Cascadia Report

Avoiding a Climate Disaster in Cascadia

Triple-digit temperatures along the Salish Sea this summer should make it clear that the climate crisis is real. 

Cascadia is a "green" region well known for generations of feel-good environmentalism. But now it needs policies to help solve the climate crisis by incentivizing decarbonization of our economy, a shift that is in our self-interest and a moral imperative.

I'll admit that I previously considered climate an ambiguous, distant problem. I've made the case that Seattle and Cascadia — among the richest places in the world — should be a model for how to develop a sustainable, equitable economy. But the problem is actually more urgent, and working for solutions could be a significant boon to our economy. 

How does the crisis concretely affect us? A record heatwave killed many vulnerable residents and even erased a British Columbia town. Mt. Rainier's snowcap melted more than ever. Shellfish were cooked in water along the coast. Heat and drought are altering our food supply. Wildfires are so bad they're changing the weather.

In his latest book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, Bill Gates provides a surprisingly clear overview of the global challenge and argues that we need to get to net zero carbon use globally by 2050. New technology will be developed to do this, but the "green premium," or extra cost of low-carbon options, needs to shrink for the technology to be adopted. A summary of the book is available here. (As a technologist he has blind spots; see this review, for example.)

What to do about it

One thing B.C., Washington, and Oregon should do is aggressively price carbon to make clean alternatives viable. B.C. started in 2008 but Oregon has failed to follow. This year Washington finally passed a plan, though it was linked to highway expansion.

Cities should create density so there's less need to drive (vehicles are the biggest culprit of greenhouse gas emissions in Seattle), electrify their fleets, and improve building codes. Voters should ask every candidate exactly what they will do to take dramatic action on this issue.

Companies also should lead on this issue and push government to create better policy. Many companies incentivize transit and biking. But Microsoft is currently building an underground parking garage big enough to hold 8,000 school buses — the exact opposite of what Bill Gates calls for in his book. Rather than greenwashing, Microsoft should get the city of Redmond to relax parking requirements and encourage vastly more housing near its offices.

Longer term, the technology to help the world decarbonize needs to be developed and honed. If Cascadia sets the right incentives, that work could happen here. The world will add the equivalent of one New York City's worth of built environment every month through 2060, Gates says, so there's massive demand for new clean technology.

The next mayor of Seattle should meet with Gates and create a concrete plan of how the city can encourage more innovate clean technology companies here. Accelerate transit, overhaul zoning to allow more density, and make this a top priority. Serving this huge market could result in the next Boeing.

Running for Seattle City Council

Update: A lot has happened since this post was published in 2011. I lost my election, focused on my family, and became a U.S. diplomat posted to Mexico, Vietnam, India, Somalia, and Kenya. Some thoughts along the way were captured at www.bradmeacham.com. But I remain firmly rooted in Cascadia and believe many others think of the region in a similar way. I've maintained this site in the hopes that it would grow when the time was right. Join me!

---

After years of reporting and opining about this region, it's time to act: I'm running for Seattle City Council.

I'm a Seattle native and I believe my city isn't living up to its potential at the heart of Cascadia. We’re hindered by poor decision-making and political infighting, while posturing on the city council costs taxpayers and threatens our future. Becoming a parent made me realize that I could either hope for things to get better or take on the challenge myself. 

Here's the gist of my platform. Let's create modern urban neighborhoods where people want to live and work, where growth and density are incentivized with sidewalks and other amenities, fast internet, and vibrant businesses. Let's connect these neighborhoods with transit so residents don't need a car. Let's make the city inclusive and care for those who are currently being left behind.

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I don't have all the answers. I am interested in good ideas and in finding ways to work together to bring them to life. Please follow my campaign and share your thoughts. This blog will remain, of course, and you can find me at www.bradmeacham.com.

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.

Report: Washington's a better place for business

Forbes magazine ranked Washington the fifth best state in the country to do business and says the situation here is improving:

The biggest mover (tied with Tennessee), rising from 12th to fifth place, Washington is also the only state to finish in the top five in three main categories (labor, regulatory environment and growth). And Washington's numbers are up across the board when you look both backward and at projections into the future.

Ratings like this are problematic by defintion. But this one, coming from a conservative business publication, is likely to come up during campaigns for governor and legislature over the next 18 months.

The rating gives Washington kudos in multiple categories, especially growth prospects, reduced red tape and low energy costs. The magazine says this results in innovation: "Washington has had more businesses open per capita the past three years than any other state in the U.S."

