Cascadia Report

When congestion is your friend

Vancouver's congested streets can be maddening -- unless, as the blog Hugeasscity notes, you're a pedestrian or bicyclist. But will that frustration translate into momentum for policy change?

As someone passing through I typically must drive. SkyTrain is great you go where it goes but my recent trips took me to UBC or on detours between Whistler and Seattle, where there aren't feasible transit options. The vast majority of Lower Mainland residents are the in the same situation until land use policy puts more housing within striking distance of transit (or walking or biking).

Vancouver's clogged street grid doesn't necessarily make the case for congestion pricing, at least off the downtown peninsula. Seattle's hills and water are a much better testing ground for combining a) alternative forms of travel with b) tolling that varies with usage. If the goal is to use congestion pricing to make more efficient use of finite resources, Seattle would be a great place to start.

Maybe we're not so 'livable'

Here in Cascadia we're used to hearing that this is among the world's most "livable" places.  It's a squishy, feel-good moniker that obscures our challenges.

Vancouver regularly tops international rankings and Portland is a media darling for its hipster qualities and great refreshments. One shared feature of supposedly "livable" cities is that not many people live in them, notes FT columnist Michael Skapinker.

See also: Decisions that made a great city

Less than 2 million people live within the city limits of Vancouver, Portland and Seattle combined (the city of Seattle just topped 600K) and none rank among the top cities based on global business. I'd prefer to encourage more economic and cultural growth within Cascadia's cities since without clear benchmarks it's unclear how much progress we're making.

None of this takes away from the latest top-cities listings.  Monocle magazine's list of top 25 ranks Vancouver as 14 and includes just one U.S. city (Honolulu at 11). Tokyo (3), Fukuoka (16) and Kyoto (22) make the list -- but there's no Osaka, Yokohama or Sendai, which are all just as comfortable. It's editorial whim.

 

B.C. may boost exports of trash

Vancouver wants to dramatically boost its Washington-bound exports of one product it has too much of: trash.

And why not? Canadians would pay more to cover the cost of sending trash trains to a landfill on the Washington side of the Columbia River Gorge, helping the economy of rural Klickitat County, according to the Seattle P-I. At the landfill the trash would be turned into sellable energy.

The shipments would begin just ahead of the supposedly eco-friendly Olympics and, predictably, the idea is already riling residents who live along the prospective route of trash trains. Whistler and Seattle already export their trash elsewhere in the region and other reports suggest there may, in fact, be other B.C. alternatives.

But the richest part of the P-I article is the appeal to regional sympathy by one of the proponents:

Marvin Hunt, a councilor in Surrey, B.C., and chairman of the Metro Vancouver Waste Management Committee, said the garbage shipment is just temporary until a new facility is ready in the province.

"This is the Northwest. We feel like this is all family here in Cascadia," Hunt said.

"We have a little problem right now, and when you have a problem, you ask your brothers and sisters to help you out."

Death and life of great cities

A few weeks ago, during a long weekend in New York, I found myself wandering Manhattan on a Monday. All the usual museums were closed so I tried a small gem of an exhibit on the life and accomplishments of Jane Jacobs.

Jacobs is the activist who helped save swaths of Manhattan from freeways and urban renewal through the 1960s. She's often credited with the basic idea that walkable neighborhoods inhabited by residents are healthier than impersonal housing projects on "super blocks."

It's a great lesson that's been internalized by planners worldwide. But I couldn't help think the pendulum has swung too far. Instead of protesting for strong neighborhoods it seems neighborhood activism -- often under the guise of Jacobs' lessons -- is simply against development, period.

This describes Seattle, where investment in new buildings in a close-in neighborhood is scorned. The Seattle P-I wrote in sympathy of neighbors of a University District coffee shop who didn't want a parking lot developed because a new building would cast shade on a patio! Never mind the benefit of more residents, workers or customers in the neighborhood. Of course, there's also some backlash to development in Portland and Vancouver.

