Connecting Washington

Connecting Washington
Name	Connecting Washington
Established	2015
Jurisdiction	Washington (state)
Budget	$16 billion

Connecting Washington is a statewide transportation investment package enacted to fund capital projects across Washington (state), prioritizing highways, rail transport, freight, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure. It was adopted by the Washington State Legislature and signed by the Governor of Washington to address congestion, safety, and economic competitiveness across the Puget Sound region, Spokane County, Whatcom County, and rural corridors. The program interfaces with federal initiatives, metropolitan planning organizations such as the Puget Sound Regional Council and the Bellingham Metropolitan Planning Organization, and regional transit agencies including Sound Transit and Community Transit.

Overview

Connecting Washington funds corridor improvements on routes such as Interstate 5, Interstate 90, and U.S. Route 2 while investing in multimodal assets like Amtrak Cascades, Sounder commuter rail, and Link light rail. It coordinates with agencies including the Washington State Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, and metropolitan authorities like the Seattle Department of Transportation and King County Metro. Projects intersect with freight stakeholders such as the BNSF Railway, Union Pacific Railroad, and the Washington State Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board. The package aligns with regional plans including the Puget Sound Regional Council's VISION 2040 and national programs like the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act.

History and development

The legislative process began after studies by the Office of Financial Management (Washington), the Washington State Transportation Commission, and university research from the University of Washington and Washington State University highlighted capacity and preservation needs. Debate in the 2015 Washington State Legislature involved committees such as the House Transportation Committee and the Senate Transportation Committee and consultations with stakeholders including the Association of Washington Cities, Washington State Association of Counties, and labor unions like the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The package followed earlier programs such as the Nickel Package and the Move Ahead Washington proposals, and it set priorities influenced by metropolitan plans from Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma, Everett, and Vancouver (Washington). Implementation required coordination with federal partners including the U.S. Department of Transportation and alignment with environmental analyses filed under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Funding and legislative framework

Connecting Washington was financed through a mix of state‑level transportation revenues, bonds authorized by the Washington State Legislature, and local contributions from taxing jurisdictions like King County, Pierce County, and Snohomish County. The bill was sponsored by legislators from caucuses such as the Washington State Democratic Party and negotiated with members of the Washington State Republican Party. Revenue sources included appropriations directed by the Washington State Treasurer and allocations overseen by the State Treasurer of Washington and the Office of Financial Management (Washington). Funding mechanisms referenced federal matching funds administered by the Federal Transit Administration and grant programs like the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program and the National Highway Performance Program.

Major projects and programs

Major highway projects included expansions and interchanges on Interstate 5 through the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement corridor, improvements to Interstate 405 in partnership with the I‑405 Corridor Program, and corridor upgrades on U.S. Route 395 serving Spokane Valley. Freight initiatives connected to the Northwest Seaport Alliance, the Port of Longview, and the Port of Vancouver USA. Rail investments supported Amtrak Cascades upgrades in concert with Vancouver (British Columbia) cross‑border planning and upgrades to the Cascade Subdivision. Transit enhancements funded bus rapid transit projects for agencies like King County Metro, Community Transit, and Intercity Transit (Olympia), and supported capital elements of Sound Transit 3. Multimodal programs included bicycle and pedestrian investments coordinated with city departments such as the Seattle Department of Transportation and the City of Tacoma Public Works.

Economic and transportation impact

Analyses by the Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast Council, the Puget Sound Regional Council, and independent researchers at the University of Washington College of Built Environments assessed jobs, freight throughput, and congestion relief. Projects intersected with major economic nodes served by the Port of Seattle, Sea‑Tac International Airport, Boeing Field, and manufacturing hubs in Snohomish County and Clark County. Impacts on intercity travel involved connections to Amtrak services, Greyhound Lines corridors, and regional bus operators. Studies referenced supply chain partners including Amazon (company), Costco, and aerospace contractors such as The Boeing Company when modeling freight demand. Environmental and community outcomes were evaluated relative to state standards and federal metrics administered by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Criticism and controversies

Critics from advocacy groups like the Transportation Choices Coalition and organizations such as the Washington Policy Center questioned allocations between urban transit priorities and rural highway needs, citing disputes involving the Seattle City Council, the Spokane City Council, and county governments. Labor disputes involved negotiations with unions including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Operating Engineers Union. Environmental reviews prompted litigation drawing parties such as the Sierra Club and local community organizations. Fiscal critics referenced bond debt concerns raised by the State Treasurer of Washington and fiscal analyses from the Washington State Auditor's Office. Cross‑border coordination with British Columbia and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security over freight and passenger flows generated intergovernmental discussions.

Category:Transportation in Washington (state) Category:Infrastructure in the United States