The lowest mark was for quality of life, which includes schools. The state did well despite transportation woes (which would seem to drive up costs but don't seem to have been a factor in the low quality of life score). The state's tax structure wasn't an issue.

The magazine rated Olympia as the 10th best metropolitan area for business. Spokane, Bremerton, Portland and Eugene all finished in the top 50 (out of 200 rated). Oregon moved up three places to 28th.

Tapping tidal power from Puget Sound

Tide-driven power turbines may be coming to Puget Sound. The Snohomish County energy utility is beginning research into installing generators that could power 60,000 or more homes.

The studies would inform debate over harming the already troubled ecosystem:

The modeling could also show whether the turbines could affect tidal currents in Puget Sound, slowing them. Some observers worry that losing such "kinetic energy" could harm places such as Hood Canal, where water circulation already is poor.

Others believe turbines won't mix well with endangered salmon and the marine animals and fishermen that depend on them.

The proposal was reported a couple months ago, along with introduction of a bill by U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee to promote development of tidal energy through tax credits. That bill is now sitting in committee.

Wanted: Someone to make windmills

Driving across the wind-swept expanses of Eastern Washington is enough to make a person wonder: isn't there potential for more wind power in Cascadia. If only legal ambiguity and NIMBYism weren't in the way.

Add this to the list of hurdles: a shortage of windmill makers.

This Wall Street Journal article shows how surging global demand for turbines outstrips supply. Manufacturers are reluctant to make long-term bets since the market in the U.S. isn't stable. Wind power requires major capital investment up front and who knows if tax incentives will continue or if siting the projects will get easier or more difficult.

Oregon is mentioned as encouraging turbine-makers to set up in the state. That's one way Washington could encourage development (instead of simply mandating alternative energy). Consider the possibility:

In the U.S., more wind power was installed last year than in any country in the world -- 2,454 megawatts, or more than the equivalent of two nuclear reactors. Despite the recent action, the U.S. still lags behind other countries that have spent decades nurturing wind power with subsidies and price supports. Germany has fewer wind resources -- breezy, wide-open spaces -- than the state of North Dakota, for instance, but has twice as much wind power as the entire U.S. Spain, with one-seventh the population of the U.S., has the same amount of wind power. Overall, only about 1% of power in the U.S. comes from wind.

Getting representatives who match the region

There's a mismatch between the Seattle area's dependence on global commerce and its political system. Jim Vesely made that point well in his Sunday column in The Seattle Times:

The city is run by representatives of two major and influential cohorts: neighborhoods and highly specialized interest groups. That may fit a less-competitive era, but if this region is going to need every brain and every molecule of stamina, it must have a much higher caliber of contestants for public office.

Those candidates would be knowledgeable on the Shanghai school methods, on the bridging of both space and dollars for transportation, on the depth of connections between here and Chile or China. Only a few are.

That's why whenever council members venture away from the narrow into the broad currents of national or state policies — or even pro sports — they appear woefully parochial, despite representing one of the most-dynamic and exuberant city-states on the planet.

So what's the recipe for change? The fact is that voters select representatives who most clearly speak to their interests -- and in Seattle that's usually neighborhood issues. By definition, candidates speak about those issues to the media. Instead of bemoaning the lack of ideas, I'd like to see The Seattle Times promote wider perspectives.

For starters, the news pages should examine the benefits of Gov. Gregoire's trade-promotion efforts and her groundbreaking meetings with British Columbia's premier. Why not demand that representatives learn from the rest of the world on issues like transportation? At least ask leaders what they learned about transportation from their recent trip to Japan.

Even the opinion pages could help. It would be fascinating to hear the questions that Vesely asked and the candidates' responses. Why not post those online?

A proposal to get 520 fixes moving now

State transportation planners spent lots of time this week explaining long-term plans for fixing 520 between Seattle and the Eastside.

But what about easing the commute now?

At an open house at Bellevue High School Tuesday night, there were detailed displays about plans for a new six-lane bridge, including features like bike lanes and steps to treat runoff water and use new quieter cement. Assuming passage of the transportation tax package this fall, the new bridge would be open for traffic ... in 2018.

That distant date explains why commuters are so unenthused. Why give up a sunny evening to discuss a project that seems like it will never happen? No one can say planners haven't been inclusive, with open houses and hearings ad nauseum. (On Tuesday DOT staff sometimes outnumbered the public.) What's missing is anything to help now or build enthusiasm for change.

