|
Post by Cable Cassidy on Sept 21, 2013 8:31:24 GMT -8
speaking of bridges I received a statement in the mail for a toll when I crossed the Golden Ears Bridge a few weeks ago. I just thought that was funny but I guess that is the only way they can make people pay. If you have an outstanding balance greater than $25, you'll be refused when trying to renew your license or insurance until the balance is paid.
|
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on Sept 21, 2013 10:05:01 GMT -8
mine was only $4.25 as I only crossed once! Every time I take the bus to the ferry it has been packed! Canada Line would be good lol!
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Sept 21, 2013 10:35:02 GMT -8
mine was only $4.25 as I only crossed once! Every time I take the bus to the ferry it has been packed! Canada Line would be good lol! I don't think that a southern extension of the Canada line has enough ridership potential currently (apart from Ladner and south Richmond, there really isn't anything on the way to Tsawwassen) to justify an extension. However, as metro Vancouver grows it could be needed, and Tsawwassen would be a major destination. For now, stick with the buses. At least there are some.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Sept 21, 2013 10:53:50 GMT -8
Regarding cable-stayed bridges: Not only are they cost efficient, but they are also the safest type of bridge in an earthquake. They might not be the prettiest, but they are by far the best choice from most standpoints. What about suspension bridges though? Those are nice, too. I'd have preferred even that over a cable-stayed bridge. But, I so wish the Port Mann Bridge would have just been twinned like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Sept 21, 2013 11:22:08 GMT -8
Every time I take the bus to the ferry it has been packed! Canada Line would be good lol! I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say... There are such massive fluctuations on Route 620, for example, it sees highest ridership going towards the ferries in the mornings Sat-Sun, and highest ridership coming from the ferries in the evenings Sat-Sun. Ferries only operate every 45-60 min, therefore passenger loads are much more condensed and infrequent, meaning that the 6 minute frequency offered by a Canada Line branch would be extremely inefficient and a waste of infrastructure. I agree that the 620 regularly sees overloads, but that's only because buses are timed with ferries. If there were buses that were not timed with ferries, they would be empty. Karl (et al), if you're interested in further reading about how rapid transit is planned, here is TransLink's Managing The Transit Network Primer - it does a much better job at explaining this, and although it doesn't address SkyTrain to ferry terminals specifically, it does provide a general outline on how and why certain transit planning decisions are made: www.translink.ca/~/media/documents/plans_and_projects/managing_the_transit_network/managing_the_network_primer.ashx
I don't think that a southern extension of the Canada line has enough ridership potential currently (apart from Ladner and south Richmond, there really isn't anything on the way to Tsawwassen) to justify an extension. However, as metro Vancouver grows it could be needed, and Tsawwassen would be a major destination. For now, stick with the buses. At least there are some. The problem is that about 90% of the land from the Fraser River to Tsawwassen is Agricultural Land Reserve, meaning that the land is reserve for agricultural activity, and development is not allowed, meaning a rapid transit line would not stop anywhere (maybe once at Ladner Exchange).
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Sept 29, 2013 17:22:49 GMT -8
The plaque Rolf Bruhn bridge, in Sicamous, BC, on Hwy-1. Mr. Bruhn was a BC legislature member, representing a Shuswap Lake area riding from the 1920s to the 1940s, when he died in 1942. So it made sense to name this 1962 bridge after this man. Many of you will also recognize his name as a name used for an inland ferry. link to forum thread here
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Oct 11, 2013 19:41:40 GMT -8
I must admit, however, that I have no idea what structural condition the arch bridge was in, so maybe replacing it was justified. I also get that it was about as old as the 520 floating bridge, but the 1963 floating bridge was in poor condition structurally. OTOH, it seems that floating bridges don't last as long as other bridges and are more prone to the elements, especially windstorms. Two of Washington's floating bridges have fallen victim to windstorms. If the second floating bridge you're talking about is the first I-90 bridge, then let me tell you that it didn't sink because of a windstorm but rather because of really heavy rain (literally, the rain was too heavy so it sank). Floating bridges are also exposed to water (even saltwater for the hood canal), so it's kind of like a boat (except it doesn't move at all and doesn't get drydock time every few years). That explains the fact that they need to be replaced more frequently. As for the 520 bridge, not only is the bridge in poor condition but it is (or at least was, before the toll) WAY over capacity, so that might be another factor. Just to get the stories straight on this, the original I-90 bridge (completed in 1940) sunk in 1990 while closed for renovations. The 1989 I-90 bridge next to it had been opened to traffic, and the original bridge was being refurbished. One of the pontoons on the bridge did indeed fill with water from a rainstorm, causing the bridge to sink. But the cause was determined not tp be from water on the deck of the bridge, but from the top hatch of the pontoon being left open, thus letting it fill with water. When it filled with enough water it sunk, dragging the adjacent pontoons down with it. If the hatch hadn't been left open, it would not have filled with water and the bridge would still be floating. The Evergreen Point Bridge (Highway 520, completed in 1963) is considered to be at the end of it's operational lifespan. It has been well maintained, but a major issue is that the supports for the bridge would not hold up in a somewhat-major earthquake. The new bridge will have 6 lanes rather than 4. Yes. the bridges are frequently crowded, but transit help is on the way. A new light-rail line is planned to cross the newest I-90 bridge and is set for completion in 2023.
|
|
dave2
Chief Steward
Deckhand!: Todo: Introduction post (I was born less than 100 feet from the ocean. The tide was...)
