I believe we have had a topic like this in the main board before, but what are some examples in the Pacific Northwest of abandoned stubs or right-of-way that at one point were to carry roads never built? This does not include roads currently under construction (such as the North Spokane Corridor).
The first example I have is SR 9 in Snohomish, WA. Between the Bickford Ave overpass and Marsh Road, there is extra right-of-way on the west side of the road, indicating that this portion of the highway was originally intended to be divided. Also, look at the layout of the interchange with 2nd Street. It definitely looks like it was modified after a second carriageway was cancelled.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9165701,-122.1125941,1015m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
What else do you know of?
Ghost ramps on WA 520: https://goo.gl/maps/KyU55AbmdMD2 -- was to be the the north end of the R. H. Thomson Expressway (http://www.520history.org/1956-present/wsdotpeninsula.htm)
Wikipedia has a list of stub ramps and the like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unused_highways_in_Washington
(Note that some of those links are outdated, but you can use tools like Google Earth or Historic Aerials to look at older imagery)
My favorite is SR 7 in Tacoma. (https://www.google.com/maps/@47.2221639,-122.4251931,269m/data=!3m1!1e3)
Maybe this subject could also be in Fictional Highways, if anyone had any fantasy ideas for roads that would go from the Northwest to anywhere!
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 02, 2018, 03:54:29 PM
Maybe this subject could also be in Fictional Highways, if anyone had any fantasy ideas for roads that would go from the Northwest to anywhere!
"This road could have been in the Northwest, but it's in the Southeast instead."
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 02, 2018, 03:54:29 PM
Maybe this subject could also be in Fictional Highways, if anyone had any fantasy ideas for roads that would go from the Northwest to anywhere!
I think this topic should be restricted to actual plans of years past rather than fantasy roads. We need to keep the two separate.
Of course, there were no shortage of freeway plans for Northwest cities.
Seattle (1967):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkdHxRuD.jpg&hash=cc170600d6f549ee1f21fa6f5212380e5fb33887)
Portland (1965):
(https://i.imgur.com/65FN6yv.jpg)
Vancouver (1970):
(https://i.imgur.com/IJ2Kzn2.jpg)
(https://a4.pbase.com/o3/52/479852/1/146624216.F5K2Utt0.ProposedFreeway1.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4005/4182283392_d6fe01fe6b_b.jpg)
I agree, it should be only actually construction or proposals.
Another example, US 195 in Rosalia. The interchange at the south end of town is lopsided and the overpass has room for a second carriageway.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.210973,-117.3635275,1029m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Two come to mind:
The original plan for a diamond interchange at SR 509 and Des Moines Memorial Drive (near SeaTac) is evident in a partially-built on-ramp going southbound: https://goo.gl/jH7K87
The 509 (in Tacoma) has a very wide ROW from Portland Ave to near Taylor Way, for what was originally to be a series of overpasses to connect to the 167 extension: https://goo.gl/TjRwhp -- The ground was even graded to support the overpass, and the Portland Ave interchange (built in 2001) was clearly built to support the C/D lanes between it and Alexander Ave (the roads even being named "Frontage Road"). Unfortunately, even long-range plans for the 167 extension no longer show any evidence that any overpasses are going to be built here. Which sucks, because the current signal is not well designed. No right turn lanes (fun stopping to turn right from 60), and the left turns from Alexander Ave are tiny. Drivers regularly create their own second left turn lane.
I've always wondered why 509 was designed so oddly.
WSDOT does have plans to extend 509 at Sea-Tac to I-5 near the old Dump. However, those have been in the works now for almost 20 years, but they are always planning...
Of course that means 509 will either be discontinuous, again, or the section west of the airport could get a new designation... I was thinking something like SR-99.
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on July 07, 2018, 01:12:50 PM
I've always wondered why 509 was designed so oddly.
I believe the plans for the overpass existed as recently as 2006, but I can't find anything since then that supports any recent developments.
See page 8 (of 9) of this PDF (https://goo.gl/cWffqr), created in 2006. It shows a colorized visualization of an Alexander Ave overpass.
That PDF also refers to the freeway extension at the Port of Tacoma as 167, not 509 Spur. Many other things have changed since this document was created.
There are a bunch of really informative PDFs over here on WSDOT's website (https://goo.gl/41645H), many showing old alternatives.
Another PDF (this one (https://goo.gl/FAv3GM)) (see page 10 of 42) indicates that the I-5/Port of Tacoma Road interchange was built to accommodate the original 167 route, which would have ended at that interchange. I guess that explains all that unused ROW. Clearly a 3/4s cloverleaf was planned there.
EDIT: See this PDF (https://goo.gl/v979cj) (page 17 of 22) for information regarding the Alexander Ave interchange.
Quote from: SR167 Tier II FEIS Chapter2 Alternatives/Options Including the Preferred Alternative
The proposed SR 167 begins as a four-lane limited access highway where it connects to the existing SR 509 at the Port of Tacoma Road/SR 509 Interchange (Figure 2-2). The location of the connection and design features are dictated by the location of SR 509 and the SR 167 alignment as approved in the Tier I EIS. The two-lane southbound SR 167 will directly connect to the southbound lane of SR 509. The two-lane northbound SR 509 will directly connect to the two-lane northbound SR 167. There will be single-lane ramps from southbound SR 167 to SR 509 North Frontage Road and from SR 509 South Frontage Road to northbound SR 167.
As part of the SR 509 connection, one new bridge over Alexander Avenue will be built. This bridge would span Wapato Creek and the South Frontage Road. The existing railroad crossing of SR 509 will be relocated. A new railroad bridge over Wapato Creek will be constructed south of the South Frontage Road. A new structure (potentially a bridge or three-sided culvert) may replace the existing 110-foot long by 8-foot diameter open bottom arched culvert over Wapato Creek on North Frontage Road. The need for a new bridge on North Frontage Road has not been determined. This structure will only be constructed if needed to support the new railroad crossing. At this time it is not anticipated that this structure will be replaced because it is not impacted.
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 07, 2018, 03:13:43 PM
WSDOT does have plans to extend 509 at Sea-Tac to I-5 near the old Dump. However, those have been in the works now for almost 20 years, but they are always planning...
Only in the last two years have those plans gone from just that, to solid action. The 509 has funding and construction should start soon. The 24th/26th Ave S extension in Des Moines (which opened very recently) included an overpass around the 20400 block, so the freeway could pass under.
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 07, 2018, 03:13:43 PM
Of course that means 509 will either be discontinuous, again, or the section west of the airport could get a new designation... I was thinking something like SR-99.