Even in New York, the protest and NIMBY movement is strong. I choose to remember the row of old two-story buildings being torn down in favor of the Santiago Calatrava-designed transit hub. Instead of hand-wringing, the New York Post brushed off concerns of the tenants, calling the buildings "scuzzy."

So where's the middle ground? I'd vote for transparent development rules and design review. But most important is leadership that can make a clear case for what the city gains from development.

Cascadia as global outsourcing way station

The Tyee has an interesting article questioning the benefits for the Vancouver area of a new software research center in Richmond, B.C. There are some smart comments too.

To me, this seems like a trend B.C. should support. Obviously the U.S. and Canada are very different labor markets, especially for skilled technology workers with Asian passports. Even if the new research center doesn't mean more Canadian hires, every Asian worker will make B.C. more fertile for technology and, over time, pay off by making it a more dynamic business environment.

Making a city for residents, not tourists

I just noticed this article in Vancouver magazine, pointing out the need to make the city serve its residents rather than just tourists, planners and the people who create "most-livable city" lists.

The writer finds fault with Vancouver's regional government system (exactly what Seattle lacks):

One of the biggest obstacles is political: planners are king here because our politicians allow them to be. Our at-large municipal system—unlike the ward system, with defined constituencies, which you find in most major cities—gives a free pass to city councillors. We select our council from a list of 100-plus candidates every three years, and they thank us by answering to “the city at large”—not to the widower in Strathcona trying to save the local seniors’ centre from destruction, not to the South Main sculptor trying to find a spot for his public art, not to the young couple in Yaletown trying to get a playground built near their condo. Such quotidian concerns become the domain of bureaucrats and enforcers, while politicians turn their attention to the “big picture” stuff like EcoDensity, Civil City and the Olympics.

By contrast, the Seattle area has the worst of both worlds. The Seattle city council is elected city wide (so they're not accountable to neighborhoods) yet there's no effective regional government.

The Hamptons, Aspen and ... Vancouver

Think the Seattle condo market is going out of hand? Consider Vancouver.

"I summer in THE HAMPTONS... I winter in ASPEN. My home, THE RITZ-CARLTON, VANCOUVER." That's the seductive tag line in a full-page ad on the back of the A-section of Thursday's Globe and Mail Ontario edition.

The condos, which run $2.25 million to $10 million, are part of a skyscraper building boom that will give Vancouver a tall skyline. The Web site address says much: vancouversturn.com.

They're also part of a trend that has made Vancouver Canada's priciest housing market. Meanwhile, Toronto -- a big presumed audience for the Ritz-Carlton -- is a bargain. Ads on bus shelters in downtown Toronto last week promised two-bedroom luxury condos near the financial district starting at $159,000.

Ending homeless in Vancouver, Seattle

Seattle doesn't have anything like the Downtown Eastside, Vancouver's slum of addicts and homeless. But judging from the line outside a shelter on Belltown's 3rd Avenue Sunday, there's a serious poverty problem.

So what to do about it?

We could lament the disconnect between the poor on the streets and the rich inhabitants of new condo towers.

Prefer solutions? The Tyee ran a list of five ideas suggested recently in British Columbia. The ideas in the comment string seemed more promising (Evo Morales aside).

Consider instead King County's plan, which recognizes that money is only part of the solution and chances of upending modern capitalism are slim.

Loonie = greenback: Who wins and loses

Longing for the happy days of bargain meals, rooms and ski slopes in British Columbia? Get over it.

Today the U.S. and Canadian dollars reached parity for the first time since 1976. The greenback has slid more than 60 percent against the loonie in the last five years and there's every reason to think the trend will continue.

It's already clear that the situation is tricky for anyone who is easily confused by U.S. and Canadian coins. I remember using Queen Elizabeth quarters and bills at Safeway in south Seattle as late as the early '80s. Those days may be back.

So who wins? Businesses in the U.S. that cater to Canadian customers. With their increased buying power, more Canadians will be traveling around Cascadia. The Victoria Clipper says traffic from Canada is up 25 percent this year. Things are surely looking up for discount shops and Costco stores just south of the U.S. border.