Posts: 155
|
Post by dave2 on Oct 31, 2013 7:24:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Nov 29, 2013 20:34:41 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Mike C on Nov 30, 2013 14:08:51 GMT -8
With both the Lions Gate (BC 99 and 1A) and Second Narrows (BC 1) bridges closed southbound, the entire North Shore is on lockdown, while RCMP and West Vancouver Police search for a gunman.
From the Global BC Facebook page:
Edit: The bridges are actually open, they are just questioning everyone who is crossing.
|
|
|
Post by Kahloke on Dec 8, 2013 16:58:08 GMT -8
The twin Tacoma Narrows Bridges on a very clear and cold day (7-Dec-2013):
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Dec 20, 2013 12:50:26 GMT -8
The transportation package for this year is oficcialy dead, meaning no funding for a 3rd Olympic as of right now. As much as I would like to see a third Olympic, I'd rather not have it with a HUGE $12b transportation package that basically does nothing that people want (people want walkability, transit and more road maintenance while the transportation package from the Republicans focused mainly on highway expansion and gave little to no money for what people wanted) but rather come up on its own. [OK, I know I'm going to go off on a tangent here (in terms of this particular thread), but just bear with me. Mods can move this to the "highways, bridges, and tunnels" thread if they wish.]I actually liked the transportation package because it had highway expansion, though I do agree that light rail and transit are also important to focus on in urban areas. Although I side with Republicans in many cases (though I technically consider myself a conservative--there is a difference), I couldn't understand why the Republicans were making such a big fuss about having light rail over the Columbia River Crossing. That being said, there is definitely some need for highway expansion that certain people in this state have been ignoring. I for one particularly want this because there are certain highways on the way to my cabin that were going to get $$$ for expansion, such as SR 522. It's already in the process getting four lanes between Snohomish River and Monroe, and this job needs to be finished by putting in four lanes between there and west to the SR 524 junction. Plus, there would also have been money for a US 2 Monroe Bypass, something that's been proposed for close to 25 years. US 2 to Steven's Pass is one of the most dangerous highways in the state (people locally refer to it as the "Highway of Death"); on top of that, it is very congested. There have been many accidents on that road over the years, and every Sunday night in the summer going westbound, traffic lights in one town, Sultan, cause 10-mile-long backups (sometimes, they can stretch 20 miles!). Yes, you read that right, ten miles. Even past all the towns in the Sky Valley and as you're starting to head into the mountains, US 2 is still crowded and it's hard to pass people due to lack of passing lanes. So, if any transportation package had projects to improve those two highways, as well as projects to give I-5 thru Seattle a little more TLC (read: repaving) and improvements, and of course fund a third Olympic, I'd be happy. Just putting compdude787's post here, and answering it then: I agree that in some places highway expansion is necessary but before that I hope that people would be smart enough to try to find some solutions, without necessarily creating new highways. There is a great europeean invention called a roundabout which performs much better than traffic lights, or at least when you teach people how to use it. But even not going as far as a roundabout, how about timing lights correctly? I remember vividly being in downtown Wenatchee a couple years ago and all the lights for nearly two miles were timed so that we didn't have to stop at all. In downtown Seattle it takes as much time to go less than half the distance, when traffic is light. Bad road maintenance also contributes to congestion, and like you said, dangerous highways. expanding US 2 in the Cascades won't make it safer (logically it would even make it more dangerous with narrower lanes and shoulders), but fixing the road (ie. stabilizing slopes, using good pavement, etc) will make it safer. Also, if you ever get interested in transit, know that what we're building in Seattle is closer to a subway/RRT (Rail Rapid Transit) than light rail. Light Rail is what they have in on MLK and in Portland, and it's far from our needs in Seattle. Fortunately for you, you live in North Seattle and thus will be able to enjoy the full benefits of link when it arrives there. Link will surely provide some serious competition to cars with travel times of 3 minutes between Westlake and Capitol Hill (actual 5 min in a car when congestion-free), 6 minutes between Westlake and UW (half of the car travel time) and 14 minutes between Northgate and Donwtown (actual in a car is anywhere from 15 to 45 minutes). On top of saving time (both getting there and parking your car), riding transit also saves you money and makes you happier. So if you're in a city, be smart and ride transit around - and get an ORCA card! . Again, I'm not against highway expansion, but if a road is working fine, why would you need to expand it? And it doesn't work fine, try to find solutions other than highway expansion. What I didn't like about the package was that it provided $12b for highway expansion and nothing for the rest. If you want to spend $12b on expansion, then I'm fine with it as long as you spend $12b on road maintenance and $12b on transit/bike/ped infrastructure. I'm just asking for a fair share.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Dec 20, 2013 18:06:16 GMT -8