This is the one thing I don't have an answer for. The extension to 167 in Tacoma will be 509 Spur, so they clearly intend to keep the 509 at least north along the waterfront. I doubt they would use another Spur at SeaTac (which wouldn't make any sense since it's one continuous freeway from 1st Ave S to I-5). So 509 will more than likely become discontinuous. I'm just not sure which portions of state highway will be dumped. Maybe 509 will route along I-5 until the 516 interchange, and follow 516 over to Pac Highway, and continue from there?
Given that the SR 99 designation has already been removed from International Blvd. in Seatac, it would make sense for WSDOT to reroute 99 onto what is now 509 West of the Airport, along the extension to I-5, and then break it away at 516 to connect to the existing routing. Then extending 599 along West Marginal Way to the 1st Ave. S bridge would the the other logical change.
509 then would only exist from Tacoma to Federal Way, being truncated on both ends due to extensions of its existing freeway/expressway segments.
Of course, that might be a more appropriate discussion in Fictional Highways.
----
Back on topic, for roads that could have been, there is always the Bayshore Freeway, which was to connect I-5 with SR 99 where Mercer St. currently is in Seattle, with "octopus" ramps to spread traffic to several locations beyond 99. That is why for the longest time there was the horrible couplet of Mercer and Valley Sts, and why even with what they have done to Mercer, it can't seem to handle the traffic. I'm really convinced that if they aren't going to ever go full freeway there, they need to completely rethink the traffic patterns in that area, as it can't handle traffic at noon, let alone rush hour.
That plan for designations near Seatac actually sounds pretty good, but I doubt WSDOT would do anything that drastic. It would be nice to see Highway 99 continuous once again.
Mercer still doesn't work very well because of how wide it is. The width requires quite lengthy pedestrian crossing phases, which are of course very important in that area. Plus, you have the trolley crossings.
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 08, 2018, 11:02:15 AM
Back on topic, for roads that could have been, there is always the Bayshore Freeway, which was to connect I-5 with SR 99 where Mercer St. currently is in Seattle, with "octopus" ramps to spread traffic to several locations beyond 99. That is why for the longest time there was the horrible couplet of Mercer and Valley Sts, and why even with what they have done to Mercer, it can't seem to handle the traffic. I'm really convinced that if they aren't going to ever go full freeway there, they need to completely rethink the traffic patterns in that area, as it can't handle traffic at noon, let alone rush hour.
It was just the Bay Freeway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Freeway_(Seattle)), no shore involved. Would have cut across Belltown on Broad Street to meet the Northwest Freeway, which would extend from the viaduct to Ballard and points beyond. Really dodged some bullets with these two.
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5612/15441816298_f51864a2b8_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/pwxm13)
Bay Freeway Possible Design, 1970 (https://flic.kr/p/pwxm13) by SounderBruce (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sounderbruce/), on Flickr
Quote from: Bruce on July 08, 2018, 08:07:43 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 08, 2018, 11:02:15 AM
Back on topic, for roads that could have been, there is always the Bayshore Freeway, which was to connect I-5 with SR 99 where Mercer St. currently is in Seattle, with "octopus" ramps to spread traffic to several locations beyond 99. That is why for the longest time there was the horrible couplet of Mercer and Valley Sts, and why even with what they have done to Mercer, it can't seem to handle the traffic. I'm really convinced that if they aren't going to ever go full freeway there, they need to completely rethink the traffic patterns in that area, as it can't handle traffic at noon, let alone rush hour.
It was just the Bay Freeway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Freeway_(Seattle)), no shore involved. Would have cut across Belltown on Broad Street to meet the Northwest Freeway, which would extend from the viaduct to Ballard and points beyond. Really dodged some bullets with these two.
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5612/15441816298_f51864a2b8_b.jpg
I agree, although it would be cool today to see what kind of lidding plans the local community would have come up with. I can see that a tunnel was planned between Denny and 5th, but that definitely wouldn't be enough to cover up the scar of a whole freeway. It does look like the section through SLU was elevated; I get sick just thinking about what that would look like today.
Something does catch my eye, though. What's up with that solid-colored extension of Fairview Ave near the I-5 interchange?
Oh, and can we all imagine just how shitty the Mercer Weave and 520 Shuffle would be if Mercer were a freeway?
¡Ay, caramba! I assume that, shortly after construction was finished, they'd have fixed that massive design error with some collector lanes or flyovers.
Is there a map of the I-605 outer belt for Seattle?
Quote from: Beltway on July 09, 2018, 05:27:57 AM
Is there a map of the I-605 outer belt for Seattle?
Good question. I've never seen one; the route was never really decided except that it would follow WA-18 from I-5 to I-90, and then keep going from there to an indeterminate point (maybe US-2).
If there's a map, Bruce would probably have it. He's got loads of old maps (it seems).
A lot of the I-605 proposals didn't specify a specific route, just an undefined corridor either west or east of Lake Sammamish. Here's a few descriptions and maps I dug up with a quick search:
1967 plan
From the 1967 Regional Transportation Plan (https://web.archive.org/web/20100708001851/http://www.psrc.org/assets/3398/PSRTSfinalcopy.pdf) by what is now the PSRC. Would have ran from SR 167 near Kent to SR 520 near Overlake via Eastgate on the west side of Lake Sammamish.
The Seattle Times mapped out part of the route in December 1968:
(https://i.imgur.com/aUK6Gcq.png)
1998-03 proposal
The full Commerce Corridor study (https://web.archive.org/web/20061230190347/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov:80/freight/TechnicalMemos.htm) is available if you dig through WSDOT's archived webpages. The main proposal under consideration, which would best fit the I-605 moniker, would have run from Federal Way to Snoqualmie on SR 18, then up the Snoqualmie Valley near SR 203 to Monroe, and along US 2 to Everett.
Based on this and the existing topography, I sketched out a possible route (69.4 miles):
(https://i.imgur.com/lyzuaBg.png)
A few more outlandish alignments were also considered, with a maximum cost of $41-50 billion for the border-to-border alignment:
(https://i.imgur.com/uBJEXhj.jpg)
Interestingly, the corridor was envisioned as also carrying power lines, gas/oil pipe lines, and trains (as useless as that sounds).
(https://i.imgur.com/lzoASgN.png)
That 1998-2003 proposal of I-605 is the one I'm most familiar with! The mountainous terrain may have been a factor in it getting cancelled, because it seems to be nonpractical and super expensive. Then again, any route through such terrain has always been, right?
Quote from: Henry on July 10, 2018, 10:26:34 AM
That 1998-2003 proposal of I-605 is the one I'm most familiar with! The mountainous terrain may have been a factor in it getting cancelled, because it seems to be nonpractical and super expensive. Then again, any route through such terrain has always been, right?
I guess the cost/benefit analysis didn't pan out. They could find a way to tunnel when necessary, but obviously that adds to the cost.