Potential losers come to mind more easily:

-- Anyone in Canada who depends on U.S. tourists. On Wednesday organizers of the 2010 Olympics unpersuasively insisted they won't be hurt because they've hedged their budget against currency changes. Too bad U.S. tourists haven't.

-- Anyone who depends on sales of Canadian lumber -- a huge slice of the B.C. economy, in other words. The current slump in demand from U.S. housing combined with the strong loonie will do what years of softwood tariffs couldn't: protect uncompetitive U.S. lumber producers.

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.

Another "most livable" ranking

Vancouver residents might be frustrated with traffic and high rent but don't tell The Economist, which just named the city as the most livable in the world.

Such an accolade for Vancouver isn't really news. But it's curious because it's based on a weighted index of 40 factors such as congestion, crime and cultural assets. Reportedly Melbourne fell to No. 2 because of congestion. The top U.S. cities were Cleveland and Pittsburgh.

Low unemployment means strikes

What happens when a red-hot economy leaves the number of jobs and workers closely balanced?

In British Columbia and Alberta, workers are going on strike. There are a variety of issues behind the disputes but the underlying catalyst is that employees have the upper hand for the first time after years of stagnation.

What Vancouver can learn about rail building

Seattle's nascent light rail line was showered with praise this week -- in Vancouver.

The reason is the $50 million fund set up to help businesses impacted by construction of the light rail line through the Rainier Valley. Apparently there's no such support for business during construction of the Canada Line, which will connect downtown Vancouver, the airport and Richmond.

It's odd to hear praise of Seattle's transit efforts from Vancouver, which has had rail transit for more than two decades and is considering building a fourth line. But a representative of a Vancouver neighborhood suggested B.C.'s free-market loving government might support a Seattle-style fund: "It's a classic American approach," he said. "It's seen as an economic initiative to ensure a tax base, not as a handout. I thought the Campbell government might embrace this approach."

Seattle's Rainier Valley has been showered with support during the rail project, ever since the decision was made years ago to build that section at-grade instead of underground. Just wait until the surge of newcomers and gentrification when the line opens in 2009.

Eliminating fares wouldn't help transit

Collecting transit fares costs a lot of money, funds that could be better spent adding service. That's the conclusion of this interesting report at TheTyee.ca.

The report considers Vancouver and several transit systems in the Northwest and around the country. For King County Metro, the costs of fare collection in 2006 were about 10 percent of revenue -- equal to about $8 million or 18 new buses per year, it says.

Yet fares are hardly the biggest problem facing bus service. There must be more efficient ways to collect money (issuing annual passes, rounding the cost to the nearest dollar, etc.). But charging something probably gives people at least some sense of ownership, or a feeling that they should be getting a service in return.

New container port gets funding

While infrastructure bottlenecks constrain shipping at Cascadia ports, plans are moving ahead for a brand-new container facility -- one big enough to eventually handle as much freight as Tacoma's.

Oregon's legislature recently approved a $60 million package to dredge the harbor at Coos Bay over the next five years. The funding hinges on a major shipping company commiting to operate there. The Oregonian called the prospect "an economic dream come true."

Though hurdles remain, the deal is the latest sign of more competion for ports in Vancouver, Seattle and Tacoma. It should underscore the need for more efficiency at existing ports and for transportation improvements to keep freight moving.

The Coos Bay project reportedly includes a new jetty and $250-$750 million in terminals, rail infrastructure, a container yard, docks and wharves. Eventually it could handle 2 million 20-foot-long containers, roughly the volume at the Port of Tacoma.

Shift freight to rail, cut traffic congestion

Shifting freight traffic to rails would cut congestion and pollution, according to a study by Demographia:

In the Seattle area alone, shifting 25 percent of freight from trucks to trains by 2025 would mean 43 fewer hours in commuting time every year, compared with what is likely to occur otherwise. That same shift also would decrease air-pollutant emissions in the Seattle area by as much as 11,635 tons and save thousands of gallons of fuel.

