AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Washington  (Read 34755 times)

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4120
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:46:42 AM
Re: Washington
« Reply #400 on: July 25, 2018, 09:01:24 PM »

I just don't think putting up signs saying "Hey, eventually there'll be a road here!" is at all necessary.

If you lived in an area where traffic sucked as much as it does here, you'd understand why local agencies like to assure their residents that they are doing something to improve the situation.

There are quite a few places in CA, many within shouting distance of my residence, where if a sign such as this were erected, the outcry against such a road (any road) would commence in very short order, regardless of whether it was a goat path or a freeway.  Besides the usual supply-and-demand equation, there's a reason why (relatively) rationally-priced development is centered 50 miles east of here.  Dozens of miles of streets within housing tracts in places like Lathrop, Manteca, and Ripon are constructed to accommodate the Bay Area's "affordable" housing needs -- and that doesn't provoke much if any reaction from localized "growth control" activists -- out of sight, out of mind! 

At least you folks in WA can project and even publicize roads that aren't in Ellensburg or points east of there!
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8113
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 11:57:54 AM
Re: Washington
« Reply #401 on: July 25, 2018, 09:26:21 PM »

I am personally not a fan of roads being built all over the place, and endless widening, but the public up here (in the suburbs, which is where these signs are, not really Seattle) seem to like that. Fill this missing connection here...widen this road here...rebuild this intersection here...etc. I can only assume that these signs are a way to appease those who appreciate missing connections being filled. Growing up really quite close to where many of these signs are, I can say for certain that even the most liberal of Puyallup residents appreciate connections being filled, since they connect two areas that are currently disconnected for all modes of transport. Yes, any new road is going to invite more cars, but it also invites all types of users, so long as the road is properly designed.
Logged

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1530
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:49:41 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: Washington
« Reply #402 on: July 26, 2018, 03:49:59 AM »

Doing some newspaper dumpster diving and found an interesting fact: I-5 between Mountlake Terrace and Everett was designed for 80 mph (and tested by The Times's reporters at that speed).

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8113
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 11:57:54 AM
Re: Washington
« Reply #403 on: July 26, 2018, 04:10:18 AM »

Doing some newspaper dumpster diving and found an interesting fact: I-5 between Mountlake Terrace and Everett was designed for 80 mph (and tested by The Times's reporters at that speed).

https://i.imgur.com/plPdRTs.png

Nice find. Of course, the traffic is so shitty these days, it would be hard to ever raise it beyond 60. Maybe, if we can get ATM systems installed on all of our freeways, we could have 70 limits during off-peak hours again.

Hard to believe it used to be 70 through places like Lynnwood and Martha Lake; Historic Aerials suggests it was nearly as suburban as it was today (at least closer to Mountlake Terrace), yet 70 was no issue. I can't help but think it would still be 70 if not for the NSL.
Logged

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1530
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:49:41 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: Washington
« Reply #404 on: July 26, 2018, 05:55:22 AM »

Doing some newspaper dumpster diving and found an interesting fact: I-5 between Mountlake Terrace and Everett was designed for 80 mph (and tested by The Times's reporters at that speed).

https://i.imgur.com/plPdRTs.png

Nice find. Of course, the traffic is so shitty these days, it would be hard to ever raise it beyond 60. Maybe, if we can get ATM systems installed on all of our freeways, we could have 70 limits during off-peak hours again.

Hard to believe it used to be 70 through places like Lynnwood and Martha Lake; Historic Aerials suggests it was nearly as suburban as it was today (at least closer to Mountlake Terrace), yet 70 was no issue. I can't help but think it would still be 70 if not for the NSL.

While it seems that way, most of those homes were on much larger lots and there was a lot less traffic from lateral communities to compete with. Snohomish County didn't experience its first real boom until Boeing set up shop in 1967.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8113
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 11:57:54 AM
Re: Washington
« Reply #405 on: July 26, 2018, 02:18:53 PM »

Doing some newspaper dumpster diving and found an interesting fact: I-5 between Mountlake Terrace and Everett was designed for 80 mph (and tested by The Times's reporters at that speed).

https://i.imgur.com/plPdRTs.png

Nice find. Of course, the traffic is so shitty these days, it would be hard to ever raise it beyond 60. Maybe, if we can get ATM systems installed on all of our freeways, we could have 70 limits during off-peak hours again.

Hard to believe it used to be 70 through places like Lynnwood and Martha Lake; Historic Aerials suggests it was nearly as suburban as it was today (at least closer to Mountlake Terrace), yet 70 was no issue. I can't help but think it would still be 70 if not for the NSL.

