Washington

[stevashe]

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.

[jakeroot]

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

[stevashe]

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.

[jay8g]

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. That's why the section south of the exit was widened too. (But for some reason, the new signs [page 20] ignore the exit only lane.)

[jakeroot]

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 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 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.

[pderocco]

Bing has Streetside for it.

[jakeroot]

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.

[pderocco]

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.

[jakeroot]

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 in question.

[TEG24601]

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 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.

[jakeroot]

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) 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.

[Bruce]

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.

[jakeroot]

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).

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[vdeane]

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".

[jakeroot]

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.

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.

[ClassicHasClass]

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").

[Plutonic Panda]

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?

[stevashe]

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)

[ClassicHasClass]

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 claims, "For unpaid fines issued to foreign drivers, a local decision will be taken on what further action to take."

[jakeroot]

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)

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).

[Bruce]

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/

[kkt]

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.

[jakeroot]

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

[TEG24601]

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.