I do find it interesting that, in this article (http://old.seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2001979989_corridor15e.html) that was linked on the wiki page for I-605 (WA), the speed limit for the freeway would have been 80 mph. As far as I know, this would have required a modification to the law at the time, which only permitted limits up to 70 (unlike the current law which permits 75).
While I don't find it likely for another N-S freeway to be built perhaps ever, I wouldn't consider it unreasonable to think that 18 could one day extend to US-2 or 522, once a lot of the major projects are finished (HOV lanes from Olympia or JBLM to Fife, SR 99 tunnel, 405 widening from Bellevue to Tukwila, etc). According to that ST article, WSDOT had too much on their plate at the time with the viaduct and 520 needing rebuilding. Both of those things are done or very nearly done.
The Snoqualmie Valley will probably never be touched. Maybe some expansion on SR 203, but nothing near the scale of a full freeway. The soils are really poor, it's still productive farmland (and thus protected by various federal/state rules), and the political opposition will always be very high.
It would be far more practical to convert SR 203 and SR 9 into an expressway (the latter is already a four-lane, divided expressway in some areas), then build a connection around the southwest side of Monroe.
Quote from: Bruce on July 10, 2018, 04:46:57 PM
The Snoqualmie Valley will probably never be touched. Maybe some expansion on SR 203, but nothing near the scale of a full freeway. The soils are really poor, it's still productive farmland (and thus protected by various federal/state rules), and the political opposition will always be very high.
It would be far more practical to convert SR 203 and SR 9 into an expressway (the latter is already a four-lane, divided expressway in some areas), then build a connection around the southwest side of Monroe.
I also forgot about the 167 and 509 extensions which will be draining the state's coffers for the next ten years. Plus the N-S Spokane freeway. Funding for any 18 extension would be way off.
I don't know if the political opposition would be
that high. It would move through some farmland, but that's not unlike the 167 extension, which is plowing (no pun intended) through quite a lot of farmland. And the 509 extension is going right through a major park. The state seems to be able to design roads that aren't too environmentally destructive (to the degree a road can avoid being). This would probably mean widening existing state highways though, as you mention. Bypassing Carnation and Duvall would be a start, though that would require some farmland acquisition.
The idea of a freeway running through the Snoqualmie Valley is going to rile up a lot of people living in Sammamish and Redmond Ridge, which were deliberately setback from the existing freeways to avoid some of their effects.
If we have to scratch that freeway itch, then there's some low-hanging fruit in eastern WA: completing the freeway segment of US 395 between Pasco and Ritzville (really only a few grade separated overpases left); and upgrading US 195 from Spokane to Pullman (or perhaps building SR 230 and creating a better Ritzville-Pullman connection). US 12 is already being upgraded to a freeway near Walla Walla, so that about covers the major US routes.
Speaking of the Ritzville-Pasco US 395 freeway -- south of there, after US 395 segues onto I-82 south of Kennewick -- there were plans originally fomented in the early '90's to extend I-82 southwest along OR 207 to US 26 (although some variations specified a more northerly alignment using an OR 206/19/218/293 routing through Condon and Antelope; the goal was to connect the northern section of US 395 (via I-82) and US 97 (somewhere between OR 293 and Redmond) and then take the freeway straight down US 97 into California. Obviously whoever planned this alignment was looking at a map rather than what's on the ground; the area between I-84 and the Deschutes Valley is comprised of piles and piles of basalt rock formations with creeks and rivers cutting through them in narrow gorges -- not a particularly hospitable place to put an Interstate-grade freeway! Eventually the plan was put on a back shelf at ODOT and essentially forgotten.
If in the distant future a freeway is planned for US 97, it'll probably just have to remain on or near that route all the way to I-84 and the Columbia River -- although north of Madras even that wouldn't be a picnic to construct -- that part of OR is not known for easy pathways anywhere!
Quote from: Bruce on July 10, 2018, 04:46:57 PM
The Snoqualmie Valley will probably never be touched. Maybe some expansion on SR 203, but nothing near the scale of a full freeway. The soils are really poor, it's still productive farmland (and thus protected by various federal/state rules), and the political opposition will always be very high.
It would be far more practical to convert SR 203 and SR 9 into an expressway (the latter is already a four-lane, divided expressway in some areas), then build a connection around the southwest side of Monroe.
According to a Thomas Brothers atlas of King and Snohomish Counties from 1976, a freeway bypass was proposed around the north side of Monroe. It would've carried US 2, and split from the existing road somewhere in the vicinity of Freylands Blvd in the west, and returned to the existing road near the reptile zoo along US 2 east of town. The only portion of this bypass that has been constructed at all is the stub on SR 522 where it crosses US 2 and makes the curve down off the bridge to end at US 2. Had the bypass been built, SR 522 would've extended north to end at the bypass.
It's also interesting to note that when looking at satellite imagery of the area, there is a pathway of trees in the approximate area the bypass would'be been built. To me, this indicates that Washington State Department of Highways (later WSDOT) acquired the ROW back in the 1960's and it still has not been built on.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.8632674,-121.9818737,254m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
The US-2 Monroe Bypass is a very real thing. Those stub ramps were only built in 2011.
The same year, WSDOT released this PDF (via the RCW website) with information, including construction stages and the route:
http://leg.wa.gov/JTC/Documents/Studies/P3/August2_3Workshop/MonroeBypassSummary.pdf
Doesn't look to be a freeway at this point, though the roadway would be divided and "limited access". As far as I can tell, the bypass starts as far west as it does because Hwy 2 starts to drop down right after the 88th interchange. The whole bypass would be higher in elevation than the valley, so it needs to start going up pretty early on to avoid steep hills.
(https://i.imgur.com/tulX5jE.png)
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2018, 04:21:46 AM
Speaking of the Ritzville-Pasco US 395 freeway -- south of there, after US 395 segues onto I-82 south of Kennewick -- there were plans originally fomented in the early '90's to extend I-82 southwest along OR 207 to US 26 (although some variations specified a more northerly alignment using an OR 206/19/218/293 routing through Condon and Antelope; the goal was to connect the northern section of US 395 (via I-82) and US 97 (somewhere between OR 293 and Redmond) and then take the freeway straight down US 97 into California. Obviously whoever planned this alignment was looking at a map rather than what's on the ground; the area between I-84 and the Deschutes Valley is comprised of piles and piles of basalt rock formations with creeks and rivers cutting through them in narrow gorges -- not a particularly hospitable place to put an Interstate-grade freeway! Eventually the plan was put on a back shelf at ODOT and essentially forgotten.
If in the distant future a freeway is planned for US 97, it'll probably just have to remain on or near that route all the way to I-84 and the Columbia River -- although north of Madras even that wouldn't be a picnic to construct -- that part of OR is not known for easy pathways anywhere!