While it seems that way, most of those homes were on much larger lots and there was a lot less traffic from lateral communities to compete with. Snohomish County didn't experience its first real boom until Boeing set up shop in 1967.

I see, good point. Hell, the 405 just ends at I-5 in the aerials I'm looking at. If that doesn't say how quiet the north used to be, I don't know what does. There wasn't even a Boeing Freeway yet (although I can see it being built in 1969).
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8113
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 11:57:54 AM
Re: Washington
« Reply #406 on: August 08, 2018, 04:16:14 AM »

Does anyone know of any photo evidence of Sea-Tac's name change in 1983? It was changed to Henry M Jackson International Airport, apparently for a very brief period (Sep '83 to Feb '84), but the name was official for some time.
Logged

Shades101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6
  • Last Login: Today at 12:52:20 AM
Re: Washington
« Reply #407 on: August 08, 2018, 04:59:46 PM »

Anybody have any idea what all the blank sign gantries over the left lanes on I-5 South in the north Seattle area are from? Streetview shows them as being blank as far back as 2008.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8113
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 11:57:54 AM
Re: Washington
« Reply #408 on: August 09, 2018, 02:03:43 AM »

Anybody have any idea what all the blank sign gantries over the left lanes on I-5 South in the north Seattle area are from? Streetview shows them as being blank as far back as 2008.

I see three unusued partial-width inside-aligned gantries on I-5 between Lynnwood and the Ship Canal. Historic imagery suggests they became unused between 2003 and 2005.

There's one over northbound 5 near Northgate (blank for at least ten years): https://goo.gl/L3XPdP

There's also this one along southbound 5 near the Metro base exit: https://goo.gl/b8AgXT (blank for 10+ years)

Also this one near NE 195 St: https://goo.gl/xyHoia (blank for 10+ years)

Unfortunately, I don't have any answer. It's possible that they were the gantries for HOV signage, but I don't know why they'd remove the signs. Unless, the gantries became unsafe and the signs were removed to reduce weight load. Of course, if that were the case, they should have removed the gantries.
Logged

ErmineNotyours

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 111
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Renton, Washington
  • Last Login: August 18, 2018, 11:07:34 PM
Re: Washington
« Reply #409 on: August 09, 2018, 11:38:32 PM »

Does anyone know of any photo evidence of Sea-Tac's name change in 1983? It was changed to Henry M Jackson International Airport, apparently for a very brief period (Sep '83 to Feb '84), but the name was official for some time.

I thought I remembered seeing a picture in the paper at the time, though I haven't found the picture in a search of the Seattle Times.  I did find an article that said they only changed four signs on surface streets.  I also remember that Metro transit was changing their destination display rolls at the time, so they put the new airport name into the rolls.  Ever since then, when you saw a driver scroll through the rolls you could see where "Sea-Tac Airport" was spliced back in.
Logged

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1530
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:49:41 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: Washington
« Reply #410 on: August 10, 2018, 12:43:33 AM »

Anyone know when State Route 240 was built in Richland and Kennewick? I've been trying to track down the opening dates for the Richland By-Pass Highway (sometime in the 1940s, perhaps during the war?) and the freeway section (signed as US 410/US 12, possibly built in tandem with the Blue Bridge in the early 1950s), but haven't found much luck. The NBI for the overpasses is pretty incomplete and gives varying years for each interchange.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8113
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 11:57:54 AM
Re: Washington
« Reply #411 on: August 10, 2018, 03:39:06 AM »

Does anyone know of any photo evidence of Sea-Tac's name change in 1983? It was changed to Henry M Jackson International Airport, apparently for a very brief period (Sep '83 to Feb '84), but the name was official for some time.

I thought I remembered seeing a picture in the paper at the time, though I haven't found the picture in a search of the Seattle Times.  I did find an article that said they only changed four signs on surface streets.  I also remember that Metro transit was changing their destination display rolls at the time, so they put the new airport name into the rolls.  Ever since then, when you saw a driver scroll through the rolls you could see where "Sea-Tac Airport" was spliced back in.

Oh, interesting! I didn't think there would be too many changes in such a short period of time; it's cool that at least a few signs were changed. I guess only a small group of people can claim they flew through "Henry M Jackson International"!



Anyone know when State Route 240 was built in Richland and Kennewick? I've been trying to track down the opening dates for the Richland By-Pass Highway (sometime in the 1940s, perhaps during the war?) and the freeway section (signed as US 410/US 12, possibly built in tandem with the Blue Bridge in the early 1950s), but haven't found much luck. The NBI for the overpasses is pretty incomplete and gives varying years for each interchange.