[OK, I know I'm going to go off on a tangent here (in terms of this particular thread), but just bear with me. Mods can move this to the "highways, bridges, and tunnels" thread if they wish.]I actually liked the transportation package because it had highway expansion, though I do agree that light rail and transit are also important to focus on in urban areas. Although I side with Republicans in many cases (though I technically consider myself a conservative--there is a difference), I couldn't understand why the Republicans were making such a big fuss about having light rail over the Columbia River Crossing. That being said, there is definitely some need for highway expansion that certain people in this state have been ignoring. I for one particularly want this because there are certain highways on the way to my cabin that were going to get $$$ for expansion, such as SR 522. It's already in the process getting four lanes between Snohomish River and Monroe, and this job needs to be finished by putting in four lanes between there and west to the SR 524 junction. Plus, there would also have been money for a US 2 Monroe Bypass, something that's been proposed for close to 25 years. US 2 to Steven's Pass is one of the most dangerous highways in the state (people locally refer to it as the "Highway of Death"); on top of that, it is very congested. There have been many accidents on that road over the years, and every Sunday night in the summer going westbound, traffic lights in one town, Sultan, cause 10-mile-long backups (sometimes, they can stretch 20 miles!). Yes, you read that right, ten miles. Even past all the towns in the Sky Valley and as you're starting to head into the mountains, US 2 is still crowded and it's hard to pass people due to lack of passing lanes. So, if any transportation package had projects to improve those two highways, as well as projects to give I-5 thru Seattle a little more TLC (read: repaving) and improvements, and of course fund a third Olympic, I'd be happy. Just putting @copdude787's post here, and answering it then: I agree that in some places highway expansion is necessary but before that I hope that people would be smart enough to try to find some solutions, without necessarily creating new highways. There is a great europeean invention called a roundabout which performs much better than traffic lights, or at least when you teach people how to use it. But even not going as far as a roundabout, how about timing lights correctly? I remember vividly being in downtown Wenatchee a couple years ago and all the lights for nearly two miles were timed so that we didn't have to stop at all. In downtown Seattle it takes as much time to go less than half the distance, when traffic is light. Bad road maintenance also contributes to congestion, and like you said, dangerous highways. expanding US 2 in the Cascades won't make it safer (logically it would even make it more dangerous with narrower lanes and shoulders), but fixing the road (ie. stabilizing slopes, using good pavement, etc) will make it safer. Also, if you ever get interested in transit, know that what we're building in Seattle is closer to a subway/RRT (Rail Rapid Transit) than light rail. Light Rail is what they have in on MLK and in Portland, and it's far from our needs in Seattle. Fortunately for you, you live in North Seattle and thus will be able to enjoy the full benefits of link when it arrives there. Link will surely provide some serious competition to cars with travel times of 3 minutes between Westlake and Capitol Hill (actual 5 min in a car when congestion-free), 6 minutes between Westlake and UW (half of the car travel time) and 14 minutes between Northgate and Donwtown (actual in a car is anywhere from 15 to 45 minutes). On top of saving time (both getting there and parking your car), riding transit also saves you money and makes you happier. So if you're in a city, be smart and ride transit around - and get an ORCA card! . Again, I'm not against highway expansion, but if a road is working fine, why would you need to expand it? And it doesn't work fine, try to find solutions other than highway expansion. What I didn't like about the package was that it provided $12b for highway expansion and nothing for the rest. If you want to spend $12b on expansion, then I'm fine with it as long as you spend $12b on road maintenance and $12b on transit/bike/ped infrastructure. I'm just asking for a fair share. Or they could find the perfect balance of transit, road expansion would be good for state for example build the new Columbia River bridge which could be three lanes for general-purpose and one HOV lanes in each direction which is all day and put light rail as another two lanes on the bridge . With building new bridge I agree with new road budget because it will keep the bridges safer for drivers and transit. I would say keep the road maintenance at 25% because road maintenance is important for the state.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Dec 21, 2013 11:38:23 GMT -8
The transportation bill was a WSDOT or should I call them the Department of Highways wishlist which included widening I-405, extending SR 509 to I-5, extending SR-167 to I-5 and SR 509, the new Columbia River Crossing, and many more projects.
I had a few issues with these projects.
Extending SR 509 to I-5 along with widening I-5 will only serve to increase congestion south of Federal Way which is already a standard during the PM peak from SR 18 to SR 16. I think what would be a greater benefit is construction of a collector distributor system from the Puyallup River Bridge to SR 512 to reduce the ridiculous amount of weaving in and out required at various interchanges. Due to lanes from I-705 becoming the WB SR 16 off ramp, many people are weaving trying to get over to the I-5 mainline, causing varying speeds and congestion. Simply creating a collector distributor system would allow people to better interchange rather than having 2 lanes trying to merge over to one lane and those going WB 16 the other direction. In turn EB 16 to NB 5 has 3 lanes merged into the current 3 lane mainline. HOVs will not solve this issue and should be redesigned as a collector distributor with an additional lane and only have 2 lanes with one merging into the I-5 mainline. It would also help if SB 5 to SR 512 was a flyover rather than 3 left turn lanes. WSDOT is fixed on short term cheap solutions rather than doing one project and being done.
Next, extending SR 167, I do not feel this would help very many people. Sure, it would be easier for people to get to I-5, but again, I-5 is congested in this stretch already and using SR 167 to access I-405 even if you could avoid Fife does not provide much benefit as is. With SR 167 WB being extending to SR 509, that is already overloaded in downtown Tacoma and again, adding more traffic to a constantly congested point on I-5 does what again?
