Cascadia Report

Category: Seattle

  • 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.

  • 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.

    train inches into stationRelocating 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Land swap would hinder transport corridor

    Seattle-area taxpayers would pay at least $169 million to replace a potential high-capacity transportation corridor through the Eastside with a bike trail, under a deal signed Monday.

    That’s what the Port of Seattle plans to pay King County in a swap involving the rail line and Boeing Field airport. There are parts of the deal that make sense, including the idea that the length of the trail will remain intact. Parts of the deal that would improve freight mobility through the Port are important for the region’s economy.

    But removing the track through the corridor would be a huge mistake. Though all parties say that rail could be added in the future, there’s probably no chance of that happening after neighbors and bike trail users get used to having the area to themselves. Instead the route should be intensively studied as a complement to the region’s planned rail lines and roads.

  • Mud-wrestling over Seattle’s waterfront

    The Economist, the magazine that once said Seattle has North America’s worst transportation planning, observes that the debate over replacing the viaduct with an elevated freeway or tunnel is purely political. “Seattle’s tunnel has become a trip to political hell,” it notes.

    Guess which replacement option a magazine with a global perspective considers a no-brainer? Here’s how it sets the latest scene:

    It should be among the most beautiful cityscapes on the west coast: a mural of distant mountains, piers jutting into sun-flecked Elliott Bay and giant orange cranes plucking containers from freighters. Overlooking Seattle’s waterfront, however, is a noisy 1950s elevated highway in hideous gray concrete.

  • 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.