Cascadia Report

No news south of the Canadian border today

Americans hear almost nothing about politics in Canada. Maybe it's mutual.

I found just one story in B.C. media about today's caucuses in Washington. There's some explanation of the arcane process but little about what the race means for the region:

University of Victoria graduate student Jeremy Wood, wearing a "Canadians For Obama" T-shirt, said "my friends and I came here to see if our support for Obama was based on rock star adulation or if there was something more to it. We arrived at 6:30 in the morning and talked to people lined up. One 17-year-old kid told me he had never been interested in politics until he heard about Obama.

"I've never seen a lineup like this for a political event. It's a social movement. We Canadians had Trudeaumania. But this is something else," said the 36-year-old masters of public administration student.

What Super Tuesday meant for Cascadia

The quasi-national primary on Tuesday puts votes from the Northwest in play far more than anyone expected.

For one thing, the split Clinton/Obama results make Washington's caucuses this Saturday meaningful. The Web is aflutter with news of impending visits and campaign spin.

Here's the most interesting analysis of the longer term picture.

Now there's talk that even Oregon's May primary could make a difference.

Doing right thing for the waterfront (finally)

Politicians and media appear to be coming around (finally) to the idea that Seattle's waterfront viaduct shouldn't be replaced with another freeway.

Cascadia Report made the case last winter for a combination of transit and comprehensive street improvements to replace the earthquake-damaged eyesore. Gov. Gregoire and Mayor Nickels were among those who poo-pooed the idea by insisting that any replacement had to accommodate the same number of vehicles as the current viaduct.

Now, Gregoire has changed her mind. Several agencies have pledged to work together for a comprehensive fix. Today even the Seattle Times editorial board -- a mostly suburban group that generally supports roads over transit -- came out in favor of transit + road fixes.

It's about time. Now let's get to work on a long-term fix that values the waterfront heart of the region's biggest metro area.

Sausage-making over farm subsidies

The Omnivore's Dilemma is playing out now in Congress over the latest package of farm subsidies.

In an excellent op-ed in the New York Times, the author of that book makes a clear case against current agricultural policy. And then he turns the tables:

How could this have happened? For starters, farm bill critics did a far better job demonizing subsidies, and depicting commodity farmers as welfare queens, than they did proposing alternative — and politically appealing — forms of farm support. And then the farm lobby did what it has always done: bought off its critics with “programs.” For that reason “Americans who eat” can expect some nutritious crumbs from the farm bill, just enough to ensure that reform-minded legislators will hold their noses and support it.

Cascadia Report has found farm subsidies to be an easy target, for example here and here and here. We're waiting for some good policy to praise.

Why I'm voting for Transit and Roads

The tax package to fund transit and roads in the greater Seattle area, known as Prop. 1, is a compromise: there are details for everyone to hate. I may be holding my nose, but I'm voting yes.

Consider what the measure does: it raises $10.8 billion to add light rail, HOV lanes, streetcars, park-and-rides and other transit infrastructure. It also generates $7 billion to fix some road choke points and complete several missing links in the region's network, for example connecting 509 and 167 to I-5. It's far from the sole solution, but it's a start.

For more info, take a look at this map.

What would be better? Funding much more transit, completing the projects much faster and explicitly including congestion pricing in the financing mix. In fact, the most persuasive argument against the measure is that any investment in roads lessens incentives for transit and worsens global warming.

But politics is reality. There's a huge backlog of infrastructure projects in the region and chipping away at it takes regional buy-in -- a process that in this case took five years. The dense areas of the region can't afford to pay for all the transit this area needs (remember the monorail?). To build support, there needs to be something for people who help pay but wouldn't directly benefit. Even with this package, congestion will still create a growing incentive to use transit; as alternatives start becoming available policies can be shifted to encourage even more use.

Assuming the measure passes, the next step should be reorganizing the governments that oversee the region's transportation to execute more efficiently. There will still be chances during the planning process to modifiy specific projects. These are all big challenges, not deal breakers.

The decisions that made a great city

Vancouver, often named one of the world's most livable cities, didn't get that way by accident. It took a series of not-so-obvious decisions.

A former British Columbia premier and a longtime urban planner just released a book describing their list of nine key turning points. Apparently their point is that currently planned transportation and development projects in Vancouver now threaten to undo many of those successes.

There's little in the book about Vancouver's "irritating and potentially dangerous sense of self-satisfaction," according to The Tyee. But the list is still fascinating:

-- Creation of a regional planning board after a 1948 flood forced officials to prepare for potential disasters.

-- The battle in the 1960s against plans to tear down urban neighborhoods and build in-city freeways.

-- Creation in the 1970s of an a regional reserve of agricultural land.

-- Regional planning based on neighborhood "livability" starting in the 1970s.

-- Remaking of the False Creek area after Expo 86.

-- A series of laws in the 1980s and 1990s mandating regional planning.

-- Creation of a regional transportation agency.

-- Shifting power and responsibilities to local government, away from the province.