Widening of I-405, my criticism is sure you can add toll lanes or GP lanes. However, what will end up occurring is demand will meet supply once built and it is not a long-term investment. The extra capacity benefits will probably be utilized quickly. Tolling projects are quite questionable for private investment as is and even the SR 167 HOT lanes were not generating net revenue. Right now, they only generate a little more than $1 million per year. That is not much revenue and if the state hopes these lanes will pay for themselves overtime, SR-167 provides a telling tale.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Dec 21, 2013 15:33:08 GMT -8
[OK, I know I'm going to go off on a tangent here (in terms of this particular thread), but just bear with me. Mods can move this to the "highways, bridges, and tunnels" thread if they wish.]I actually liked the transportation package because it had highway expansion, though I do agree that light rail and transit are also important to focus on in urban areas. Although I side with Republicans in many cases (though I technically consider myself a conservative--there is a difference), I couldn't understand why the Republicans were making such a big fuss about having light rail over the Columbia River Crossing. That being said, there is definitely some need for highway expansion that certain people in this state have been ignoring. I for one particularly want this because there are certain highways on the way to my cabin that were going to get $$$ for expansion, such as SR 522. It's already in the process getting four lanes between Snohomish River and Monroe, and this job needs to be finished by putting in four lanes between there and west to the SR 524 junction. Plus, there would also have been money for a US 2 Monroe Bypass, something that's been proposed for close to 25 years. US 2 to Steven's Pass is one of the most dangerous highways in the state (people locally refer to it as the "Highway of Death"); on top of that, it is very congested. There have been many accidents on that road over the years, and every Sunday night in the summer going westbound, traffic lights in one town, Sultan, cause 10-mile-long backups (sometimes, they can stretch 20 miles!). Yes, you read that right, ten miles. Even past all the towns in the Sky Valley and as you're starting to head into the mountains, US 2 is still crowded and it's hard to pass people due to lack of passing lanes. So, if any transportation package had projects to improve those two highways, as well as projects to give I-5 thru Seattle a little more TLC (read: repaving) and improvements, and of course fund a third Olympic, I'd be happy. Just putting compdude787's post here, and answering it then: I agree that in some places highway expansion is necessary but before that I hope that people would be smart enough to try to find some solutions, without necessarily creating new highways. There is a great europeean invention called a roundabout which performs much better than traffic lights, or at least when you teach people how to use it. But even not going as far as a roundabout, how about timing lights correctly? I remember vividly being in downtown Wenatchee a couple years ago and all the lights for nearly two miles were timed so that we didn't have to stop at all. In downtown Seattle it takes as much time to go less than half the distance, when traffic is light. I really do think roundabouts would work great, and will definitely solve the problems with backups on US 2. Roundabouts aren't that hard to use; the one thing you have to remember is yield to people inside the circle. As for changing the light timing, don't ask me why WSDOT hasn't done this already. This would be a good, cheap, short-term fix for this problem. But all those darn lights in Sultan need to be replaced with roundabouts. I would love to see some roundabouts within the Seattle city limits, though they seem to take up more space than having a regular intersection. That's probably why Seattle doesn't have any roundabouts. Bad road maintenance also contributes to congestion, and like you said, dangerous highways. expanding US 2 in the Cascades won't make it safer (logically it would even make it more dangerous with narrower lanes and shoulders), but fixing the road (ie. stabilizing slopes, using good pavement, etc) will make it safer. I think US 2 is actually maintained pretty well, and much better than I-5 in Seattle. I wasn't saying make US 2 four lanes all the way to Steven's Pass, but rather, add passing lanes in more places. Quite often, you can have 10 cars stuck behind a semi truck or RV, and it would be nice to be able to get around them. Also, if you ever get interested in transit, know that what we're building in Seattle is closer to a subway/RRT (Rail Rapid Transit) than light rail. Light Rail is what they have in on MLK and in Portland, and it's far from our needs in Seattle. Fortunately for you, you live in North Seattle and thus will be able to enjoy the full benefits of link when it arrives there. Link will surely provide some serious competition to cars with travel times of 3 minutes between Westlake and Capitol Hill (actual 5 min in a car when congestion-free), 6 minutes between Westlake and UW (half of the car travel time) and 14 minutes between Northgate and Donwtown (actual in a car is anywhere from 15 to 45 minutes). On top of saving time (both getting there and parking your car), riding transit also saves you money and makes you happier. So if you're in a city, be smart and ride transit around - and get an ORCA card! . Yes, I do realize that our "light rail" is more like a subway, since most of it is in tunnels thanks to all our wonderful hills. It will be great to be able to take the light rail downtown in a fraction of the time it takes to drive down there. And, you don't have to find or pay for parking if you're not in a car. This is the very same reason why I like riding my bike to school; you don't have to pay for parking! Again, I'm not against highway expansion, but if a road is working fine, why would you need to expand it? And it doesn't work fine, try to find solutions other than highway expansion. What I didn't like about the package was that it provided $12b for highway expansion and nothing for the rest. If you want to spend $12b on expansion, then I'm fine with it as long as you spend $12b on road maintenance and $12b on transit/bike/ped infrastructure. I'm just asking for a fair share. Yes, highway expansion isn't always the best idea, and sometimes the expanded road can clog up other roads, like Political Incorrectness was mentioning. I do think highway expansion is best when coupled with expansion of alternate forms of transportation, particularly in urban areas. In the future, when road bridges are being replaced, serious consideration needs to be given to building light rail into the bridge. With the Columbia River Crossing, they should have at least designed it so that it's possible to add it later on that new bridge instead of having to build a whole new bridge just for light rail. Heck, bridges can last for a hundred years or even longer--if it gets regular maintenance--so you need to design bridges with an eye towards the future. This is why I thought it was stupid that Republican legislators were so opposed to putting light rail on the Columbia River Crossing.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Dec 21, 2013 17:55:51 GMT -8