I've been looking around for newspaper clippings talking about that I-82 extension. There's a 1999 article in the Bend Bulletin I've been trying to track down, to no avail.
ODOT did publish the 2001 study (https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Documents/Eastern-Oregon-Freeway-Alternatives-Study.pdf) on their website, at least.
(https://i.imgur.com/DLLACmE.jpg)
Thanks for digging up the '01 ODOT report. Aside from its internal debunking of the "build it and they will come" concept, it looks like the overall attitude within the agency regarding prospects for construction of any iteration of the corridor was lukewarm at best (and that likely hasn't improved with time!). Chances are US 97 will at some point be built up south of the Redmond/Bend area over the years as an expressway with some freeway sections near towns (the old "upper Midwest" idiom); in most spots there's plenty of room to do so (the ROW is about 200 feet wide south of Chemult) and the truck traffic (principally forest products) can be unexpectedly high seasonally. North of Madras, building such a facility would be considerably more expensive due to the terrain -- and much of the 97 traffic diverts to the Willamette Valley via US 20/OR 22 or directly to PDX via US 26 (although the congestion factor from Mt. Hood to Sandy on the latter route seems to have increased over the years). There's an obstacle to a south-from-Bend facility: Klamath Lake to the south will be tough to push a multilane facility through; the road perches on the bluff overlooking the lakeshore, sharing the ROW with the UP/BNSF joint main line. I wouldn't expect to see a completed expressway facility from Bend south to the CA state line for the next 30-40 years at best.
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2018, 04:21:46 AM
Speaking of the Ritzville-Pasco US 395 freeway -- south of there, after US 395 segues onto I-82 south of Kennewick -- there were plans originally fomented in the early '90's to extend I-82 southwest along OR 207 to US 26 (although some variations specified a more northerly alignment using an OR 206/19/218/293 routing through Condon and Antelope; the goal was to connect the northern section of US 395 (via I-82) and US 97 (somewhere between OR 293 and Redmond) and then take the freeway straight down US 97 into California. Obviously whoever planned this alignment was looking at a map rather than what's on the ground; the area between I-84 and the Deschutes Valley is comprised of piles and piles of basalt rock formations with creeks and rivers cutting through them in narrow gorges -- not a particularly hospitable place to put an Interstate-grade freeway! Eventually the plan was put on a back shelf at ODOT and essentially forgotten.
If in the distant future a freeway is planned for US 97, it'll probably just have to remain on or near that route all the way to I-84 and the Columbia River -- although north of Madras even that wouldn't be a picnic to construct -- that part of OR is not known for easy pathways anywhere!
That I-82 routing would make no sense at all! If anything, they should've assigned it I-7 or I-9, especially when you factor in the potential upgrades to CA 99 between Mettler (a small town south of Bakersfield) and Stockton/Sacramento.
Quote from: Henry on July 12, 2018, 10:08:44 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2018, 04:21:46 AM
Speaking of the Ritzville-Pasco US 395 freeway -- south of there, after US 395 segues onto I-82 south of Kennewick -- there were plans originally fomented in the early '90's to extend I-82 southwest along OR 207 to US 26 (although some variations specified a more northerly alignment using an OR 206/19/218/293 routing through Condon and Antelope; the goal was to connect the northern section of US 395 (via I-82) and US 97 (somewhere between OR 293 and Redmond) and then take the freeway straight down US 97 into California. Obviously whoever planned this alignment was looking at a map rather than what's on the ground; the area between I-84 and the Deschutes Valley is comprised of piles and piles of basalt rock formations with creeks and rivers cutting through them in narrow gorges -- not a particularly hospitable place to put an Interstate-grade freeway! Eventually the plan was put on a back shelf at ODOT and essentially forgotten.
If in the distant future a freeway is planned for US 97, it'll probably just have to remain on or near that route all the way to I-84 and the Columbia River -- although north of Madras even that wouldn't be a picnic to construct -- that part of OR is not known for easy pathways anywhere!
That I-82 routing would make no sense at all! If anything, they should've assigned it I-7 or I-9, especially when you factor in the potential upgrades to CA 99 between Mettler (a small town south of Bakersfield) and Stockton/Sacramento.
The chances are that any reference to a basically N-S route in OR would have become a designated extension of I-82 were always slight; the 84/82 junction near Hinkle was simply a "launch site" for the corridor. It probably would have been one of the single-digit odd numbers, and likely extended up US 395 to I-90 at Ritzville, WA. But in the ensuing years since the report was released, interest has certainly waned (perhaps not so much in the Bend/Redmond area) in such a project. If the central Oregon area's population increases significantly down the line, the concept might well be revisited; otherwise, expect spot improvements to US 97 and other highways connecting it to the more populated regions to the west.
I don't see anything happening until the Big One flattens the western part of the state. And even then, money will be focused on Seattle, then Portland.
Another map (https://digital.osl.state.or.us/islandora/object/osl%3A7718) of the Portland freeway system, as envisioned in 1961:
(https://i.imgur.com/USTX0Db.png)
Laurelhurst Freeway was first pushed out from 39th to 52nd/50th, then south from Lake Oswego through Stafford and Willamette and east out to 95th (as it currently exists).
Mt Hood was pushed slightly north to Ivon St until 50th Ave, then south to Powell before it was cancelled.
Why doesn't the map include Interstate 505? Is it because that freeway would have been too short?
Planning and routing hadn't been nailed down, I think.
That would explain why 217 isn't on there either.
The Boise State University Library once had an online exhibit profiling a 1960 plan to build I-80N through downtown Boise, rather than the current bypass. Here's the online archived version (http://web.archive.org/web/20110523141255/http://library.boisestate.edu/Special/Interstate.shtm), which is a short but interesting read.
(https://i.imgur.com/f8fQkTk.jpg)
Interesting map. Seems like what actually happened was a compromise between those two options, with I-84 being on the bypass route and I-184 entering Downtown from the west.
With the illustrated presence of trumpet-type interchanges at both ends of the south bypass, it appears that at one time there may have been plans for an in-city I-80N trunk with a 3di (possibly a I-280 iteration) designation for that bypass. Any archived information out there that discusses that possibility?
Quote from: Bruce on July 22, 2018, 03:06:29 AM
The Boise State University Library once had an online exhibit profiling a 1960 plan to build I-80N through downtown Boise, rather than the current bypass. Here's the online archived version (http://web.archive.org/web/20110523141255/http://library.boisestate.edu/Special/Interstate.shtm), which is a short but interesting read.
(https://i.imgur.com/f8fQkTk.jpg)
Huh, interesting that the only listed downside of the river route was that it was expensive. No, running a freeway right between downtown and the river has no other downsides, sure :pan: The Greenbelt area is one of the highlights of the city, would be weird to see how what Boise would be like if we got that option instead.
