R/R2-ROW-Plans/). These are quite interesting as they show every building that was bought out and torn down to make way for the freeway -- something that's been discussed extensively, but the way it's presented here really makes it clear just how much there used to be where I-5 is now.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: webny99 on March 06, 2023, 09:14:25 PM
Quote from: stevashe on March 06, 2023, 07:44:53 PM
The Wikipedia Article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Highway_15) for WA 543/BC 15, and its sources, seem to imply that trucks were at least discouraged at Peace Arch even before 1970, as they state that before the current routing of SR543 was constructed, the truck route of US 99 "ran east—west along D Street from US 99 to the Pacific Highway border crossing" (the crossing a mile east of Peace Arch that trucks now must use). Said current routing was opened in 1970, so that may have been part of the reason for the truck ban at Peace Arch.

The main reasons as far as I can tell are the lack of space at Peace Arch to accommodate proper truck lanes and inspection areas, and the desire to separate trucks out into their own facility. Even at the Pacific Highway Crossing, the truck lanes split off and take a different route through the customs area.

Interesting, thanks for sharing. That Wikipedia article has more information than the one about the crossing itself, which gave a brief history but lacked in details. Based on that it does seem likely that trucks were discouraged from using the Peace Arch even earlier than 1970.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 07, 2023, 11:54:58 PM
Quote from: jay8g on March 06, 2023, 08:12:06 PM
WSDOT posted the RFP for the major I-5 paving project (roughly Downtown to Northgate) today, and included in that were the original ROW plans for the initial construction of I-5 (https://ftp.wsdot.wa.gov/contracts/9793-I5YeslerWaytoNE117thStPavementDeckandExpansionJointsProject/RFP/Appendices/R/R2-ROW-Plans/). These are quite interesting as they show every building that was bought out and torn down to make way for the freeway -- something that's been discussed extensively, but the way it's presented here really makes it clear just how much there used to be where I-5 is now.

That is amazing. Any idea why those ROW plans were included in that RFP?

I do like the name, "SEA FWY".
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jay8g on March 10, 2023, 01:41:31 AM
I don't know why, but it seems to be typical for WSDOT's design-build RFPs to include historic ROW plans like that. 
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: pderocco on March 10, 2023, 11:14:47 PM
Quote from: jay8g on March 06, 2023, 08:12:06 PM
WSDOT posted the RFP for the major I-5 paving project (roughly Downtown to Northgate) today, and included in that were the original ROW plans for the initial construction of I-5 (https://ftp.wsdot.wa.gov/contracts/9793-I5YeslerWaytoNE117thStPavementDeckandExpansionJointsProject/RFP/Appendices/R/R2-ROW-Plans/). These are quite interesting as they show every building that was bought out and torn down to make way for the freeway -- something that's been discussed extensively, but the way it's presented here really makes it clear just how much there used to be where I-5 is now.

Nice drawings, but too bad they didn't invent color until the late 60s.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: roadman65 on April 11, 2023, 11:27:15 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/ouz9TJ7aJBLQhx577
Why isn't the former Alaskan Way Viaduct in GSV 2016?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: dfilpus on April 11, 2023, 02:16:36 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 11, 2023, 11:27:15 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/ouz9TJ7aJBLQhx577
Why isn't the former Alaskan Way Viaduct in GSV 2016?
Broad Street is well north of the end of the Viaduct. The viaduct went to ground level about Bell and entered the tunnel by Battery Street.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on April 11, 2023, 03:25:23 PM
Quote from: dfilpus on April 11, 2023, 02:16:36 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 11, 2023, 11:27:15 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/ouz9TJ7aJBLQhx577
Why isn't the former Alaskan Way Viaduct in GSV 2016?
Broad Street is well north of the end of the Viaduct. The viaduct went to ground level about Bell and entered the tunnel by Battery Street.
Yeah. Here's a view of the northern end in 2017: https://goo.gl/maps/uCZDnkkLCGy23A5J9
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: roadman65 on April 11, 2023, 03:46:49 PM
I see now where it was.  If you go to the current intersection of 7th Avenue and John Street you can go back to when the original tunnel had its north portal there which now is filled in and leveled.

I'm guessing they just plugged the portals but the old tunnels still remain underground.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 11, 2023, 07:21:12 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 11, 2023, 03:46:49 PM
I'm guessing they just plugged the portals but the old tunnels still remain underground.

I'm not sure if access still remains anywhere (inside a building, a small door, hatch from the street, whatever) but the tunnel was definitely filled in.

Here's the WSDOT page: https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/search-projects/battery-street-tunnel-and-north-surface-streets-complete-july-2021

And an article from KOMO News: https://komonews.com/news/local/old-battery-street-tunnel-now-completely-filled-in-with-viaduct-remnants
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on April 17, 2023, 11:09:17 AM
Article about funding discussions to get several of the proposed mega projects underway.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/gov-inslee-lawmakers-quibble-over-wa-transportation-budget/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on April 18, 2023, 01:44:34 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 11, 2023, 07:21:12 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 11, 2023, 03:46:49 PM
I'm guessing they just plugged the portals but the old tunnels still remain underground.

I'm not sure if access still remains anywhere (inside a building, a small door, hatch from the street, whatever) but the tunnel was definitely filled in.

Here's the WSDOT page: https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/search-projects/battery-street-tunnel-and-north-surface-streets-complete-july-2021 (https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/search-projects/battery-street-tunnel-and-north-surface-streets-complete-july-2021)

And an article from KOMO News: https://komonews.com/news/local/old-battery-street-tunnel-now-completely-filled-in-with-viaduct-remnants (https://komonews.com/news/local/old-battery-street-tunnel-now-completely-filled-in-with-viaduct-remnants)


I still think they missed a trick by not repurposing the tunnels for either new rail projects, or to be the basis for a re-generated Trolley (as the sculpture park destroyed their old base).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on April 18, 2023, 09:38:15 PM
The tunnels didn't go anywhere I (or Metro) would forsee a rail line being built.

When the sculpture park destroyed the trolley's old base there were like a dozen local politicians promising to find a good place for a new one.  Now, crickets.  Sigh.

And it's not just me.  All those cruise ship passengers loved it (and they're planning on 900,000 of them this summer.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on April 23, 2023, 12:33:36 PM
Sort of a moot point at this point, as most of the Trolly Tracks were torn up during the seawall work, or destroyed by building foot bridges on the tracks.  And some of the track re-purposed as Streecar.


But the tunnels would have helped connected the waterfront to Seattle Center, by reducing the grade needed, and could even have housed a station.  Just seems like a waste to me.  Heck, even using it at a connecting road to the waterfront would have been useful.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 23, 2023, 01:01:52 PM
The "official" replacement for the Waterfront Streetcar will be the Central City Connector on 1st Avenue, which isn't the same corridor and is severely delayed due to several SDOT and city council screwups. I don't think we'll ever get full transit up and down Alaskan Way ever again.

The best solution for the cruise terminal might be to just close it and ban them from the Salish Sea. They're awful.

Quote from: TEG24601 on April 23, 2023, 12:33:36 PM
But the tunnels would have helped connected the waterfront to Seattle Center, by reducing the grade needed, and could even have housed a station.  Just seems like a waste to me.  Heck, even using it at a connecting road to the waterfront would have been useful.

There is a new four-lane road being built from Alaskan Way near the aquarium up to Elliott and Western avenues in the viaduct ROW. Had to be done from scratch for obvious reasons, but extending it through the old tunnel would've been expensive and pointless, since it would drive even more truck traffic onto the waterfront.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 23, 2023, 07:57:51 PM
I think the cruise ship terminal is going to be decently well served by the "preferred" Smith Cove Link station.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 23, 2023, 08:20:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 23, 2023, 07:57:51 PM
I think the cruise ship terminal is going to be decently well served by the "preferred" Smith Cove Link station.

I think we're primarily talking about Pier 66, which has no real transit option unless you hoof it all the way up to 3rd and Bell. The options on 1st and 2nd are both commuter-oriented.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 23, 2023, 09:07:02 PM
Quote from: Bruce on April 23, 2023, 08:20:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 23, 2023, 07:57:51 PM
I think the cruise ship terminal is going to be decently well served by the "preferred" Smith Cove Link station.

I think we're primarily talking about Pier 66, which has no real transit option unless you hoof it all the way up to 3rd and Bell. The options on 1st and 2nd are both commuter-oriented.

Oh, my bad. I totally forgot about Pier 66. When I think of cruise ships, I always think of Smith Cove. Which at the moment is possibly even worse than Pier 66.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on April 25, 2023, 02:35:26 AM
Seattle's newest street (Elliott Way) will open this week, and comes complete with an honorary indigenous name: Dzidzilalich (DZEE-dzuh-LAH-leech), the Coast Salish name for their settlement on the shores of Elliott Bay near modern-day Pioneer Square.

More from The Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/new-street-signs-honor-first-name-of-seattles-waterfront-dzidzilalich/

And a map from Waterfront Seattle (https://waterfrontseattle.org/dzidzilalich):

(https://waterfrontseattle.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/images/alaskan-way/2022_1213_WFS_Map_Alaska_Renaming_Dzidzilalich_v8.jpg)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 25, 2023, 03:10:42 AM
I find the Lushootseed name quite funny, in English it's very unique, but the actual meaning ("little crossing-over place") is surprisingly quite bland.

The opposition to the new elevated connection is just bizarre to me. Why does everything have to be on ground level?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Rothman on April 25, 2023, 06:38:56 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 25, 2023, 03:10:42 AM
I find the Lushootseed name quite funny, in English it's very unique, but the actual meaning ("little crossing-over place") is surprisingly quite bland.

The opposition to the new elevated connection is just bizarre to me. Why does everything have to be on ground level?
Because elevated roads are ugly.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on April 25, 2023, 07:44:42 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2023, 06:38:56 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 25, 2023, 03:10:42 AM
I find the Lushootseed name quite funny, in English it's very unique, but the actual meaning ("little crossing-over place") is surprisingly quite bland.

The opposition to the new elevated connection is just bizarre to me. Why does everything have to be on ground level?
Because elevated roads are ugly.

Accidents caused by at-grade connections (eg. car v. train) can be ugly too.

An elevated Japanese-style expressway, which are subjectively ugly by Western standards, Elliott Way is not...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52847109023_b00b3055b5_h.jpg)
Elliott Way Elevated Structure (https://flic.kr/p/2ovVfm8) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on April 26, 2023, 04:23:29 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2023, 06:38:56 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 25, 2023, 03:10:42 AM
I find the Lushootseed name quite funny, in English it's very unique, but the actual meaning ("little crossing-over place") is surprisingly quite bland.

The opposition to the new elevated connection is just bizarre to me. Why does everything have to be on ground level?
Because elevated roads are ugly.
I like elevated roads TBH. Not all infrastructure is gonna be pretty.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: LilianaUwU on April 26, 2023, 04:39:14 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 26, 2023, 04:23:29 AM
I like elevated roads TBH.
We know.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on April 26, 2023, 04:56:32 AM
Quote from: LilianaUwU on April 26, 2023, 04:39:14 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 26, 2023, 04:23:29 AM
I like elevated roads TBH.
We know.
There are tunnels but how dare I mention that in the US.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Rothman on April 26, 2023, 06:48:00 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 26, 2023, 04:23:29 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2023, 06:38:56 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 25, 2023, 03:10:42 AM
I find the Lushootseed name quite funny, in English it's very unique, but the actual meaning ("little crossing-over place") is surprisingly quite bland.

The opposition to the new elevated connection is just bizarre to me. Why does everything have to be on ground level?
Because elevated roads are ugly.
I like elevated roads TBH. Not all infrastructure is gonna be pretty.
So, you like ugly things.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on April 26, 2023, 03:12:56 PM
Quote from: Rothman on April 26, 2023, 06:48:00 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 26, 2023, 04:23:29 AM
Quote from: Rothman on April 25, 2023, 06:38:56 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 25, 2023, 03:10:42 AM
I find the Lushootseed name quite funny, in English it's very unique, but the actual meaning ("little crossing-over place") is surprisingly quite bland.

The opposition to the new elevated connection is just bizarre to me. Why does everything have to be on ground level?
Because elevated roads are ugly.
I like elevated roads TBH. Not all infrastructure is gonna be pretty.
So, you like ugly things.
Stop taking yourself so seriously.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: pderocco on April 27, 2023, 01:47:38 AM
Quote from: Bruce on April 25, 2023, 02:35:26 AM
Seattle's newest street (Elliott Way) will open this week, and comes complete with an honorary indigenous name: Dzidzilalich (DZEE-dzuh-LAH-leech), the Coast Salish name for their settlement on the shores of Elliott Bay near modern-day Pioneer Square.

More from The Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/new-street-signs-honor-first-name-of-seattles-waterfront-dzidzilalich/

They should have used indigenous writing on the sign, instead of the English alphabet. Oh wait...
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on May 09, 2023, 07:52:29 PM
The Battery Street tunnel was old and in need of seismic upgrades if it were to be continued to be used, so I don't think it would have been useful as a street, trolley line, or anything else. Better to just fill it (convenient dumping ground for the demo'd viaduct anyway) and be done with it imo.

If you want more details on the work WSDOT did to fill the tunnel, they have a page on it here: https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/search-projects/battery-street-tunnel-and-north-surface-streets-complete-july-2021
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on May 09, 2023, 08:21:02 PM
From today's Seattle Times: a dispute over lids.

7 acres, 3 lids: Eastside cities want the state to mow the lawn (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/7-acres-3-lids-eastside-cities-want-the-state-to-mow-the-lawn/)

Buried at the end is this interesting nugget: "The Legislature budgeted $200,000 this year to study the impacts of removing some onramps in downtown."

I imagine this would entail some of the problematic ramps like Seneca Street and Union Street that are prone to crashes due to their outdated design and don't actually provide connections that aren't already covered by other ramps.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 10, 2023, 02:25:24 AM
Interesting is an understatement. The Seneca off-ramp is magic coming from the south-end, I'd hate to see it go. The off-ramp to James is decent, but doesn't really connect to where Seneca goes, and the off-ramp to Madison is always busy. Seneca always moves; closing it would just cause further mayhem on the C/D lanes.

I've rarely used the Union off-ramp. I know it's been in the news with the crashes, but that doesn't seem to be a reason to close it. The only good reason might be to reduce weaving in that stretch. But then the only other ramp to downtown there is James St, which is quite a bit further south. Before that, you have to exit at Stewart, which is, likewise, quite a bit further north.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Rothman on May 10, 2023, 06:42:39 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 10, 2023, 02:25:24 AM
Interesting is an understatement. The Seneca off-ramp is magic coming from the south-end, I'd hate to see it go. The off-ramp to James is decent, but doesn't really connect to where Seneca goes, and the off-ramp to Madison is always busy. Seneca always moves; closing it would just cause further mayhem on the C/D lanes.

I've rarely used the Union off-ramp. I know it's been in the news with the crashes, but that doesn't seem to be a reason to close it. The only good reason might be to reduce weaving in that stretch. But then the only other ramp to downtown there is James St, which is quite a bit further south. Before that, you have to exit at Stewart, which is, likewise, quite a bit further north.
On a scale of magic to busy, what is the airspeed of an unladen swallow?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on May 14, 2023, 12:53:55 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 10, 2023, 06:42:39 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 10, 2023, 02:25:24 AM
Interesting is an understatement. The Seneca off-ramp is magic coming from the south-end, I'd hate to see it go. The off-ramp to James is decent, but doesn't really connect to where Seneca goes, and the off-ramp to Madison is always busy. Seneca always moves; closing it would just cause further mayhem on the C/D lanes.