So here's an idea: Immediately move 520's westbound HOV lane to the left side from Redmond to Seattle. Instead of being stopped by merging traffic in the right-hand lane, buses and three-person carpools could speed through the corridor. Forcing cars with one passenger to merge from two lanes into one before crossing the bridge would be a dramatic incentive to take transit or carpool.

The change could be made almost overnight and would boost capacity. Demand for buses would soar and suddenly people would be willing to carpool, even if it meant sharing rides with (gasp!) strangers. If drivers really wanted more lanes they would be incented to support funding a new bridge.

As it stands, taking the bus usually isn't an appealing option and there's plenty of opposition to the 520 replacement project. One protester at the Bellevue event this week handed out flyers urging a vote against this fall's tax plan because he wants politicians to craft a better one someday. Instead of risking that kind of delay -- and keeping us all stuck for years -- transportation leaders should make relatively small changes necessary to improve movement now.

We're all paying for your milk

Market-bending crop subsidies only prop up the Midwest, right? Think again.

Farms in Washington got $266 million in federal subsidies from 2003 to 2005, while Oregon got $99 million, according to a national database by the Environmental Working Group. Wheat and barley got the most help in Washington, while dairy got $1.3 million in King County alone.

Some subsidies are designed for worthwhile goals, such promoting conservation. But most of those objectives could be met with zoning or smart economic development alternatives. The current system is costly and wasteful. Subsidies make a mockery of America's lip service to "free trade" by distorting markets, especially impacting developing countries that depend on agriculture. And they are even linked to obesity.

The database addresses the 2002 Farm Bill, not windfalls like, for example, tariffs and forest road building to help the timber industry. The database is searchable by state, county, congressional district and program.

How some farmers beat region's fishing industry

It's no secret that Vice President Dick Cheney has promoted the federal government's repeated preference for resource-extracting industry over business that depends on conservation.

The final installment of this week's superbly reported Washington Post series about Cheney shows how he did it while stirring up minimum public outcry over the methods. Most important for Cascadia is the support for some Republican farmers over the entire region's fishing industry:

In Oregon, a battleground state that the Bush-Cheney ticket had lost by less than half of 1 percent, drought-stricken farmers and ranchers were about to be cut off from the irrigation water that kept their cropland and pastures green. Federal biologists said the Endangered Species Act left the government no choice: The survival of two imperiled species of fish was at stake.

Law and science seemed to be on the side of the fish. Then the vice president stepped in.

First Cheney looked for a way around the law, aides said. Next he set in motion a process to challenge the science protecting the fish, according to a former Oregon congressman who lobbied for the farmers.

Because of Cheney's intervention, the government reversed itself and let the water flow in time to save the 2002 growing season, declaring that there was no threat to the fish. What followed was the largest fish kill the West had ever seen, with tens of thousands of salmon rotting on the banks of the Klamath River.

Characteristically, Cheney left no tracks.

Read the last piece of the series here.

Push for more renewable energy meets NIMBY

Voting in favor of more clean energy was a no-brainer last fall. Now it's clear that legal clarifications are necessary to reach the goal of getting 15 percent of energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Consider Kittitas County, where some residents object to plans for several dozen wind turbines on the hills outside Ellensburg. The complaint? The turbines would block views, be noisy or disrupt the rural character of the place -- all predictable problems.

So why not head off such disputes by stipulating conditions for siting energy projects? For example, the state could determine allowable noise levels from turbines. If the project is quiet enough then it goes forward. Wide-open views will likely be missed, but surely windmills are a good alternative to using the land for sprawl or to dirtier air. The guidelines would speed projects throughout the state.

For now, a state agency, EFSEC, is supposed to settle disputes for the greater good. But without a stronger legal framework it could just as easily inflame urban-rural tensions and set up a backlash against decisions made in Olympia.

FEEDBACK on Why Seattle's buses don't work

This account of a recent bus commute drew a lot of feedback. Two emails came from Rep. Judy Clibborn, the chair of the state House Transportation Committee.

She explained that she's arranging to ride through the 520 corridor with the Department of Transportation to see what can be changed. Yet there will be opposition to any tinkering with the status quo:

I agree that we have some issues and will be working to get some of that merger smoothed out before we reach the new bridge and later implementation of tolls etc. I am interested in what comes out of the Urban Partnership regarding some of what you mentioned but I am also aware of the political reality of what we can do without support from the citizens. It will take a lot of education.

For info on the partnership, see the link for the Puget Sound Regional Council.

Economy gets reprieve from passport rule

The U.S. federal government was forced to postpone plans to require a passport to cross into the country from Canada, giving a temporary reprieve to regional business.

