[Blue Dome]

A good thing.

[MCaver]

They have these in the Banff National Park in the Canadian Rockies, and the elk herds really took to them. I saw quite a few using them while I was there last fall. It was pretty cool to see.

[Eric]

The wildlife corridor idea sounds cool. But I dunno that the state really needs to expand I-90 around there. It wouldn't hurt and will have to be done at some point in the future obviously. But IME I never run into traffic that slows you down in that area. Traffic can be heavy sometimes but not to the point that everyone starts going 40 mph or 10 mph. I'm sure there are problems when it snows with accidents and people going slow but most of those problems will still exist as long as there is snow on the highway. I think it would be a much better use of a billion dollars if they spent it someplace with much worse congestion right now such as the 520 bridge project or 405 between I-90 and 167 or some other choke point where an extra lane would be of much more value for getting traffic moving. Or maybe make parts of US 2, especially between Monroe and Index into a four lane highway instead of a 2 lane highway. Or the viaduct which they do not seem to have money for.

[Blue Dome]

A billion does seem pricey for the I-90 general project, and I'm with you on spending it on SR-520, but IIRC they're pushing some form of the I-90 project due to the periodic shutdowns from avalanches. Interruption of commerce and all the rest has been cited. A new tunnel has even been proposed. The opposition to any big 520 project — that is, the folks with some dollars in Medina, Hunts Point, Yarrow Point, Clyde Hill, Montlake and Madison Park who've formed community groups to oppose 520 improvements — has been going on for years. Such fierce and well-financed opposition doesn't exist just east of the Pass. In any case, with the I-90 project, it seems a good idea to spend a few extra bucks on some wildlife access points.

[Snowshoe Hare]

I don't get it, at least as far as vehicle - wildlife encounters the area on I-90 between Issaquah and North Bend seems to have had a fair share of collisions- last year some folks died when they hit a herd of deer and their car flipped off the freeway. Maybe they should consider that area first for wildlife crossings and it would be cheaper to build I imagine than up at the pass. For the 15 miles east of Snoq. Pass I-90 IMO doesn't need to be widened, just repaved. If they do build a critter skybridge or tunnel there it would be cheaper building it across the freeway at its current width besides.

[Blue Dome]

I'm with you (one of the recent articles on the subject mentioned the accident you referenced), but I can see their point. East of the Pass, I-90 is a tad narrow and windy — it doesn't have the same open feeling of safety it does on the west side, and it does have unpredictable closures during the winter. I think they're claiming building the wildlife crossings in conjunction with an expansion project would be cheaper than building them where there is no project. If the expansion project happens east of the Pass, which it likely will, I'll take the critter crossings wherever they offer them. Incidentally, here's a link to some of the proposed tunnel configurations: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/regions/southcentral/I90SnoqualmiePassEast/tunnel.htm

[Snowshoe Hare]

Upon further reflection yeah the freeway is pretty narrow east of the pass and there doesn't seem to be very many pulloffs for breakdowns- except for that longish stretch next to the lake where all the truckers rest and chain up. Widening the road will be a major expensive undertaking for sure- what with those tall rocky cliffs right next to it now. The road surface needs attention right now though- and with better lane markings as well. By the way, I drove right by the site of that fatal deer-car accident at approx. the same time of morning the very next day (5am-ish) - tell me that wasn't spooky as hell!

[Blue Dome]

[Snowshoe Hare]

Yeah I hadn't read that yet- tunneling would seem to be a good option - my goodness they would have to take out a considerable amount of hillside to make room for a wider roadway the conventional way- if that was even feasible. Having the lake on the other side really restricts that corridor.

[Lead Dog]

With all the budget cuts that our beloved Olympia nincompoops keep whining about and the fact that they are so hurtin for money, it seems that they should worry about more important things than wildlife bridges. How many people travel over I-90 in a year? Over a million maybe, how many of those hit a deer or elk or bear ect. Very very few. For a state to spend money on something as unnessary as this to please some special interest groups when they are about to raise my gas tax because of their "Emergency money shortfall" smacks of irresponsibility and waste. Lets spend valuable transportation dollars where it is needed most, 520, I-5, Hwy 18, Hwy 167, repairing the roads that we already have ect. FIRST. They jsut don't git it. Is it any wonder that come November "Queen Christine" will have to figure out which tax to raise to make up for that REPEALED by the voters gas tax. Watch out you tobacco users and beer drinkers!!!

[Justan]

This funds will probably come from the recent fuel tax increases. Also, given the huge increase in property tax assessments throughout King and Pierce counties (my place’s value was assessed at 36% more than last year) the gov is profiteering better than the "best" of the wicked corporations. I'm delighted to see some of my tax dollars going towards animal preservation/conservation.

[Backpacker Joe]

[kleet]

[Lead Dog]

It was true then it will be true again. BPJ was right in the end. I think the PCT thru-hikers should have bridges accross busy roads like I-90, HWY 2, and HWY 20. They could get hit on their way to the other side. Remember they may not have seen a car in awhile and may not remember how dangerous they can be!!!!!!

[Blue Dome]