The trick, of course, is making the change. Improving and expanding the Eastside rail line and also adding rail capacity throughout the Vancouver-to-Portland corridor could handle the traffic. Curbing the subsidy for cars and trucks on freeways would make the shift financially sensible.

Too many want to live in downtown Vancouver

Living in downtown Vancouver is so popular the city needs to keep people away in order to preserve room for offices.

As a remedy, the city may allow still taller office buildings downtown and expand the area where offices have priority over condos.

Taller buildings are already on the way. Yet given Vancouver's shedding of headquarters jobs, the bigger question may be what businesses will fill any additional space.

Measuring benefits of the booming economy

Here's an interesting editorial questioning the popular perception of British Columbia's booming economy.

The short piece is notable as a contrast to the majority of B.C. media, which are more likely to cheerlead for the Olympics and major development projects.

For details on how B.C. stacks up, take a look at the latest Cascadia Scorecard by Seattle's Sightline Institute, which includes a wide range of alternative indicators to measure regional development.

Vancouver trying to speed city buses

Vancouver is changing the way passengers board buses in an attempt to speed service. It seems like a partial solution to some of the delays that also plague buses in Seattle.

Passengers on select bus lines will be required to have proof of payment and will be able to board through all the doors on the bus. Critics suggest the transit agency's real motive is the crack down on riders even as it plans yet another fare increase.

Motives aside, this is exactly the kind of change necessary to make bus rapid transit work. Seattle should adopt similar steps as it rolls out the new bus service that taxpayers agreed to fund last fall.

Vancouver (but not Seattle) a world commerce center

Don't let clogged traffic, overpriced real estate and a lack of major businesses fool you. Vancouver is a top center of global commerce.

So says a new study by MasterCard ranking the top 50 cities as "world centers of commerce" based on their contribution to economic activity. Vancouver ranked 28th (between Montreal and Brussels), according to the index of six characteristics. It got high ratings for legal framework, ease of doing business and economic vitality. Those outweighed poor scores for being a financial center, knowledge/info economy and being a business center.

Seattle didn't even make the list, which included eight other U.S. cities. Vancouver's result comes despite the city's steady loss of headquarters and relatively weak corporate environment. Of course, the presence of two University of British Columbia professors on the nine-member panel that set the rankings could have something to do with it.

Vancouver shows how not to handle buses

Vancouver is struggling with new bus lanes because of interference from cars. It's a good lesson for Seattle, which is about to implement bus rapid transit along five corridors.

The congestion means that bus lanes haven't cut travel times. But the city's report notes an improvement: "bus lanes can raise the profile of transit on a corridor and can be a symbol of transit priority."

The question remains why we can't mimic the successful Rapid Ride program in Los Angeles. If you simplify the system and provide frequent service, people will ride.

Lesson from Japan: Boosting airport capacity

Most visitors to Japan are funneled through Tokyo's Narita Airport, which is a good example of how an airport can accommodate more people without growing larger. The lesson should put to rest the idea that Seattle needs a new airport.

For at least its first 30 years Narita was a joke. Located about 50 miles outside Tokyo, with a single runway and too-small terminals, it was the worst major airport in Japan and fell far short of those of rival cities like Seoul, Hong Kong, and recently Bangkok, Shanghai and Kuala Lumpur. Business began going elsewhere partly because of Tokyo's travel hassles.

Something similar could happen in Seattle, where Sea-Tac is plagued by delays and crowding even as rival Vancouver continues to stretch. A supposed solution? Site and build a new larger airport somewhere in the Puget Sound area.

Tokyo offers a better model. On my recent trip, I noticed again how two train lines ferry travelers directly into the terminal buildings, a second long-planned runway has been added on existing airport property and -- the biggest change in the last few years -- the terminals have been completely overhauled to handle more people.

Narita is also helped by the recent major improvements at Tokyo's huge in-city domestic airport and at airports in Osaka and Nagoya. Coordinating select flights from Paine Field and other satellite airports could complement Sea-Tac too.

Sea-Tac's third runway will provide extra landing slots and improvements to terminals and ground transport could boost overall capacity. Faster rail between B.C. and Oregon would relieve some stress for local travel. Combined with ground improvements at Sea-Tac, such changes could meet the region's demand and help knit it more closely together without the distraction of a new airport.