The new rules have already caused confusion without much indication of improved security. Surely the answer is better coordination of screening of visitors from third countries into the U.S. and Canada, not just requiring a particular document.

In any case, the delay should help business in U.S. towns that rely on cross-border traffic. Vancouver Island, which was expecting a double hit from the border rules and the exchange rate, now has more time to develop to a convincing tourism strategy.

Another port under fire for bad finances

Leaders of Olympia's port are the latest in the region to take fire for sagging financial performance despite a boom in trade.

A new shipping facility at the port has been repeatedly delayed by an environmental review and has had ripple effects throughout Puget Sound. The port commissioners reportedly declined to comment on the costs at their latest meeting.

Vancouver wants fewer homeless than athletes

Vancouver is considering measures to make sure there are fewer homeless people than athletes in the city during the 2010 Olympics.

Plans call for rent support and new housing, though the idea has been derided as too little too late since market trends could swamp any progress. An analysis can be found at TheTyee.ca.

At first glance the idea sounds similar to Seattle's comprehensive plan, which seeks to curb the causes of homelessness in advance and then integrate the remaining homeless people into permanent housing.

Lesson from Japan: Leadership needed

One surprise I found during my recent visit to Japan was the frequent discussion of what Nicolas Sarkozy might accomplish in France. The new president was on magazines and TV shows, and I had several conversations with Japanese who were enthusiastic for the tough reforms he seems to represent.

The issue matters for Cascadia because, as Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire likes to put it, in a globalized economy we're more like a small nation than a state. The economy of Cascadia is in better shape than in either Japan or France, which makes it more difficult to generate the leadership needed to fix our fundamental problems.

The weekend I arrived, the former longtime leader of the Socialist Party -- the only true opposition to hold briefly hold power in Japan in the postwar era -- was on the top Sunday TV talk show discussing opposition to changing the no-military clauses in the constitution. Setting aside the specifics, what's remarkable is that the entire political opposition seems to think that saying no is adequate policy. The comments were amazing because she said exactly the same things when I interviewed her six years ago.

The same is true for economic leadership. Though Japan's huge economy continues to grow and there are far more opportunities than ever before thanks to reforms, there hasn't been nearly enough deregulation or revamping of policies. With a sclerotic opposition and lack of strong leadership, cynicism will only spread. Sarkozy came up as an example of the sort of change agent Japan needs.

You could argue that our situation isn't much different. In King County, the passing of Prosecutor Norm Maleng opens up opportunities for younger politicians. Someone needs to spell out a not just that globalization is an opportunity, as Gov. Gregoire has, but a vision for how this region can prosper. Today's properity is all the more reason to develop this leadership now.

Thinking big about urban spaces

Here's an example of the kind of grand thinking that the Seattle area can't seem to do anymore: a contest to design an urban park.

New York City is asking desgn firms for ideas how to configure Governors Island, a chunk of land a half mile off Manhattan. Check out the latest in last week's New York magazine.

Then contrast that with the process to revamp the Seattle Center to meet the current and future needs of this city. There's a citizens' panel hashing out ideas, which appear likely to yield a series of half steps that satisfy no one.

The case for transit and roads

A package of transit and road projects for the Seattle area is nearly ready for this November's ballot. It deserves support because it's the best compromise.

The plan approved last week extends light rail beyond the starter lines currently underway. It also fixes several road bottlenecks that would make bus transit more workable (such as along 520 and 167). True, it would expand 405 perhaps too much, but it also has money to study how to incorporate the Eastside rail corridor into the future transportation network.

The package is barely ready but there's already plenty of opposition. One viewpoint says I should vote against any project that doesn't directly improve my commute. Maybe the standard of living will deterioriate so much that people will stop coming here?

I'd argue that that point is still far in the future because, even if it deteriorates, the Puget Sound will remain a better place to live than other big cities. Instead, we should invest in transportation projects that are finally beginning to be paired with development planning. It's not enough, but it's a start to capturing the benefits of more people and economic activity without destroying this place.

Financing for this transit-and-roads package remains an issue, but not in the way this Seattle Times article frames it. The true cost isn't the debt to pay for the projects, which may still be less than perfect. It's the crippling cost of -- yet again -- doing nothing.

Seattle approves criteria (but not a plan) for 520

Solving obvious transportation problems around Seattle is like establishing peace in the Middle East: endless plans, criteria and road maps but very little progress.

The latest example is the Seattle City Council's agreement on criteria for replacing the 520 bridge, a decision they delayed a week ago citing an outpouring of comments. The latest plan calls for a mediator to negotiate with all sides and present a plan in 20 months. They couldn't even get behind the governor's call for a replacement that would include transit lanes.