It was evidently built far earlier than I expected. Usually going on to historic aerials, I can at least pinpoint the time of construction, between the aerial shot of no freeway, and the aerial shot of the freeway post-construction. But the images I'm looking at of Richland show that freeway being there since at least the mid 60s, with no earlier photos or maps.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2018, 03:41:11 AM by jakeroot »
Logged

thefraze_1020

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 171
  • Age: 25
  • Location: Sedro Woolley, WA
  • Last Login: August 18, 2018, 08:03:35 PM
Re: Washington
« Reply #412 on: August 10, 2018, 10:57:32 PM »

Anyone know when State Route 240 was built in Richland and Kennewick? I've been trying to track down the opening dates for the Richland By-Pass Highway (sometime in the 1940s, perhaps during the war?) and the freeway section (signed as US 410/US 12, possibly built in tandem with the Blue Bridge in the early 1950s), but haven't found much luck. The NBI for the overpasses is pretty incomplete and gives varying years for each interchange.

Go to WSDOT's archives website. Viewing their collection of opening day pamphlets, I can tell you that SR 240 from its junction with SR 24 (just south of Vernita Bridge) to the Horn Rapids area opened July 14, 1965 (see https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll3/id/93/rec/12). The portion from N Richland Road to Stevens Drive opened June 20, 1968 (see https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll3/id/107/rec/63).

When consulting the bridge log from 1966 (on the same website), the original overpass at what is now the Columbia Park Trail interchange (called "SR 240" on the bridge list) was built in 1952, the first Columbia Center Blvd overpass (called "Colorado Street") was built in 1960, and the US 395 overpass (called "SR 12") was built in 1953. The Blue Bridge itself was opened in 1954. I have a hunch that the portion of SR 240 that was originally US 410 (from Columbia Park Trail to US 395) likely was built circa 1952-1954. I would be surprised if it was opened before the Blue Bridge opened. Thus, I would guess the whole road section opened in 1954.

As for the Bypass Highway (SR 240 from I-182 north to where it turns left towards the Vernita Bridge), I do not have an answer right now but I would advise you to browse WSDOT's archives, especially old issues of "Washington Highway News" from the 1950's. The link is here: https://cdm16977.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16977coll1
Logged
Alright, this is how it's gonna be!

ErmineNotyours

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 111
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Renton, Washington
  • Last Login: August 18, 2018, 11:07:34 PM
Re: Washington
« Reply #413 on: August 10, 2018, 11:49:23 PM »

Anyone know when State Route 240 was built in Richland and Kennewick? I've been trying to track down the opening dates for the Richland By-Pass Highway (sometime in the 1940s, perhaps during the war?) and the freeway section (signed as US 410/US 12, possibly built in tandem with the Blue Bridge in the early 1950s), but haven't found much luck. The NBI for the overpasses is pretty incomplete and gives varying years for each interchange.

I had suspected the bypass opened no sooner than the railroad along side the bypass opened.  If you look at older railroad maps of Hanford you will see that at first the only railroad access was the Milwaukee Road from the north.  I thought perhaps sometime in the late 60s to early 70s, the Department of Energy realized that the Milwaukee Road was going out of business, and they needed rail access from another carrier, passing through the Tri-Cities to the south.  I just checked and found from this source that the Southern Connection rail was completed in 1950.
Logged

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1530
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:49:41 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: Washington
« Reply #414 on: August 11, 2018, 12:54:06 AM »

If I'm posting here, then I have already exhausted the WSDOT Digital Collection or HistoricArchives.com, just FYI.

I contacted the Mid-Columbia Library and they got back to me with a few newspaper clippings from 1948 that mention the recent completion of the bypass. Tracking down the freeway sections will be a little more difficult, it seems.

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8113
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 11:57:54 AM
Re: Washington
« Reply #415 on: August 11, 2018, 02:54:37 AM »

Off-topic, but where did you photograph the "Road to be Extended" sign in your avatar?

As you might imagine, judging the number on the sign, somewhere in the 425. But those signs are all over Pierce County. I could have several photos for you by tomorrow.

Do share a few locations, especially if I can reach them by bus. I've been meaning to travel down there for a few errands soon.

I'm sure there are more, but here's three. Turns out, it's not a Pierce County thing (I think -- need more time to be sure), but rather a Puyallup thing.