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.

Organic farms growing in B.C.

One more thing to think about when you buy organic food: the impact.

Consider that British Columbia has converted more land to organic farming -- reportedly one in six farms are now organic. That's despite the pressure of urban growth and rising costs that are reportedly squeezing small operators. Still, compared to the rest of Canada, the enthusiastic conversion in B.C. seems wise.

New competition for seaports

China's biggest shipping company plans to launch the first service to a new container port in Prince Rupert, British Columbia later this year.

The new container port, which has uncongested rail access to markets in the Midwest, is the latest competitive threat to ports in Vancouver and especially Seattle and Tacoma. Last month plans were floated for another new container port on Oregon's coast.

Projects could make Vancouver like Seattle

A big British Columbia project to build roads and other infrastructure throughout the Lower Mainland could turn Vancouver into -- gasp -- Seattle.

The article linked to above draws some great contrasts between the policies of Vancouver, Seattle and Portland. But it also confuses the point.

While central Vancouver may be an urban model, the metro area already sprawls for miles. The Gateway Project to better connect ports with roads and trains may be over-ambitious but at least some of that infrastructure is necessary to keep the economy growing. Better to strive for improved infrastructure rather than simply oppose it.

U.S. discount airline lands in Vancouver

Vancouver got its first discount air service from the U.S. over the weekend.

The Frontier Airlines flight to Denver coincides with the begining of cruise season. Lower fares could help Vancouver successfully compete in the lucrative market against Seattle, which has more flights and discount carriers.

Vancouver already has discount service to points in Canada and Europe.

Think twice before selling that bridge

Privatizing bridges, ferries and roads is one way to fund new projects and upkeep. But it isn't necessarily a good deal for taxpayers, according to a series of articles in BusinessWeek.

The magazine could also have considered British Columbia, where the governing BC Liberals have pushed privatization of health care, transport and other services. Just today there's an example of how the results have been mixed.

It would be interesting to see analysis of how these deals could be structured on a local level to better benefit the community as well as investors. What terms can be required? What can the rest of Cascadia learn from B.C.'s example?

Seattle needs more taxis

If taxis were more convenient, more people would use them. To someone looking for incentives to ditch his car, that seems obvious.

Luckily Seattle may license more cabs, according to the Seattle P-I. Yet officials are reluctant because the extra competition could hurt existing drivers. (Seattle has 643 taxis and King County 200+ more.)

Why not consider taxis a part of the city's transportation network, alongside buses, rail, carpooling and biking? How about adding as many as the market will bear? The city could help by establishing taxi stands in every neighborhood.

Compare Seattle to compact cities. Boston has about 1,800, San Francisco 1,400 and Denver more than 900, according to this study. Vancouver is listed as having about 500.

How Cascadia's cities rank

Since the question came up in comments, a list of the biggest cities in the U.S. and Canada seemed in order.

It turns out to be a tricky question. For example, Seattle ranks as the 12th largest metropolitan area according to the U.S. Census Bureau's list of combined statistical areas. But that definition counts people based on commuting patterns and doesn't include places like Phoenix and Miami. Statistics Canada uses a different set of definitions. Then there's the case of San Diego, which has either 2,941,454 or 4,804,806 depending on whether Tijuana is included.

There are other complications. For example, the five-county Seattle area is 5,800 square miles while greater Houston is over 10,000. The city of Jacksonville (841 square miles) has about 200,000 more people than the city of Seattle (88 square miles). Unless otherwise mentioned, Cascadia Report generally conflates cities and metropolitan areas.

