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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