Remember this isn't an optional project. Just like the viaduct freeway, there's a real chance that the bridge could collapse in a natural disaster, costing lives and the economy.

Why we need regional transport planning

An opportunity for an integrated rail and bus transportation hub at Seattle's Husky Stadium may be squandered according to this story and this op-ed article.

The ludicrous lack of coordination (one planner is quoted as saying the inefficient routes are "pretty much set") is the latest example of why the region's transportation planning needs to be better managed.

In a major step in the right direction, the state legislature is considering bills that would create a single government agency with authority to prioritize, plan and finance transportation projects for the entire metropolitan area.

This week the Municipal League of King County sent this letter to Gov. Chris Gregoire and legislative leaders Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen and Rep. Judy Clibborn urging a package that coordinates planning without undermining support for existing projects. (Note: I'm a trustee of the League.)

Missing the cause of high gas prices

Legislation introduced in Olympia takes aim at Cascadia's high gas prices but misses a root cause: lack of competition.

Sen. Joe Zarelli, a Republican from southwest Washington, proposed a study to determine if the single pipeline that serves the area stretching from Vancouver to Eugene is adequate. One potential fixes, of course, is to relax permitting rules or reduce taxes to encourage construction of an additional pipeline.

It's no secret that gas costs more in this region than elsewhere in the U.S. and Canada. While supply and demand is part of the equation, close coordination of refining and distribution by oil companies is apparently a bigger factor. There don't appear to be any attempts to crack that.

UPDATE:

The original post above suggested that Sen. Zarelli advocates relaxed rules or reduced taxes to encourage construction of a new pipeline. Catherine Trinh of the Senate Republican Caucus emailed to say that the bill doesn't specifically mention either.

The exact language of the bill can be found here.

Changing minds about light rail

Residents fight the extension of light rail, claiming it will cost too much and bring changes that will ruin their neighborhoods. They even vote out representatives who favor the project.

Sounds like Seattle during its glacially slow light rail project. But it's what happened in the Portland area over plans to extend MAX southward.

Now the area is coming around. Maybe Seattle-area neighborhoods will be next.

Latest trade policies may hurt region's economy

In recent days the Bush administration slapped tariffs on paper imported from China and annouced a free-trade pact with South Korea. The moves could harm the long-term goal of more trade that's critical for Cascadia's economy.

The tariffs on Chinese products are an attempt to placate critics in Congress rather than address the economic trends that make U.S. products less competitive. In fact the U.S. has increasingly little leverage on China because that country is financing our runaway spending.

Today's announcement of a free-trade deal with South Korea also is less favorable than it seems. It appears to be another bilateral deal that ultimately protects some parts of U.S. industry at the expense of a backlash both overseas and among displaced U.S. workers. Cascadia's long-term interests would be better served by pushing for comprehensive trade agreements that level the playing field between multiple countries.

There's no question that trade can be improved by increments. Unfortunately these developments -- on top of earlier tariffs on Canadian lumber and foreign steel, and a series of unfair bilateral trade deals -- round out a dubious record on promoting trade.

Taxpayer bailout of rural areas to continue

The U.S. government is about to bail out the finances of dozens of counties in Cascadia that depend on the depressed timber industry. It needs to look for a longer term fix instead.

The latest proposal would spend billions of dollars over the next five years to compensate rural areas nationwide hurt by cutbacks in logging. The funds would forestall cutbacks in schools, roads and other public services that could paralyze much of the West.

So far, so good. At a time when the U.S. apparently has money to fund war in Iraq, cut taxes and subsidize corporations, why not bail out areas that have depended on timber for generations?

The problem is that there's little sign those areas will be weaned from the subsidy when the next five years of funding ends. Instead we should be working toward a system where costs are carried more by those who benefit (for example, commuters pay congestion pricing, companies pay their way and rural areas become more self-sustaining).

The worst outcome would be to spread taxpayer largesse beyond the current list of recipients, sustaining areas where economic growth can't. The Albany, Ore. newspaper editorialized for a change in the subsidy system, but its solution is more logging in federal lands. Never mind that the land actually belongs to everyone, not just residents of counties closest to them

Portland transit fans set example by uniting

Transit supporters in Portland seem to have learned that improving transportation isn't necessarily a question of one technology over another.

Fans of extending light rail have joined forces with supporters of expanding the streetcar system to secure funding for both. The alliance is noteworthy because the projects had been viewed as competitors for "a limited pool of financial and political capital," according to the Portland Tribune.

