I-5 Columbia River Crossing (OR/WA)

[The Ghostbuster]

If a transit-only alternative was implemented, I would prefer it be a bus rapid transit line.

[Plutonic Panda]

Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't seem like anything I would look twice at. A city like Seattle I would imagine having almost double the amount of that.

The other big project is Interstate 5 rehab work, which is going to become an all-encompassing issue eventually. The elevated sections through downtown are nearing the end of their useful life and replacing it is going to be a whole clusterfuck politically.

Building highways for the sake of building them isn't going to happen here. It's just not practical, wise, or responsible.

Building highways for the sake of building them is not what would happen. I'm not even sure why you would say that. Yes, mass transit absolutely has to be part of the solution here. No argument from me there. Everywhere, geographically constraint land is not infinite. Still bigger freeways and roads are part of the solution as well.

[pderocco]

I found this photo in the 1923-1924 6th Oregon Highway Biennial.

Interstate Bridge 1923-1924 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

I find the out of state vehicle registration to be quite amusing.  Imagine the backlash if Oregon still required something like that in modern times.

Oregon still requires it for trucks.

[jakeroot]

Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't seem like anything I would look twice at. A city like Seattle I would imagine having almost double the amount of that.

The other big project is Interstate 5 rehab work, which is going to become an all-encompassing issue eventually. The elevated sections through downtown are nearing the end of their useful life and replacing it is going to be a whole clusterfuck politically.

Building highways for the sake of building them isn't going to happen here. It's just not practical, wise, or responsible.

Building highways for the sake of building them is not what would happen. I'm not even sure why you would say that. Yes, mass transit absolutely has to be part of the solution here. No argument from me there. Everywhere, geographically constraint land is not infinite. Still bigger freeways and roads are part of the solution as well.

Despite what Bruce is saying, expanded freeways are still part of the solution right now in Seattle. Virtually every major freeway has been widened or modified since construction (with some of the SR's, like 599, being an exception). The 405 has been widened or rebuilt several times, and is being widened right now to 8-10 lanes south of Bellevue, from 6. Tons of major freeways were modified to include HOV lanes, modified interchanges, new flyovers (eg SR-16/I-5), and general widening too. Never mind the numerous miles of new freeways (SR-167, SR-18, SR-509, SR-522, etc... and that's just Seattle). And have you seen the I-90 and 520 corridors across the lake? Those are both state of the art and generally free-flowing 90% of the time, with the latter only being finished in the last 10 years and still being widened and rebuilt in Seattle right now.

Point being, everything is being built. Sure, we aren't double decking our freeways like they are down here in San Antonio, but that doesn't mean WSDOT threw up their hands and walked away from anything except maintenance (ironically something they should do more). Credit should be given where it's due, and WSDOT deserves a lot (and the legislature for funding so much of this stuff...based on the gas taxes though, maybe too much stuff...)

[Plutonic Panda]

Right I'm just saying Washington needs to keep that up and not start lacking and falling behind.

[vdeane]

I found this photo in the 1923-1924 6th Oregon Highway Biennial.

Interstate Bridge 1923-1924 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

I find the out of state vehicle registration to be quite amusing.  Imagine the backlash if Oregon still required something like that in modern times.

That reminds me of something from the Perkins Union thread.

[kkt]

If a transit-only alternative was implemented, I would prefer it be a bus rapid transit line.

Seattle has some of those.  There's a lot of advantages to the longer trains on the light rail for the high use routes.

[jakeroot]

Right I'm just saying Washington needs to keep that up and not start lacking and falling behind.

There's just no realistic way that could happen. Virtually every member of the Washington legislature represents an area made up primarily of tax-paying drivers who want to see roads widened, extended, improved, etc. Even in Seattle, most people who commute drive their car. Those numbers skyrocket outside of city limits. As long as it remains politically favorable to fund road projects, they will continue to come to fruition.

The need for alternate transportation methods in a geographically constrained city is realistic, too. We cannot just endlessly build new roads...where the hell are they supposed to go? But, there will always be money for improvements, for widening, the occasional new freeway or expressway, and so on, even in supposedly car-unfriendly states.

[Plutonic Panda]

There's no realistic way Washington can keep up and not fall behind? I mean you may or may not be right, but I just don't believe that is the case.

[jakeroot]

There's no realistic way Washington can keep up and not fall behind? I mean you may or may not be right, but I just don't believe that is the case.

A massive budget shortfall would be the only reason. Not a lack of planning or interest in road projects.

[stevashe]

There's no realistic way Washington can keep up and not fall behind? I mean you may or may not be right, but I just don't believe that is the case.

A massive budget shortfall would be the only reason. Not a lack of planning or interest in road projects.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Jake said "there's no way that [Washington falling behind] can happen" but then gave reasons why road projects will definitely keep happening (so Washington won't "fall behind"). I'm guessing he misread Panda's comment.

For what it's worth, I also agree that Washington will not stop investing in its roads even as we invest more in transit and other modes.

[jakeroot]

There's no realistic way Washington can keep up and not fall behind? I mean you may or may not be right, but I just don't believe that is the case.

A massive budget shortfall would be the only reason. Not a lack of planning or interest in road projects.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Jake said "there's no way that [Washington falling behind] can happen" but then gave reasons why road projects will definitely keep happening (so Washington won't "fall behind"). I'm guessing his misread Panda's comment.

The chain of replies was meant to be worded like this (I am replying directly to the bolded section):

Right I'm just saying Washington needs to keep that up and not start lacking and falling behind.

There's just no realistic way that could happen... [reasons why Washington won't start lacking and falling behind]

His response, which you quoted, doesn't make sense compared to my reply (which as you stated lists reasons why WA will not fall behind). Perhaps that's why I misunderstood his reply as "there's no realistic way Washington [couldn't] keep up and not fall behind?", and replied to that accordingly.

For what it's worth, I also agree that Washington will not stop investing in its roads even as we invest more in transit and other modes.

That's the point I was trying to make replying to @Plutonic Panda (but perhaps failed to).

[Plutonic Panda]

At 14.4 billion dollars seems like the final price the with space for a future light rail train a contractor is being sought. Hopefully this means they're actually moving forward.

https://www.equipmentworld.com/roadbuilding/article/15830565/i5-washingtonoregon-bridge-replacement-project-advances?utm_source=organic+social&utm_medium=clicks&utm_campaign=ew+july+2026+social

[pderocco]

"One of the oldest river crossings on the West Coast, the 5-mile interstate bridge sees over 143,000 vehicles per day and was built 109 years ago, putting it at risk from earthquakes."

It's not a 5-mile bridge, it's two bridges of 0.3 and 0.7 miles. That would be six lane-miles, but I don't think that's what they were trying to say.

[compdude787]

I think the whole project, which includes re-doing interchanges on both sides of the bridge, is five miles long. But I believe that in order to reduce costs, they have deferred the interchange upgrades.

[Great Lakes Roads]

From this meeting, construction and toll commencement should start in 2028. New bridge will open after (insert brainrot meme) 6-7 years of construction (~2034-2035), with -pending additional funding - light rail coming into service in 2036.

[The Ghostbuster]

Will it actually happen this time? Or will they kick the can down the road again?