Also, if you ever get interested in transit, know that what we're building in Seattle is closer to a subway/RRT (Rail Rapid Transit) than light rail. Light Rail is what they have in on MLK and in Portland, and it's far from our needs in Seattle. Fortunately for you, you live in North Seattle and thus will be able to enjoy the full benefits of link when it arrives there. Link will surely provide some serious competition to cars with travel times of 3 minutes between Westlake and Capitol Hill (actual 5 min in a car when congestion-free), 6 minutes between Westlake and UW (half of the car travel time) and 14 minutes between Northgate and Donwtown (actual in a car is anywhere from 15 to 45 minutes). On top of saving time (both getting there and parking your car), riding transit also saves you money and makes you happier. So if you're in a city, be smart and ride transit around - and get an ORCA card! . Yes, I do realize that our "light rail" is more like a subway, since most of it is in tunnels thanks to all our wonderful hills. It will be great to be able to take the light rail downtown in a fraction of the time it takes to drive down there. And, you don't have to find or pay for parking if you're not in a car. This is the very same reason why I like riding my bike to school; you don't have to pay for parking! Again, I'm not against highway expansion, but if a road is working fine, why would you need to expand it? And it doesn't work fine, try to find solutions other than highway expansion. What I didn't like about the package was that it provided $12b for highway expansion and nothing for the rest. If you want to spend $12b on expansion, then I'm fine with it as long as you spend $12b on road maintenance and $12b on transit/bike/ped infrastructure. I'm just asking for a fair share. Yes, highway expansion isn't always the best idea, and sometimes the expanded road can clog up other roads, like Political Incorrectness was mentioning. I do think highway expansion is best when coupled with expansion of alternate forms of transportation, particularly in urban areas. In the future, when road bridges are being replaced, serious consideration needs to be given to building light rail into the bridge. With the Columbia River Crossing, they should have at least designed it so that it's possible to add it later on that new bridge instead of having to build a whole new bridge just for light rail. Heck, bridges can last for a hundred years or even longer--if it gets regular maintenance--so you need to design bridges with an eye towards the future. This is why I thought it was stupid that Republican legislators were so opposed to putting light rail on the Columbia River Crossing. Three things compdude787: 1) The Columbia River Crossing needs to be replace for many reasons such as closing the bridge for boats to pass through it, safety, and to put light rail on the bridge. 2) They are already designing the bridges to take light rail. Such as the Columbia River Crossing for MAX operated by TriMet, the SR 520 floating bridge is getting designed for Sound Transit Link Light rail and the Port Mann Bridge is designed for rapid transit light rail, I think this means SkyTrain, which would be operated by TransLink on the bridge. 3) Light rail is not like a Subway because it can go anywhere such as elevated, in tunnels, at ground with road crossing or separated completely from the vehicle traffic.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Dec 21, 2013 19:36:05 GMT -8
I really do think roundabouts would work great, and will definitely solve the problems with backups on US 2. Roundabouts aren't that hard to use; the one thing you have to remember is yield to people inside the circle. As for changing the light timing, don't ask me why WSDOT hasn't done this already. This would be a good, cheap, short-term fix for this problem. But all those darn lights in Sultan need to be replaced with roundabouts. I would love to see some roundabouts within the Seattle city limits, though they seem to take up more space than having a regular intersection. That's probably why Seattle doesn't have any roundabouts. America needs to teach people how to use roundabouts. No one realistically knows how to use them and with some lanes entering/exiting throughout the circle it just doesn't make sense. We need a constant number of lanes in the circle as well as just yield signs instead of the confusing signs telling drivers in which lane they should be. Roundabout don't have to be huge. As my grandfather would say, it ranges from anything to "putting a flower pot" to a big thing. I know of many small roundabouts that do perform better than traffic lights. If you have an intersection with turn lanes then you can realistically put a roundabout there with the entrances/exits can come closer to the median. On top of revealing congestion, roundabouts also increases safety for all users. Bikes don't have to cross over all the lanes to make a left turn, the distances peds have to cross are shorter and there is no confusion as to whose turn it is. As to timing lights, there is a great system in use in the Wenatchee Valley in which the lights are timed so that all of them are green in a row if you stick to the speed limit. And if you happen not to be synced with the light cycle, then lights will flash only when it will turn red by the time you arrive at the intersection. Bellevue also has recently invested $2m in a smart light system in which with the help of sensors will extend or shorten the time the lights are on based on the traffic. And believe me it works extremely well for what it is. I think US 2 is actually maintained pretty well, and much better than I-5 in Seattle. I wasn't saying make US 2 four lanes all the way to Steven's Pass, but rather, add passing lanes in more places. Quite often, you can have 10 cars stuck behind a semi truck or RV, and it would be nice to be able to get around them. Or perhaps I-5 is Seattle is more used than US 2 in the mountains... Remember that a delay of 5+ vehicles is illegal, and I think that this should be more enforced, and like you said passing lanes must be added on some highways, not necessarily long ones but more frequents ones. Yes, I do realize that our "light rail" is more like a subway, since most of it is in tunnels thanks to all our wonderful hills. It will be great to be able to take the light rail downtown in a fraction of the time it takes to drive down there. And, you don't have to find or pay for parking if you're not in a car. This is the very same reason why I like riding my bike to school; you don't have to pay for parking! Yes, not having to find/pay for parking is also one of the main reasons while I'm a bike commuter. Even better, you can take your bike on link much much easier than it is on a regular bus, which makes it even better. Yes, highway expansion isn't always the best idea, and sometimes the expanded road can clog up other roads, like Political Incorrectness was mentioning. Right on the nail here. There's no point on widening highways if the arterials don't have the capacity for the traffic coming from the highway. 2) They are already designing the bridges to take light rail. Such as the Columbia River Crossing for MAX operated by TriMet, the SR 520 floating bridge is getting designed for Sound Transit Link Light rail and the Port Mann Bridge is designed for rapid transit light rail, I think this means SkyTrain, which would be operated by TransLink on the bridge. As much as the new 520 bridge is designed for light rail, I think that it's such in a bad spot for mass transit because of its location. A floating bridge or tunnel from Kirkland to Magnuson park is the solution you're looking for. As for the Port Mann bridge designed for SkyTrain, don't we already kind of have the Skybridge? 3) Light rail is not like a Subway because it can go anywhere such as elevated, in tunnels, at ground with road crossing or separated completely from the vehicle traffic. A subway is actually anything mass transit operating in a tunnel, not specifically RRT which is what you are describing. As for at-grade crossings, they are not efficient at all and slow down operations A LOT. Seattle is getting rid of as much at-grade crossings as possible to get the fastest service as possible and I actually envisioned a Seattle Sky-Train like system supplemented by actual light rail lines - what they have in Portland.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Dec 21, 2013 23:31:28 GMT -8
When it comes to US 2, I do not think that roundabouts are the best solution necessarily depending on volumes, if there are specific times of day with heavy flows they can make sense but in terms of permitting high speeds, not really. The 4 lane section should be extended into Sultan and then add more passing lanes every 2-3 miles. That I think would help quite a bit.