I do think what we ended up with, a bypass for through traffic and a spur into (but not through) downtown from the west was the best option. That was kind of necessary, since there's no direct surface street routing from the current location of the Flying Wye into downtown. Whereas from the east, for one you have multiple direct routes that aren't
too crowded (compared to streets like Fairview or Overland) like Broadway, Vista, and Federal Way, and also there's not much development to the east (well, past Micron) so less need for a freeway.
I wonder if we got the full loop, if there would be a lot more suburbia to the east, who knows. It's certainly a bit odd that suburbia extends for 20-30 miles west of Boise, but ends at the east end of Boise city limits. Guess it's mostly geography related.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2018, 01:16:41 PM
The US-2 Monroe Bypass is a very real thing. Those stub ramps were only built in 2011.
The same year, WSDOT released this PDF (via the RCW website) with information, including construction stages and the route:
http://leg.wa.gov/JTC/Documents/Studies/P3/August2_3Workshop/MonroeBypassSummary.pdf (http://leg.wa.gov/JTC/Documents/Studies/P3/August2_3Workshop/MonroeBypassSummary.pdf)
Doesn't look to be a freeway at this point, though the roadway would be divided and "limited access". As far as I can tell, the bypass starts as far west as it does because Hwy 2 starts to drop down right after the 88th interchange. The whole bypass would be higher in elevation than the valley, so it needs to start going up pretty early on to avoid steep hills.
I got lost behind the Evergreen State Fair Ground last year, and it looks as though grading is in the works for the US 2 Bypass, and with the traffic levels on 2, it might be quite useful, but there are other major safety issues with that road, that need to be addressed, and in my mind are a higher priority at this time.
Quote from: Bruce on July 22, 2018, 03:06:29 AM
The Boise State University Library once had an online exhibit profiling a 1960 plan to build I-80N through downtown Boise, rather than the current bypass. Here's the online archived version (http://web.archive.org/web/20110523141255/http://library.boisestate.edu/Special/Interstate.shtm), which is a short but interesting read.
Can't tell for sure, but it almost looks like part of the River Route was built as I-184.
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 27, 2018, 05:47:45 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2018, 01:16:41 PM
The US-2 Monroe Bypass is a very real thing. Those stub ramps were only built in 2011.
The same year, WSDOT released this PDF (via the RCW website) with information, including construction stages and the route:
http://leg.wa.gov/JTC/Documents/Studies/P3/August2_3Workshop/MonroeBypassSummary.pdf (http://leg.wa.gov/JTC/Documents/Studies/P3/August2_3Workshop/MonroeBypassSummary.pdf)
Doesn't look to be a freeway at this point, though the roadway would be divided and "limited access". As far as I can tell, the bypass starts as far west as it does because Hwy 2 starts to drop down right after the 88th interchange. The whole bypass would be higher in elevation than the valley, so it needs to start going up pretty early on to avoid steep hills.
I got lost behind the Evergreen State Fair Ground last year, and it looks as though grading is in the works for the US 2 Bypass, and with the traffic levels on 2, it might be quite useful, but there are other major safety issues with that road, that need to be addressed, and in my mind are a higher priority at this time.
I would guess that WSDOT plans to build the bypass in order to reduce traffic levels on the current roadway. By reducing the amount of vehicles traveling straight through Monroe, they could narrow that roadway, and introduce measures to improve safety, without compromising traffic flow.
So, while the DOT could improve the current roadway, traffic will continue to be an issue, as will safety. So, the best option right now is to start planning on a bypass.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 27, 2018, 08:18:35 PM
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 27, 2018, 05:47:45 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 11, 2018, 01:16:41 PM
The US-2 Monroe Bypass is a very real thing. Those stub ramps were only built in 2011.
The same year, WSDOT released this PDF (via the RCW website) with information, including construction stages and the route:
http://leg.wa.gov/JTC/Documents/Studies/P3/August2_3Workshop/MonroeBypassSummary.pdf (http://leg.wa.gov/JTC/Documents/Studies/P3/August2_3Workshop/MonroeBypassSummary.pdf)
Doesn't look to be a freeway at this point, though the roadway would be divided and "limited access". As far as I can tell, the bypass starts as far west as it does because Hwy 2 starts to drop down right after the 88th interchange. The whole bypass would be higher in elevation than the valley, so it needs to start going up pretty early on to avoid steep hills.
I got lost behind the Evergreen State Fair Ground last year, and it looks as though grading is in the works for the US 2 Bypass, and with the traffic levels on 2, it might be quite useful, but there are other major safety issues with that road, that need to be addressed, and in my mind are a higher priority at this time.
I would guess that WSDOT plans to build the bypass in order to reduce traffic levels on the current roadway. By reducing the amount of vehicles traveling straight through Monroe, they could narrow that roadway, and introduce measures to improve safety, without compromising traffic flow.
So, while the DOT could improve the current roadway, traffic will continue to be an issue, as will safety. So, the best option right now is to start planning on a bypass.
Agreed. The safety concerns I was mentioning though were between Monroe and Stevens Pass.
One does have to take into account how slow WSDOT usually operates. I have a Thomas Guide from the late 70s or early 80s that shows the SR 525 connection between Mukilteo Speedway and the former Super-2 between 99 and Alderwood, and that wasn't built until 1999-2001. However, one of those same Thomas Guides shows the US 2 bypass of Monroe, and the extension of both 522 and 202 to the new bypass in them.
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 28, 2018, 11:49:12 AM
The safety concerns I was mentioning though were between Monroe and Stevens Pass.
Oh.
Quote from: TEG24601 on July 28, 2018, 11:49:12 AM
One does have to take into account how slow WSDOT usually operates. I have a Thomas Guide from the late 70s or early 80s that shows the SR 525 connection between Mukilteo Speedway and the former Super-2 between 99 and Alderwood, and that wasn't built until 1999-2001. However, one of those same Thomas Guides shows the US 2 bypass of Monroe, and the extension of both 522 and 202 to the new bypass in them.
Yeah, WSDOT does seem to study things to death before they build them. Which ensures that the final product is always top-notch, but it's almost like it's top notch for the decade in which it was designed -- generally, at least one or two back.
A big issue that WSDOT faces, on a near constant basis these days, is having a ton of maintenance to do (much of our freeways are nearing the end of their pavement's life span), plus exploding land and labor costs. Phoenix, in comparison, has none of those issues (hence why they are always working on capacity improvements).
It should be noted that up to 70 percent (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/jul/25/highways-arent-the-answer-traffic-jams-cant-be-sto/) of the post-2015 gas tax revenue goes into paying off debt for previous projects, so that eats into the maintenance budget. And we're spending the precious remainder on vanity projects like the North Spokane Corridor when cheaper and more effective fixes could be implemented.
