New SR 520 Floating Bridge

[jakeroot]

The Montlake interchange's HOV ramps will open September 16:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d15zUnb5i0g

I would love to have seen a mini roundabout instead of an all-way stop, especially when the all-way stop is surrounded by traffic lights. Would not surprise me if people consistently perform "California" stops when they can see the traffic light is green at E Lake Washington Blvd and are looking to make the light.

For the westbound movement towards northbound Montlake, does anyone know if it's meant to be a triple right turn, where the HOV right turn and off-ramp double right turn happen simultaneous with one-another? Having an extra phase to separate them does not seem like a good idea, but having two separate roadways merge mid-intersection isn't too common even with straight-ahead traffic, much less turning traffic.

[Bruce]

Lots of fresh aerial photos from WSDOT: https://www.flickr.com/photos/wsdot/albums/72157712483174662/with/54007640905

[pderocco]

I drove this bridge about a month ago, since I hadn't driven it since the 90s and it's now a completely different bridge. I drove it late in the evening, and it was pitch dark, which seemed odd, since it's customary to at least decorate a long bridge with nice lights, if only for the view from shore. But when I look at it in GSV, I see that there are what look like pedestrian lights at regular intervals. Are they not using them yet?

[Bruce]

I drove this bridge about a month ago, since I hadn't driven it since the 90s and it's now a completely different bridge. I drove it late in the evening, and it was pitch dark, which seemed odd, since it's customary to at least decorate a long bridge with nice lights, if only for the view from shore. But when I look at it in GSV, I see that there are what look like pedestrian lights at regular intervals. Are they not using them yet?

The trail on the north side of the bridge is lit up, as are the "sentinels" at each end of the floating section/highrises (sometimes in commemorative colors). There were complaints about the lighting, in fact.

[Great Lakes Roads]

This sign bridge on Montlake Pl has been replaced with a mast arm. Why may you ask? Community-recommended signage changes!

[LilianaUwU]

This sign bridge on Montlake Pl has been replaced with a mast arm. Why may you ask? Community-recommended signage changes!

As stupid as it may seem... yeah, this is way overbuilt for the signage it has. Either commit to a BGS or use a mast arm.

[jakeroot]

This sign bridge on Montlake Pl has been replaced with a mast arm. Why may you ask? Community-recommended signage changes!

As stupid as it may seem... yeah, this is way overbuilt for the signage it has. Either commit to a BGS or use a mast arm.

This is a standard sign bridge used across all WSDOT projects. Using a mast arm for signage isn't something they do normally.

Granted, I think there should be community-specific considerations. But this is also a very major road.

@Great Lakes Roads - Has the current black sign bridge been replaced with a mast arm? Last I was in Seattle I recall it was still the black sign bridge as seen in Google Street View.

[stevashe]

This sign bridge on Montlake Pl has been replaced with a mast arm. Why may you ask? Community-recommended signage changes!

As stupid as it may seem... yeah, this is way overbuilt for the signage it has. Either commit to a BGS or use a mast arm.

This is a standard sign bridge used across all WSDOT projects. Using a mast arm for signage isn't something they do normally.

I don't know if that's necessarily true for surface streets. Here's an example of a mast arm being used for overhead signage on SR 99 in Federal Way: https://maps.app.goo.gl/cjJaPZf37xewtNmB9?g_st=ac

And even from an engineering standpoint, it's a waste of money to use such a beefy support meant for freeway sized signage for the small arterial sized signs used here.

[jakeroot]

This sign bridge on Montlake Pl has been replaced with a mast arm. Why may you ask? Community-recommended signage changes!

As stupid as it may seem... yeah, this is way overbuilt for the signage it has. Either commit to a BGS or use a mast arm.

This is a standard sign bridge used across all WSDOT projects. Using a mast arm for signage isn't something they do normally.