When it came to Link, we missed a huge opportunity to make it like Skytrain RRT. If we had fully grade separated it at first, we could have a higher capacity and that is necessary if not required for the University District. If I were to have started the system, I would have preferred Downtown-Northgate first to facilitate U-District traffic. From there, Bellevue and Overlake would have been my first options and open once the system got to Mercer Island and expand until the terminus in Redmond.
From there, West Seattle-Ballard would have been the next line to construct, followed by future extensions via SR 522 from Ballard, then constructing northward through the Aurora Ave. Corridor to Alderwood Mall in Lynwood. THEN I would have gone down south to Sea-Tac and Federal Way. The connect that section to Bellevue via Renton and the 405 corridor to help alleviate congestion on I-5 and I-405.
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Dec 22, 2013 1:02:20 GMT -8
Next, extending SR 167, I do not feel this would help very many people. Sure, it would be easier for people to get to I-5, but again, I-5 is congested in this stretch already and using SR 167 to access I-405 even if you could avoid Fife does not provide much benefit as is. With SR 167 WB being extending to SR 509, that is already overloaded in downtown Tacoma and again, adding more traffic to a constantly congested point on I-5 does what again?
So the extension of 167 isn't as much about people as it's about freight. There is a huge need to be able to move freight more efficiently from the Port of Tacoma to the large distribution warehouses in the Kent Valley. This is a major issue for many of the local shipping and logistics companies, and is a reason why we've seen some distribution warehouses opening in areas other than the Kent Valley where the industry traditionally has been centered in recent decades.
It would help by getting heavy trucks off of I-5 so they do not have to go north and then go up and down the side of the hill on hwy 18 or 516 which is less than ideal. Since the project would create a direct shot from the docks down onto 167, those trucks would never get on I-5 reducing traffic there and would not be going into downtown Tacoma on 509.
Besides completing this highway also provides a nice bypass for I-5 which I would love to have as an option. :-)
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Dec 22, 2013 14:42:03 GMT -8
I really do think roundabouts would work great, and will definitely solve the problems with backups on US 2. Roundabouts aren't that hard to use; the one thing you have to remember is yield to people inside the circle. As for changing the light timing, don't ask me why WSDOT hasn't done this already. This would be a good, cheap, short-term fix for this problem. But all those darn lights in Sultan need to be replaced with roundabouts. I would love to see some roundabouts within the Seattle city limits, though they seem to take up more space than having a regular intersection. That's probably why Seattle doesn't have any roundabouts. America needs to teach people how to use roundabouts. No one realistically knows how to use them and with some lanes entering/exiting throughout the circle it just doesn't make sense. We need a constant number of lanes in the circle as well as just yield signs instead of the confusing signs telling drivers in which lane they should be. Roundabout don't have to be huge. As my grandfather would say, it ranges from anything to "putting a flower pot" to a big thing. I know of many small roundabouts that do perform better than traffic lights. If you have an intersection with turn lanes then you can realistically put a roundabout there with the entrances/exits can come closer to the median. On top of revealing congestion, roundabouts also increases safety for all users. Bikes don't have to cross over all the lanes to make a left turn, the distances peds have to cross are shorter and there is no confusion as to whose turn it is. As to timing lights, there is a great system in use in the Wenatchee Valley in which the lights are timed so that all of them are green in a row if you stick to the speed limit. And if you happen not to be synced with the light cycle, then lights will flash only when it will turn red by the time you arrive at the intersection. Bellevue also has recently invested $2m in a smart light system in which with the help of sensors will extend or shorten the time the lights are on based on the traffic. And believe me it works extremely well for what it is. I think US 2 is actually maintained pretty well, and much better than I-5 in Seattle. I wasn't saying make US 2 four lanes all the way to Steven's Pass, but rather, add passing lanes in more places. Quite often, you can have 10 cars stuck behind a semi truck or RV, and it would be nice to be able to get around them. Or perhaps I-5 is Seattle is more used than US 2 in the mountains... Remember that a delay of 5+ vehicles is illegal, and I think that this should be more enforced, and like you said passing lanes must be added on some highways, not necessarily long ones but more frequents ones. Yes, I do realize that our "light rail" is more like a subway, since most of it is in tunnels thanks to all our wonderful hills. It will be great to be able to take the light rail downtown in a fraction of the time it takes to drive down there. And, you don't have to find or pay for parking if you're not in a car. This is the very same reason why I like riding my bike to school; you don't have to pay for parking! Yes, not having to find/pay for parking is also one of the main reasons while I'm a bike commuter. Even better, you can take your bike on link much much easier than it is on a regular bus, which makes it even better. Yes, highway expansion isn't always the best idea, and sometimes the expanded road can clog up other roads, like Political Incorrectness was mentioning. Right on the nail here. There's no point on widening highways if the arterials don't have the capacity for the traffic coming from the highway. 