Seattle area needs regional planning agency

Proposals in the Washington legislature could finally give the Puget Sound area the kind of government that has long helped Portland and Vancouver meet regional transportation needs.

The legislation, based on recommendations late last year by a study group, would create a new board with authority to prioritize, plan and finance transportation projects in four counties. Best of all, the proposals would make someone accountable for transportation plans in an area where six agencies currently overlap.

Streamlining transportation planning shouldn't interrupt the series of projects currently in the pipeline, such as the package of roads and extending light rail that will be on the ballot in November. It's worth noting that there is a lot of transportation work being done in the area -- despite criticism from the right. Unfortunately it's not bearing results fast enough because there's little coordination with development patterns.

The proposal doesn't mean that a new regional government body should force projects on neighborhoods. Accountability is a key gripe with the system in Vancouver, where proposals for a planning agency covering a larger area are criticized for overlooking local concerns. A regional approach also definitely doesn't mean Seattle should be forced to accept a new elevated freeway, editorials in the Seattle Times to the contrary.

The devil is in the details, of course. The version passed in the Senate would create an 8-member board (with 8 elected) and begin operation this year, raising questions about how existing projects would continue. A House version would study how to implement a regional transportation body this year. While neither is perfect, a compromise could be a step in the right direction.

The fact is the Seattle area needs far more transportation projects than it can pay for with taxes, tolls or congestion pricing. In order to keep the region functioning, someone needs to set priorities to develop a more efficient system.

Road plans ignore election results

Seattle and state leaders said they heard the voters' refusal to replace the viaduct freeway with a tunnel or new elevated freeway. So why did they okay a $175 million project that would enable either?

The question is important for anyone who cares about the vitality of Seattle, which is critical to Cascadia's economy. As debate around the recent election showed, people far outside the city have strong opinions about the waterfront because it is one of the region's centerpieces.

Unfortunately plans call for immediate fixes to parts of the existing viaduct that will make it harder to be creative with the space in the future. Plans call for fixing the Battery Street tunnel and the overpass that connects to the existing viaduct. This is a step in the wrong direction. Any investment along the corridor should be to alleviate congestion -- to move people and freight -- not simply stabilize the status quo.

The state should instead begin designs to lower the roadway through the Battery Street tunnel and on Aurora Ave. -- steps to help accommodate transit to the waterfront and reconnect streets near the Seattle Center. Along with new streets and interchanges south of downtown, these changes would lay the foundation for a better waterfront.

Cascadia closer to licenses for border crossing

Washington is close to approving a test project that would provide security along the international border without stifling trade and tourism. It's a big step toward capitalizing on Cascadia's growth before and after the 2010 Olympics.

Both houses of the legislature have approved legislation that would authorize an enhanced driver's license to serve as proof of citizenship. The state and British Columbia would test screening driver's licenses at the border with scanning technology that is supposedly cheaper and easier than a passport requirement proposed by the U.S. federal government. Here's the House version.

Assuming the legislation passes, Washington and B.C. will simply have to convince the federal governments to lay off with draconian border-tightening measures.

Viaduct rebuild defeated. Now what?

In an election Tuesday on how to replace Seattle's viaduct freeway, city voters decisively said no to both a new elevated freeway and a costly tunnel.

The tally is a relief, yet the impact is far from clear. Here are a few quick observations:

-- There's no agreement on what it means. On KIRO radio, the leader of the campaign for a new elevated freeway said "the election was rigged." Bizarrely, he said the 70 percent of voters who rejected the tunnel actually wanted a rebuild and pledged to fight anything but a new viaduct. Voters were against both choices but still want something to be done.

-- Several key politicians lost. Gov. Chris Gregoire insisted on holding the election but then tried to force a bigger elevated freeway, damaging her standing in Seattle. House Speaker Frank Chopp is out of step for fiercely pushing the plan, though voters in his district overwhelmingly opposed it. And Mayor Greg Nickels' pet tunnel was rejected soundly. Except for Councilman Peter Steinbrueck, who helped lead opposition to both, members of the city council look weak for not taking a stand.

-- Voters are rightly upset. The election cost roughly $1 million yet generated no clear result. Citizens correctly expect representatives to take a stand and know they can express their approval or disgust with their representatives' decisions when they're up for election. Voters should remember who forced this wasteful vote on them.

-- Compromise may finally be possible. Maybe all the political players are so wounded that they can check their egos in order to develop a new solution that costs less and concentrates on moving people and freight instead of vehicles.

