Cascadia Report

Category: Cascadia not cities

  • 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.

  • Tuscan resort coming to … Yakima

    Work could begin this summer on a $500 million Tuscan-themed village on a ridge east of Yakima, potentially diversifying the economy of an area that already promotes itself as Washington’s Palm Springs.

    Concentrating growth in towns in order to preserve open space and farmland would be ideal. But planned development is the next best option — the project already is being compared to Suncadia, a resort community near Ellensburg that targets Seattle refugees.

    The Vineyards project would be developed by a group that put together resorts in Crested Butte, Colo. and in Mexico. Eagle Resort Development already mentions the area on its web site.

  • 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.

  • Supreme Court rules against timber competition

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Weyerhaeuser in a major antitrust dispute, a verdict that makes it harder for small companies to compete against global powerhouse firms.

    The case turned on the difference between ruthless competiton and unfair business practices in the Northwest lumber market. The court essentially said that a small Washington mill couldn’t prove that Weyerhaeuser put them out of business unfairly by bidding up the price of logs.

    The case took second billing Tuesday to another involving a massive ruling against Big Tobacco. But there’s hardly a bigger issue for Cascadia and the future of the natural resources industry in the Northwest. The case seems similar to the prosecution of Microsoft during the 1990s and the effects may be equally widespread.

    Here’s a critique of the court’s verdict.

  • Incentives lure nonstop connection to Paris

    Air France will launch the first nonstop flights from Seattle to Paris, a sign that that a package of incentives designed to lure international flights may be paying off.

    air france a330; spottersblog.comA nonstop to Paris has been under discussion for years — I remember reading that it was imminent in a Seattle Weekly article at least a decade ago. Meanwhile Seattle has steadily lost international air connections to Hong Kong, China, Mexico and elsewhere, despite the region’s growth as a travel market and even as Vancouver and Portland added flights.

    Under a plan approved last week by the Port of Seattle, landing fees for new international air service will be waived during their first year and 75 percent of the fees the following year, according to the Seattle P-I. Facilities charges will be cut 75 percent for each of the first two years, and the Port will contribute $250,000 the first year, $160,000 the second year and $45,000 the third year to a marketing program for the route.

    Oregon used a similar marketing program to lure nonstop routes to Mexico, Japan and Germany. Portland beat Seattle to lure Germany flights and has since restored several domestic nonstops. Compared to some of the other financial deals ports do, these incentives are practically a bargain.

  • Study: B.C. could be energy self-sufficient

    British Columbia could produce all the energy it needs within 20 years, according to a study by a Vancouver foundation that promotes environmental business.

    The Globe Foundation forecast assumes that B.C.’s population increases by 30 percent by 2025, raising demand for energy by 20 percent. It also assumes higher oil prices and the development of solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and tidal energy resources, plus development of a major dam and coal-gasification infrastructure.

  • Sound Transit readies package — flaws and all

    Sound Transit begins a series of open houses this week designed to convince voters to pay for a series of rail and road projects.

    proposed transit projects; from rtid.orgIt’s critical that voters approve the roughly $11 billion in funding, which would extend the light rail starter system that’s currently under construction. That’s why problems with the proposal are so painful to discuss. Here are three examples:

    — The light rail line suffers from dimished expectations. For example, the Eastside line won’t open for almost 20 years (!) and the route already has been shortened, thanks to a dispute developing over how to route the future line through downtown Bellevue. It appears the line would end near Microsoft rather than in downtown Redmond.

    — Sound Transit appears to have taken the most expedient route — not the best route — for commuter rail south of Tacoma, where the project may interfere with redevelopment of the neighborhood. Dan Voelpel correctly notes that the agency wants to avoid any further delays that could hinder this fall’s vote.

    — Both costs and ridership are low-balled. The agency wants to keep the total bill down in order to avoid sticker shock. Meanwhile ridership figures appear based on current land-use patterns and don’t take into consideration future congestion or factors like tolls or more costly gasoline. It’s likely that density will increase around train stations, boosting ridership, and the region will need to spend more on the system once construction starts and people realize how much they really want it.

    These are serious issues but shouldn’t derail the overall projects. I plan to be skeptical at the open houses, vote for funding this fall and then demand the projects be built as efficiently as possible.