Some of the elements of regional planning were also implemented in Portland. Seattle's list is much shorter, including regional water service decades ago, the package of 1960s reforms that created bus-transit system and cleaned up sewage, and the beginnings of regional transit in the 1990s.

Across Cascadia, the combining regional planning for infrastructure and local buy-in for neighborhood decisions still seems the best bet for coordinating new growth. It's worth considering this list of mistakes the book's authors came up with when asked by the Vancouver Sun:

1. Lack of authority in the regional government to enforce development near transit.

2. Slum clearance in the 1950s and 1960s.

3. Keeping the rural grid pattern south of the Fraser River, which makes density and transit difficult.

4. Allowing business-park sprawl.

5. Allowing the proliferation of underground malls that robbed streets of pedestrians.

6. Getting rid of the region's interurban rail and streetcars, which destroyed a comprehensive transit system and promoted more car use. The last interurban stopped in 1958.

7. Not containing the sprawl into farmland sooner.

8. Failing to consider sooner whether the region needed a vast rail system.

Airline snafus boost support for rail

The combination of airline delays and Amtrak's increasing ridership is generating goodwill that could lead to more support for passenger rail, according to a report in today's Wall Street Journal.

Over the last 10 months, ridership on Amtrak's fast Acela trains in the Washington-Boston corridor is up 20% -- "enough new passengers to fill 2,000 Boeing 757 jets." Ridership in the Chicago-St. Louis corridor is up 53% in the 10 months through July, the paper said. It could've mentioned recent gains in Cascadia too.

Hopefully this trend eases some opposition to investing in rail. Then we could talk about breaking up the Amtrak monopoly and introducing more market forces aimed at improving passenger rail rather than dismantling it.

The article suggests some encouraging signs:

"You have to begin to put the infrastructure in place to put in high-speed trains," says Gordon Bethune, who retired in 2004 as chief executive of Continental Airlines Inc. "It should be a national priority. If the French can do it, why can't we?"

Another airline-industry legend Robert Crandall, former CEO of American Airlines parent AMR Corp., says improvements to Amtrak's network in the Northeast are one of the best ways to reduce aviation gridlock.

In Cascadia, it's going to be a long process -- even in Washington, which has funded some rail improvements. Among other things, we need more support from the B.C. government to speed the Seattle-Vancouver corridor.

Seattle-area candidate ratings released

There are several mild surprises in the Municipal League's ratings of candidates for 26 races in the Seattle area.

The annual nonpartisan ratings, released Tuesday, are based on four criteria: Knowledge, Involvement, Effectiveness and Character. They assess each candidate's potential to be effective in office and ability to serve the community. They don't consider political affiliations or stands on particular issues.

I'm a trustee of the League so I'll just pass on the news, including a few upsets:

-- At the Port of Seattle, challengers Jack Block Jr. and Gael Tarleton got Outstanding ratings while incumbent Bob Edwards was rated Good. Commissioner Alec Fisken got an Outstanding while challenger William Bryant got a Very Good.

-- For Seattle City Council position 1, incumbent Jean Godden got a Good, the same as challenger Joe Swaja. For position 7, challenger Tim Burgess got an Outstanding while incumbent David Della got a Very Good.

The rest of the results and complete definitions of the ratings are posted here.

This year's ratings are the result of the work of more than 60 citizens who studied the public record, reviewed candidate questionnaires, checked references and conducted live interviews with the candidates. (As a League trustee, I was one of the people who reviewed the ratings.)

Seattle backsliding on bicycle plans

Take a quick spin around north Seattle by bicycle on a Sunday afternoon and you'll find missing links in bike routes, bike paths that abruptly end and almost 100 percent preference for cars along roads and at intersections.

For the clearest example of bicyles taking a lower priority look at Fremont, where the Burke-Gilman bike trail was supposed to reopen this month after a year-long closure.

Instead the city suddenly agreed to extend the closure for another year. The reason? The neighborhood's top landowner apparently just started construction on an office building and doesn't want bicyclists nearby.

The change is one sign of backsliding on plans to make bicycling more practical. Evidence is piling up to suggest that Seattle is gutting its new bicycling master plan. For a study in contrasts, consider what Paris is planning.

All commuters should demand Seattle do better. A sudden route closure wouldn't be allowed if it blocked car lanes. Delaying better bicycle infrastructure simply makes it harder for the city to accommodate more people without adding to congestion.

Spending money to make money

The latest BusinessWeek has a summary of how Google convinced a poor North Carolina county to pay $212 million in exchange for siting a server farm there -- without even getting a guarantee of how long they would be there or how many locals they would employ. Poor suckers.

But wait. A few pages into the article there's a table of recent corporate welfare handouts, topped by Washington's $3.2 billion gift to Boeing in 2003 to site final assembly of the 787 in Everett. That deal surely played a part in improving perceptions of the state's friendliness to business.

Of course you have to spend money to make money, especially in a globalized economy. But how do you walk the fine line between losing to competition and selling out taxpayers? Unfortunately the magazine suggests just a few tentative ways to safeguard the investment.