I don't know if that's necessarily true for surface streets. Here's an example of a mast arm being used for overhead signage on SR 99 in Federal Way: https://maps.app.goo.gl/cjJaPZf37xewtNmB9?g_st=ac

And even from an engineering standpoint, it's a waste of money to use such a beefy support meant for freeway sized signage for the small arterial sized signs used here.

That's not really a fair comparison. Federal Way fully maintains that roadway. Lots of cities use mast arms for signs, too. Bellevue for example.

But on projects where WSDOT is the lead agency, they always use box monotubes for overhead signage. Here are recent projects:

Bellevue: https://maps.app.goo.gl/YXGRnnQfax2p63UK9 (mid-2010s and the eastside equivalent of Montlake)
Bellevue: https://maps.app.goo.gl/MjtuxUcXoZedMv678 (early 2000s)
Puyallup: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ci5iKTu3FUZG9S3E7 (early 2010s)
DuPont: https://maps.app.goo.gl/9hsVBZMr1Ztn8t9r5 (brand new)
Lacey: https://maps.app.goo.gl/kP5pLVR1HwVaq6qq6 (2020)

Post-mounted signage is used as an alternative, but I've never seen WSDOT use mast arms. Partial-width sign bridges could have been used, but WSDOT still uses the same design.

[The_Ginger]

This sign bridge on Montlake Pl has been replaced with a mast arm. Why may you ask? Community-recommended signage changes!

To be fair, those signs are tiny. Larger signs would have worked better.

[jakeroot]

I just found the project website:

https://sr520construction.com/montlake-signage-updates/

This sign bridge on Montlake Pl has been replaced with a mast arm. Why may you ask? Community-recommended signage changes!

To be fair, those signs are tiny. Larger signs would have worked better.

Those are not the original signs, they were much larger and made smaller after the local community whined.

https://www.theurbanist.org/highway-style-signage-near-sr-520-in-montlake-prompts-local-backlash/

[LilianaUwU]

This sign bridge on Montlake Pl has been replaced with a mast arm. Why may you ask? Community-recommended signage changes!

To be fair, those signs are tiny. Larger signs would have worked better.

Those are not the original signs, they were much larger and made smaller after the local community whined.

https://www.theurbanist.org/highway-style-signage-near-sr-520-in-montlake-prompts-local-backlash/

Are they never happy? Too much lighting, signs too big, gantry too big... if you don't want infrastructure related to a massive bridge, then you shouldn't live near the damn bridge...

[jakeroot]

This sign bridge on Montlake Pl has been replaced with a mast arm. Why may you ask? Community-recommended signage changes!

To be fair, those signs are tiny. Larger signs would have worked better.

Those are not the original signs, they were much larger and made smaller after the local community whined.

https://www.theurbanist.org/highway-style-signage-near-sr-520-in-montlake-prompts-local-backlash/

Are they never happy? Too much lighting, signs too big, gantry too big... if you don't want infrastructure related to a massive bridge, then you shouldn't live near the damn bridge...

To be fair, some local residents may in fact pre-date the bridge.

I find it funnier more people don't complain about large traffic signal mast arms crowding every intersection. Urban areas really don't need every signal overhead. More eye-level signals on lower-speed roads might go a long ways in discouraging highway speeds:

[stevashe]

That's not really a fair comparison. Federal Way fully maintains that roadway. Lots of cities use mast arms for signs, too. Bellevue for example.

That can't be entirely true unless WSDOT has a special agreement with Federal Way. WSDOT's default maintenance agreement has themselves maintaining things the pavement from curb to curb and guide/destination signage (which I would think includes these signs) whereas the city maintains sidewalks, landscaping, and other signs (parking, sidewalks, regulatory).

Post-mounted signage is used as an alternative, but I've never seen WSDOT use mast arms. Partial-width sign bridges could have been used, but WSDOT still uses the same design.

I agree that WSDOT generally always uses those square tube sign bridges, but it seems like they also always use larger signs overhead that would be too large for a mast arm anyway. I did forget that the signs were originally larger, so choice to use a sign bridge made sense initially, but they should have changed to a mast arm when the decision was made to use smaller signs instead of waiting until now. It really does look silly to have such small signs on a beefy support...