From an old 1966 article in the Seattle Times, annotated with my notes:
(https://i.imgur.com/vIxPic4.png)
Surprised nobody has mentioned I-305 the once planned spur into Salem OR.
Quote from: dvferyance on August 07, 2018, 06:42:46 PM
Surprised nobody has mentioned I-305 the once planned spur into Salem OR.
I think it's well-known enough to regulars on this subforum.
Interestingly, ODOT has recently been pushing for a new crossing of the Willamette in downtown Salem, which roughly follows where I-305 would have crossed the river (under some plans).
Only took 50 years to bring it up again.
(https://i.imgur.com/TS6NecQ.jpg)
Amusing that the shields look more like VA shields than OR shields.
But yeah, I've been casually following this project.
Quote from: Bickendan on July 15, 2018, 09:17:36 PM
Laurelhurst Freeway was first pushed out from 39th to 52nd/50th, then south from Lake Oswego through Stafford and Willamette and east out to 95th (as it currently exists).
Mt Hood was pushed slightly north to Ivon St until 50th Ave, then south to Powell before it was cancelled.
Laurelhurst Freeway was going to be I-205.
Indeed, that was always the planned number.
A more recent proposal: in 2000, Wenatchee's mayor and a few local officials proposed a $430 plan to convert State Routes 28 and 281 into a four-lane freeway, connecting Wenatchee with I-90. It was never studied or considered, so Wenatchee remains the largest metro area in the state without a freeway connection.
I imagine this freeway, had it been built with federal funds, would have been the first auxiliary route for I-90 in Washington. Perhaps I-790 to avoid any possible confusion with another route.
Quote
Officials ask for high-speed link to I-90: First step taken for $430 million freeway
September 14, 2000
Stephen Maher / The Wenatchee World (p. A2)
WENATCHEE – Local officials urged the state Transportation Commission on Wednesday to start pushing for a new four-lane freeway between the Wenatchee area and Interstate 90.
They said the new $430 million high-speed road is essential if the Wenatchee Valley is to improve freight mobility, recruit industry and attract more tourists.
They also pointed out Wenatchee's population is set to top 50,000 when the Census is announced, making it the only urban area in the state not served by an limited-access highway.
The highway idea has been bantered about locally for the past couple of years but hadn't been officially presented to the Transportation Commission until Wednesday.
The commission will decide later this year whether to ask the state Legislature and Gov. Gary Locke to budget an initial $100,000 for the project. If state funding is secured, the project will become part of the state's six-year road plan and be eligible for more funds.
"It's one of those things where you've got to start somewhere," said Jeff Adamson, Department of Transportation spokesman in Wenatchee. "There's now not enough freight mobility. It becomes a viable pitch. Essentially, what we're trying to do is get this on the books."
DOT officials said it will take about $2 million to study and design the entire 38-mile route. The first $100,000 would be used to design the stretch between East Wenatchee and Rock Island.
The plan is for the freeway to replace Highway 28 between East Wenatchee and Quincy, and then for a new bypass to be built adjacent to Highway 281 between Quincy and I-90 at George. Numerous frontage road sections and several interchanges would also have to be built.
Don Senn, DOT's regional administrator in Wenatchee, said turning either Stevens Pass or Blewett Pass into a four-lane high-speed thoroughfare is structurally and environmentally impossible. Senn said the new highway would be cost-effective and would connect motorists with interstates leading to Seattle, Spokane and the Tri-Cities.
Wenatchee Mayor Dennis Johnson told the commission that winter weather sometimes leads to canceled airline flights and treacherous travel over the passes, making a connection to I-90 all the more important.
"There are times when we get isolated," Johnson said.
Cool find! I would personally rather they focus their efforts on a Wenatchee Bypass, should any funds ever find their way to the coffers.
Crazy to think that Stevens Pass was even considered for 4-laning. If WSDOT ever gets around to a Monroe Bypass, plus the other various proposals, they could have a brand-new interstate from Everett to George! Might even be long enough to get a 92 or 94 designation.
By my estimate, it would be around 160 miles long, which is too long for a 3di but a bit too short for a proper 2di.
If only we could slap I-90N on it and call it good.
Quote from: Bruce on August 19, 2018, 04:02:00 AM
By my estimate, it would be around 160 miles long, which is too long for a 3di but a bit too short for a proper 2di.
If only we could slap I-90N on it and call it good.
Yeah, that would be ideal. If not, confusing.
It would still be longer than I-82, though unlike I-82, it wouldn't connect two parallel interstates (instead acting more like a partial ring road), so it'd be harder to make the case for a 2di number (since it would run more diagonally). Though, the route would likely see a significant increase in traffic, especially for those heading to/from Canada; it could become nearly as important as I-90, making the case for a 2di a bit stronger.
I so wish this could happen in the future. Wenatchee really could use it but I wonder if its terminus would be the WA 285 bridge or the US2/US97 bridge. If I was designing it, I would lean towards the second option. Also why jump to interstate? A 4 lane expressway similar to WA 8/US 12 and US 395 would work fine there as well (if they don't knee-jerk and post it at 60 like WA 8/US 12).
Quote from: Bruce on August 18, 2018, 07:35:10 PM
A more recent proposal: in 2000, Wenatchee's mayor and a few local officials proposed a $430 plan to convert State Routes 28 and 281 into a four-lane freeway, connecting Wenatchee with I-90. It was never studied or considered, so Wenatchee remains the largest metro area in the state without a freeway connection.
I imagine this freeway, had it been built with federal funds, would have been the first auxiliary route for I-90 in Washington. Perhaps I-790 to avoid any possible confusion with another route.
Quote
Officials ask for high-speed link to I-90: First step taken for $430 million freeway
September 14, 2000
Stephen Maher / The Wenatchee World (p. A2)
WENATCHEE – Local officials urged the state Transportation Commission on Wednesday to start pushing for a new four-lane freeway between the Wenatchee area and Interstate 90.
They said the new $430 million high-speed road is essential if the Wenatchee Valley is to improve freight mobility, recruit industry and attract more tourists.
They also pointed out Wenatchee's population is set to top 50,000 when the Census is announced, making it the only urban area in the state not served by an limited-access highway.
The highway idea has been bantered about locally for the past couple of years but hadn't been officially presented to the Transportation Commission until Wednesday.
The commission will decide later this year whether to ask the state Legislature and Gov. Gary Locke to budget an initial $100,000 for the project. If state funding is secured, the project will become part of the state's six-year road plan and be eligible for more funds.
