Talk:Washington State Route 99

Washington State Route 99 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 26, 2019. (Reviewed version).

U.S. Roads: State highways / Washington Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Topics

U.S. state highways

Locations

Washington

This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.

This article has a KML file. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.

Article recognition:

	This article was the selected article of the U.S. Roads Portal in February 2019.
	A fact from this article was featured on the Did you know? section of the U.S. Roads Portal in July 2019.

United States: Washington / Seattle / 50,000 Challenge Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as High-importance).
	This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!

A fact from Washington State Route 99 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 May 2019, and was viewed approximately 4,381 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Washington State Route 99 passes under downtown Seattle in a tunnel that was excavated by the world's largest tunnel boring machine?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Washington State Route 99.

Wikipedia

NPOV

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

Primary State Highway 1 AN (Anacortes)

State Route 536 [now partly State Route 20 Spur and State Route 20], Anacortes - I-5 (PSH 1) Mount Vernon

Primary State Highway 1 AP (Austin Pass)

State Route 542, I-5 (PSH 1) Bellingham - Austin Pass

Primary State Highway 1 CD (Chuckanut Drive)

State Route 11, I-5 (PSH 1) Burlington - I-5 (PSH 1) Bellingham

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)

State Route 528, I-5 (PSH 1) Marysville - SR 9 (SSH 1A)

Primary State Highway 1 RE (Renton)

State Route 518 and Interstate 405, US 99 (PSH 1) Riverton Heights - I-5 (PSH 1) Alderwood Manor (SR 518 section was also SSH 1L!)

Primary State Highway 1 TR (Truck Route)

State Route 543, I-5 (PSH 1) Blaine - Canada

Primary State Highway 1 WM (West Marginal Way)

U.S. Route 99 Temporary, US 99 (PSH 1) Foster - SR 509 (SSH 1K)

no suffix

Interstate 205 Oregon - I-5 (PSH 1) Salmon Creek

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

U.S. Route 99 Alternate [now State Route 539], I-5 (PSH 1) Bellingham - Canada
State Route 546, US 99 Alternate [now SR 539] (SSH 1B) Lynden - SR 9 (SSH 1A) Van Buren

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

State Route 525 [now partly State Route 20], Clinton Ferry - SR 536 [now SR 20 Spur] (PSH 1 AN) Anacortes
State Route 113 [now State Route 20], SR 525 (SSH 1D) - Keystone Ferry

Secondary State Highway 1E

State Route 530 [partly Pioneer Highway], I-5 (PSH 1) Conway - Darrington

Secondary State Highway 1G

State Route 538, I-5 (PSH 1) Mount Vernon - SR 9 (SSH 1A)

Secondary State Highway 1H

State Route 534, I-5 (PSH 1) Conway - SR 9 (SSH 1A) McMurray

Secondary State Highway 1I

State Route 525, Mukilteo Ferry - US 99 (PSH 1) Martha Lake
State Route 526, SR 525 (SSH 1I) Mukilteo - I-5 (PSH 1) Everett

Secondary State Highway 1J

State Route 513, US 10 (PSH 2) Seattle - US 99 (PSH 1) North Seattle

Secondary State Highway 1K

State Route 516 and State Route 509, I-5 (PSH 1) Midway - US 99 (PSH 1) Duwamish River

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

State Route 507, I-5 (PSH 1) Centralia - Tenino

Secondary State Highway 1P

State Route 506, Ryderwood - I-5 (PSH 1) Toledo

Secondary State Highway 1Q

State Route 505, SR 504 (SSH 1R) Toutle - I-5 (PSH 1) Toledo

Secondary State Highway 1R

State Route 504, I-5 (PSH 1) Castle Rock - Mount St. Helens

Secondary State Highway 1S

State Route 502 and State Route 503, I-5 (PSH 1) Kozy Kamp - I-5 (PSH 1) Woodland

Secondary State Highway 1T

State Route 501, I-5 (PSH 1) Vancouver - I-5 (PSH 1) Ridgefield

Secondary State Highway 1U

State Route 503, SR 500 (SSH 8-A) Orchards - SR 502 (SSH 1S) Battleground

Secondary State Highway 1V

State Route 509, I-5 (PSH 1) Tacoma - SR 516 (SSH 1K) Des Moines

Secondary State Highway 1W

State Route 104, Edmonds Ferry - I-5 (PSH 1) Snohomish-King County Line
State Route 104 SW 238th St. Conn., SR 104 (SSH 1W) to US 99 (PSH 1)
State Route 524, SR 104 (SSH 1W) Edmonds - SR 527 (SSH 2-J)
State Route 524 Cedar Way So. Conn. [44th Avenue West], SR 524 (SSH 1W) to I-5 (PSH 1)

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

State Route 532, McEachern's Corner - I-5 (PSH 1) east of Stanwood

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

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. C L — 18:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change reflecting 2004 act of legislature

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

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

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

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

@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. Sounder Bruce 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

@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. Sounder Bruce 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

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. Sounder Bruce 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

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

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. Sounder Bruce 05:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]