I've rarely used the Union off-ramp. I know it's been in the news with the crashes, but that doesn't seem to be a reason to close it. The only good reason might be to reduce weaving in that stretch. But then the only other ramp to downtown there is James St, which is quite a bit further south. Before that, you have to exit at Stewart, which is, likewise, quite a bit further north.
On a scale of magic to busy, what is the airspeed of an unladen swallow?
South American or Indian?


(Mixing it up a little ;) )
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on May 16, 2023, 08:04:34 PM
SR 504 is blocked near milepost 43 (near Coldwater Ridge) by a landslide. No access to Johnston Ridge Observatory, which was supposed to reopen for the season.

https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/sr-504-coldwater-lake-mount-st-helens-closed-debris-slide/281-6d452110-62d0-4f42-aa97-006444eae332?ref=exit-recirc

https://twitter.com/MtStHelensNVM/status/1658604477912428544

EDIT: WSDOT has some more pictures and a map:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52903315465_e3b8bac584_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oATjyH)
SR 504 Spirit Lake Outlet Bridge - washout (https://flic.kr/p/2oATjyH) by Washington State Dept of Transportation (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52903220400_456c1ac025_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oASQiE)
Drone photo of flooding near the highway along SR 504 (https://flic.kr/p/2oASQiE) by Washington State Dept of Transportation (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52902684652_d9b7aa1383_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oAQ63C)
SR 504 Road Closure Location (https://flic.kr/p/2oAQ63C) by Washington State Dept of Transportation (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Amaury on May 17, 2023, 04:23:15 AM
I took a drive up there on May 22, 2021, my first time being to Johnston Ridge Observatory. I went there again last year and took my mom, which was a little challenging because of her fear of heights. She doesn't like drop-offs in particular where you can look down on the side of the road.

I've been trying to help her on that and have taken her over White Pass, Chinook Pass, Cayuse Pass, Washington Pass, as well as Rainy Pass and the rest of the North Cascades Highway. Luckily, because of where we live, these aren't roads we absolutely have to go over. White Pass westbound is easier for her now, but she can't really do eastbound because of the drop-off being on that side. She said Washington Pass wasn't too bad, other than just before or after the summit, depending on whether you're heading westbound, which is the direction we went, or eastbound. Chinook Pass and Cayuse Pass were really difficult for her. We went westbound and southbound, respectively, but on those, either side is bad for those with a fear of heights.

Sections of Washington State Route 821 are difficult for my mom on the southbound side, but northbound is okay. There's a section of US Route 97 Alternate that's difficult for her northbound because of the drop-off right before the tunnel. Until the last year or two, she didn't even know of mainline US Route 97 on the other side of the Columbia River. Before I started driving about 14 years ago now, anytime we went anywhere in the Chelan area or beyond, we always took US Route 97 Alternate.

When I took my mom to Conconully last year, there was a cliffside on one of the forest roads that I didn't know about when we were circling back to the Okanogan area since I hadn't driven them before. When I went to Conconully by myself back in November 2021, I got stuck on a hill on National Forest Road 42 because there was snow I wasn't expecting there, as there wasn't snow anywhere else other than on Loup Loup Pass, and turned around after some help from the guy who runs the Shady Pines Resort. Anyway, when we went, it was challenging for her. And then she had to help me back up along the cliffside section because there was a truck coming up that I thought was stopped, but was coming up very slowly.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: pderocco on May 20, 2023, 03:19:26 AM
Quote from: Bruce on May 16, 2023, 08:04:34 PM
SR 504 is blocked near milepost 43 (near Coldwater Ridge) by a landslide. No access to Johnston Ridge Observatory, which was supposed to reopen for the season.

Well, it's not the worst mudslide they've ever had.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 22, 2023, 07:37:19 PM
Grading for a new freeway isn't something you see everyday in the 21st century. Now visible on Google Maps...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52918354719_7b1db0cd3f_k.jpg)
I-5 / WA-509 New Freeway Grading (https://flic.kr/p/2oCdpdc) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on May 23, 2023, 12:05:20 AM
Awesome! I love to see more of that.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on May 23, 2023, 02:11:40 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 23, 2023, 12:05:20 AM
Awesome! I love to see more of that.

You definitely will: all of the rest of this freeway, the 167 extension, and the rest of the North Spokane Corridor. And that's just Washington.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on June 05, 2023, 01:05:53 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 10, 2023, 02:25:24 AM
Interesting is an understatement. The Seneca off-ramp is magic coming from the south-end, I'd hate to see it go. The off-ramp to James is decent, but doesn't really connect to where Seneca goes, and the off-ramp to Madison is always busy. Seneca always moves; closing it would just cause further mayhem on the C/D lanes.

I've rarely used the Union off-ramp. I know it's been in the news with the crashes, but that doesn't seem to be a reason to close it. The only good reason might be to reduce weaving in that stretch. But then the only other ramp to downtown there is James St, which is quite a bit further south. Before that, you have to exit at Stewart, which is, likewise, quite a bit further north.

The state is spending not a little money to widen northbound I-5 at Seneca by inches to add another lane here.  If they were going to close Seneca anyway they could have saved a lot of money because they could have used its exit-only lane.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on June 05, 2023, 11:58:18 PM
I used to take the Union St. exit from southbound I-5 fairly regularly, when we had season tickets to the 5th Avenue Theatre and would drive there.  The exit is safe enough if you follow the recommended speed for the curve.  But if you go bombing along the exit ramp at 60 and around the curve, yes, you'll have to do a panic stop to avoid hitting stopped traffic on the surface streets.

When the light rail extension to Northgate opened, it became the easier and more reliable way of getting downtown for shows.  You never know when I-5 will be a parking lot for an hour.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on June 09, 2023, 05:09:34 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on June 05, 2023, 01:05:53 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 10, 2023, 02:25:24 AM
Interesting is an understatement. The Seneca off-ramp is magic coming from the south-end, I'd hate to see it go. The off-ramp to James is decent, but doesn't really connect to where Seneca goes, and the off-ramp to Madison is always busy. Seneca always moves; closing it would just cause further mayhem on the C/D lanes.

I've rarely used the Union off-ramp. I know it's been in the news with the crashes, but that doesn't seem to be a reason to close it. The only good reason might be to reduce weaving in that stretch. But then the only other ramp to downtown there is James St, which is quite a bit further south. Before that, you have to exit at Stewart, which is, likewise, quite a bit further north.

The state is spending not a little money to widen northbound I-5 at Seneca by inches to add another lane here.  If they were going to close Seneca anyway they could have saved a lot of money because they could have used its exit-only lane.

....they did use the exit-only lane! Said widening project just allows you the choice to continue on I-5 instead of being forced to exit at Seneca when in that lane. The area that needed to be slightly widened is after the Seneca exit, which only had 2 thru lanes.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 10, 2023, 02:00:35 AM
Quote from: stevashe on June 09, 2023, 05:09:34 PM
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on June 05, 2023, 01:05:53 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on May 10, 2023, 02:25:24 AM
Interesting is an understatement. The Seneca off-ramp is magic coming from the south-end, I'd hate to see it go. The off-ramp to James is decent, but doesn't really connect to where Seneca goes, and the off-ramp to Madison is always busy. Seneca always moves; closing it would just cause further mayhem on the C/D lanes.

I've rarely used the Union off-ramp. I know it's been in the news with the crashes, but that doesn't seem to be a reason to close it. The only good reason might be to reduce weaving in that stretch. But then the only other ramp to downtown there is James St, which is quite a bit further south. Before that, you have to exit at Stewart, which is, likewise, quite a bit further north.

The state is spending not a little money to widen northbound I-5 at Seneca by inches to add another lane here.  If they were going to close Seneca anyway they could have saved a lot of money because they could have used its exit-only lane.

....they did use the exit-only lane! Said widening project just allows you the choice to continue on I-5 instead of being forced to exit at Seneca when in that lane. The area that needed to be slightly widened is after the Seneca exit, which only had 2 thru lanes.

I wasn't sure what they did either way. The diagram online is a bit misleading, seems to show an exit-only lane for Seneca in the future configuration, though to their credit, they removed the lane lines suggesting a shared through-exit lane:

https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/search-projects/i-5-nb-seneca-sr-520-mobility-improvements
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on June 13, 2023, 01:02:48 AM
That diagram definitely leaves a lot to be desired... but I looked through the actual plans for the project a while ago and confirmed that the exit only to Seneca will be a thru lane when the project is completed.

...though I was also making a little bit of a jab at how it was seemingly missed that using the exit only lane in itself doesn't fix the problem -- the segment that was too small and needed to be widened to add the extra lane was after the Seneca exit.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jay8g on June 18, 2023, 04:31:52 AM
You're sort of both right... there's going to be a short exit only lane for Seneca starting just after the express lanes off ramp. See page 90 of this plan set (https://ftp.wsdot.wa.gov/contracts/9622-NBSenecaStVictoSR520MobilityImprovements/Plans%20&%20Specifications/9622_NBSenecaSTVICToSR520MobilityImprovementsPlansVol%201.pdf). That's why the section south of the exit was widened too. (But for some reason, the new signs [page 20 (https://ftp.wsdot.wa.gov/contracts/9622-NBSenecaStVictoSR520MobilityImprovements/Plans%20&%20Specifications/9622_NBSenecaSTVICToSR520MobilityImprovementsPlansVol%202.pdf)] ignore the exit only lane.)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 18, 2023, 06:35:33 AM
Can anyone comment on the second unused bridge adjacent to the Wakefield Road Bridge over the Chehalis River near Elma? Seems to have been used at point, but clearly not anymore:

https://goo.gl/maps/sE349wvpGzdu7TGa9

It's a pretty major bridge to just be sitting there unused. Incredibly, there is no Street View, otherwise I would just check the date stamps (assuming there were any).

Street Maps from the 1980s (https://historicaerials.com/location/46.982726374346804/-123.41194518650822/T1963/16) show the road widening to two separate carriageways as it passed over the river, indicating that both bridges must have been used at some point.

Some details I've mustered together:

(1) There used to be a Milwaukee Road railway immediately to the south, between the bridge/river and the east-west roadway (Lambert Rd to the west, Bank Rd to the east), but it seems to have been removed (physically) sometime in the 1990s.

(2) Wakefield Road used to end at Lambert Rd/Bank Rd, rather than continuing as a curve as we see today. The road used to split right before crossing over the Chehalis River, onto both bridges, before meeting the east-west road at a T-intersection. Old imagery (https://historicaerials.com/location/46.98127711075863/-123.4124625456886/1981/18) would suggest it was a fairly major intersection, possibly even signalized. There are loads of RxR markings in imagery, so it was at least a signalized rail crossing.

My guess is that the bridge was closed because it wasn't worth maintaining, a fairly unusual circumstance in the highway system.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: pderocco on June 18, 2023, 06:55:52 PM
Bing has Streetside for it.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 18, 2023, 07:15:27 PM
Quote from: pderocco on June 18, 2023, 06:55:52 PM
Bing has Streetside for it.

Yes,....yes it does. I always forget about Bing Maps.

It does help to confirm that it's not a case of "old bridge replaced by adjacent newer bridge"; visually they seem similar (identical?) in age, likely built at the same time to replace the original crossing.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: pderocco on June 19, 2023, 11:49:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 18, 2023, 07:15:27 PM
Quote from: pderocco on June 18, 2023, 06:55:52 PM
Bing has Streetside for it.

Yes,....yes it does. I always forget about Bing Maps.

It does help to confirm that it's not a case of "old bridge replaced by adjacent newer bridge"; visually they seem similar (identical?) in age, likely built at the same time to replace the original crossing.

That's the way it looks to me, although I think the guardrails on the active side are newer and beefier.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on June 20, 2023, 12:35:31 AM
Quote from: pderocco on June 19, 2023, 11:49:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 18, 2023, 07:15:27 PM
Quote from: pderocco on June 18, 2023, 06:55:52 PM
Bing has Streetside for it.

Yes,....yes it does. I always forget about Bing Maps.

It does help to confirm that it's not a case of "old bridge replaced by adjacent newer bridge"; visually they seem similar (identical?) in age, likely built at the same time to replace the original crossing.

That's the way it looks to me, although I think the guardrails on the active side are newer and beefier.

Agreed, looks like the western crossing's guardrails were replaced at some point. Perhaps around the time the original bridge was closed, which seems to have been a long time ago now.

For anyone else interested, the Bing Streetside imagery (https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=7524ab5c-4ce9-401b-bce0-2aa8ea5a390f&cp=46.981954~-123.412687&lvl=15.404811&dir=166.91885&pi=-12.317999&style=x&imgid=ce78e28c-876d-4bae-b288-93e648d3c80e&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027) in question.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on June 29, 2023, 12:40:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 20, 2023, 12:35:31 AM
Quote from: pderocco on June 19, 2023, 11:49:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 18, 2023, 07:15:27 PM
Quote from: pderocco on June 18, 2023, 06:55:52 PM
Bing has Streetside for it.

Yes,....yes it does. I always forget about Bing Maps.

It does help to confirm that it's not a case of "old bridge replaced by adjacent newer bridge"; visually they seem similar (identical?) in age, likely built at the same time to replace the original crossing.

That's the way it looks to me, although I think the guardrails on the active side are newer and beefier.

Agreed, looks like the western crossing's guardrails were replaced at some point. Perhaps around the time the original bridge was closed, which seems to have been a long time ago now.

For anyone else interested, the Bing Streetside imagery (https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=7524ab5c-4ce9-401b-bce0-2aa8ea5a390f&cp=46.981954~-123.412687&lvl=15.404811&dir=166.91885&pi=-12.317999&%20class=bbc_link%20target=_blank%20rel=noopener) in question.


I'd be more than happy to do some recon on my next trip to Portland.  It isn't too far out of the way, and if they followed normal procedures, it should have a date stamp on the bridges.


There historic aerials do make it look like it was a dual carriageway at one point, and the streetside shows a massive shoulder on the North side of the river.  I also see some sort of structure on the SB roadway in the old images, maybe indicating a toll was needed at one point.


What is interesting, is the oldest image shows an entirely different layout to Wakefield Rd. and the bridge, with railroads on both the north and south sides of the river.  Makes me wonder if there was a flood that took out the old bridge.  They built a new bridge quickly that either wasn't adequate or safe for newer traffic (remember that truck traffic and their load sized increased dramatically between 1950 and 1980, see a lot of early freeway and interstate overpasses), so they built a new bridge to accommodate.  Eventually the new bridge was enough to handle the traffic, as other roads were upgraded and changed, and they put the older bridge to pasture, but the county doesn't have the money for demolition, or it is too close to be done easily.


