Cascadia Report

Blog

  • What we want depends on the incentives

    During a breakfast presentation today in Seattle, the author Joel Kotkin delivered an optimistic forecast for our region that left everyone with a spring in their step. I enjoyed the message, but wonder if we took the right lesson.

    One option for more density. Courtesy of vcnva.org.

    The talk was in support of Kotkin’s new book The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050. (His previous book The City: A Global History was engaging so I was eager to hear him.) Kotkin is a cheerleader for suburbs and thinks growing population due to high immigration rates means America’s prospects are good. (More on that on his Web site.) The Seattle area is particularly well poised to prosper from its position on the Pacific Rim, partly because, as he put it, Seattle is “like Portland with an economy.” (On cue, laughs in the room.)

    But he lost me when it came to describing the sort of land use and development we’ll need to accommodate more people in 2050. He said that 86% of Americans now “want” to live in detached, single-family homes, a category that presumably includes everything from mansions on five-acre lots to tall, narrow urban infill homes.  More than once he said that today’s planners are going too far by “forcing” people to live too densely.

    (more…)

  • 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.

    311-cruise-to-tokyo-yokohamaVancouver 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.

     

  • How do we get better art

    Here’s a question to stoke some intra-Cascadia rivalry: is Vancouver’s art scene better than Seattle’s?

    Is writer Jen Graves right? I’m not sure how much of her piece is just the “grass is greener,” but the provocation is much needed.  She offers a few sensible suggestions, starting with celebrating our region’s work in our museums:

    The Henry should step up its game by exhibiting all six short listers rather than just the winner, while the Seattle, Tacoma, and Portland art museums should all start reconceptualizing the meaning of “regional,” like the Henry is doing, and quick. (The “inclusion” of such places as Idaho and Montana in Tacoma Art Museum’s biennial, for instance, reflects a fake constituency and has fake results. Art is now and has always been a city game. The art “region” is along or connected to the I-5 corridor, and in most ways, Seattle has more in common with Los Angeles than Spokane.

  • Cutting Amtrak at exactly the wrong time

    It looks like the Canadian national bureaucracy is STILL dragging its feet on adding needed rail service between Vancouver and Seattle. Meanwhile in Washington, legislators are planning to cut improvements that would make Amtrak faster and more reliable, while allowing more trains in the future.

    Every dollar is important in tough budgetary times like these. So why are improvements to I-5 going ahead – even without tolling mechanisms to lower the implicit subsidy for roads and private automobiles? We should be adding tolls in areas with “freeway” improvements while investing to make rail travel more competitive.

    Instead travel options are limited. Canada wants U.S. taxpayers to cover the cost of a Canadian customs agent, despite the expected financial windfall a second daily train would bring to B.C.  For now it looks like a second train will cross the border each day during the winter Olympics — but not after.

  • A smart solution to the Viaduct problem (finally!)

    I published the following op-ed in today’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Let me know what you think by leaving a comment.

    For nearly two years, our community has been working steadily toward a consensus solution that would replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with something that will serve all our needs. Having come so far, it’s critical that we not lose our footing now.

    The Municipal League is pleased with the sound process set up by Gov. Chris Gregoire, King County Executive Ron Sims and Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels after voters turned down both a tunnel and a new viaduct in early 2007. A group of stakeholders representing broad interests was set up to develop and analyze a series of options. They used a framework of principles designed to produce a recommendation that everyone could agree with.

    Now, after months of work and increasing media scrutiny, it’s natural that some participants feel weary. Yet overall, this process has been open-minded, transparent and genuinely inviting of public input.

    (more…)

  • No tax increase by Port of Seattle

    The Port of Seattle Commission recently reversed itself, voting to not increase its property-tax levy on the homeowners throughout King County. Why?

    The Seattle Times credited testimony by the Municipal League and individual taxpayers at a Commission hearing. Here’s an op-ed we wrote that previously appeared in the paper:

    Port of Seattle: Don’t increase tax revenues

    By Bradley Meacham and Bruce Carter

    The Municipal League of King County recommends the Port of Seattle commission reduce the $8.1 million increase in the proposed 2009 real estate tax levy.

    A league committee monitoring the affairs of the Port of Seattle has concluded the increase is not warranted, especially considering the financial meltdown that is dramatically afflicting business activity and real property values in King County.

    (more…)

  • Argument against another Seattle airport

    Sea-Tac’s third runway just opened , after two decades and a billion dollars. Now some say the Seattle area needs another airport.

    But we’re better off encouraging a single major airport (especially if it’s conveniently connected to high-speed rail for Vancouver-Portland travelers). Consider Heathrow and this letter from the Economist:

    SIR – The Economist noted that since 1990 the route network at Heathrow has decreased, while transfer traffic has increased (“The right side of the argument”, November 8th). However, the subsequent claim that transfer passengers are of limited economic value is incorrect. It is in fact evidence of the market forces caused by a capacity-constrained airport.

    Slots at Heathrow trade for up to £25m ($37m), clear evidence that given new capacity, the network would grow. Until Heathrow is permitted additional capacity, airlines will understandably make the rational, economic decision to focus the limited slots available to them on the most profitable routes. This is tenable in the short term, but over the long term Britain’s economy will suffer from not being able to offer direct links to cities in the growing economies of India and China. Around two-thirds of routes at Heathrow are supported by transfer passengers who make up 25-40% of the people who fly on them. Without these passengers, major business destinations such as Bangalore, Chennai and Seattle would all disappear.

    It is naive to think transfer passengers do not offer any wider economic benefits—the direct, global links that these passengers support are Britain’s gateway to the world economy. Heathrow is Britain’s only hub airport and a vital economic asset. If Heathrow is to stay in the global league, then a third runway is vital to keep it, and by extension Britain, competitive.

  • A call for better bus service

    It’s been a while but I can’t stay quiet any longer. The reason? There’s a report out today with a couple dozen recommendations to improve Metro Transit. 

    The biggest deal is calling for a Metro — which serves the 1.9 million people of King County – to design its service around where people live and work rather than outmoded political compromises. Currently 80 percent of new service is divided among south and east King County, with the remainder going to Seattle, which has more demand and transit-oriented development.

    The report was produced by a citizen committee organized by the Municipal League. (Yes, I’m biased since I’m League chair.)  It’s just in time, too, because Metro needs more funding in order to meet soaring demand.  Most of the debate over transit around Seattle has been about light rail, streetcars and ferries. We also should get a better return on investment from our main existing transit service.

    Much of the stuff in the report should be obvious: Metro needs more transparency about route performance, costs and accountability.  Hopefully shining a light on the agency and calling for the basics will help.

  • Extend the streetcar line now

    I stopped by a forum on the proposed extensions of Seattle’s streetcar yesterday afternoon — and heard more objections to the idea of a citywide network than vision to make such a system work.

    At question is the idea of extending Seattle’s stunted 1.3-mile line to actually go somewhere. It could be a viable transportation system that would encourage development and make owning and driving a car in the city less essential.

    Financing and design are legitimate obstacles that can be solved. Public support will follow — just as in Toronto and countless other cities where streetcars are commonplace.

    What we shouldn’t do is talk this issue to death at endless public forums. I didn’t hear one concern that couldn’t be met. Losing parking on local streets? More people will take streetcars and walk. Cannibalizing bus service? We need to invest in more, better bus service too. One man talked about efficient express bus service in Vancouver as an example of what we should do. Fine, but that and streetcars aren’t mutually exclusive.

    By all means, get citizen input on the route and design. Then let’s build it.