I'm afraid the outcome will be more gridlock. Imagine a small earthquake shifting the existing viaduct a few inches and a state engineer declaring the highway unsafe. Then the highway would be closed and Seattle would have to cope without either the improved transit or street system that we could have begun developing by now.

Celebrating the viaduct vote

The defeat of both a new viaduct freeway and a costly tunnel along Seattle's waterfront was celebrated at at least two parties downtown on Tuesday night. Here's the scene at the second, as captured by The Stranger's camera:

Burner wants rematch with GOP Congressman

Darcy Burner, who narrowly lost a Democratic bid for Congress from Washington's 8th district, appears to be running again. It's not clear why she thinks she'll win this time.

Burner filed preliminary paperwork for a bid on Friday and sounded like a full-blown candidate Sunday night on David Goldstein's show on KIRO radio. She repeated the themes from her last campaign: the country's going in the wrong direction, President Bush is a failure, Rep. Dave Reichert is a rubber-stamp who's out of touch with the voters in the suburban Seattle district.

There are plenty of reasons to vote for change, yet I haven't heard any convincing reasons to vote for Burner. It's possible that a wave of support for new national policies could carry the election in November 2008. More likely 8th district voters, who have consistently sent Republicans to Congress, will need a reason to toss out a two-term incumbent. There's at least one movement afoot to find a candidate who might provide that gravitas.

Seattle viaduct debate goes national

The Seattle-based online environmental magazine Grist is running a short series on why the debate over how to replace the viaduct freeway is a national issue. My post on their blog mentioned there's a disconnect between two Seattle ideas: building a new highway (even in a tunnel) and trying to curb emissions linked to climate change.

Here's the jist from another post on the blog:

In some sense this is a local decision, of course. But in an age of climate change, such decisions are never purely local. Every transportation choice made by a big U.S. city will either lock in or avoid hundreds of thousands of tons of GHG emissions over the coming decades. What governs the choice?

Vancouver transit planning may go regional

A package of reforms could make Vancouver's transportation planning even more regional.

Under a new plan, the elected 12-member board of directors of TransLink -- which already leads planning for the metro area -- would be replaced by a three-tiered system of appointed and elected leaders. The area governed by the agency would expand, reaching from Pemberton to Hope.

The proposal apes ideas under consideration for the Seattle area,where at least six agencies control transportation. Sound Transit, the most visible, has an 18-member board made of 17 elected officials from the region and the state transportation secretary. None is directly accountable for transportation issues across the entire region.

The revamped Vancouver agency would have greater power to direct development around transit infrastructure and hopefully more efficiently manage the growing population. Critics question the accountability and funding mechanisms. But the key lesson is that politically fractious metropolitan areas need a regional government that can make regional decisions.

Small steps toward climate, housing goals

Seatle Mayor Greg Nickels called for curbing climate change and adding affordable housing during his State of the City speech this week. But his policies are only small steps in that direction.

Nickels wants a six-lane tunnel to replace the viaduct, which would maintain vehicle capacity without adding transit or incentivizing fewer car trips in the city. Meanwhile his administration has so far shied away from challenging Seattle's restrictive zoning, which sets aside more than two-thirds of land for single-family homes. Limiting supply drives up costs so that workers have to live far from their jobs.

To be sure, Nickels has made some progress by promoting a package of bus improvements, building the beginning of a streetcar system and encouraging dense development downtown. The problem is that those moves aren't bold enough to bring the benefits that would convince naysayers. Frustration with the city will grow without a fundamental commitment to transit and more efficient development.

Union disputes need for more tech workers

Bill Gates told the U.S. Senate Wednesday that restrictions on the number of skilled foreign workers allowed into the country on H1-B visas are hindering innovation. The cap should be raised from 65,000 a year to maybe 300,000, he argued.

Such a move would keep wages down and some skilled workers here unemployed, the largest union representing tech workers responded. WashTech makes the same case every time someone proposes steps to expand the skilled workforce, either through better education or immigration reforms. Brier Dudley links to the union and has more on the issue on his blog.

Start over on rail corridor deal

At least one person with authority over the proposed land swap involving an Eastside rail corridor is opposing it. King County Councilman Larry Phillips says the deal would shortchange county taxpayers for Boeing Field.

More importantly, he calls for a new deal that would explicitly spell out plans for high-capacity transit through the corridor:

Preserving the rail corridor that Burlington Northern Santa Fe wants to abandon is imperative. The corridor is a regional transportation connection that crosses two counties and eight cities, and is of statewide and federal significance. A study undertaken by the Puget Sound Regional Council envisions the ultimate configuration of the corridor as a recreational trail alongside a high-capacity transit corridor.