2) They are already designing the bridges to take light rail. Such as the Columbia River Crossing for MAX operated by TriMet, the SR 520 floating bridge is getting designed for Sound Transit Link Light rail and the Port Mann Bridge is designed for rapid transit light rail, I think this means SkyTrain, which would be operated by TransLink on the bridge. As much as the new 520 bridge is designed for light rail, I think that it's such in a bad spot for mass transit because of its location. A floating bridge or tunnel from Kirkland to Magnuson park is the solution you're looking for. As for the Port Mann bridge designed for SkyTrain, don't we already kind of have the Skybridge? 3) Light rail is not like a Subway because it can go anywhere such as elevated, in tunnels, at ground with road crossing or separated completely from the vehicle traffic. A subway is actually anything mass transit operating in a tunnel, not specifically RRT which is what you are describing. As for at-grade crossings, they are not efficient at all and slow down operations A LOT. Seattle is getting rid of as much at-grade crossings as possible to get the fastest service as possible and I actually envisioned a Seattle Sky-Train like system supplemented by actual light rail lines - what they have in Portland. Yes, I agree with you that people may not really understand roundabouts at first. They take a bit of getting used to. However, the one that they have put on US 2 seems pretty straightforward since it's only one lane. I can say without a doubt that they are MUCH easier to understand than 4-way stops. Nobody in Seattle really understands 4-way stops, except the people who live on Queen Anne Hill. I think it would be nice if many of the four (or more)-way stops in Seattle were replaced with roundabouts. Yes, synchronizing lights and improving their timing would be a great idea, but it would be even better to build roundabouts. Regarding road maintenance: yes, I-5 clearly gets way more use than US 2, and it's harder to do significant maintenance. I-5 has concrete pavement through Seattle as opposed to asphalt; it lasts longer and can handle the increased traffic, but repaving it takes longer and is more expensive. You can't just close the road at night and repave it like you can with asphalt. Concrete takes forever to dry when it's cold, and for most of the year, it gets cold enough at night that concrete takes an eternity to dry. If this was Arizona where it gets up to 100 degrees F during the day and down to 70 at night, you can do concrete paving at night and it would still be warm enough to dry in a reasonable amount of time (in fact, down there, they always do concrete pours at night during the summer; concrete dries too quickly at 100 degrees). Concrete can be repaved through Seattle, but it is much more expensive and has a big impact on traffic. They ground it down through N. Seattle several years ago, which was a total improvement in the smoothness of the road, but it's going to need repaving eventually. In Shoreline, they haven't ground it down, but it's starting to get that thump-thump-thump sound, and soon it will need to be ground down there too. Yes, I am fully aware of the "delay of 5 vehicles illegal" law. I've seen signs posted stating "Delay of 5 vehicles illegal/ Must use turnouts" but nobody follows that law. It needs to be enforced more, but I'd prefer to see the State Patrol be pulling people over for driving drunk more than anything else. It wasn't that long ago when there were two serious crashes within a week of each other where drunk drivers crossed the center line on US 2 and got in a head-on collision. The WSP needs to have more DUI patrols to prevent things like this from happening. Also you mentioned that 520 isn't the best place to put light rail and that another floating bridge or tunnel should be built between Magnuson Park and Kirkland. That reminds me of a proposal back in the 1960s to build a floating bridge there as part of an east-west freeway that would have gone from Aurora Avenue to I-605. You can read more about it, as well as other proposed freeways that were never built in this 2003 Seattle Times "Bumper to Bumper" column. This was a column where readers could write in with local transportation-related questions, and I always enjoyed reading that column in the newspaper and I really miss it.
|
|
|
Post by compdude787 on Dec 22, 2013 14:58:44 GMT -8
When it comes to US 2, I do not think that roundabouts are the best solution necessarily depending on volumes, if there are specific times of day with heavy flows they can make sense but in terms of permitting high speeds, not really. The 4 lane section should be extended into Sultan and then add more passing lanes every 2-3 miles. That I think would help quite a bit. Keep in mind that the roundabouts would be replacing traffic lights that are already located in places where the speed limit is reduced to 35 mph since the highway is going through the town of Sultan. Therefore, the roundabouts don't need to permit high speeds. And, I do agree that US 2 should be four lanes to Sultan. US 2 from Sultan west typically has such high volumes of traffic that exceeds the capacity of the current two-lane road. When it came to Link, we missed a huge opportunity to make it like Skytrain RRT. If we had fully grade separated it at first, we could have a higher capacity and that is necessary if not required for the University District. If I were to have started the system, I would have preferred Downtown-Northgate first to facilitate U-District traffic. From there, Bellevue and Overlake would have been my first options and open once the system got to Mercer Island and expand until the terminus in Redmond. From there, West Seattle-Ballard would have been the next line to construct, followed by future extensions via SR 522 from Ballard, then constructing northward through the Aurora Ave. Corridor to Alderwood Mall in Lynwood. THEN I would have gone down south to Sea-Tac and Federal Way. The connect that section to Bellevue via Renton and the 405 corridor to help alleviate congestion on I-5 and I-405. I agree with you. I think starting it out from the U-District and going to Downtown would have been a much better way to start out, since it would capitalize on college students who would be most likely to use rapid transit. Also, it allows people living on Capitol Hill or Downtown to take the light rail to Husky games, instead of crowding up local streets which can't really handle that amount of traffic. I wonder what Sound Transit's reasons were for having the first branch of light rail go to the airport.