Edit:  I did some recon on Google Maps, and found the Satsop Park, to the west on Lambert.  This was going to be two nuclear power stations (WNP-3 and WNP-5) - https://goo.gl/maps/LTCaVAHH1Q5Sv25v7
It is likely that the twinned bridges were there to facilitate the heavy loads for construction, and the heavy loads for fuel deliveries, as SR-8/US 12 would have likely been the preferred transport route, as US 12 between I-5 and SR-8 would not have been ideal.  When the project was cancelled, they likely just closed one bridge, as they didn't need to maintain two.  That was also likely around the time the intersection was realigned.  Oddly, I don't see that there was ever a rail spur to the facility, which would have made much of these changes moot.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 01, 2023, 12:18:13 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on June 29, 2023, 12:40:48 PM
Edit:  I did some recon on Google Maps, and found the Satsop Park, to the west on Lambert.  This was going to be two nuclear power stations (WNP-3 and WNP-5) - https://goo.gl/maps/LTCaVAHH1Q5Sv25v7
It is likely that the twinned bridges were there to facilitate the heavy loads for construction, and the heavy loads for fuel deliveries, as SR-8/US 12 would have likely been the preferred transport route, as US 12 between I-5 and SR-8 would not have been ideal.  When the project was cancelled, they likely just closed one bridge, as they didn't need to maintain two.  That was also likely around the time the intersection was realigned.  Oddly, I don't see that there was ever a rail spur to the facility, which would have made much of these changes moot.

I'm really glad you noticed the Satsop Nuclear Plant, I totally missed that it was right around the corner. It seems highly likely to me that the twin bridges in question were related to either the construction and/or usage of the nuclear plant, as there would have likely been a huge amount of traffic coming and going from that area. That may also explain why there seems to have been a traffic light or major intersection at its southern terminus with Lambert Road; with all the trucks and cars coming/going from the plant, it was likely a busy intersection for a while.

This likely also explains why Wakefield Road is the way it is at all. From 1973 imagery (available to the north), it seems that Wakefield, the twin bridges over the Chehalis River, and the interchange at US-12 (which was once signalized (https://goo.gl/maps/uwBxx9MAU8c2u7JH6)) were all built at the same time, with everything opening by around 1973-1974. This infrastructure work preceded construction of the nuclear plant by just a few years.

So, it seems without question that the Satsop Nuclear Plant is the reason for the twin bridges.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 04, 2023, 09:38:37 PM
Governor Inslee suggests that the state should install speed-enforcement cameras to state highways (including freeways) due to an increase in fatalities, most caused by speed.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/gov-inslee-install-speed-enforcement-cameras-on-state-highways/

Long overdue since there's not a lot of interest in using humans to enforce road laws now.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 04, 2023, 10:58:56 PM
Yep, obviously the way to curb fatalities on our roadways is to ticket commuters. Problem solved!

I'm fine with speed cameras, but they need to be like the ones here in Japan where (a) they take a front picture (with a face) so you can be ticketed, rather than parking-type infractions that can be ignored, and (b) lots of tolerance, so we aren't ticketing regular speeders who are just going over the speed limit like everyone already does. Here in Japan, I think the cameras have a 30 km/h tolerance, thereabouts.

I am 100% in favor of speed cameras in construction zones, people screw around in those way too often. Not much cameras can do about drunk drivers, though, and it seems DUI's cause a lot of the pain in construction zones (especially whacking into those rear-mounted attenuators).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on July 05, 2023, 09:33:01 AM
I said it a hundred times on this forum before and I'll say it for the 101st time, ban all automated enforcement with school and work zone exceptions.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: vdeane on July 05, 2023, 11:07:32 AM
I'm fine with speed cameras with a low tolerance, provided of course that the limit is raised close to what the enforcement threshold presently is.  It would end the ambiguity of "what is the real speed limit rather than the posted one?".  And cameras are probably the only way to get people comfortable with the idea of the signed limit being the actual limit, given the impression of "if you raise the limit to 75, everyone will just go 90".
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 05, 2023, 05:54:48 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 05, 2023, 09:33:01 AM
I said it a hundred times on this forum before and I'll say it for the 101st time, ban all automated enforcement with school and work zone exceptions.

I would say those are places where automated enforcement should be focused, but I do understand the occasional speed camera. It's just the "plaster them up and down every freeway" style of installation that screams money-grab.

Quote from: vdeane on July 05, 2023, 11:07:32 AM
I'm fine with speed cameras with a low tolerance, provided of course that the limit is raised close to what the enforcement threshold presently is.  It would end the ambiguity of "what is the real speed limit rather than the posted one?".  And cameras are probably the only way to get people comfortable with the idea of the signed limit being the actual limit, given the impression of "if you raise the limit to 75, everyone will just go 90".

I think raising speed limits is possibly an option if you don't want high tolerance with speed cameras, but that's asking a lot of whatever agency is responsible. Back in WA, we raised freeway limits to 60 urban/70 rural back in the late 1990s...and they haven't increased since. And I'm not referring to the numbers themselves; actual lane-mileage of freeway posted at 60 or 70 is likely the same as it was then, with only new freeways adding to that mileage rather than roads with increased limits.

Here in Japan, many freeways ("expressways") are posted at 80 km/h (at least those managed by NEXCO West). While irritating, there is a lot of tolerance, so traffic flow will be around 20 km/h over the limit. Understanding this, they seem to have set the cameras to ticket at either 110 or 120 (I said 30 km/h over before, but I did more asking around it seems it is higher than this, maybe around 40 or 50 over) so as to not ticket your average Hiroshi just driving to work who, like everyone, drives around 100-105 km/h. No need to increase the limit, but only the crazy drivers get ticketed as should be the case anyways.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ClassicHasClass on July 05, 2023, 08:37:16 PM
And then there are Australian speed cameras. At least in NSW, don't be a single km/h over, or you'll get nailed ("HEAVY FINES AND LOSS OF LICENCE").
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on July 05, 2023, 09:01:04 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on July 05, 2023, 08:37:16 PM
And then there are Australian speed cameras. At least in NSW, don't be a single km/h over, or you'll get nailed ("HEAVY FINES AND LOSS OF LICENCE").
Just out of curiosity, what happens when one with an international license gets nabbed? Do they just pay money? Do we still get points?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on July 06, 2023, 11:46:19 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 05, 2023, 05:54:48 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 05, 2023, 11:07:32 AM
I'm fine with speed cameras with a low tolerance, provided of course that the limit is raised close to what the enforcement threshold presently is.  It would end the ambiguity of "what is the real speed limit rather than the posted one?".  And cameras are probably the only way to get people comfortable with the idea of the signed limit being the actual limit, given the impression of "if you raise the limit to 75, everyone will just go 90".

I think raising speed limits is possibly an option if you don't want high tolerance with speed cameras, but that's asking a lot of whatever agency is responsible. Back in WA, we raised freeway limits to 60 urban/70 rural back in the late 1990s...and they haven't increased since. And I'm not referring to the numbers themselves; actual lane-mileage of freeway posted at 60 or 70 is likely the same as it was then, with only new freeways adding to that mileage rather than roads with increased limits.

If anything, WSDOT has lowered speed limits. One example I know of is expanding the 60 mph zone on I-5 north from Marysville to Smokey Point in 2005. (Article (https://www.seattlepi.com/local/transportation/article/I-5-speed-limit-being-cut-near-Marysville-1176538.php))
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ClassicHasClass on July 06, 2023, 12:54:26 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 05, 2023, 09:01:04 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on July 05, 2023, 08:37:16 PM
And then there are Australian speed cameras. At least in NSW, don't be a single km/h over, or you'll get nailed ("HEAVY FINES AND LOSS OF LICENCE").
Just out of curiosity, what happens when one with an international license gets nabbed? Do they just pay money? Do we still get points?

Pretty sure you just pay money, but never want to find out! I don't think there are any reciprocal arrangements between the USA and Australia on traffic offenses, though IANAL. This site (https://driverabroad.com/self-drive/foreign-speeding-and-parking-fines/) claims, "For unpaid fines issued to foreign drivers, a local decision will be taken on what further action to take."
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 07, 2023, 01:11:03 AM
Quote from: stevashe on July 06, 2023, 11:46:19 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 05, 2023, 05:54:48 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 05, 2023, 11:07:32 AM
I'm fine with speed cameras with a low tolerance, provided of course that the limit is raised close to what the enforcement threshold presently is.  It would end the ambiguity of "what is the real speed limit rather than the posted one?".  And cameras are probably the only way to get people comfortable with the idea of the signed limit being the actual limit, given the impression of "if you raise the limit to 75, everyone will just go 90".

I think raising speed limits is possibly an option if you don't want high tolerance with speed cameras, but that's asking a lot of whatever agency is responsible. Back in WA, we raised freeway limits to 60 urban/70 rural back in the late 1990s...and they haven't increased since. And I'm not referring to the numbers themselves; actual lane-mileage of freeway posted at 60 or 70 is likely the same as it was then, with only new freeways adding to that mileage rather than roads with increased limits.

If anything, WSDOT has lowered speed limits. One example I know of is expanding the 60 mph zone on I-5 north from Marysville to Smokey Point in 2005. (Article (https://www.seattlepi.com/local/transportation/article/I-5-speed-limit-being-cut-near-Marysville-1176538.php))

Gotta love WSP, "We're going to be out there enforcing that 60-mph speed limit like nobody's business" ... lower the limit and crank up enforcement? Talk about a way to lose favor with drivers.

I think the stretch of I-5 south of Bellingham was lowered as well, though I'm not sure when. My only reason for thinking so is that I seem to recall one or two speed limit signs with white-out, and some advisory "60" signs for some curves (which would imply a higher limit).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 07, 2023, 01:20:45 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 07, 2023, 01:11:03 AM
I think the stretch of I-5 south of Bellingham was lowered as well, though I'm not sure when. My only reason for thinking so is that I seem to recall one or two speed limit signs with white-out, and some advisory "60" signs for some curves (which would imply a higher limit).

The Nuelle Road to Bellingham section was apparently lowered from 65 to 60 in 1996, per this newspaper article: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-bellingham-herald-i-5-speed-limit-ta/127772702/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on July 07, 2023, 01:24:05 AM
The mountainous stretch south of Bellingham has been posted at 60 for quite a while.  It seems like it's designed to a lower speed - sharper curves, narrower shoulders, tendency toward mudslides and snow in the winter, trees close to the roadway that can fall across it.  I'm sure it has been 60 for at least 20 years because I remember my mom complaining about getting a ticket there and the officer telling her it's accident-prone.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 07, 2023, 08:56:47 AM
Quote from: Bruce on July 07, 2023, 01:20:45 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 07, 2023, 01:11:03 AM
I think the stretch of I-5 south of Bellingham was lowered as well, though I'm not sure when. My only reason for thinking so is that I seem to recall one or two speed limit signs with white-out, and some advisory "60" signs for some curves (which would imply a higher limit).

The Nuelle Road to Bellingham section was apparently lowered from 65 to 60 in 1996, per this newspaper article: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-bellingham-herald-i-5-speed-limit-ta/127772702/

That's quite intriguing, I was not aware that WA adopted 65 limits (as permitted since the late 80s) prior to the NMSL repeal. For whatever reason, I always thought 55 was the maximum limit until 1996, with that being the year WA adopted the present 60/70 limits.

Edit: the whited-out speed limit signs seem to have lasted into the mid 2010s, as seen here (zoom in): https://goo.gl/maps/ApqxrEf943CDj9VG9
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on July 07, 2023, 11:46:04 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 05, 2023, 09:33:01 AM
I said it a hundred times on this forum before and I'll say it for the 101st time, ban all automated enforcement with school and work zone exceptions.


School Zones shouldn't exist in most cases.  If no one walks to school, no school zone.  School Zones make it seem like kids are more important than other pedestrians, when that simply isn't true, and shouldn't be treated that way.  Parents driving their kids to school are the worst offenders, too.


In most cases, speed limits are pointless, as people will drive what they feel comfortable driving.  We need better designed roads, that either cater to moving traffic, or impeding traffic to slow them down.  A sign will not slow enough people down, we don't have cops to enforce it, and state law prohibits the use of still cameras for enforcement (meaning tons of storage required).  Better to redesign the roads to fix the problems, than cause yet another issue for the courts to hash out.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 07, 2023, 02:13:16 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 07, 2023, 11:46:04 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 05, 2023, 09:33:01 AM
I said it a hundred times on this forum before and I'll say it for the 101st time, ban all automated enforcement with school and work zone exceptions.


School Zones shouldn't exist in most cases.  If no one walks to school, no school zone.  School Zones make it seem like kids are more important than other pedestrians, when that simply isn't true, and shouldn't be treated that way.  Parents driving their kids to school are the worst offenders, too.


In most cases, speed limits are pointless, as people will drive what they feel comfortable driving.  We need better designed roads, that either cater to moving traffic, or impeding traffic to slow them down.  A sign will not slow enough people down, we don't have cops to enforce it, and state law prohibits the use of still cameras for enforcement (meaning tons of storage required).  Better to redesign the roads to fix the problems, than cause yet another issue for the courts to hash out.

School zones are 100% necessary, but yes they need to be designed to slow drivers down to the desired limit. Kids are at higher risk than other pedestrians because they are small and lack common sense, so the risk of a driver not seeing them is high. There should be an automatic road diet around schools and a ban on no-walk rules (which is the case for many schools around the state), along with priority for new sidewalks around schools. Individual vehicles picking up/dropping off/driving to/from schools should also be limited to what is absolutely necessary, as there's just far too many of them.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 07, 2023, 05:56:37 PM
I also agree that school zones are 100% necessary, but the speed needs to seem reasonable in comparison to the design speed of the road. Asking drivers to go 20 on a road normally posted at 40+ may be okay if it's a smaller road with some curves in it, but not a major 4+ lane arterial.

In Puyallup, where I grew up and went to school, we use flashing school speed zones but only on two lane roads. Roads that were like below only ever received 'when children are present' signage because, let's be honest, no one is going to observe 20 on this road. The normal limit is 40 (raised from 35 around 2012 when the road was widened). The school (Woodland ES) is at the valley of the road on the center-left of the image. It's unfortunate the only way to access the school is from this road, because speeds on this road, even during hours when children were very visible coming/going from school, were not anywhere near 20.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53030566893_6d6047e788_o.png)
School Zone "20" on 112 St E, Puyallup, WA (https://flic.kr/p/2oN8vYR) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr (Google Street View) (https://goo.gl/maps/t1xrDTgeF8UoyNvT9)

Speaking of school zones, Puyallup also never posted school zones at high schools. Was this common elsewhere in the state?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on July 07, 2023, 06:57:47 PM
Same idea on Powell Blvd here in Portland for Cleveland High and Kellogg Middle, though it's been within the last few years Portland's convinced ODOT to post school zones for both, linked to the remodel and rebuild of both schools, respectively. Another note, Powell, which is a four lane artery west of I-205, used to be 35 but is now 30.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on July 11, 2023, 11:30:13 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 07, 2023, 05:56:37 PM
I also agree that school zones are 100% necessary, but the speed needs to seem reasonable in comparison to the design speed of the road. Asking drivers to go 20 on a road normally posted at 40+ may be okay if it's a smaller road with some curves in it, but not a major 4+ lane arterial.

In Puyallup, where I grew up and went to school, we use flashing school speed zones but only on two lane roads. Roads that were like below only ever received 'when children are present' signage because, let's be honest, no one is going to observe 20 on this road. The normal limit is 40 (raised from 35 around 2012 when the road was widened). The school (Woodland ES) is at the valley of the road on the center-left of the image. It's unfortunate the only way to access the school is from this road, because speeds on this road, even during hours when children were very visible coming/going from school, were not anywhere near 20.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53030566893_6d6047e788_o.png)
School Zone "20" on 112 St E, Puyallup, WA (https://flic.kr/p/2oN8vYR) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr (Google Street View) (https://goo.gl/maps/t1xrDTgeF8UoyNvT9)

Speaking of school zones, Puyallup also never posted school zones at high schools. Was this common elsewhere in the state?

