Cascadia Report

Category: Cascadia not cities

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Losing out on the China travel market

    Sea-Tac hosted the signing of the latest U.S.-China air treaty yesterday, but it’s unlikely to host flights between the countries anytime soon.

    Shanghai Airlines; boeing.comSo the question for Seattle is whether courting a Chinese carrier makes more sense than waiting to lure a top-flight international airline. Both Hainan Airlines and Shanghai Airlines reportedly have had talks with Seattle about starting flights, and Hainan has considered linking with Alaska Airlines for connections in the U.S.

    Of course Seattle should pursue all comers to expand international service, in order to remain competitive and capitalize on visiblity around the 2010 Olympics. It should seek a Chinese carrier and continue courting major international carriers that would offer this region a premium network, for example a Cathay Pacific flight to Hong Kong. Note that Vancouver offers daily nonstops to three Chinese cities on a range of airlines.

    Any nonstop would help trade and tourism. Consider the impact on some businesses in Oregon when Delta Airlines ended its Asia flights from Portland (eventually Northwest was recruited to start Tokyo flights). But a second-tier airline won’t lure major corporate or frequent fliers who expect mileage plans and extensive networks. Smaller airlines using Seattle as a U.S. toehold would likely shift to bigger city as soon as possible (both Thai and China Eastern left Seattle for California in the 1990s).

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

    washington state farm; sharpandhatley.comFarms 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.

  • Seattle: A big city with a lake down its middle

    New population data show Seattle has a shrinking share of the region’s population. That’s unless you consider the metropolitan region as a single big city facing the same regional challenges. Think of Seattle as a city with 22-mile-long Lake Washington running through its middle.

    According to state figures released today, Seattle city grew 1.8 percent during the last year to 586,200, while King County overall grew 1.4 percent to 1,861,300. This story dives into reasons behind the trend.

    Now the city of Seattle is less than one-third (31.4 percent) of the county’s population — and a smaller share (14.7 percent) if you consider the metropolitan population of roughly 4 million. The city was more than 78 percent of the county total in 1930 and 46 percent in 1970.

    You could argue this trend means the city of Seattle should be starved of infrastructure dollars in favor of suburban roads and other projects. But people are drawn to a broadly defined “Seattle” rather than the suburbs, just as they’re drawn to “Vancouver” instead of Richmond or Surrey (which are booming).

    Projects simply need to serve a wider area than ever. It’s clear that the area needs a variety of solutions, matching development with transportation. the Seattle area needs a system of rail along existing and future high-density corridors and a network of bus and carpool lanes connecting other areas. Incentives should promote the most efficient use of that regional infrastructure.