[jakeroot]

That's not really a fair comparison. Federal Way fully maintains that roadway. Lots of cities use mast arms for signs, too. Bellevue for example.

That can't be entirely true unless WSDOT has a special agreement with Federal Way. WSDOT's default maintenance agreement has themselves maintaining things the pavement from curb to curb and guide/destination signage (which I would think includes these signs) whereas the city maintains sidewalks, landscaping, and other signs (parking, sidewalks, regulatory).

Admittedly I'm a little cloudy on how things are managed on a municipal level. But I figured signage was managed same as traffic lights or markings or anything else. In this case, this stretch of SR-99 looks the same as any other road in Federal Way, so I thought it was managed entirely by the city. Including the signs. The mast arm matches other signs used in the city, too, off state routes. Here for example. Another example, technically on SR-18.

The city traffic engineer, Rick Perez, is pretty active in the roadgeeking community and is also an acquaintance of mine. I'll ask him what the deal is.

Those signs have the tell-tale stickers on the back, so I'd guess you're correct they are managed by WSDOT. Though the mast arm seems like a local decision. Perhaps they have an agreement with Federal Way to not use the standard square tube sign bridge unless required. Maybe Seattle should have a similar agreement for future signs...

EDIT: I take back what I said. I was mistaking the year stickers with those black stickers WSDOT signs often have indicating dimensions and year. I don't see those on any overhead guide sign in Federal Way, including on and off state routes. In fact, darn near every sign has that year sticker. So I don't know we can be sure if WSDOT was involved with the signs or not, without straight up asking them.

[jay8g]

Are they never happy? Too much lighting, signs too big, gantry too big... if you don't want infrastructure related to a massive bridge, then you shouldn't live near the damn bridge...

Seattlites, especially in wealthier neighborhoods like that, feel entitled to nitpick every single little thing. That's why getting anything done around here takes forever and costs a fortune. Montlake is one of the neighborhoods that has designated itself a historic district, something that's reserved for the worst of the NIMBY neighborhoods.

They're still mad at WSDOT for tearing down the local gas station/convenience store, and I imagine they will really dig their heels in now that the site (right next to the sign bridge in question) is proposed for affordable housing.

[stevashe]

That's not really a fair comparison. Federal Way fully maintains that roadway. Lots of cities use mast arms for signs, too. Bellevue for example.

That can't be entirely true unless WSDOT has a special agreement with Federal Way. WSDOT's default maintenance agreement has themselves maintaining things the pavement from curb to curb and guide/destination signage (which I would think includes these signs) whereas the city maintains sidewalks, landscaping, and other signs (parking, sidewalks, regulatory).

Admittedly I'm a little cloudy on how things are managed on a municipal level. But I figured signage was managed same as traffic lights or markings or anything else. In this case, this stretch of SR-99 looks the same as any other road in Federal Way, so I thought it was managed entirely by the city. Including the signs. The mast arm matches other signs used in the city, too, off state routes. Here for example. Another example, technically on SR-18.

The city traffic engineer, Rick Perez, is pretty active in the roadgeeking community and is also an acquaintance of mine. I'll ask him what the deal is.

Those signs have the tell-tale stickers on the back, so I'd guess you're correct they are managed by WSDOT. Though the mast arm seems like a local decision. Perhaps they have an agreement with Federal Way to not use the standard square tube sign bridge unless required. Maybe Seattle should have a similar agreement for future signs...

EDIT: I take back what I said. I was mistaking the year stickers with those black stickers WSDOT signs often have indicating dimensions and year. I don't see those on any overhead guide sign in Federal Way, including on and off state routes. In fact, darn near every sign has that year sticker. So I don't know we can be sure if WSDOT was involved with the signs or not, without straight up asking them.

It's certainly possible that Federal Way offered to put up their own signs. I'm sure WSDOT wouldn't complain about not having to pay for them! But like you said, we'd realistically just have to ask to know for sure.