Bellevue also does not have school zones at high schools, or even middle schools. Just Elementary. Looks like Kirkland doesn't have them at high schools either.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: ErmineNotyours on July 11, 2023, 08:32:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 05, 2023, 09:01:04 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on July 05, 2023, 08:37:16 PM
And then there are Australian speed cameras. At least in NSW, don't be a single km/h over, or you'll get nailed ("HEAVY FINES AND LOSS OF LICENCE").
Just out of curiosity, what happens when one with an international license gets nabbed? Do they just pay money? Do we still get points?

I sped past a speed camera in British Columbia in 1999 and saw the flash, but never got a ticket.  They never even hassled me at the border about it, and by now it's been decades since I had that license plate.  I never had a chance to drive over a photo license toll facility in British Columbia.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 12, 2023, 08:02:14 PM
Here's an overhead shot of the new SR-9 roundabouts in Lake Stevens. Picture is from Facebook, apparently from the Snohomish County Scanner group.

I've heard things are actually flowing pretty well.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53041901976_72aa75e5c9_o.jpg)
SR-9 Lake Stevens Roundabouts (https://flic.kr/p/2oP8Bvj) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 12, 2023, 08:26:34 PM
Drove through a few times since it opened and it has been smooth, and much better than the old setup (which made getting from the Safeway to SR 9 or SR 204 a pain). Just need to watch for drivers who don't know how to use a roundabout.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 12, 2023, 09:21:51 PM
Quote from: Bruce on July 12, 2023, 08:26:34 PM
Drove through a few times since it opened and it has been smooth, and much better than the old setup (which made getting from the Safeway to SR 9 or SR 204 a pain). Just need to watch for drivers who don't know how to use a roundabout.

Glad to hear it's working well, I will admit I was worried. That's a lot of roundabouts in a small space.

I am patiently waiting to see which entry or which circulatory area is reduced to one lane first. It always happens; at Sharpes Corner, it was the second left turn lane WB to SB that was eliminated.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on July 12, 2023, 11:10:59 PM
What is up with Davies road? That road should've been removed.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 12, 2023, 11:27:36 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 12, 2023, 11:10:59 PM
What is up with Davies road? That road should've been removed.

It's a service road that is needed for several businesses and also provides a way to get thru-drivers out of the Safeway shopping center.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on July 13, 2023, 12:50:50 AM
Quote from: Bruce on July 12, 2023, 11:27:36 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 12, 2023, 11:10:59 PM
What is up with Davies road? That road should've been removed.

It's a service road that is needed for several businesses and also provides a way to get thru-drivers out of the Safeway shopping center.
Then why not just build a controlled access road then? Otherwise extend the driveways to the main road. Idk... I don't know this area but just looking at that photos makes me think there is a lot of overbuilt infrastructure there.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 13, 2023, 12:59:51 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 13, 2023, 12:50:50 AM
Quote from: Bruce on July 12, 2023, 11:27:36 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 12, 2023, 11:10:59 PM
What is up with Davies road? That road should've been removed.

It's a service road that is needed for several businesses and also provides a way to get thru-drivers out of the Safeway shopping center.
Then why not just build a controlled access road then? Otherwise extend the driveways to the main road. Idk... I don't know this area but just looking at that photos makes me think there is a lot of overbuilt infrastructure there.

I think your issue is actually Vernon Road, the frontage road along Hwy 9 that goes left-right in the image. Davies Road is the small road that disappears off the bottom right of the image:

https://goo.gl/maps/gzPwiP3VwaBHMHK97

Vernon Road south of Davies Road is a little harder to justify now that Davies has a direct connection with Hwy 9. There was previously just a mini roundabout where Vernon and Davies met, and Hwy 9 was an adjacent but disconnected facility. It seems like a couple of driveways could have been built to directly connect the pub and the gas station to Hwy 9. Barring that, they certainly didn't need to build such a huge road, or could have made it one-way.




My main qualm is actually with the slip lanes, why are there so many? Apart from SB Hwy 9 to WB Hwy 204, none of them seem particularly crucial.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Amaury on July 14, 2023, 07:21:47 PM
Doesn't seem to be quite as bad as what happened on SR 504, thankfully, but it's still bad.

https://www.yoursourceone.com/columbia_basin/wsdot-details-damage-caused-by-mudslide-on-us-2-near-coulee-city-and-everything-else/article_28a6814e-2281-11ee-a19f-d3d1adea8bca.html

https://www.facebook.com/WSDOT/posts/pfbid02Z2JW5VDUEYxo9YQMTfA117R5YNfDTswHmNArkHLa4bu5z5uxcqLGoUC4mZpXefFxl

My mom and I drove to Waterville on June 19, though we came back the way we went there and back down through the canyon, so we never actually drove that stretch. The last time I drove the stretch that is now closed was when I took my drive to Mansfield on April 4. Of course everything was just peachy then.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: roadman65 on July 17, 2023, 03:16:29 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/2BkFgWfTkQVqdNPb7
What does that milepost equivalent sign refer to?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on July 17, 2023, 07:03:01 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 17, 2023, 03:16:29 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/2BkFgWfTkQVqdNPb7
What does that milepost equivalent sign refer to?

The sign is noting the location of a gap in mileposts that happened because SR 16 used to take a longer route through Tacoma before the freeway was built. WSDOT opted not to redo the mileposts east of the Narrows Bridge, so they just jump up here. This is also reflected in the exit numbers, which jump from 4 to 8 in about 1.9 miles.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 17, 2023, 10:28:20 PM
There was a crash on 16 July at WA-509 & Alexander Avenue in Fife (https://goo.gl/maps/PvuLcgCpdEQrN9X17); six were killed, all in the same vehicle.

There is now some concern that this has become a dangerous intersection. Just looking at numbers, obviously it looks terrible now following this crash, but apparently (according to WSP in their interview below), half of the crashes on WA-509 in "this stretch" were at/near the Alexander Avenue intersection even before this crash. Now it's almost all of them, sadly.

Not sure what others think of the intersection. It's a fairly standard divided highway signalized intersection, though the lane assignments are quite poor with two lanes going northbound straight into a virtual dead-end (which is why most cars turn it into a double left turn, as seen at the end of the video below). Signal timing leaves something to be desired too.

Surely everything would be resolved with some flyovers, as has been planned for decades. Alas, it's the one part of the 167/509 project that was not funded. :-/

https://youtu.be/uztYYXU2NjA

I do not recall exact plans, but I believe the intersection and signal are being removed as part of the 509 completion project.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 18, 2023, 05:04:19 AM
When you design it like a freeway but leave signals in, this is the unsurprising result. Drivers are going to be stupid and run red lights, so grade separation or drastic speed-reducing designs are needed.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 18, 2023, 07:05:18 AM
Quote from: Bruce on July 18, 2023, 05:04:19 AM
When you design it like a freeway but leave signals in, this is the unsurprising result. Drivers are going to be stupid and run red lights, so grade separation or drastic speed-reducing designs are needed.

Correct, leaving this intersection as-is would be incredibly unwise.

... which is why I'm quite irritated to have discovered that the plan for Alexander Avenue is not to build a flyover as they already almost did, or remove the signal. No, they are going to build a new bridge over the Wapato Creek for the westbound 509 carriageway, moving it closer to the eastbound carriageway so they can built a giant signalized intersection (with multiple double left turns) that will do absolutely nothing to prevent crashes like these. This video (https://youtu.be/DfzXC2gtxnk) around 4:46 shows the most recent plan.

Brilliant plan, WSDOT. Is Maltby not evidence enough that a signal in the middle of a freeway is not a good idea?

For the record, the original EIS from 2006 shows a flyover at Alexander (sort of, it goes off the bottom of the picture...)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50682735668_cf1fd5a5d1_o.jpg)
WA-167 2006 EIS (https://flic.kr/p/2kdEgy9) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Amaury on July 24, 2023, 08:26:03 PM
I-90 closed due to a vehicle fire catching a hillside on fire by Vantage. Eastbound at Exit 115; westbound at Exit 136.

https://www.facebook.com/WSDOT/posts/pfbid02QVNKJHiGcjmBK7QB32qreeM39fjx6GMFxicaLXsaEMxLc6FJE1osVEguoP2AimiKl
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 24, 2023, 08:31:36 PM
Quote from: Amaury on July 24, 2023, 08:26:03 PM
https://www.facebook.com/WSDOT/posts/pfbid02QVNKJHiGcjmBK7QB32qreeM39fjx6GMFxicaLXsaEMxLc6FJE1osVEguoP2AimiKl

Please don't post links (especially to a social media post) without context. Not everyone can see the post.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Amaury on July 24, 2023, 08:37:32 PM
Quote from: Amaury on July 24, 2023, 08:26:03 PM
I-90 closed due to a vehicle fire catching a hillside on fire by Vantage. Eastbound at Exit 115; westbound at Exit 136.

https://www.facebook.com/WSDOT/posts/pfbid02QVNKJHiGcjmBK7QB32qreeM39fjx6GMFxicaLXsaEMxLc6FJE1osVEguoP2AimiKl

Eastbound is open again.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: PNWRoadgeek on July 25, 2023, 09:42:21 AM
Anyone know how the 509/167 project is going? I haven't caught up with it recently so I wonder if there's any progress with the extensions. I saw an interchange concept with the 5 upthread but other than that I don't really know how it's going right now.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on July 25, 2023, 01:55:51 PM
Quote from: PNWRoadgeek on July 25, 2023, 09:42:21 AM
Anyone know how the 509/167 project is going? I haven't caught up with it recently so I wonder if there's any progress with the extensions. I saw an interchange concept with the 5 upthread but other than that I don't really know how it's going right now.

There's a thread for it: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28085.0
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on July 26, 2023, 06:23:15 PM
I was reading over the newly-released SR-167 Master Plan Final Study Recommendations, and it has some suggestions. These are specific to road improvements:

* dual ETL lanes from SR-512 to SR-405
* complete missing movements at SR-167/SR-18
* rebuilding SR-18 Westbound to SR-167 Southbound ramp (either as larger loop or flyover?)
* rebuild SR-167 interchanges at Jovita/Stewart, Ellingson, 15th St NW, and 43rd/180th
* direct-access ETL ramps to SR-512, SR-410 (area of it), and somewhere in Kent
* completion of SR-167/Valley Ave interchange
* grade-separate Grady Way and Rainier Ave in Renton (local improvement)

Lots more in the PDF, too much to repeat here. Definitely check it out.

Read more (PDF): https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/SR167-MasterPlan-PELStudy-AttachmentD.pdf
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: PNWRoadgeek on July 27, 2023, 09:22:52 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 26, 2023, 06:23:15 PM
I was reading over the newly-released SR-167 Master Plan Final Study Recommendations, and it has some suggestions. These are specific to road improvements:

* dual ETL lanes from SR-512 to SR-405
* complete missing movements at SR-167/SR-18
* rebuilding SR-18 Westbound to SR-167 Southbound ramp (either as larger loop or flyover?)
* rebuild SR-167 interchanges at Jovita/Stewart, Ellingson, 15th St NW, and 43rd/180th
* direct-access ETL ramps to SR-512, SR-410 (area of it), and somewhere in Kent
* completion of SR-167/Valley Ave interchange
* grade-separate Grady Way and Rainier Ave in Renton (local improvement)

Lots more in the PDF, too much to repeat here. Definitely check it out.

Read more (PDF): https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/SR167-MasterPlan-PELStudy-AttachmentD.pdf
Thanks for that PDF. I saw a lot of stuff that I didn't know before about the Gateway Project.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on August 01, 2023, 09:20:52 PM
Delays on I-5 northbound in Marysville due to brush fire

mileposts 203-206

Only one lane open, backup reported as 5 miles, obvious detour route of Smoky Point Blvd is restricted to firefighters.  Try to find alternate route or postpone trips...
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 02, 2023, 01:33:49 AM
Quote from: kkt on August 01, 2023, 09:20:52 PM
Delays on I-5 northbound in Marysville due to brush fire

mileposts 203-206

Only one lane open, backup reported as 5 miles, obvious detour route of Smoky Point Blvd is restricted to firefighters.  Try to find alternate route or postpone trips...


Went around it on SR 9, which wasn't particularly crowded. Anyone who tried the country roads in between were in for a surprise, since they have no shoulder and seem to have been rear-end hotspots.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 02, 2023, 01:34:47 AM
I-5 now has 3 northbound lanes in downtown Seattle and a ramp meter for the collector/distributor lane. Should improve the weaving situation a bit, but one should still expect time savings to be shaved away in a few months.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/seattles-i-5-squeeze-finally-not-so-tight-as-new-lane-opens/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 10, 2023, 06:34:46 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 02, 2023, 01:34:47 AM
I-5 now has 3 northbound lanes in downtown Seattle and a ramp meter for the collector/distributor lane. Should improve the weaving situation a bit, but one should still expect time savings to be shaved away in a few months.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/seattles-i-5-squeeze-finally-not-so-tight-as-new-lane-opens/

WSDOT made a video:

https://youtu.be/DqxVc3vjIfw

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 10, 2023, 06:46:38 PM
WSDOT has released new plans for the Steilacoom-Dupont Road interchange project (part of the larger HOV project in the area), which aims to realign the overpass to eliminate the level crossing and relieve congestion.

The off-set DDI design seems to result in one of the longest "wrong-way" sections of roadway that I've ever seen.

Construction starts this month.

https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/search-projects/i-5-mounts-rd-steilacoom-dupont-rd-corridor-improvements

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53075920420_dc4f6be7a2_o.jpg)
Design visualization for new overpass at I-5 and Steilacoom-DuPont Road in Pierce County (https://flic.kr/p/2oS8Y1d) by Washington State Dept of Transportation (https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Amaury on August 10, 2023, 07:19:33 PM
That looks confusing.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on August 10, 2023, 08:42:28 PM
That looks amazing... pun applicable, if not intended.

But is that a JBLM base gate at the bottom?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 10, 2023, 09:20:37 PM
Quote from: Amaury on August 10, 2023, 07:19:33 PM
That looks confusing.

From the visualization is seems confusing, though I bet in-person it won't be as confusing.

Quote from: Bickendan on August 10, 2023, 08:42:28 PM
That looks amazing... pun applicable, if not intended.

But is that a JBLM base gate at the bottom?

It is pretty a-maze-ing, indeed. I don't know how they came to this design.

That is indeed a JBLM gate. I'm surprised they aren't rebuilding it as part of the project, the DOD has been spending money all over the world to rebuild base gates. This is an old standard with arrow-straight approach roads.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on August 14, 2023, 08:09:17 PM
The Washington State Transportation Commission is considering two route jurisdiction transfer requests (https://wstc.wa.gov/programs/route-jurisdiction-transfer/2023-route-jurisdiction-transfer-requests/). Final findings to be presented in October.

The City of Snoqualmie wants to transfer a portion of Snoqualmie Parkway between SR 18/I-90 and SR 202 to the state. It would presumably be an extension of SR 18.

The City of Ridgefield wants to take over the northern, disconnected section of SR 501 that runs from downtown to I-5.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 15, 2023, 06:25:46 PM
That section of 501 should be given to Ridgefield. It's clear that the highway will never be finished.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Amaury on August 15, 2023, 10:01:09 PM
US Route 2 between mileposts 163 and 170 has reopened, about a week ahead of schedule, following an emergency closure due to a washout: https://www.facebook.com/WSDOT/posts/pfbid0pgqfwLytCK33aH38MQN8gVUU8dPTqo3odnVtUN5e7iFER9tdaSd6yQoFQiXCc7EZl
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Amaury on August 19, 2023, 05:09:54 AM
Washington State Route 902 and sections of Washington State Route 904 and Interstate 90 are closed in Spokane County due to the fast-moving Gray Fire. Interstate 90 westbound is closed at the US Route 2 interchange (Exit 279) and Interstate 90 eastbound is closed at the Washington State Route 904 interchange (Exit 257). The entire city of Medical Lake has been evacuated.