"It's one of those things where you've got to start somewhere," said Jeff Adamson, Department of Transportation spokesman in Wenatchee. "There's now not enough freight mobility. It becomes a viable pitch. Essentially, what we're trying to do is get this on the books."
DOT officials said it will take about $2 million to study and design the entire 38-mile route. The first $100,000 would be used to design the stretch between East Wenatchee and Rock Island.
The plan is for the freeway to replace Highway 28 between East Wenatchee and Quincy, and then for a new bypass to be built adjacent to Highway 281 between Quincy and I-90 at George. Numerous frontage road sections and several interchanges would also have to be built.
Don Senn, DOT's regional administrator in Wenatchee, said turning either Stevens Pass or Blewett Pass into a four-lane high-speed thoroughfare is structurally and environmentally impossible. Senn said the new highway would be cost-effective and would connect motorists with interstates leading to Seattle, Spokane and the Tri-Cities.
Wenatchee Mayor Dennis Johnson told the commission that winter weather sometimes leads to canceled airline flights and treacherous travel over the passes, making a connection to I-90 all the more important.
"There are times when we get isolated," Johnson said.
LG-TP260
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on August 19, 2018, 01:22:49 PM
Also why jump to interstate? A 4 lane expressway similar to WA 8/US 12 and US 395 would work fine there as well (if they don't knee-jerk and post it at 60 like WA 8/US 12).#
I don't think there's anything wrong with dual carriageway with at-grade intersections, but it's better just to do it right the first time.
At-grade without signals or roundabouts would feel pretty slow at anything less than 60. 395 (in Eastern WA) is posted at 70 for its entire length, despite having at-grade intersections along much of it. WSDOT rarely posts dual carriageways at less than 60, unless there's a lot of signals or roundabouts. 410 through Sumner (a freeway, and nothing less) is an exception, posted at 55. There are no Interstates posted at less than 60, to my knowledge (exceptions being I-5 and I-90 with their ATM systems, though the default limit is still 60 or 70).
Quote from: jakeroot on August 19, 2018, 02:17:31 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on August 19, 2018, 01:22:49 PM
Also why jump to interstate? A 4 lane expressway similar to WA 8/US 12 and US 395 would work fine there as well (if they don't knee-jerk and post it at 60 like WA 8/US 12).#
I don't think there's anything wrong with dual carriageway with at-grade intersections, but it's better just to do it right the first time.
At-grade without signals or roundabouts would feel pretty slow at anything less than 60. 395 (in Eastern WA) is posted at 70 for its entire length, despite having at-grade intersections along much of it. WSDOT rarely posts dual carriageways at less than 60, unless there's a lot of signals or roundabouts. 410 through Sumner (a freeway, and nothing less) is an exception, posted at 55. There are no Interstates posted at less than 60, to my knowledge (exceptions being I-5 and I-90 with their ATM systems, though the default limit is still 60 or 70).
I agree, when I said kneejerked though, I meant it should be posted at 65 or 70 not 60. WA 8 always felt a little slow at 60 to me. On the dual carriageway, I suggested that as a cost saving measure that outside of East Wenatchee and Quincy wouldn't make a huge difference for a while. It also would save the trouble of building any frontage roads if it was needed on the interstate. If dual carriageway was chosen, most intersections would be RIRO, with acceleration lanes similar to other 4 lane expressways.
LG-TP260
Switching gears a bit, does anybody know the story about this abandoned ramp at the interchange between US 195 and Cheney-Plaza Road in Plaza? https://www.google.com/maps/@47.3104868,-117.3871405,1021m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on August 19, 2018, 01:22:49 PM
I so wish this could happen in the future. Wenatchee really could use it but I wonder if its terminus would be the WA 285 bridge or the US2/US97 bridge. If I was designing it, I would lean towards the second option. Also why jump to interstate? A 4 lane expressway similar to WA 8/US 12 and US 395 would work fine there as well (if they don't knee-jerk and post it at 60 like WA 8/US 12).
There's no way that it would be the SR 285 bridge, as that would require demolishing the mall or some of its surrounding stores for ramps. The Eastmont Avenue extension would be a more natural terminus and allow for freeway-to-freeway connections.
A third Columbia River crossing near Vancouver at Lady Island (just south of Camas) was studied by WSDOT in 1959 (report here (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll2/id/35859/rec/9)).
(https://i.imgur.com/AUj5PyA.png)
Quote from: Bruce on August 21, 2018, 10:04:28 PM
A third Columbia River crossing near Vancouver at Lady Island (just south of Camas) was studied by WSDOT in 1959 (report here (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll2/id/35859/rec/9)).
(https://i.imgur.com/AUj5PyA.png)
That site was also what was decided for the East County crossing, currently stalled due to Vancover only accepting a CRC crossing or nothing, defying voter's wishes.
LG-TP260
Quote from: Bruce on August 19, 2018, 06:05:12 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on August 19, 2018, 01:22:49 PM
I so wish this could happen in the future. Wenatchee really could use it but I wonder if its terminus would be the WA 285 bridge or the US2/US97 bridge. If I was designing it, I would lean towards the second option. Also why jump to interstate? A 4 lane expressway similar to WA 8/US 12 and US 395 would work fine there as well (if they don't knee-jerk and post it at 60 like WA 8/US 12).
There's no way that it would be the SR 285 bridge, as that would require demolishing the mall or some of its surrounding stores for ramps. The Eastmont Avenue extension would be a more natural terminus and allow for freeway-to-freeway connections.
Agreed. Wenatchee is, oddly for Eastern Washington cities, quite dense. Rebuilding Hwy 2 as an Interstate, bridging over Easy St, and re-configuring the Eastmont junction into a grade-separated interchange is the only realistic option. And that's saying a lot, since the terrain east from that point is not exactly conducive for freeways. We might be looking at a tunnel, especially since Eastmont looks like it might be too steep to be converted into a tight urban freeway (especially if we're talking about an interstate).
An alternative idea might be for any tunnel (beneath the ridges east of Wenatchee) to start immediately after crossing the Columbia, and use the current 4-lane Hwy 2 as a Y-interchange to access Sunset Hwy (with some ramp reconfiguration). The tunnel could stay underground until maybe Terrace Park, minus a bridging required for the creek near Badger Mountain Road. Not sure if the soil out there is good for tunneling.
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on August 22, 2018, 01:46:36 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 21, 2018, 10:04:28 PM
A third Columbia River crossing near Vancouver at Lady Island (just south of Camas) was studied by WSDOT in 1959 (report here (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll2/id/35859/rec/9)).
That site was also what was decided for the East County crossing, currently stalled due to Vancover only accepting a CRC crossing or nothing, defying voter's wishes.