Roads ending at those red and white chevron signs are very common in Puyallup; roads are often designed to be extended, though I'm not sure if there are any finite plans for them:

23 Pl SE: https://goo.gl/sHpQsD

12 Ave SE/22 St SE: https://goo.gl/u9rKrE

47 Ave SE (should still be there -- road wasn't completely finished through): https://goo.gl/htqsVq

There might be one here, farther south in unincorporated Pierce County, but I'm not 100% sure: https://goo.gl/LC3y68 (nothing there; 9 July 2018)

There are a lot of roads in Pierce County that were very clearly designed to extend beyond their current terminus. I'm not sure how common this type of situation is up north.

Bruce,

To follow up on this post, I found another of these "ROAD TO BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE" signs in unincorporated Pierce County: https://goo.gl/u59FmG (176 St @ 63 Ave).

I was really sure that Pierce County had used the sign before, so I'm glad I wasn't going completely insane. Every other one I've found has been a Puyallup install. Weirdly enough, that left turn arrow (acting as a U-turn for traffic along 176 St) was recently changed to a U-turn signal, so perhaps they're not as confident in their plans as they once were (though the sign was only installed in the last few years).

Sort of related, about 20 blocks east, there is this left/right in, right-out intersection at 86 Ave, where masts have been put up for future signals along 176 St. The signal was clearly not installed, but if you follow 86 Ave to the north, there is clearly some reserved ROW for a future connection to 170 St. While there is no sign like above, there is a less-friendly "NO TRESPASSING" sign at the end of the street north of 176 St indicating that the property is county-owned.
Logged

ErmineNotyours

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 111
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Renton, Washington
  • Last Login: August 18, 2018, 11:07:34 PM
Re: Washington
« Reply #416 on: August 12, 2018, 07:47:32 PM »

Well, I'll be darned.  The 1951 topo map of Richland shows a pre-divided Bypass, but no railroad.  The plot thickens.

Richland Bypass Topo 1951 by Arthur Allen, on Flickr
Logged

Bruce

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1530
  • Transit Commuter

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Snohomish County, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:49:41 AM
    • Wikipedia
Re: Washington
« Reply #417 on: August 15, 2018, 02:17:00 AM »

Came across something interesting while poking around some of the Hanford-area highways: the site itself has its own internal numbered highway system (as described in this technical report).

Highway 11A seems to be directly referencing the old Secondary State Highway 11A, which ran across the Hanford site until 1943; the rest of 11A became SR 24 in 1964.



jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8113
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 11:57:54 AM
Re: Washington
« Reply #418 on: August 15, 2018, 03:46:20 AM »

SR 500 in Vancouver will be converted to a full freeway this fall. The final two signals at Falk Road and Stapleton Road will be eliminated by extending the median barrier across the intersection, making them effective RIRO interchanges. No immediate plans for pedestrian access at Stapleton, but Falk Road has a pedestrian overpass to maintain that connection. Acceleration and deceleration lanes will be put in place.

No plans for full-access interchanges for the time being. $80 million that the DOT does not yet have.

https://goo.gl/9NeKRj

Quote from: WSDOT
In collaboration with the City of Vancouver, Clark County, C-TRAN and the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council, the design was chosen because it balances significant safety improvements to SR 500, while maintaining some connectivity to SR 500 from local streets.

“With nearly 400 crashes occurring on SR 500 near these intersections over five years, we believe it’s our responsibility to do something to improve safety,” said Carley Francis, WSDOT Southwest Region Planning Director. “These improvements are relatively low cost, can be implemented rather quickly, and will significantly improve safety on SR 500.”
« Last Edit: August 15, 2018, 03:49:05 AM by jakeroot »
Logged

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2328
  • Last Login: August 18, 2018, 11:15:17 PM
Re: Washington
« Reply #419 on: August 15, 2018, 06:42:11 PM »

I predict an edit war on that last segment of 500 on OSM... :meh:
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8113
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 11:57:54 AM
Re: Washington
« Reply #420 on: August 15, 2018, 08:42:48 PM »

I predict an edit war on that last segment of 500 on OSM... :meh:

I thought about that. Serious point of contention not that long ago. No one tell Baloo! I think it's safe to label the whole thing as motorway now. Though I think it should have been totally motorway before, anyways, since WSDOT considered it to be one.
Logged

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2328
  • Last Login: August 18, 2018, 11:15:17 PM
Re: Washington
« Reply #421 on: August 16, 2018, 02:21:37 PM »

I'd wait until the intersections become RIROs before making the change.
Logged

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8113
  • U/Wash - Urban Design

  • Age: 22
  • Location: BC / Tacoma, Wash
  • Last Login: Today at 11:57:54 AM
Re: Washington
« Reply #422 on: August 16, 2018, 03:11:33 PM »

I'd wait until the intersections become RIROs before making the change.

Oh sorry, "now" meaning after WSDOT makes the change. Not such great wording, there...
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.