More information here, with photos: https://www.facebook.com/WSDOT/posts/pfbid02pHguvZv6zGLwEY9SWXTV8x9qa3eiva9rBFcuNfaCYzXGyd1WQ1SpaDsi8jcEzzQ5l

Quote from: WSDOTUPDATE 9:17 p.m. Sunday: At midnight this evening, the closure points for I-90 around the Gray Fire will move to utilize SR 904 through Cheney as the detour for both directions. I-90 will remain closed between Tyler and Four Lakes and SR 902. Until midnight, US 2 and other alternate routes will need to be used if you plan to travel between Spokane and Sprague. Any commercial vehicle with oversized load permits for I-90 are NOT permitted to use the detour route unless previous permit was approved for SR 904.

Fire activity and hazardous trees in the area continue to create unsafe conditions along I-90 within the closure points. Efforts to remove the hazards will continue to be able to safely open the highway.

UPDATE 1:09 p.m. Sunday: We're seeing SIGNIFICANT delays on westbound US 2 near Davenport as people detour around the I-90 closure. Please be patient and be safe. Everyone wants to get where they're going safely.

UPDATE 11:57 a.m. Sunday: Thorpe Road at US 195 in Spokane is now closed due to a fire.

UPDATE 10:09 a.m. Sunday: It's not just that the fire remains active near the roads, it's that burned trees are also falling on and near the roads. Just posted a picture of that in the comments here. Please continue to follow the detour routes and never go around road closures.

UPDATE 8:47 a.m. Sunday: No significant updates as far as closures. I-90, SR 902 and SR 904 all remain CLOSED as fire continues to burn near the roads. I-90 is closed between Sprague and US 2, mileposts 245-277. SR 904 is closed at the I-90 interchange (milepost 257) toward Cheney and is only open from Cheney to eastbound I-90 (milepost 270).

Semi trucks can detour from eastbound I-90 by using SR 23 east to US 195 or SR 23 to SR 28 and US 2. Semis going westbound can use US 2 west to Davenport to SR 28 and SR 23 back to I-90. South SR 231 is only open to local traffic.

Passenger vehicles detouring from eastbound I-90 can use SR 23 to SR 231 and US 2 or SR 23 to SR 28 and US 2, or SR 23 to US 195. For westbound I-90, use US 2 west to SR 28 in Davenport to SR 23 back to I-90.

UPDATE 2:27 p.m. Saturday: I-90 is now closed in both directions from Sprague at milepost 245 to US 2 at milepost 277. The eastbound detour is SR 23 to SR 231 to US 2; SR 23 to US 195; or SR 23 to SR 28 and US 2. Expect SIGNIFICANT delays. The westbound detour remains US 2 to SR 231 to SR 23 to I-90. Semi-truck traffic is asked to avoid SR 231 southbound and continue on US 2 to Davenport and use SR 28 to SR 23.

UPDATE 9:13 a.m. Saturday: SR 904 from Cheney to I-90/Four Lakes has reopened. Eastbound I-90 detour is currently to utilize all of SR 904.

UPDATE 7:13 a.m. Saturday: There are no significant updates this morning. I-90 remains closed between the Tyler interchange and the US 2 interchange, mileposts 257-277. SR 902 is completely closed and SR 904 is closed between Cheney-Spokane Road and I-90. Westbound drivers can detour through Rearden to SR 231 south to Sprague. Eastbound detours via SR 904 to Cheney-Spokane Road and US 195.

UPDATE 7:36 p.m.: SR 904 between Cheney at milepost 12 up to I-90 at Four Lakes is now CLOSED. Drivers are being detoured onto Cheney-Spokane Road to US 195. This includes the already detoured drivers from I-90 onto SR 904 into Cheney.

UPDATE 6 p.m.: To clarify, westbound I-90 is CLOSED at the US 2 interchange in Spokane. No signed detour is available. Avoid I-90/Medical Lake and SR 902 at this time due to the wildfire. Eastbound I-90 is CLOSED at the Tyler/SR 904 interchange. Detour available via SR 904 through Cheney.

UPDATE 5:44 p.m.: Westbound I-90 is now closed at the US 2 interchange in Spokane. Eastbound is closed at the Tyler interchange. We are advising people who can to use US 2 and avoid I-90.

UPDATE 5:20 p.m. Friday: Crews are in the process of CLOSING I-90 at milepost 257/Salnave Road and milepost 270 at Four Lakes as the fire has jumped the highway. Drivers will need to detour using SR 904 at this time. There is no ETA to reopen the roadway. Please avoid the area if you can.

ORIGINAL POST: Heads up: SR 902 is FULLY CLOSED due to a fast-moving fire. The town of Medical Lake is being evacuated - those evacuating may use the highway but there is no access INTO Medical Lake. Smoke is also impacting visibility on I-90 causing drivers to slow between mileposts 264 and 270, about 10 miles west of Spokane. Please avoid the area and if you are traveling nearby please be prepared for other possible closures. We will update when we have more information.

EDIT #1 on August 20 at 1:06 PM: Updated with updates.
EDIT #2 on August 21 at 2:38 AM: Updated with updates.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Amaury on August 20, 2023, 04:09:24 PM
I deleted my previous post from yesterday and will just update my original post regarding the fire when there are updates to avoid bloat.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on August 28, 2023, 03:24:34 AM
Never heard about this when it happened. The 11th Street Viaduct in Tacoma was demolished last summer. It contained the last visible remnants of Tacoma's original streetcar network. The rails were filled in with concrete but remained visible until it was demolished:

In terms of non-rehabilitated bridges in Tacoma, it was either the second or third oldest, behind the remaining portions of the Eells Street Bridge and potentially tied with the Lincoln Avenue Bridge. The lift-portion of the crossing, over the Puyallup River, was replaced in the 1970s with a fixed-span structure, with the roadway surface and western approach replaced during this time frame. This left the viaduct as the only untouched portion of the crossing, and thus the only remaining stretch with the visible streetcar tracks.

Google Maps link: https://goo.gl/maps/Y2XvchQXSoxvEt337

I have photos of my own somewhere, but it'll be a while before I track them down. In the mean time, here is a street view image:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53146375652_82a7ce4d5e_o.png)
11th Street Viaduct (https://flic.kr/p/2oYn4TA) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr

The viaduct was quickly demolished early last summer (2022) under an emergency order (https://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_departments/public_works/engineering/capital_projects/east_11th_street_bridge_demolition) due to falling debris from the underside of the viaduct, primarily bits of concrete. It had been closed to cars for almost ten years due to the poor structural state of the viaduct.

Here is a news story on it:

https://youtu.be/irT-2uIZqWw?si=wBoX6Bako91WtIYi
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Amaury on October 24, 2023, 07:29:44 PM
Does anyone know what WSDOT is doing here? https://maps.app.goo.gl/nJgHem9aU3DUTw6cA

This is on Interstate 82 westbound, just past milepost 33. Looking at Google Maps, the sign has been there since at least October 2018, but it's possible it's been there a little longer. There are no captures for 2014–2017, but it's not there in the August 2013 capture. I haven't seen any kind of changes, though, since the sign's installation.

I do know that farther up at Exit 31 westbound, currently the ramp to North 1st Street is closed, and you are only able to take the ramp to US Route 12 westbound, where it splits from the concurrency. I don't know if that has anything to do with what the sign is talking about, though.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 24, 2023, 07:48:47 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 28, 2023, 03:24:34 AM
Never heard about this when it happened. The 11th Street Viaduct in Tacoma was demolished last summer. It contained the last visible remnants of Tacoma's original streetcar network. The rails were filled in with concrete but remained visible until it was demolished:

In terms of non-rehabilitated bridges in Tacoma, it was either the second or third oldest, behind the remaining portions of the Eells Street Bridge and potentially tied with the Lincoln Avenue Bridge. The lift-portion of the crossing, over the Puyallup River, was replaced in the 1970s with a fixed-span structure, with the roadway surface and western approach replaced during this time frame. This left the viaduct as the only untouched portion of the crossing, and thus the only remaining stretch with the visible streetcar tracks.

Google Maps link: https://goo.gl/maps/Y2XvchQXSoxvEt337

I have photos of my own somewhere, but it'll be a while before I track them down. In the mean time, here is a street view image:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53146375652_82a7ce4d5e_o.png)
11th Street Viaduct (https://flic.kr/p/2oYn4TA) by Jacob Root (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62537709@N03/), on Flickr

The viaduct was quickly demolished early last summer (2022) under an emergency order (https://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_departments/public_works/engineering/capital_projects/east_11th_street_bridge_demolition) due to falling debris from the underside of the viaduct, primarily bits of concrete. It had been closed to cars for almost ten years due to the poor structural state of the viaduct.

Here is a news story on it:

https://youtu.be/irT-2uIZqWw?si=wBoX6Bako91WtIYi
Are they replacing it? Why are they tearing it down?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 24, 2023, 08:56:40 PM
Quote from: Amaury on October 24, 2023, 07:29:44 PM
Does anyone know what WSDOT is doing here? https://maps.app.goo.gl/nJgHem9aU3DUTw6cA

This is on Interstate 82 westbound, just past milepost 33. Looking at Google Maps, the sign has been there since at least October 2018, but it's possible it's been there a little longer. There are no captures for 2014–2017, but it's not there in the August 2013 capture. I haven't seen any kind of changes, though, since the sign's installation.

I do know that farther up at Exit 31 westbound, currently the ramp to North 1st Street is closed, and you are only able to take the ramp to US Route 12 westbound, where it splits from the concurrency. I don't know if that has anything to do with what the sign is talking about, though.

Wasn't familiar with this project, but it appears to be (as the sign suggests) a new east-west corridor to connect Terrace Heights to Yakima proper:

https://cityofyakima-terraceheights.org/

According to permits (https://www.permits.performance.gov/permitting-project/dot-projects/east-west-corridor), the timeline for construction has not yet been reached. So nothing is delayed or anything.

Here is a diagram from the above website. Phase 1 was the roundabout at Butterfield/Hartford in Terrace Heights. Potentially the roundabout at 10th/Lincoln was also an early phase.

(https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/541f2591-a0ab-4bbd-8c51-970cce9254ce/Project%20Areas%20Map%20(Home%20Screen)%2010-11-22.jpg/:/cr=t:17.64%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:64.71%25/rs=w:2480,h:1240,cg:true)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 24, 2023, 09:56:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 24, 2023, 07:48:47 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 28, 2023, 03:24:34 AM
[clipped]
Are they replacing it? Why are they tearing it down?

I figured my post made it decently clear the answer to at least your second question: the viaduct was ancient, had been closed for ten years already, and was beginning to collapse. For obvious safety reasons, it had to come down. Because it was a viaduct over land, and not a bridge, there was activity occurring beneath it, so the integrity of the structure was essential to allow things beneath it to continue; once it became apparent the structure was collapsing, it had to go.

I don't really know if it will be replaced. It was closed for over ten years already, and a new bridge was built to the south at Lincoln Avenue to pass over numerous railways and connect to the existing Lincoln Avenue bridge over the Puyallup River. The 11th Street corridor has become substantially less important over the years, not least because of WA-509 switching to a freeway bypass in the 1990s, but also the demolition of the Blair Waterway Bridge in 1997, making the corridor discontinuous.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 24, 2023, 10:04:22 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 24, 2023, 09:56:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 24, 2023, 07:48:47 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 28, 2023, 03:24:34 AM
[clipped]
Are they replacing it? Why are they tearing it down?

I figured my post made it decently clear the answer to at least your second question: the viaduct was ancient, had been closed for ten years already, and was beginning to collapse. For obvious safety reasons, it had to come down. Because it was a viaduct over land, and not a bridge, there was activity occurring beneath it, so the integrity of the structure was essential to allow things beneath it to continue; once it became apparent the structure was collapsing, it had to go.

I don't really know if it will be replaced. It was closed for over ten years already, and a new bridge was built to the south at Lincoln Avenue to pass over numerous railways and connect to the existing Lincoln Avenue bridge over the Puyallup River. The 11th Street corridor has become substantially less important over the years, not least because of WA-509 switching to a freeway bypass in the 1990s, but also the demolition of the Blair Waterway Bridge in 1997, making the corridor discontinuous.
Sorry I should've worded my question better. I was more interested in a replacement and the reason why they let it get to the state it did. I need to look at it closer on Google but looks mostly in industrial setting. Low ADTs? Just curious.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 24, 2023, 11:21:16 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 24, 2023, 10:04:22 PM
Sorry I should've worded my question better. I was more interested in a replacement and the reason why they let it get to the state it did. I need to look at it closer on Google but looks mostly in industrial setting. Low ADTs? Just curious.

No worries. It is 100% an industrial area, the Port of Tacoma is the second largest port in WA (virtually tied for first with the Port of Seattle) and 11th Street runs right through the heart of the port.

The 11th Street Bridge over the Puyallup River (not the viaduct portion) was replaced in the 1960s or 1970s with a fixed span; it was previously a lift bridge like the Murray Morgan Bridge (over the Foss Waterway to the east). Because it carries some utility lines, it will not be demolished. This perhaps bodes well for the corridor overall; unlike the Blair Waterway, the Puyallup River is not an active waterway with shipping traffic, so there is no reason to remove 11th Street across it (hence why the lift portion of the bridge was replaced with a fixed span). Plus the bridge seems to be in "good" shape (not great), and doesn't sit above any critical infrastructure, so it can remain.

The question is indeed, yes, why the viaduct portion was left in the state it was. My guess is a few things. One, when the lift portion of the bridge was removed, the viaduct portion was still in adequate shape, so it was not modified (as it was not related to the project anyways). Two, when WA-509 was removed from the 11th Street corridor and the Blair Waterway bridge demolished, traffic levels seriously dropped off as it was only useful for traffic going to/from that part of the port; the reduced traffic levels logically reduced wear and tear, theoretically extending the life of the viaduct. And third, a lot of bridges were built around that time frame, and many are in poor shape, and there just isn't the money to replace them all at once. And it's not for a lack of trying; the Murray Morgan, Yakima Avenue, Eells Street (western span), Lincoln Avenue (over BNSF railway), Hylebos, East D Street, and Port of Tacoma Road bridges have all been either replaced or built in the last 20-ish years. I'm sure there are plans to replace the viaduct, but they just haven't gotten to it yet.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 25, 2023, 12:35:53 AM
Speaking of Tacoma bridges, another one has just been closed for structural issues. The Fishing Wars Memorial Bridge (which carries Puyallup Avenue/Pacific Highway across the Puyallup River) is 95 years old and now deemed "fracture critical".

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/tacoma-closes-fishing-wars-memorial-bridge-after-federal-recommendation/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 25, 2023, 12:38:46 AM
Thanks for the response I went and checked out on Google Maps. Very interesting. Fascinating history behind it. Hopefully they are able to replace it soon.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 25, 2023, 01:21:37 AM
Quote from: Bruce on October 25, 2023, 12:35:53 AM
Speaking of Tacoma bridges, another one has just been closed for structural issues. The Fishing Wars Memorial Bridge (which carries Puyallup Avenue/Pacific Highway across the Puyallup River) is 95 years old and now deemed "fracture critical".