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Dec 23, 2013 0:35:44 GMT -8
I agree with you. I think starting it out from the U-District and going to Downtown would have been a much better way to start out, since it would capitalize on college students who would be most likely to use rapid transit. Also, it allows people living on Capitol Hill or Downtown to take the light rail to Husky games, instead of crowding up local streets which can't really handle that amount of traffic. I wonder what Sound Transit's reasons were for having the first branch of light rail go to the airport.
For a multitude of reasons, both political and engineering related.
The south line from downtown to Sea-Tac was much much simpler engineering wise than U-Link, especially prior to the decision to can the First Hill Station due to soil conditions there. ST had no tunneling experience at the point of which they built the south part of Central Link and no one had used a TBM to build anything other than sewers in Seattle at that time. What is now called U-Link was assessed by pretty much everyone as a very high risk project. Despite all those students a much larger population could be served for much less initial capital expenditure and lower risk by going south. Also they needed an operations facility which required building at least from the south end of the bus tunnel to somewhere in SoDo. Essentially Sound Transit was worried if they could afford to finish a line from the UW or Northgate to SeaTac within budget under their existing taxing authority (that is moot now that ST2 passed). Now even with everything ST learned, knocking it down to two stations and coming in under budget and time U-Link is costing almost as half as much as the entire south line did.
Politically the project gained major favor with the business and tourist community (students don't pay taxes, but they do vote) by providing an extremely easy way to get from the airport to downtown. I ride it a lot and there are days where I would venture a guess that half of the riders are coming or going cruise ship passengers. The Port of Seattle is particularly important as they own a great deal of land, some of which Sound Transit badly needs (or needed in the case of the Eastside Corridor). They also have separate taxing authority and can be hit up for money as the wsdot and city has done a few times for various freight access projects. Also it crosses the city of Seattle boundaries and enters two other cities who are members on the regional council and is much more "visible" than a project confined solely to within Seattle.
|
|
SolDuc
Voyager
West Coast Cyclist
SolDuc and SOBC - Photo by Scott
Posts: 2,055
|
Post by SolDuc on Dec 23, 2013 0:43:20 GMT -8
And now even with everything ST learned from the South Line and knocking it down to two stations and coming in under budget and time U-Link is costing almost as half as much as the entire south line did. But U-Link is projected to have a daily ridership about the same as Central Link does, once it opens... I also think that any Rainier Valley like segments will be ommitted in any kind of other project we have. It just limits speed and frequency too much (the DSTT can handle trains every 2 minutes, MLK only every 6). I can also imagine Seattle residents coming to say, Portland or San Diego (where they have actual light rail and be like: "this thing is so slow and inefficient, it should be called a streetcar". LOL
|
|
|
Post by chokai on Dec 23, 2013 1:02:20 GMT -8
But U-Link is projected to have a daily ridership about the same as Central Link does, once it opens... I also think that any Rainier Valley like segments will be ommitted in any kind of other project we have. It just limits speed and frequency too much (the DSTT can handle trains every 2 minutes, MLK only every 6). I can also imagine Seattle residents coming to say, Portland or San Diego (where they have actual light rail and be like: "this thing is so slow and inefficient, it should be called a streetcar". LOL
A portion of the ridership going to UW and Cap Hill for SCC and SU will be from stations to the south of downtown. When you take into account the other existing stations on the route you get a doubling of your ridership. That segment itself if it had been built in isolation would have served significantly less people and had less ridership overall.
Besides the real important station in the U-District is not the station being built now (except on gamedays ;-) but rather the Brooklyn Station. (edit: I guess they are calling it U-District Station now) Most of the classes and students are on the North End and West Edge of campus, and the UW has been expanding almost entirely in that direction the last decade. It's a 12-15 minute walk (uphill) for example from Husky Stadium to the Law and Business schools. Frankly I think Sound Transits ridership #'s for the Husky Stadium station are fanciful, especially once Brooklyn opens.
Rainier Valley being surface was all about risk and cost as I mentioned before, surface was the cheapest way to serve that area. A tunnel was considered (extensively actually, the local community was all kind of up in arms over not getting a tunnel) but could not be done with the money available. Don't forget large parts of MAX are surface in the downtown Portland core and while marked off separately must stop at cross streets exactly as MLK way does. My suspicion is that in the distant future when they build a light rail line through West Seattle, which will likely be underground or elevated and down towards Burien that it will end up following a lot of the 560 bus route and end up joining the existing central link line where it crosses 519 or at Tukwila station.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Bus Fan on Dec 27, 2013 19:07:29 GMT -8
|
|