So, just for the record, here's the closest apples-to-apples comparison of the top U.S. metro areas (primary census statistical areas):

1. New York-Newark-Bridgeport -- 21,976,224
2. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside -- 17,775,984
3. Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City -- 9,725,317
4. Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia -- 8,211,213
5. Boston-Worcester-Manchester -- 7,465,634
6. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland -- 7,228,948
7. Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland -- 6,382,714
8. Dallas-Fort Worth -- 6,359,758
9. Houston-Baytown-Huntsville -- 5,641,077
10. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville -- 5,478,667
11. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach -- 5,463,857
12. Detroit-Warren-Flint -- 5,410,014
13. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale -- 4,039,182
14. Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia -- 3,991,911
15. Minneapolis-St. Paul -- 3,502,891

Greater Vancouver clocks in at 2,170,976 and the Portland area at 2,137,565. Houston, Atlanta and Miami all passed Detroit in the last five years and Phoenix grew by more than 20%. For comparison, Toronto-Hamilton counted 5,555,912 and Greater Montreal 3,635,571

Here's a list, using a combination of counting methods, of largest population centers in the Americas.

Vancouver also likes transit movies

Vancouver's transit agency seems to have found a new way to extol the virtues of its latest light rail line, which will connect Richmond, the airport and downtown (start watching at about 1:20):

The video was posted on April 9, soon after the Washington State Dept. of Transportation posted its own disaster scenarios for the 520 bridge.

In addition to YouTube videos, there are a bunch of things that Vancouver can admire about Seattle, including a couple cited in Bill Virgin's recent column. One is Seattle's strong business base that makes amenities possible and provides prosperity. Seattle's lack of density in the center city is more dubious. In the video above, note the density in neighborhoods such as around 49th Street. Why won't that work elsewhere?

Second airport part of fix for Sea-Tac

Backers of passenger service at a second Seattle airport say about one in five Sea-Tac travelers would use Everett's Paine Field.

While there's plenty of community opposition to adding some flights, it looks like a partial solution to limited capacity at Sea-Tac. The project needs to seen as a long-term fix for a region that seems incapable of siting a new, larger airport that could one day relieve Seattle's main airport.

Vancouver International has plenty of space to continue growing into Cascadia's dominant airport (it's already the only one expecting to handle the new A380 ). Sea-Tac could still grow as a function of the Seattle area's demand for additional nonstop connections. But extra capacity will need to be provided by Paine Field and improved train service to Vancouver and Portland.

B.C. support for cross-border rail service

Finally, a sign of growing support in British Columbia for better regional transportation.

Apparently the recent speed record by France's TGV convinced the Vancouver Province to editorialize today in favor of better passenger rail service between Vancouver and Seattle.

Though Amtrak has already announced extra service, it will take political will for B.C. to provide the funds for track improvements north of the international border that are required for a significantly faster trains. Today's editorial isn't quite a full-throated endorsement (it ends with a tentative "All aboard?") but it's a start.

Seattle port losing share to rivals

The Port of Seattle continues to lose market share to other West Coast ports, thanks to inefficiency on the docks and transportation hurdles.

Seattle faces increased competition from ports in California and especially expansion projects in British Columbia. Marshalling an effective response is squarely on the plate of the port's new CEO.

Better terminal luring flights to Vancouver

Vancouver is adding a nonstop flight to New Zealand partly because the expanded international terminal at YVR makes the city more attractive to carriers, according to today's Wall Street Journal ($).

The flight used to stop in Los Angeles but that airport is losing international flights because of its old, crowded international terminal. A similar story could be told about the rivalry between SEA and YVR.

The issue is about more than a handful of flights, as the WSJ puts it:

The stakes are high for cities. International passengers spend about twice as much as domestic travelers, and international airline service is one important competitive benchmark for cities competing for corporate relocations

Vancouver, which recently expanded its international terminal, is already wooing travelers from the Seattle area. Since significant improvements at Sea-Tac are years away, it has to rely on cutting fees to lure airlines, which is how it won a nonstop flight to Paris.

New B.C. outposts to court more Asia trade

British Columbia is about to reopen trade offices in Japan and China, a move that could heighten competition for trade with Asia, according to the Vancouver Sun.

While B.C. currently has zero trade and investment offices in Asia, Alberta has five, Washington State has five, and Queensland, Australia has nine.

