[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/Jump to content

Talk:Washington State Route 99

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV

[edit]

Current article refers to the brick building protruding into the Viaduct as "disconcerting." This is a value judgement; I think it's a rather cool feature of a truly urban freeway, built with tight tolerances. As such, I'm editing to be neutral. ---N, Tacoma, WA

Spurs of PSH 1

[edit]
Primary State Highway 1 AN (Anacortes)
Primary State Highway 1 AP (Austin Pass)
Primary State Highway 1 CD (Chuckanut Drive)
Primary State Highway 1 DC (Duwamish Cutoff)
  • State Route 181 [Boeing Access Road], US 99 (PSH 1) Duwamish - SR 900 (PSH 2 RE) South Seattle
Primary State Highway 1 EP (Evergreen Point)
  • State Route 520, I-5 (PSH 1) Seattle - SR 522 [now SR 202] (PSH 2 BO) Redmond
Primary State Highway 1 MA (Marysville)
Primary State Highway 1 RE (Renton)
Primary State Highway 1 TR (Truck Route)
Primary State Highway 1 WM (West Marginal Way)
no suffix
Secondary State Highway 1A
  • State Route 9, SR 202 [now SR 522] (PSH 15 BM) Maltby [may have extended south to Woodinville?] - Canada
  • State Route 544, US 99 Alternate [now SR 539] (SSH 1B) Wiser Lake - SR 9 (SSH 1A) Nooksack
Secondary State Highway 1B
Secondary State Highway 1C
  • State Route 537, SR 536 [now SR 20] (PSH 1 AC) Whitney - I-5 (PSH 1) Edison
Secondary State Highway 1D
Secondary State Highway 1E
Secondary State Highway 1G
Secondary State Highway 1H
Secondary State Highway 1I
Secondary State Highway 1J
Secondary State Highway 1K
Secondary State Highway 1L
  • State Route 518, SR 509 (SSH 1K) Sunnydale - I-5 (PSH 1) Tukwila (partly also PSH 1 RE!)
Secondary State Highway 1M
  • State Route 801, SR 8 [now US 12] (PSH 9 EG) Rochester - I-5 (PSH 1) Maytown
Secondary State Highway 1N
Secondary State Highway 1P
Secondary State Highway 1Q
Secondary State Highway 1R
Secondary State Highway 1S
Secondary State Highway 1T
Secondary State Highway 1U
Secondary State Highway 1V
Secondary State Highway 1W
Secondary State Highway 1X
  • State Route 514 [54th Avenue East, Pacific Highway East, Milton Way], I-5 (PSH 1) Fife - SR 161 (SSH 5-D) Milton
Secondary State Highway 1Y
Secondary State Highway 1Z
  • State Route 540 [Haxton Way, Slater Road], Lummi Indian Reservation - I-5 (PSH 1)

Some confusion with US 99 vs. I-5 near Seattle. US 99 seems to have stayed on the old route. That makes two PSH 1 alignments.

Some intersections with separate US 99 in 1965
  • SR 518 Riverton Heights
  • US 99 Temporary [now SR 99] Foster
  • SR 181 [Boeing Access Road] Duwamish
  • SR 509 [now SR 99] Duwamish River
  • US 10 [Denny Way] Seattle
  • SR 513 [North 130th Street??] North Seattle
  • SR 525 Martha Lake

US 99 was deleted in 1969, and partly replaced by SR 99. But apparently the southernmost piece of SR 99 was SR 514, so it's unclear where US 99 left I-5. I-5 opened to SR 516 in 1962, and was posted as I-5/US 99, so that may be where. That gives no number for current SR 99 from old SR 514 to SR 516, except for the SR 509 concurrency. (SR 161 ended at I-5.) US 99 and I-5 seem to have joined at SR 526/SR 527.

Reassessment

[edit]

I'm not quite sure why this isn't at B-class already, but I haven't been involved with the article's editing. Therefore, I'll bump it up to C to be safe. CL — 18:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change reflecting 2004 act of legislature

[edit]

I'm not sure how all the recent edits missed all this, but the part along Tukwila International Boulevard is not only not maintained by the state, but it is no longer part of the route at all.

