Washington

[Bruce]

"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" 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), or Rumsey's site (e.g. 1956 Shell), or on the state archives.

[jakeroot]

Here's the plan for the new 70th Ave bridge over I-5 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

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
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?

[jakeroot]

^^^^^^^^
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.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
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)?

[jakeroot]

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.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
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!

[jakeroot]

^^^^^^^^^
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.

[Hurricane Rex]

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

[jakeroot]

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.

[Hurricane Rex]

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

[jakeroot]

"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).

[bing101]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sllnHziS7QQ


Cool Ride of WA-16 by Compdude 100.

[nexus73]

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

[Bruce]

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 on SR 99 (besides the whole viaduct/tunnel project, which I'm still compiling notes on).

[compdude787]

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.

[ErmineNotyours]

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 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.

99T by Arthur Allen, on Flickr

[Kacie Jane]

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 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

[Bruce]

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 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.

[Pete from Boston]

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.

[ErmineNotyours]

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.

[Hurricane Rex]

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

[Bickendan]

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).

[ErmineNotyours]

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.

[jakeroot]

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...