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/tacoma-closes-fishing-wars-memorial-bridge-after-federal-recommendation/

Ugh. Complete failure to mention anything about how the crossing is made up of two separate spans (hence "crossing" and not "bridge", as it incorrectly called in the article), the western span, which was rebuilt completely a few years ago, and the eastern river-crossing span, which is the oldest bridge in Tacoma. I expect this kind of half-assed reporting from KING or KOMO, but not the Times. This closure is entirely due to the eastern span which will be rebuilt, perhaps sooner than expected.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 25, 2023, 03:07:57 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 25, 2023, 12:38:46 AM
Thanks for the response I went and checked out on Google Maps. Very interesting. Fascinating history behind it. Hopefully they are able to replace it soon.

That whole area is quite fascinating, infrastructure-wise. Lots of ancient infrastructure built decades ago, lots of stuff moved and demolished. Realignments of roads and rivers, new waterways, demolished buildings, stuff that seems to have been abandoned decades ago (good example (https://maps.app.goo.gl/B7Pw4zJ1dk25LGPt7), now demolished). And because the Port of Tacoma and all of the infrastructure is right in the heart of Tacoma, it's so easy to find old photos, maps, diagrams, and whatnot.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 26, 2023, 04:25:38 PM
How is the state of Washington going to fund maintaining its roads and bridges?: https://jalopnik.com/washington-state-wont-pay-11b-to-fix-roads-bridges-1850963379.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on October 26, 2023, 07:33:27 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 26, 2023, 04:25:38 PM
How is the state of Washington going to fund maintaining its roads and bridges?: https://jalopnik.com/washington-state-wont-pay-11b-to-fix-roads-bridges-1850963379.

VMT is pretty much the only way. An income tax would require a large campaign to get the public on board, property tax is capped by the constitution, and sales tax is just so regressive and already used for other very important services (such as transit). Tolls and congestion charges could also work, but they aren't equitable for some groups.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on October 26, 2023, 08:03:45 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 26, 2023, 04:25:38 PM
How is the state of Washington going to fund maintaining its roads and bridges?: https://jalopnik.com/washington-state-wont-pay-11b-to-fix-roads-bridges-1850963379.

WashDOT could start closing bridges that are problematic, with big signs that say "CLOSED DUE TO LACK OF FUNDS" with the office phone number of that district's legislators.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on October 28, 2023, 10:23:57 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 26, 2023, 04:25:38 PM
How is the state of Washington going to fund maintaining its roads and bridges?: https://jalopnik.com/washington-state-wont-pay-11b-to-fix-roads-bridges-1850963379 (https://jalopnik.com/washington-state-wont-pay-11b-to-fix-roads-bridges-1850963379).


The easiest solution would be to reinstate a reasonable license tab fee.  But rather than base it on the value of the vehicle, base it on the weight and impact.  Heavier vehicles pay more, and commercial vehicles pay more than that, along with trailers, campers, and boats; all of which have an impact on the roads.  The rates would simply be based on the current fuel tax, as expected per year, per vehicle, and then eliminate the gas tax.  Re-open all of the Weighstations, yes, including the one on SR 20, and assess out of state transport vehicles appropriately.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on October 28, 2023, 05:18:03 PM
I thought the very low cap on license tab fees was passed as a constitutional amendment, so another constitutional amendment would be needed to take in more money or change the way it's calculated.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jay8g on October 29, 2023, 02:50:40 AM
As the article mentions, the issue isn't that there isn't funding available, it's that the legislature doesn't have any interest in allocating it to maintenance -- every year, they take the funding that WSDOT proposed to use for maintenance and redirect it towards pet projects. There would be plenty of money available for maintenance if they weren't spending insane amounts of money building and widening urban freeways (I-405, SR 167, SR 509, US 395, etc).

The other big drain on their budget that the article didn't mention is the court-ordered fish passage work, much of which seems to be massively overengineered to make regulators (and the tribes) happy. And then there's the massive cost increases (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/prices-skyrocket-on-wa-transportation-projects-and-fewer-contractors-want-the-jobs/) caused in part by a lack of engineers (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/lack-of-civil-engineers-a-bottleneck-for-was-large-transportation-projects/) (and contractors), along with massive increases in permit requirements that are also causing delays on projects that actually do have funding.

So yeah, it's all a big mess, and it's nowhere near as simple as that article tries to make it sound. I still think the biggest obstacle is the lack of political interest in basic things like maintenance in favor of shiny new things.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on October 30, 2023, 10:44:49 AM
Quote from: kkt on October 28, 2023, 05:18:03 PM
I thought the very low cap on license tab fees was passed as a constitutional amendment, so another constitutional amendment would be needed to take in more money or change the way it's calculated.


It was simply an initiative.  An initiative that was thrown out in court, but the legislature put it in place because of how popular it was (along with the maximum 1% tax increase without a vote). Both decisions are having horrible consequences today.  Costs for cities are growing between 5% and 10% each year, but they can only increase their Ad Valorem (Property Tax) levy 1%, and anything above 1%, not only has to be voted on by the people (which is expensive), it can only be for a set period of time, and for a particular project or expense.


Also, the old system was based on a vehicle's estimated value, often using KBB, at the highest possible value for he model year, usually without taking into account accessories or wear and tear. My proposal would be based on either number of axels, weight, or a combination of the two, with a higher calculation for those vehicles that are for purposes other than personal use (delivery trucks, repair trucks, Taxi/RideShare, etc), with decent fines for those mis-clasifying their vehicles to get around the fees.  It would also eliminate the Hybrid and EV penalty, and instead they would pay by their weight, and it would be closer to their fair share of their impact, especially in the rural communities, were some roads are well built.


The real concern is that unless someone in the legislature actually pays attention, the island communities are going to loose a lot of funding, as Capron Funds, are currently only allocated from the gas taxes, and those communities rely on those funds to maintain their infrastructure, as they don't have a many gas stations (or any in a few cases), to collect their share from.  So any future program that pays for infrastructure needs to include support for them.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 30, 2023, 06:27:28 PM
Weight-based vehicle registration costs make much more sense to me. Something heavy will increase wear-and-tear on the road much faster than a smaller vehicle, and larger vehicles seem to be more deadly for pedestrians, itself a recent epidemic. The current system (especially considering CAFE standards) seems to almost reward the purchasing of larger vehicles.

Here in Japan, vehicle registration is based on, among several things, weight. Super small and light vehicles (kei) are the cheapest in every imaginable way (cost to purchase, register, and operate), with costs going up significantly from there. Vehicles like a half-ton Toyota Tundra (not sold in Japan but a fairly common import) are "100 series" registration, the highest weight-based registration bracket, and cost much more per year to register than even regular vehicles (like my 300 series station wagon), and several times more compared to kei cars.

This all being said, toll-free expressways are exceedingly rare in Japan (and most are very expensive), and even basic kei-car registrations are more expensive than typical registrations back in Washington, especially considering the required inspections and other taxes that are levied here. So the issue in WA may be not just how we levy taxes, but also that we don't collect near enough of it.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on October 30, 2023, 11:34:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 30, 2023, 06:27:28 PM
This all being said, toll-free expressways are exceedingly rare in Japan (and most are very expensive), and even basic kei-car registrations are more expensive than typical registrations back in Washington, especially considering the required inspections and other taxes that are levied here. So the issue in WA may be not just how we levy taxes, but also that we don't collect near enough of it.
Not to go OT, but does this mean I can't drive through the building in Japan without paying a toll? Can tourists arrange tolls easily?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on October 31, 2023, 05:09:54 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 30, 2023, 11:34:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 30, 2023, 06:27:28 PM
This all being said, toll-free expressways are exceedingly rare in Japan (and most are very expensive), and even basic kei-car registrations are more expensive than typical registrations back in Washington, especially considering the required inspections and other taxes that are levied here. So the issue in WA may be not just how we levy taxes, but also that we don't collect near enough of it.
Not to go OT, but does this mean I can't drive through the building in Japan without paying a toll? Can tourists arrange tolls easily?

I'm quite certain all of the elevated expressways in Osaka are tolled. Perhaps a bus passes through though! Tolls are easily paid by cash...usually. Unfortunately the ramp you're thinking of is ETC-only, but all rental agencies offer ETC cards, and all tolls can be paid upon return of the vehicle (the tolls are stored on the card, and are usually displayed on the screens in the car when you pay them, and the rental agencies have machines that can read the card...it's pretty slick).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on November 06, 2023, 11:23:29 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2023, 05:09:54 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 30, 2023, 11:34:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 30, 2023, 06:27:28 PM
This all being said, toll-free expressways are exceedingly rare in Japan (and most are very expensive), and even basic kei-car registrations are more expensive than typical registrations back in Washington, especially considering the required inspections and other taxes that are levied here. So the issue in WA may be not just how we levy taxes, but also that we don't collect near enough of it.
Not to go OT, but does this mean I can't drive through the building in Japan without paying a toll? Can tourists arrange tolls easily?

I'm quite certain all of the elevated expressways in Osaka are tolled. Perhaps a bus passes through though! Tolls are easily paid by cash...usually. Unfortunately the ramp you're thinking of is ETC-only, but all rental agencies offer ETC cards, and all tolls can be paid upon return of the vehicle (the tolls are stored on the card, and are usually displayed on the screens in the car when you pay them, and the rental agencies have machines that can read the card...it's pretty slick).


I was under the impression that the expressways in Japan are also privately owned and operated.  They did have to purchase the right too build them from the government, but they are not owned or maintained by the government.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on November 06, 2023, 07:38:29 PM
I think we are getting a bit OT here. Oh well...

Quote from: TEG24601 on November 06, 2023, 11:23:29 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 31, 2023, 05:09:54 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 30, 2023, 11:34:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 30, 2023, 06:27:28 PM
This all being said, toll-free expressways are exceedingly rare in Japan (and most are very expensive), and even basic kei-car registrations are more expensive than typical registrations back in Washington, especially considering the required inspections and other taxes that are levied here. So the issue in WA may be not just how we levy taxes, but also that we don't collect near enough of it.
Not to go OT, but does this mean I can't drive through the building in Japan without paying a toll? Can tourists arrange tolls easily?

I'm quite certain all of the elevated expressways in Osaka are tolled. Perhaps a bus passes through though! Tolls are easily paid by cash...usually. Unfortunately the ramp you're thinking of is ETC-only, but all rental agencies offer ETC cards, and all tolls can be paid upon return of the vehicle (the tolls are stored on the card, and are usually displayed on the screens in the car when you pay them, and the rental agencies have machines that can read the card...it's pretty slick).

I was under the impression that the expressways in Japan are also privately owned and operated.  They did have to purchase the right too build them from the government, but they are not owned or maintained by the government.

They are run by state-owned privately-run corporations (NEXCO West, Central, and East). But the expressways built before 2005 were built and operated by the government as part of Japan Highways. It was broken up similar to JNR in 1987, when it was split into JR.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on November 06, 2023, 08:13:15 PM
And to bring us back on topic: the 2024 Highway System Plan (https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/statewide-plans/highway-system-plan) draft is now published online and ready for public comment. The last one was published in 2007, so it's long overdue for an update.

WSDOT's recommendation is to devote $17.3 billion in new funding (through 2041) to repair and maintenance, $5.4 billion to safety & efficiency, and $1.4 billion on expansion. These figures would be on top of what is already approved by the state government and was included in the Move Ahead Washington package.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Amaury on November 08, 2023, 05:35:38 PM
As of yesterday morning, WSDOT is currently dealing with an outrage affecting 99% of their website, sans the homepage and a few other pages. In addition, all of their traffic and mountain pass cameras, among other services, are down. From reading their Facebook posts, it seems like this was intentionally done to cause disruption. What someone could possibly get from disabling cameras, for example, I don't know.

In the meantime, they did provide an interesting hand drawn graphic to show what weather and roads were like yesterday.

https://www.facebook.com/WSDOT/posts/pfbid02iPaZA6djSRevQGynayiBLZkju7KWJFtTi3dYvhiusKa4gCYqcotf2LuC99Qws6BPl

Quote from: WSDOTUPDATE 7:08 p.m. Tuesday: We continue to work to restore our web pages and app and investigate the cause. We appreciate everyone's patience and we'll update as we get more details. Until then we'll do the best we can to share info on our social platforms, and you can trust that I'll have my pen and notebook ready to capture any important images.

ORIGINAL POST: Our cameras, website and app have been down since early this morning. There is no estimate for when they will be back up. Our IT continues to work on it. Yes, before you ask, we tried turning it on and off first, then gave the monitor and keyboard a few whacks. Neither worked. With cameras down, this is what it looks like out there.

https://www.facebook.com/WSDOT/posts/pfbid0svWbmRkqCv3QK4Vq9BKqjWZbVfZHY6tQ8FDi5PobxDqaQeSFn3639g6B9MgboaRCl

Quote from: WSDOTWe continue to work to restore our website and app following Tuesday's disruption that has affected our travel map, traffic cameras, ferry vessel watch, mountain pass reports, online freight permits and other services. The outages were caused by a security incident Tuesday that appeared aimed at interrupting the flow of travel-related information. There is no indication any other systems were affected and the cause is under investigation. We will share more information as it becomes available.

We know this disruption is frustrating and we thank you for your patience. We are working to get everything restored as quickly as possible and in the meantime we will continue to provide updates on our social media platforms.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: vdeane on November 08, 2023, 08:52:29 PM
Quote from: Amaury on November 08, 2023, 05:35:38 PM
WSDOT is currently dealing with an outrage affecting 99% of their website
Someone must have been really angry then.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on November 15, 2023, 09:12:30 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 06, 2023, 08:13:15 PM
And to bring us back on topic: the 2024 Highway System Plan (https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/statewide-plans/highway-system-plan) draft is now published online and ready for public comment. The last one was published in 2007, so it's long overdue for an update.

WSDOT's recommendation is to devote $17.3 billion in new funding (through 2041) to repair and maintenance, $5.4 billion to safety & efficiency, and $1.4 billion on expansion. These figures would be on top of what is already approved by the state government and was included in the Move Ahead Washington package.

Nice to see mostly maintenance funding, as that is really more important than highway expansion. However, we all know politicians love ribbon cuttings more than doing maintenance, so I bet we'll see a greater percentage of money going to building and expanding new highways.

I'm curious what projects that they want to fund for expansion? I skimmed the document but I didn't see a list of projects or anything like that.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: nexus73 on November 16, 2023, 08:35:14 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on November 15, 2023, 09:12:30 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 06, 2023, 08:13:15 PM
And to bring us back on topic: the 2024 Highway System Plan (https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/statewide-plans/highway-system-plan) draft is now published online and ready for public comment. The last one was published in 2007, so it's long overdue for an update.

WSDOT's recommendation is to devote $17.3 billion in new funding (through 2041) to repair and maintenance, $5.4 billion to safety & efficiency, and $1.4 billion on expansion. These figures would be on top of what is already approved by the state government and was included in the Move Ahead Washington package.

Nice to see mostly maintenance funding, as that is really more important than highway expansion. However, we all know politicians love ribbon cuttings more than doing maintenance, so I bet we'll see a greater percentage of money going to building and expanding new highways.

I'm curious what projects that they want to fund for expansion? I skimmed the document but I didn't see a list of projects or anything like that.

