Mount Rainier is near the top of the lists for major disasters waiting to happen. It would be small compared to the “big one” in the PNW. As another poster mentioned, the New Madrid fault would be way worse than Cascadia. Back in the 1800’s the New Mardrid eq rang church bells in Boston! And lots of pipelines that run from Texas and feed the NE run through the area.
I’m in the PNW and it WILL be a huge disaster. The local state seismic guy and some other bureaucrat were down-playing the article, but I am guessing that Seattle, which can only be accessed by bridges, will be an island unto itself for quite awhile with probably all of the bridges destroyed if it is a 9.0.
There is a fault scarp visible at a golf course west of Seattle from the last big one (1700). It is 20’ tall. That is a lot of movement to happen all at once!
Seattle can only be conveniently accessed from the east by bridges due to Lake Washington. Access from the north or south doesn't require crossing any large body of water. When the I-90 floating bridge sunk in the early 1990s, it made for inconvenience but did not paralyze the city.
It is hard to tell what the total damage a 9.0 earthquake would be but it would be massive. I'm sure that both floating bridges are gone in such an earthquake. Is the Alaska Way Viaduct since in use? I wouldn't want to be on it or under it if such an earthquake hit. I'm sure it collapses. It is possible or likely that I-5 and other major roads would be damaged. Transportation around the Puget Sound would be certainly disrupted for weeks or months.
Watching this on New Madrid. Had not heard of it before your post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kc7pJ8f1aY#t=22
Mount St. Helens was enough of a teaching moment for me to take these kinds of things seriously.