These bare numbers are one thing. Beyond them, the competition to stand out in Asia from this part of the world looks even stiffer next to Alberta's sexy oil and gas industry and Washington State's heavyweight Boeing, Weyerhaeuser and Microsoft companies, which have engaged China since the 1970s and 1980s.

By all accounts, it is high time for B.C. to get beyond the wood demonstration project it cost-shares with the forest industry in Shanghai and its Tourism B.C. office in Tokyo, which has been there since 1992.

The new offices represent the latest in a string of moves intended to make B.C. the trade gateway to North America, reaching as far as India.

Seattle, Vancouver could co-host World Cup

Seattle and Vancouver may jointly host a major sports event like a World Cup, at least if the cities' tourism boards can help it.

The idea of capitalizing on the 2010 Olympics with a major regional event has been around a while. Now the tourism groups are looking at creating an entirely new marqee soccer, cycling or soccer event.

Of course the groups need to build local support in order to shoulder the financial and political cost of an event. Improving transportation links are essential. One interesting idea: adding seaplane service between downtown Seattle and downtown Vancouver.

More alternatives to owning a car

Here's another option for living in Cascadia without owning a car: more car-sharing companies are opening in the region.

Zipcar launched its service in Vancouver this week, hoping to ape success it has had in New York and other major cities where car ownership is less than convenient. It's part of a planned expansion along the West Coast, including Seattle and Portland.

In Seattle, Flexcar remains the main alternative to -- gasp -- owning your own car.

B.C. launches trade push to Asia, Canada

British Columbia this week unveiled a new push to build ties with Asia and remove barriers to doing business elsewhere in Canada. Both could help it reach the goal of being Cascadia's top gateway.

The Asia Pacific Initiative outlines a series of steps to boost B.C.'s profile in Asia. That's on top of federal dollars to boost trade infrastructure.

Meanwhile an agreement allowing businesses to operate freely between B.C. and Alberta for the first time went into affect this week and could help bolster Vancouver's position for trade. B.C. is already shopping the agreement to other provinces, though there are predictable worries that locking in trade undermines local democracy in the region.

Sprawl likely to foil B.C.'s growth plans

Economic incentives in British Columbia are likely to stimulate more sprawl around Vancouver, contrary to the province's stated goals of reducing pollution, according to an series this week in the Globe and Mail.

One of the chief culprits is the province's ambitious "Gateway Project," a package of roads and bridges designed to accommodate increased trade. As in Seattle and Portland, there are few economic reasons to favor transit and dense development over development in the ever-expanding suburbs.

Remove freeways, sure. And provide alternatives

Seattle's waterfront is in political limbo since voters this month rejected replacing the viaduct with new freeways either in a tunnel or overhead. Maybe the idea of a freeway itself is the problem.

Cities from New York to Seoul have replaced freeways without seeing massive traffic jams. In Cascadia, Portland opted for the first MAX line instead of building a new freeway. Vancouver has survived with almost no freeways, yet traffic and sprawl there isn't much worse than in many American cities.

One of the comments on this article correctly points out that cities should be in the business of providing incentives and new options, not eliminating them. That's why adding transit and building more pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods is important.

To get there the author suggests congestion pricing, of course, and a "parking cash-out" system. Here's his definition:

Businesses could be required to give employees commute allowances instead of free parking. Employees could use the allowance to pay for the parking they used to get for free, they could use it to pay for transit, they could keep part of the allowance if they car-pooled to work, or they could keep the entire allowance if they walked or bicycled to work. It is estimated that this policy could reduce commuter traffic (and peak demand for road space) by about 20%.

Cascadia cities need a safety valve

Sure there's healthy rivalry in Cascadia among Vancouver, Seattle and Portland. But between Portland and Vancouver, Washington?

Willamette Week explores the idea that smug Portland benefits in many ways from the Vancouver on the other side of the Columbia River.

Strict growth rules have helped make Portland into what's widely considered a development model. Maybe Clark County, Wash., which has nearly doubled in population since 1990, now functions as a safety valve for Portland?