I wholeheartedly support co-location of rail and a trail in this corridor, yet the current proposal leaves that vision uncertain and unfunded. What asset will King County need to give away to pay for rail transit in the corridor? Harborview Hospital? Marymoor Park?

Seattle urged to cast blank ballots on viaduct

Seattle residents should return blank ballots in the ongoing mail-only election on how to replace the viaduct freeway, according to an op-ed article in the Seattle Times today by the Municipal League of King County. (Note: I'm a trustee of the league.)

My personal preference is to vote "no" on both options because neither does the job. Yet returning a blank ballot is a way for voters to express their disgust with the political process that got us to these poor choices. Blank ballots still get counted though defaced ones are discarded.

It's worth then sending an email to the city council, mayor, governor and House Speaker Frank Chopp demanding a real solution -- not a quick fix that will scar the city for generations. How about a combination of improved transit and surface streets to accommodate people and freight at lower overall cost?

Support in B.C. key to regional transport

It's easy to get carried away with dreams of improved train service across Cascadia. The latest example: the plans to add another daily train between Seattle and Vancouver.

One key to making these transportation dreams come true is political will in British Columbia. Before any talk of things like Vancouver and Seattle jointly hosting World Cups, fans of regional integration will need to pry funding from B.C.'s Liberal-party government -- which has shown so little interest in investing in public facilities like trains. In multiple reports last week the B.C. transportation ministry spokesman explained that the latest deal is simply to add a single track in Delta, B.C. Clearly it's only a start.

Yet that's the true significance of the second-train plans, which will make travel more convenient for Vancouver residents. Hopefully this small project will build public support for the investment and the government will follow.

How to save the mix of residents downtown

Cascadia's cities have made housing unaffordable downtown over the years by cleaning up areas of old buildings. Unless they create incentives to boost the supply of housing, they will destroy the mix of people that makes being in cities desirable.

Substitute any city for "Portland" in this passage and it still works:

Portland's vaunted livability attracts people with money. But let's not end up like San Francisco, where dot-com money took over the city, driving the middle class to the suburbs and the poor to the streets.

The Oregonian article addresses laws to maintain affordability. Even more important is investing in transportation to relieve the costly burden of car ownership (insurance, gas, payments and parking) and make privately funded dense housing more attractive. Then allowing taller units near transit and requiring smarter development will increase supply and eventually cut the price of housing.

Oregon lawmakers doing their jobs

Lawmakers in Oregon appear close to doing their jobs. The people's representatives hashed out a tax package Wednesday designed to fund long-term investment in the state -- and they didn't simply refer the issue back to voters.

Even the lobbyist for the Oregon Business Association was impressed:

"To me it's a historic moment," he said. "We finally set partisan politics aside long enough to look at the good of the state."

But wait. On Thursday -- days before the tax plan is formally approved -- Republicans and an outside anti-tax group launched ads attacking Democrats for the proposal.

Vote 'no' and 'no' on the Seattle viaduct

Seattle residents should vote "no" and "no" on the mail-in ballot about how to replace the waterfront viaduct. Here's why:

If money were no object, a tunnel might make sense. But the "surface-tunnel hybrid alternative" falls far short of the ideal. This alternative would require considerable additional funding, yet shortchanges critical street improvements (such as around Aurora Ave. and to the Battery Street tunnel). A vote for this alternative won't encourage elected officials to pursue a smarter tunnel. It will muddy the debate.

The "elevated structure alternative" is totally unacceptable if the goal is creating an urban core that will continue to drive the economy of Cascadia, as Vancouver and Portland do. There are ways to move people and freight through downtown without building another viaduct. Preserving views from the freeway is also no reason to build another one. Seattle has prevented massive elevated freeways along Lake Union, along the northern waterfront through Interbay and through the Arboretum because the damage they would have caused far outweighed the benefit.

A combination of improved surface streets and transit would be a better choice than either on the ballot. Dedicated bus lanes could be set up quickly, dramatically boosting capacity and convenience to West Seattle, Burien, Ballard and North Seattle. Freight and through traffic could be met with improvements to streets and I-5. Simply adding capacity is not enough because the volume will always rise to match it. The region instead needs a full array of alternatives to move people and freight. No one prefers gridlock and, if done correctly, there's no reason this alternative should have that result.

This election is offensive becasue it is reportedly costing $1 million yet the result is a pair of poor choices and results that aren't binding anyway. It's still critical to vote -- to demand a better option.