I have made edits reflecting this. However, the milepost numbers are all wonky now and don't reflect any sort of consistency. I recommend replacing them with the MP numbers used by WSDOT (first column of the highway log). Cpk1971 (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New media

[edit]

I've recently uploaded a new aerial photo of Highway 99, below. Feel free to use if useful. Dcoetzee 09:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Vancouver segment

[edit]

It should be noted that WA99 also has a segment in Fort Vancouver, WA approximately one block east of I5. 98.108.149.209 (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 27, 1998 incident

[edit]

Is the shooting incident really relevant to the history of the highway?

The 'Green River Killer' (Gary Ridgway) would be a much more notable set of murders, and isn't mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.122.29 (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar 13 February 2019

[edit]

@SounderBruce: While your recent edits were overwhelmingly useful, the prose you restored in this diff is all ungrammatical. Am I missing something? Please defend. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaswmsday: Apologies, but the edit seems to have excluded my changes to the grammar (which I have just finished making). Your edit removed the hyphen between "four" and "block", which is what I intended to restore. SounderBruce 00:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: Your rephrasing of the "central waterfront" prose really clarified it! And I totally brain-farted on the adjectival use of "four-block". I still find the use of both "formerly" and "until 2019" redundant. IMHO, I would typically strike "formerly" and call it a day, but let me try killing two birds... (I also would typically comma-splice, but I'll restrain myself.) --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"World's Largest TBM" Feb 13 2019

[edit]

@SounderBruce: If the sentence starts out talking about "was completed in 2017" but there was a larger tunnel boring machine launched in 2015, then the sentence "The tunnel was completed in 2017 using Bertha, the world's largest tunnel boring machine," is misleading. We need to either qualify that it was the largest tbm when launched in 2013 or the "largest" could simply be removed. There is no citation here and it doesn't make sense to say "largest" if nearest reference year is 2017. Please reconsider your reversion. Jwfowble (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwfowble: The lead must match the content in the body, where the appropriate citation can be found. Per the Verifiability and Original research policies, we should not be trying to misrepresent facts from reliable secondary sources by conducting our own research. I've corrected the sentence in the lead, but you should never try to insert your own corrections without the backing of good sources. SounderBruce 03:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce:When I was editing the article, the body said "Bertha arrived in Seattle on April 2, 2013, and its 40 pieces were assembled in the launch pit before tunnel boring began on July 30—setting a record for the world's largest tunnel boring machine.", which is correct. The lead must have been updated with a 2017 completion without regard to the rest of the sentence. I don't think I erred in removing a false, by 2017, claim. Jwfowble (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deep-bored tunnel - Initiative vs Referendum

[edit]

Initiatives and referenda are different, although initiatives are far more common in WA so confusion is common. One is for citizens initiating new legislation and the other is specifically for referring legislation already approved by the government to a public vote before it becomes law (kind of like citizen approval). Pg 3 of this pdf may help explain how the terms aren't interchangeable. Revision from currently inaccurate "initiative" suggested. Jwfowble (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwfowble: The NewsBank copies of The Times referred to the vote as an initiative campaign, so I guess that where's my confusion lies. Please don't try to keep things pared down here, since the SR 99 article is supposed to be written with WP:SUMMARY in mind. SounderBruce 07:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: I'm not sure I follow the later part of your comment. Are you talking about attempting to be brief/summary style in the talk section or discussing that more details are OK in the lower/deep-bored tunnel subsection of a SR99 article? Jwfowble (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington State Route 99/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 09:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing this article, which has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.

Bsoyka✉ 09:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Good number of pictures with descriptive captions
7. Overall assessment. This article looks great! It follows the guidelines, and has lots of helpful and valuable content for users to view.

Military Road in South King County

[edit]

So, SounderBruce, you've just changed my correct and source-supported statement that highway 99 follows the old Military Road in Whatcom County and replaced it with a mostly irrelevant and not entirely source-supported statement that it parallels Military Road in South King County. The Federal Way Mirror source explicitly says that 99 follows the old Military Road in the Bellingham area (aka Whatcom County), so my edit was stating exactly what the original source says. Saying that it parallels it is not quite on topic. If we wish to address modern Military Road, it seems the place to do it is in an article on the original Military Road, not the mostly different Highway 99 built decades later. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's more irrelevant to bring up Whatcom County when this article strictly deals with the Fife–Everett section that is now SR 99. The original intent of that statement is to compare the S. King Military Road to SR 99, which are in the same general corridor (west side of the Green River Valley but set back from Puget Sound). Please properly follow WP:BRD next time. SounderBruce 05:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Washington_State_Route_99&oldid=1247668391"