It would be good to see I-5 6-laned all the way in Washington...one gap remains between Seattle and PDX.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TEG24601 on November 18, 2023, 12:34:32 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on November 16, 2023, 08:35:14 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on November 15, 2023, 09:12:30 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 06, 2023, 08:13:15 PM
And to bring us back on topic: the 2024 Highway System Plan (https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/statewide-plans/highway-system-plan) draft is now published online and ready for public comment. The last one was published in 2007, so it's long overdue for an update.

WSDOT's recommendation is to devote $17.3 billion in new funding (through 2041) to repair and maintenance, $5.4 billion to safety & efficiency, and $1.4 billion on expansion. These figures would be on top of what is already approved by the state government and was included in the Move Ahead Washington package.

Nice to see mostly maintenance funding, as that is really more important than highway expansion. However, we all know politicians love ribbon cuttings more than doing maintenance, so I bet we'll see a greater percentage of money going to building and expanding new highways.

I'm curious what projects that they want to fund for expansion? I skimmed the document but I didn't see a list of projects or anything like that.

It would be good to see I-5 6-laned all the way in Washington...one gap remains between Seattle and PDX.


If for no other reason than safety and efficiency.


It would be nice to have some serious discussions about replacing some of our dangerous or very inefficient bridges.  A new routing off of Whidbey Island would great, as the Deception and Canoe Pass bridges are reaching 100 years old, and re-directing traffic to another route would improve safety and economy.  As would replacing the I-90 bridge in Vantage, to span the gorge itself, instead of dropping down to the water level.  Those are two I'm most familiar with, but I know there are more.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on November 18, 2023, 07:38:28 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on November 16, 2023, 08:35:14 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on November 15, 2023, 09:12:30 PM
Quote from: Bruce on November 06, 2023, 08:13:15 PM
And to bring us back on topic: the 2024 Highway System Plan (https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/statewide-plans/highway-system-plan) draft is now published online and ready for public comment. The last one was published in 2007, so it's long overdue for an update.

WSDOT's recommendation is to devote $17.3 billion in new funding (through 2041) to repair and maintenance, $5.4 billion to safety & efficiency, and $1.4 billion on expansion. These figures would be on top of what is already approved by the state government and was included in the Move Ahead Washington package.

Nice to see mostly maintenance funding, as that is really more important than highway expansion. However, we all know politicians love ribbon cuttings more than doing maintenance, so I bet we'll see a greater percentage of money going to building and expanding new highways.

I'm curious what projects that they want to fund for expansion? I skimmed the document but I didn't see a list of projects or anything like that.

It would be good to see I-5 6-laned all the way in Washington...one gap remains between Seattle and PDX.

As well as from Mt. Vernon north.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: pderocco on November 19, 2023, 04:53:52 AM
Quote from: TEG24601 on November 18, 2023, 12:34:32 PM
As would replacing the I-90 bridge in Vantage, to span the gorge itself, instead of dropping down to the water level.
If you're talking about staying up at 1000ft or so, that would take a two mile long bridge. I don't think that'll happen. And given that just downstream is a dam with no locks, I don't think there's any meaningful through traffic on the river that would need the clearance of a high bridge.

That's a piece of I-90 I've missed so far. It looks like a pretty spectacular crossing, especially when approaching it westbound.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: FrCorySticha on November 19, 2023, 12:35:31 PM
Quote from: pderocco on November 19, 2023, 04:53:52 AM
That's a piece of I-90 I've missed so far. It looks like a pretty spectacular crossing, especially when approaching it westbound.

It absolutely is. Coming around the curve to see the gorge, descending along the side of the river, crossing on the Vantage Bridge, and climbing up the canyon out of the gorge is fantastic. Then you enter into the Kittitas Valley, which has it's own beauty with the mountains surrounding it.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 14, 2023, 02:43:32 PM
SR 520 has a new offramp:

https://twitter.com/wsdot_traffic/status/1735379428023169236

Avoids the 3-turn maneuver to get to Overlake Village.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 08:18:40 PM
Some projects could be delayed if more funding isn't found: https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/article_dde55640-9ddb-11ee-b195-cf7eb27ea5b8.html
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 19, 2023, 09:04:10 PM
Surprise, reckless spending on expansion when we have a court-mandated culvert replacement backlog AND tons of maintenance to do is a bad idea. The State Highway Plan shows the realistic future for Washington and most of the country: we need to maintain what we can and not overbuild as we have for decades.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 09:14:23 PM
Overbuild? What the fuck are you talking about. Roads in Washington can get very congested. If anything it's due to being under built. This is due to lack of proper funding. Not some hyperbolic nonsensical statement like "reckless expansion."
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on December 19, 2023, 09:31:44 PM
Show me a state with an increasing population, and I'll show you a state where traffic gets very congested.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Rothman on December 19, 2023, 09:34:01 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 09:14:23 PM
Overbuild? What the fuck are you talking about. Roads in Washington can get very congested. If anything it's due to being under built. This is due to lack of proper funding. Not some hyperbolic nonsensical statement like "reckless expansion."
Have to once again agree with the Panda.  I was just out there again to visit family and I-405 is just an unmitigated disaster between the HOV lanes switching arbitrarily over to HOT lanes.  If anything, the setup and depressing traffic (first time I've been out there where the overall vibe was quite low) is a quintessential argument that congestion forces people onto transit or other modes.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Rothman on December 19, 2023, 09:34:58 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 19, 2023, 09:31:44 PM
Show me a state with an increasing population, and I'll show you a state where traffic gets very congested.
Yep.  When I think "overbuilt," I always trot out Binghamton, NY and soon, if the Beltway concept is really brought to full fruition, Scranton, PA.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 09:41:34 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 19, 2023, 09:34:01 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 09:14:23 PM
Overbuild? What the fuck are you talking about. Roads in Washington can get very congested. If anything it's due to being under built. This is due to lack of proper funding. Not some hyperbolic nonsensical statement like "reckless expansion."
Have to once again agree with the Panda.  I was just out there again to visit family and I-405 is just an unmitigated disaster between the HOV lanes switching arbitrarily over to HOT lanes.  If anything, the setup and depressing traffic (first time I've been out there where the overall vibe was quite low) is a quintessential argument that congestion forces people onto transit or other modes.

Admittedly, I haven't been to Washington yet but knowing what I've seen from observing maps and traffic congestion as well as articles about notorious congestion in Washington I don't see how it could possibly be overbuilt. Now I would agree emphasis should be placed on preservation but I wouldn't classify Washington as an expansion trigger happy state like Texas or Utah for example. Oregon and California(with some exceptions) seem more on the anti-expansion realm as far as west coast states go Washington seems like the most pro expansion but I wouldn't call it reckless.

I'd say it's more responsible and needed expansion than anything.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 19, 2023, 10:56:48 PM
The new freeways are overbuilt and shouldn't have been prioritized over maintenance. I-5 is crumbling, but we're plowing forward with SR 509 and SR 167 for relatively little in the way of benefits.

Looking from afar at maps is not going to give you the full picture.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 11:09:36 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 19, 2023, 10:56:48 PM
The new freeways are overbuilt and shouldn't have been prioritized over maintenance. I-5 is crumbling, but we're plowing forward with SR 509 and SR 167 for relatively little in the way of benefits.

Looking from afar at maps is not going to give you the full picture.
True. I'm heading there soon. I am excited as I have always loved the idea of the NW. trying to figure out lodging and somewhere close to metro. Seattle seems like a dream city of mine. I am excited to experience it soon.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: pderocco on December 19, 2023, 11:23:42 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 11:09:36 PM
True. I'm heading there soon. I am excited as I have always loved the idea of the NW. trying to figure out lodging and somewhere close to metro. Seattle seems like a dream city of mine. I am excited to experience it soon.
Bring your rubbers and an umbrella.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on December 19, 2023, 11:40:46 PM
Quote from: pderocco on December 19, 2023, 11:23:42 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 11:09:36 PM
True. I'm heading there soon. I am excited as I have always loved the idea of the NW. trying to figure out lodging and somewhere close to metro. Seattle seems like a dream city of mine. I am excited to experience it soon.
Bring your rubbers and an umbrella.

Um... no, bring a parka and a rain hat.  With an umbrella you'll look like a tourist (and it doesn't do as well in the light misting rain we get so much of).
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 19, 2023, 11:48:23 PM
Umbrellas are one of the cardinal sins in Seattle, along with adding a possessive to Pike Place, and using Californian terms like "the X".
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Alps on December 20, 2023, 12:30:24 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 19, 2023, 10:56:48 PM
The new freeways are overbuilt and shouldn't have been prioritized over maintenance. I-5 is crumbling, but we're plowing forward with SR 509 and SR 167 for relatively little in the way of benefits.

Looking from afar at maps is not going to give you the full picture.
You are anti-road. Panda is pro-road. The truth is therefore in the middle: work should be a balance between new capacity where needed and maintaining existing infrastructure where needed.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on December 20, 2023, 11:29:55 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 19, 2023, 11:48:23 PM
Umbrellas are one of the cardinal sins in Seattle, along with adding a possessive to Pike Place, and using Californian terms like "the X".

Using the definite article with a route is not a thing in Northern California and it will mark you as a tourist from SoCal if you start talking about "The 880" or "The 580".
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 20, 2023, 01:11:14 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 20, 2023, 12:30:24 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 19, 2023, 10:56:48 PM
The new freeways are overbuilt and shouldn't have been prioritized over maintenance. I-5 is crumbling, but we're plowing forward with SR 509 and SR 167 for relatively little in the way of benefits.

Looking from afar at maps is not going to give you the full picture.
You are anti-road. Panda is pro-road. The truth is therefore in the middle: work should be a balance between new capacity where needed and maintaining existing infrastructure where needed.

I think he is more anti-stupid-road, which many of these are.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 20, 2023, 04:00:18 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on December 20, 2023, 01:11:14 PM
Quote from: Alps on December 20, 2023, 12:30:24 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 19, 2023, 10:56:48 PM
The new freeways are overbuilt and shouldn't have been prioritized over maintenance. I-5 is crumbling, but we're plowing forward with SR 509 and SR 167 for relatively little in the way of benefits.

Looking from afar at maps is not going to give you the full picture.
You are anti-road. Panda is pro-road. The truth is therefore in the middle: work should be a balance between new capacity where needed and maintaining existing infrastructure where needed.

I think he is more anti-stupid-road, which many of these are.
Which ones?
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 20, 2023, 04:01:54 PM
Quote from: pderocco on December 19, 2023, 11:23:42 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 11:09:36 PM
True. I'm heading there soon. I am excited as I have always loved the idea of the NW. trying to figure out lodging and somewhere close to metro. Seattle seems like a dream city of mine. I am excited to experience it soon.
Bring your rubbers and an umbrella.
Rubbers in this context being of the protective variety from the elements of weather or that of which comes from....
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bickendan on December 20, 2023, 08:53:01 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 19, 2023, 11:48:23 PM
Umbrellas are one of the cardinal sins in Seattle, along with adding a possessive to Pike Place, and using Californian terms like "the X".

Umbrellas are also a cardinal sin in Portland, as is adding a possessive to Fred Meyer. We're indifferent to "the X" though.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on December 21, 2023, 12:44:51 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 09:14:23 PM
Overbuild? What the fuck are you talking about. Roads in Washington can get very congested. If anything it's due to being under built. This is due to lack of proper funding. Not some hyperbolic nonsensical statement like "reckless expansion."

And building more highways isn't going to fix it, nor is widening the ones we already have. It will just encourage more people to drive, the freeway will be congested again, and money will be wasted. I'm glad we're spending more money on mass transit; driving in urban areas generally sucks and being able to have good public transit really makes for a better experience getting around.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 21, 2023, 12:51:15 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on December 21, 2023, 12:44:51 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 09:14:23 PM
Overbuild? What the fuck are you talking about. Roads in Washington can get very congested. If anything it's due to being under built. This is due to lack of proper funding. Not some hyperbolic nonsensical statement like "reckless expansion."

And building more highways isn't going to fix it, nor is widening the ones we already have. It will just encourage more people to drive, the freeway will be congested again, and money will be wasted. I'm glad we're spending more money on mass transit; driving in urban areas generally sucks and being able to have good public transit really makes for a better experience getting around.
Widening freeways and building new ones does help. All you anti car nuts do is repeat the same shit over and over. Why even have roads at all if we won't ever widen them? It's called addressing growth. I'm so tired of your dumbass arguments like "just one lane bro" when all you weirdos do is say "just one more train bro." If you want to ride public transit and be a sucker fine. Stay in your lane and stop trying to stop others from committing how they want. I want my car. Widen my roads. Thanks.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 21, 2023, 12:58:16 AM
Says the person who has never visited our fair state.

I think we should defer to the people who live here, work here, study here, and pay taxes here. I want my money to be used effectively, not dumped into the ever-larger siphoning of the general fund for roads that benefit very few Washingtonians.

I am anti-dumbroads and pro-mobility. I want many viable options and the ability to choose between them on an even playing field. That means investing in alternatives and staying the course with roads. Note that I'm not advocating for tearing down I-5 now that it's showing its age...just fix what we have and don't overcomplicate it.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 21, 2023, 01:13:10 AM
Okay so all I have to do is visit the state and suddenly I can comment on it. That's a ridiculous argument. Please do tell an example of "reckless spending." I believe this is the second time I've asked.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Duke87 on December 21, 2023, 01:21:47 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 09:14:23 PM
Overbuild? What the fuck are you talking about. Roads in Washington can get very congested. If anything it's due to being under built. This is due to lack of proper funding. Not some hyperbolic nonsensical statement like "reckless expansion."

So I see a semantic disconnect here. Bruce's comment was more along the lines of "it's foolish to prioritize expansion over maintenance", not "expansion is not justified by traffic demand".

Unfortunately it is all too common that the infrastructure financial resources are available to build and maintain is less than the infrastructure that demand warrants. This is what happens when you have a country where construction is expensive and people don't like paying taxes.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 21, 2023, 01:29:28 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 21, 2023, 01:21:47 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 09:14:23 PM
Overbuild? What the fuck are you talking about. Roads in Washington can get very congested. If anything it's due to being under built. This is due to lack of proper funding. Not some hyperbolic nonsensical statement like "reckless expansion."

So I see a semantic disconnect here. Bruce's comment was more along the lines of "it's foolish to prioritize expansion over maintenance", not "expansion is not justified by traffic demand".

Unfortunately it is all too common that the infrastructure financial resources are available to build and maintain is less than the infrastructure that demand warrants. This is what happens when you have a country where construction is expensive and people don't like paying taxes.
Or by being blatantly hyperbolic by claiming reckless expansion is the reason behind their funding woes when in fact it's due to underfunding and inflation. They even admit this and are seeking to find new funding. These new roads are needed as are preservation projects. Both can be done it doesn't have to be one or the other.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 22, 2023, 11:38:25 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on December 21, 2023, 12:44:51 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 09:14:23 PM
Overbuild? What the fuck are you talking about. Roads in Washington can get very congested. If anything it's due to being under built. This is due to lack of proper funding. Not some hyperbolic nonsensical statement like "reckless expansion."

And building more highways isn't going to fix it, nor is widening the ones we already have. It will just encourage more people to drive, the freeway will be congested again, and money will be wasted. I'm glad we're spending more money on mass transit; driving in urban areas generally sucks and being able to have good public transit really makes for a better experience getting around.

I think many roadgeeks struggle with the notion that driving in cities will inevitably suck, because moving 1 ton+ objects through densely populated areas is inherently dangerous and difficult.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 22, 2023, 03:36:34 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on December 22, 2023, 11:38:25 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on December 21, 2023, 12:44:51 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 09:14:23 PM
Overbuild? What the fuck are you talking about. Roads in Washington can get very congested. If anything it's due to being under built. This is due to lack of proper funding. Not some hyperbolic nonsensical statement like "reckless expansion."