What if the region's success at controlling growth while still maintaining one of the nation's more robust economies is because of...Vancouver? Or more specifically, because Vancouver has fewer land-use laws and limits on growth? Has Vancouver become a convenient place to handle Portland's overflow, for those who wanted to live, work and play in the area, but who also wanted a bigger yard, lower taxes and a house on a cul-de-sac? All this so Portland could build its light rail, trams and condo towers.

The point is just as valid around the Puget Sound area and in the Lower Mainland. Dense development makes transit and the infrastructure to preserve open space feasible. Where is the safety valve for the region?

It's official: Vancouver is sprawling

Vancouver, with its gleaming downtown and light rail projects, may be an urban planner's dream. But new census data show its growth is similar to that south of the border.

Over the last five years, Vancouver's population has grown in line with the overall province's rate and more than half has gone to the new supply of housing downtown. Meanwhile Surrey has grown by nearly 14 percent as residents chase affordable family dwellings. The pattern makes it hard for even ambitious transit projects to accommodate lifestyle patterns and relieve the cost of living or the environment.

Similarly, Seattle is a shrinking part of the metropolitan area. Both cities are examples of why development incentives and transportation infrastructure need to be in sync.

New Vancouver terminus could boost traffic

Moving the terminus of Seattle-to-Vancouver trains to Surrey would boost tourism and make adding to the timetable more feasible, according to a report in a Canadian paper.

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.

New trains may get a step closer to Whistler

Plans for expanded train service between Seattle and Vancouver might be the first step toward extending the corridor north.

Relocating the current terminus from downtown Vancouver a few miles southeast to Surrey would be a start. The change would eliminate the need to rebuild a bridge, cut the total travel time to Seattle and save more people in the metropolitan area a trip downtown to board, according to a local newspaper report Tuesday. SkyTrain would still provide a link to downtown.

Most importantly, serving more people in the area would build public support for trains. That's critical since funding for improvements would come from Canada. The new station could spur transit-oriented development in the area and eventually boost ridership from the Vancouver-area by 7 percent, assuming five trains a day to Seattle, according to a report by the Washington transportation department (it's in Appendix E).

British Columbia has studied options to implement train service to Whistler that's competitive with driving. Though the cost would be high, it could become realistic as the financial and time cost of driving rises. The Washington study bases projections for future ridership between Seattle and Vancouver on a series of projected fares and similar calculations of return on investment could be made further north.

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.

Why Fairmont isn't quite on top

Fairmont Hotels & Resorts wants to be seen as an "unrivalled global presence." Yet a few recent visits suggest why it's not quite there.

Friday night I stayed at the Fairmont Waterfront, which is the highest-rated of the company's properties in downtown Vancouver. Desk service was professional, the room was comfortable and the city-and-harbor view was great -- all as expected. But when the elevators went out of service at around 10 p.m. -- leaving at least 15 people waiting in the lobby -- there was no explanation. The next morning two of the elevators were still offline. There was no apology and management didn't give the impression that they were especially concerned about the inconvenience.

Similar service at Fairmont's hotels at Whistler and in Seattle has also cost the chain. This is part of the reason why so many in Seattle were concerned when Fairmont took over management of the Olympic Hotel (a replacement Four Seasons is under construction). Don't get me wrong: Fairmont is still a great place to stay, it's just not quite top-of-the line.

Countdown to 2010 Olympics begins

A clock is being unveiled in Vancouver today to mark the countdown to the 2010 Olympics in exactly three years.

The Vancouver Sun has an update on the events venues as part of its ongoing, upbeat coverage. The occasion seems mostly ignored by Washington and Oregon media -- even a Bellingham Herald story today on an Olympian athlete missed the connection. It seems that the rest of Cascadia is a slow to capitalize on the games and the publicity around them.

B.C. opposition proposes alternative energy fund

British Columbia would set aside C$50 million from oil and gas royalties to fund research in alternative energy, under a plan by the opposition party.

The NDP proposal also faults the government's support of a massive roadway project in the Vancouver area, saying that it downplayed the environmental effects by including Washington's more-rural Whatcom County in its projections.