It wouldn't make much sense today, given that I-84 is congested and this would only push more cars into it. Plus, further sprawl around Camas would be a dangerous precedent that could trigger further encroachment of the foothills.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 22, 2018, 03:50:41 PM
Quote from: Bruce on August 19, 2018, 06:05:12 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on August 19, 2018, 01:22:49 PM
I so wish this could happen in the future. Wenatchee really could use it but I wonder if its terminus would be the WA 285 bridge or the US2/US97 bridge. If I was designing it, I would lean towards the second option. Also why jump to interstate? A 4 lane expressway similar to WA 8/US 12 and US 395 would work fine there as well (if they don't knee-jerk and post it at 60 like WA 8/US 12).
There's no way that it would be the SR 285 bridge, as that would require demolishing the mall or some of its surrounding stores for ramps. The Eastmont Avenue extension would be a more natural terminus and allow for freeway-to-freeway connections.
Agreed. Wenatchee is, oddly for Eastern Washington cities, quite dense. Rebuilding Hwy 2 as an Interstate, bridging over Easy St, and re-configuring the Eastmont junction into a grade-separated interchange is the only realistic option. And that's saying a lot, since the terrain east from that point is not exactly conducive for freeways. We might be looking at a tunnel, especially since Eastmont looks like it might be too steep to be converted into a tight urban freeway (especially if we're talking about an interstate).
An alternative idea might be for any tunnel (beneath the ridges east of Wenatchee) to start immediately after crossing the Columbia, and use the current 4-lane Hwy 2 as a Y-interchange to access Sunset Hwy (with some ramp reconfiguration). The tunnel could stay underground until maybe Terrace Park, minus a bridging required for the creek near Badger Mountain Road. Not sure if the soil out there is good for tunneling.
The current plan for Wenatchee (the Apple Capital Loop (https://www.applecapitalloop.info/)) is to build a new stroad across the Wenatchee River to directly connect US 97A, widen SR 28, and upgrade some of the intersections on US 2 to roundabouts or interchanges.
I think it would be easier to build a new alignment for US 2 between the bridge and the area north of SR 28, allowing for the Eastmont intersection to prioritize eastbound-to-southbound turns and not have to handle inter-city traffic.
Just came across a 1985 proposal (https://books.google.com/books?id=P4k2AQAAMAAJ) that explored building an East Wenatchee bypass in the foothills of Badger Mountain. Didn't pan out, but it's interesting to see how far WSDOT were willing to build back then.
(https://i.imgur.com/zz7PlIN.png)
Quote from: Bruce on August 22, 2018, 09:19:02 PM
I think it would be easier to build a new alignment for US 2 between the bridge and the area north of SR 28, allowing for the Eastmont intersection to prioritize eastbound-to-southbound turns and not have to handle inter-city traffic.
I could see that. Hard to say exactly what would be best without laying out a preferred alignment. Oh, wait...
Quote from: Bruce on August 23, 2018, 12:35:15 AM
Just came across a 1985 proposal (https://books.google.com/books?id=P4k2AQAAMAAJ) that explored building an East Wenatchee bypass in the foothills of Badger Mountain. Didn't pan out, but it's interesting to see how far WSDOT were willing to build back then.
https://i.imgur.com/zz7PlIN.png
Glad I wasn't crazy in suggesting a route across those foothills. Would have been some fun geography to cross. Still not sure how any freeway could have risen from the route of the Richard Odabashian Bridge up into the foothills (assuming it was reused, after only having been opened in 1975).
In 1966, a few Oregon legislators were interested in trying to get US 101 (or a parallel inland route) on the Interstate system, mostly for the federal funding.
(https://i.imgur.com/rc0Hmof.jpg)
Probably a good thing that didn't happen...
While not totally on-topic, I find the alternative choices for built highways to be fascinating.
Interstate 82, after a decade of the Tri-Cities fighting for inclusion, was still undecided as late as 1973:
(https://i.imgur.com/DMg06Gm.png)
Another find from the WSDOT Library collection: a 1971 report (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll10/id/402/rec/4) from the Joint Committee on Highways that examined a few potential additions to the state highway system.
Among them was a freeway extension of SR 526 from the Broadway Interchange in Everett to SR 9 and US 2 in Snohomish, which would have cost around $5 million (or $33 million in today's dollars).
It would have required a steep grade down to the floor of the Snohomish River Valley, plus a new crossing of the river itself near Snohomish's airport. Overall not a good plan, but would have been an interesting way of extending US 2 all the way to Whidbey Island and perhaps beyond (to the San Juans, Port Townsend, or even Port Angeles/Neah Bay).
(https://i.imgur.com/Azqrze9.png)
Quote from: thefraze_1020 on June 28, 2018, 02:51:51 PM
The first example I have is SR 9 in Snohomish, WA. Between the Bickford Ave overpass and Marsh Road, there is extra right-of-way on the west side of the road, indicating that this portion of the highway was originally intended to be divided. Also, look at the layout of the interchange with 2nd Street. It definitely looks like it was modified after a second carriageway was cancelled.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.9165701,-122.1125941,1015m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
The Connecting Washington package actually funded a second bridge over the Snohomish River and four-laning of SR 9 up to the first Snohomish interchange.
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr9/marsh-road-2nd-street/home
Quote from: Bruce on August 21, 2018, 10:04:28 PM
A third Columbia River crossing near Vancouver at Lady Island (just south of Camas) was studied by WSDOT in 1959 (report here (https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll2/id/35859/rec/9)).
(https://i.imgur.com/AUj5PyA.png)
I actually think this one is a good idea — it's far enough out of the way to create a significant disincentive for sprawl, but would allow Camas-Wenatchee commuters and SW Washington-bound freight to bypass the Glenn Jackson.
It'll never happen, of course, because of the very black-and-white politics of the region. But of the new bridge proposals over the Columbia, this is probably the best.
If the bridge was built, Camas would look a lot more like Orchards. The Camas-Washougal area is already sprawling out too, so accelerating it would be disastrous.
Quote from: Bruce on August 24, 2020, 01:02:39 AM
If the bridge was built, Camas would look a lot more like Orchards. The Camas-Washougal area is already sprawling out too, so accelerating it would be disastrous.
I mean, sure, there would be some growth. But Washington has Urban Growth Boundaries as well, so it would be somewhat tempered. But I think a NE-SW alignment would discourage people who are trying to commute into Portland proper, so commuters would primarily use it if they were going to Troutdale, Gresham, the Airport Way corridor, etc. I just think it's a limited market for local use, but a stronger market for regional freight traffic.
I've got to say, I'm glad they didn't build the 33rd Ave. bridge over the Columbia or the Laurelhurst Freeway along 37th Avenue. They are densely populated neighborhoods. Much better that they put the freeway and I-205 out in what was then sparsely settled suburbs.