And building more highways isn't going to fix it, nor is widening the ones we already have. It will just encourage more people to drive, the freeway will be congested again, and money will be wasted. I'm glad we're spending more money on mass transit; driving in urban areas generally sucks and being able to have good public transit really makes for a better experience getting around.

I think many roadgeeks struggle with the notion that driving in cities will inevitably suck, because moving 1 ton+ objects through densely populated areas is inherently dangerous and difficult.
It will suck. And honestly I'm just fine with that. I can deal with traffic congestion it doesn't bother me all that much. The only thing that really pisses me off is if I'm going on a road trip and me or my girlfriend(if I have one), or one of my friends that I'm with forget something and we have to backtrack. Then I get really pissed off.

But otherwise, I understand you're not ever going to solve traffic congestion issues in cities.

Yes, it'll suck by building these projects that Washington is we can make it suck a little less.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: TXtoNJ on December 22, 2023, 05:08:54 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 22, 2023, 03:36:34 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on December 22, 2023, 11:38:25 AM
Quote from: compdude787 on December 21, 2023, 12:44:51 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 09:14:23 PM
Overbuild? What the fuck are you talking about. Roads in Washington can get very congested. If anything it's due to being under built. This is due to lack of proper funding. Not some hyperbolic nonsensical statement like "reckless expansion."

And building more highways isn't going to fix it, nor is widening the ones we already have. It will just encourage more people to drive, the freeway will be congested again, and money will be wasted. I'm glad we're spending more money on mass transit; driving in urban areas generally sucks and being able to have good public transit really makes for a better experience getting around.

I think many roadgeeks struggle with the notion that driving in cities will inevitably suck, because moving 1 ton+ objects through densely populated areas is inherently dangerous and difficult.
It will suck. And honestly I'm just fine with that. I can deal with traffic congestion it doesn't bother me all that much. The only thing that really pisses me off is if I'm going on a road trip and me or my girlfriend(if I have one), or one of my friends that I'm with forget something and we have to backtrack. Then I get really pissed off.

But otherwise, I understand you're not ever going to solve traffic congestion issues in cities.

Yes, it'll suck by building these projects that Washington is we can make it suck a little less.

Thing is, by blasting and paving over the things we like about Washington, we've made it suck far more.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 23, 2023, 01:29:42 AM
Quote from: Bickendan on December 20, 2023, 08:53:01 PM
We're indifferent to "the X" though.

Seattle and surrounding environs are indifferent to "the X" too, it's not uncommon to hear it, between Canadians and Southern Californians who both like the phrasing. The notion that we are offended by it is simply false. At least in real life...Twitter would have you believe that it'll get you strung-up.

I used to live in Kennydale, and I would say "the 405" all the time. Same when I was in Tacoma and lived near Stadium High School, I used "the 705" all the time. No one has ever corrected me on it, or ever cared. Most normal people don't care, period.

Quote from: Bickendan on December 20, 2023, 08:53:01 PM
Quote from: Bruce on December 19, 2023, 11:48:23 PM
Umbrellas are one of the cardinal sins in Seattle
Umbrellas are also a cardinal sin in Portland

I've never understood why this is. I don't like entering a building soaking wet. Last I checked, a good umbrella will keep your torso and upper legs mostly dry, where rain jackets only keep your torso dry (if they work as advertised), whereas your face, legs, and shoes will all get soaked, or at least wet. No thanks.

Umbrellas are strongly preferred here in Okinawa year round, either to prevent you from getting wet (both from the rain, and resulting sweat), or from getting sunburned; I'm surprised the typical Pacific Northwest vampires haven't yet figured out that latter use for them yet.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 23, 2023, 01:59:02 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 21, 2023, 01:13:10 AM
Okay so all I have to do is visit the state and suddenly I can comment on it. That's a ridiculous argument.

I would agree with you, especially because these transportation improvements are ostensibly to support growth, which naturally will include lots of people not from the area already. For example, I'm sure a substantial portion of Link Light Rail riders never voted in favor of the system in any general election, rather they moved to the Seattle region and located near the line specifically because it was already there.

If Seattle wants to grow, it needs to invest in all transportation options: new public transport services (bus, metro, etc), new freeways, and more housing (increasing density). It's hard to do all of those, but it's the key to success for the world's biggest cities (at least here in the Far East). Tokyo has arguably the best rail system in the world, yet the city is covered in freeways too, some still under construction or being planned.

Now, I admit using Japan as an example is (besides typical of me) not so great because the per-person public debt is outrageously high, but even in areas with lower budgets, putting all of your eggs in one basket is not good. Seattle is a good example of a place that spreads things out, though: the Link Light Rail will ultimately cost $130 billion, which is pretty much the same as the $3 billion the new 167 and 509 will cost...oh wait...
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 23, 2023, 02:01:25 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 23, 2023, 01:29:42 AMNo one has ever corrected me on it, or ever cared. Most normal people don't care, period.

It's mostly a meme, but also part of the strong resistance locally to stave off Californication. Using their incorrect grammar is a sign of losing our local identity.

Quote from: jakeroot on December 23, 2023, 01:29:42 AM
I've never understood why this is. I don't like entering a building soaking wet. Last I checked, a good umbrella will keep your torso and upper legs mostly dry, where rain jackets only keep your torso dry (if they work as advertised), whereas your face, legs, and shoes will all get soaked, or at least wet. No thanks.

Umbrellas are strongly preferred here in Okinawa year round, either to prevent you from getting wet (both from the rain, and resulting sweat), or from getting sunburned; I'm surprised the typical Pacific Northwest vampires haven't yet figured out that latter use for them yet.

I don't like being poked by umbrellas when walking on a crowded sidewalk. They also don't work well in the wind and create flying hazards in the worst case scenario. For our misty, constant rain, a good hood on a jacket works just fine.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on December 23, 2023, 02:16:41 AM
Quote from: Bruce on December 23, 2023, 02:01:25 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 23, 2023, 01:29:42 AMNo one has ever corrected me on it, or ever cared. Most normal people don't care, period.

It's mostly a meme, but also part of the strong resistance locally to stave off Californication. Using their incorrect grammar is a sign of losing our local identity.

It's almost completely a meme, I've never encountered real-life resistance to the term.

Our road terminology is the same as the other 49 states (and northern half of California), I don't think we're at risk of losing any identity.

Quote from: Bruce on December 23, 2023, 02:01:25 AM
I don't like being poked by umbrellas when walking on a crowded sidewalk. They also don't work well in the wind and create flying hazards in the worst case scenario. For our misty, constant rain, a good hood on a jacket works just fine.

Lol, don't you dare tell me about "crowded sidewalks", my suburban neighborhood in Japan is more dense than 99% of anywhere in the Pacific Northwest and I've never seen it busy enough for people to be bumping into each other any other time besides leaving a major event, and that describes very nearly zero percent of my walking.

The wind concern is legit, but I don't remember wind being a major issue in the Northwest on average days.

I honestly never wear hooded jackets in Seattle, the rain is light enough that a pullover does the job just fine, or a sweatshirt (which I rarely pull up the hood on), I just accept the small dampness. Actual rain, where a rain jacket is necessary, I almost always find them to be inadequate at keeping anything but my upper half dry.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on December 23, 2023, 02:44:51 AM
I'm sure American umbrella users are much less mindful of other people than Japanese umbrella users. And the three-abreast walking style endemic to Amazonland certainly does create unnecessary sidewalk congestion.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Rothman on December 23, 2023, 09:38:57 AM
I've never seen a flying umbrella.

Kind of want to walk around the PNW poking people with an umbrella now, though.  I've never noticed sidewalks being narrower there, though, so kind of odd they haven't figured umbrellas out. :D
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: compdude787 on January 06, 2024, 02:01:27 PM
I think our reluctance to use umbrellas in the PNW stems from the fact that our rain is more like mist, where if you go outside while it's raining, you're less likely to get completely soaked if you're not using an umbrella, and a raincoat is generally just fine.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Rothman on January 06, 2024, 02:59:58 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on January 06, 2024, 02:01:27 PM
I think our reluctance to use umbrellas in the PNW stems from the fact that our rain is more like mist, where if you go outside while it's raining, you're less likely to get completely soaked if you're not using an umbrella, and a raincoat is generally just fine.
Bringing a golf umbrella to the PNW next time I go.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: kkt on January 06, 2024, 09:37:20 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 06, 2024, 02:59:58 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on January 06, 2024, 02:01:27 PM
I think our reluctance to use umbrellas in the PNW stems from the fact that our rain is more like mist, where if you go outside while it's raining, you're less likely to get completely soaked if you're not using an umbrella, and a raincoat is generally just fine.
Bringing a golf umbrella to the PNW next time I go.

You'll stick out like a sore thumb.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Rothman on January 07, 2024, 12:06:10 AM


Quote from: kkt on January 06, 2024, 09:37:20 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 06, 2024, 02:59:58 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on January 06, 2024, 02:01:27 PM
I think our reluctance to use umbrellas in the PNW stems from the fact that our rain is more like mist, where if you go outside while it's raining, you're less likely to get completely soaked if you're not using an umbrella, and a raincoat is generally just fine.
Bringing a golf umbrella to the PNW next time I go.

You'll stick out like a sore thumb.

Well, yeah.  That's the point, silly man.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on January 09, 2024, 04:22:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on January 06, 2024, 02:59:58 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on January 06, 2024, 02:01:27 PM
I think our reluctance to use umbrellas in the PNW stems from the fact that our rain is more like mist, where if you go outside while it's raining, you're less likely to get completely soaked if you're not using an umbrella, and a raincoat is generally just fine.
Bringing a golf umbrella to the PNW next time I go.

(https://gifdb.com/images/high/salute-dwight-schrute-fu17xxm2hc8iyz9l.gif)
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on January 14, 2024, 11:03:12 PM
It's so cold that the HOT lanes are now HOV-only again.

https://twitter.com/GoodToGoWSDOT/status/1746673815999189156
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on January 21, 2024, 05:10:41 PM
Everett is about to become even more fun: SR 529 northbound will close for 4 months of bridge repairs, and both directions will close on weekends. I-5 is already a huge mess because of the HOV lane expansion that didn't account for consistent shoulder widths, so many collisions just never get cleared to the shoulder.

https://www.heraldnet.com/news/highway-529-to-close-for-months-between-everett-marysville/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Amaury on February 13, 2024, 01:05:09 AM
Interstate 82 eastbound is closed at Exit 44 (Wapato) until further notice due to erosion!

https://www.facebook.com/WSDOT/posts/pfbid0QTdJSBRuddyuvXZySMkhA5v265G41DabYx5zEDwQYCSP1f6Y8R3VYphwxCXsdfUBl

Quote from: WSDOTEastbound I-82 is closed at milepost 44 due to erosion caused by embankment failure. Traffic is being detoured at Exit 44 to the Yakima Valley Highway. Detour is also available through Wapato to Hwy 97. The cause is under investigation, so that a plan for repair can be made. Eastbound I-82 will remain closed until further notice.

The erosion goes under the eastbound lanes of I-82 located north of Zillah estimated in size at 10 feet wide by 4 feet deep and 40 feet long. The erosion goes under the eastbound lanes of I-82 by several feet.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: pderocco on February 13, 2024, 08:43:25 PM
The river must have flooded badly. But I don't see anything in that area that could be called an "embankment".
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: stevashe on February 15, 2024, 03:29:01 PM
Quote from: pderocco on February 13, 2024, 08:43:25 PM
The river must have flooded badly. But I don't see anything in that area that could be called an "embankment".

I'm guessing it would be here (https://www.google.com/maps/@46.454961,-120.3661577,221m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1?hl=en&authuser=0&entry=ttu), since that's where the main river channel gets closest to I-82.

Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Amaury on February 16, 2024, 03:52:32 PM
Both directions now closed!

https://www.nbcrightnow.com/news/i-82-now-closed-in-both-directions-near-wapato-due-to-embankment-failure-damaged-culvert/article_597424e4-ccda-11ee-938d-f3661db14f43.html

Quote from: NBC Right NowBoth directions of I-82 near Wapato are now closed due to an embankment failure near the eastbound lanes.

The Washington State Department of Transportation closed both lanes as of 6:30 a.m. on Friday, Feb. 16 to ensure the safety of travelers.

Initially only the eastbound lanes were closed when the failure was found on Monday, Feb. 12, however, WSDOT crews inspected the area and discovered damage to an irrigation culvert running under the road.

According to a WSDOT press release on the situation, the culvert, operated by the Roza Irrigation District, has partially collapsed due to age and corrosion.

The culvert under the eastbound lanes was further damaged during excavation work on Feb. 15, which impacted the shoulder and the left lane of the westbound lanes, according to WSDOT.

Detour routes will be posted for both direction on I-82 throughout the closure.

I-82 Detours:

Eastbound traffic will detour off I-82 at exit 37A onto US 97. Drivers will then use McDonald Rd. to SR 22 before getting back onto I-82.
Westbound traffic will detour off I-82 at exit 50 onto Buena Rd. and then detour via Yakima Valley Highway and Donald Wapato Rd. to return to I-82.

There is currently no estimated timetable for when the repairs will be completed and I-82 will be reopened. According to today's press release, the WSDOT is working with the Roza Irrigation District on a replacement solution to provide irrigation while repairs are made.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on February 28, 2024, 12:16:37 AM
Pasco has closed the Lewis Street underpass, which crossed under the BNSF tracks near the Amtrak station. A new overpass (https://www.pasco-wa.gov/906/Lewis-Street-Overpass) just to the north is being constructed and should open this year.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Bruce on March 11, 2024, 02:19:30 AM
A great piece of reporting from The Times on the state's culvert replacement program, which is mandated by a federal court order and is going to cost billions to make a 2030 deadline: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/removing-wa-salmon-barriers-surges-to-1m-a-day-but-results-are-murky/
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: Amaury on March 13, 2024, 07:10:55 PM
Drove on the new freeway portion of US Route 12 in Walla Walla County yesterday, heading eastbound. I loved it.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 19, 2024, 10:27:03 PM
Quote from: Amaury on March 13, 2024, 07:10:55 PM
Drove on the new freeway portion of US Route 12 in Walla Walla County yesterday, heading eastbound. I loved it.

I'd forgotten this was even a project. Seriously good work by WSDOT. And they posted it at 70; a true no-BS brand-new rural freeway. Great work.

It's all on Google Street View and satellite view on Google Earth as well, for those that want to check it out.

The interchanges are interesting, they look straight out of the 70s, especially that unusual diamond at Lower Dry Creek Road. But I mean that in a good way, it's a very "standard" looking freeway, nothing bizarre or "innovative" to try and save money or something. Just a straight-up standard rural freeway with a proper median and diamond interchanges. Bravo, WSDOT.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: pderocco on March 21, 2024, 08:25:29 PM
Seems a little odd that the road was scrunched together with no median over the Touchet River, instead of building two two-lane bridges.
Title: Re: Washington
Post by: jakeroot on March 21, 2024, 10:33:55 PM
Quote from: pderocco on March 21, 2024, 08:25:29 PM
Seems a little odd that the road was scrunched together with no median over the Touchet River, instead of building two two-lane bridges.

I noticed that too. Especially odd since the other over-crossings are separate two-lane bridges (Dry Creek and Touchet interchange).