Cascadia Report

Blog

  • Fed up with cattle class? Try yoga to China

    If you like in-flight yoga, it’s a good day. You’ll soon be able to fly nonstop to China from Seattle on an airline that offers that amenity.

    The new flight to Beijing on Hainan Airlines is the latest increase between the two countries and the latest of several new international offerings from Sea-Tac. This one is probably a boost for tourism and some business travelers.

    But flights four times a week hardly makes Seattle the Cascadia gateway for the China market. Vancouver has daily nonstops to Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong — with 30 a week to Hong Kong alone.

  • What happens to Cascadia when U.S. wanes

    I missed President Bush’s State of the Union speech tonight because I was reading about how much the world has changed since he took office.

    illustration from New York TimesIt’s worth reading this article from the Sunday New York Times Magazine, which shows how the world is dividing into three superpowers (U.S., China and the E.U.) that will increasingly compete for the growing “second world” countries like India, Turkey, Brazil and Vietnam. There are plenty of statistics and anecdotes showing how this trend accelerated during the past eight years and will continue to do so.

    I find myself thinking immediately about what this means for Cascadia. If the bellicose behavior of the U.S. over the last several years hurt America’s stature, and if Canada is so small as to be irrelevant globally, what about our region? Apparently there’s more trade in the Japan-India-Australia triangle than across the Pacific and more Chinese study in Europe than the U.S. Does it mean no more booming ports in Seattle and Vancouver; fewer Chinese professionals who fondly recall living in the Northwest during school?

    The article offers a series of ideas for the next couple of presidents. But this region needs leaders who appreciate the examples of other countries and our peer metro areas around the world. It needs vigorous diplomacy on a regional level. And it needs more-sustainable development here to insulate us from potential global shocks through more efficient transportation, better use of resources and improvement of the cultural draws that make this part of the world a desirable place to live.

    I’ll try to work this out some here in the coming months. What ideas am I missing?

  • Making room for people and vineyards

    Planners in the Portland area are divvying up land for long-term agricultural use and for development. The idea is to get beyond arguments over the region’s growth management boundaries.

    Farmers and developers — often at odds on land-use issues — say the change could provide long-term stability by preserving large blocks of the best farmland while making it clear where cities will grow.

    “Once Metro adopts urban reserves — boom — we know where growth is going to occur,” said Jim Johnson, land use and water planning coordinator for the state Agriculture Department.

    Gee, why don’t we trying something similar here? Instead the top story in today’s Seattle Times is about a sweetheart development deal in rural King County. It seems like forcing development — without local buy-in or a way to pay for infrastructure — is bound to backfire.

  • We have money — but no good way to send it

    Sending money between the U.S. and Canada ranks with border delays and underdeveloped transportation infrastructure as obstacles facing regionally minded Cascadia citizens.

    sending money; projo.comRecently I tried to pay a bill in Canada by sending C$113 from Seattle to Victoria. Apparently I ran afoul of post-9/11 inconvenience, anti-money-laundering worries and maybe even technology. I can accept some confusion, but there’s got to be a better way.

    When I went to a Washington Mutual branch asking for a money order, payable in Canadian funds, the teller looked at me like I was crazy. Bank of America said they could order a money order in about a week. Western Union was willing to help me for a hefty fee, but only if I wired the cash to an individual, who then would have to pick up the cash at another Western Union outlet.

    Desperately seeking a good money changer, I called the Canadian consulate in Seattle. The single main phone number leads to choices in the automated system that all lead to a dead ends. After nearly three minutes of messages in English and French, I picked tourism. Then the message said there is no longer a tourism office and suggested calling immigration. The immigration line said they no longer take telephone inquiries.

    My solution was to find a friend who happens to have an account in a Canadian bank — a move he took post-9/11 in order to handle details related to his Whistler rental. He says his bank puts a 45-business-day hold on USD checks (even if he writes it to himself) so he’s resigned to simply planning way ahead. It’s nearly enough to keep us on our respective sides of the border.

  • Rail deal a big step toward mobility

    The Seattle area took a big step toward better mobility with a deal to put a railroad line through the Eastside under public ownership.

    future eastside line; allaboardwashington.orgThe old freight line is the only unused corridor straight through the booming suburbs, so preventing it from being sold in pieces was step one. Now there needs to be a plan to add transit and a trail, in conjunction with tolling on the existing roads.

    Most important, the region needs to encourage future demand for transportation to grow around this corridor. Transit shouldn’t simply serve the density that exists now. After all, today’s Eastside grew up around structures that were planned in the 1950s.

    Don’t think the rail route would work as transportation? A project in Bellevue was announced just this week that would locate thousands of residents and workers within walking distance. In Renton the route could be connected to the Sounder trains, light rail and density near Southcenter. In the north, the corridor serves Woodinville and Snohomish — booming areas where focusing development around transit infrastructure makes more sense than massive new roads.

    Consider this report about one way transit could be added sooner rather than later.

  • Doing right thing for the waterfront (finally)

    Politicians and media appear to be coming around (finally) to the idea that Seattle’s waterfront viaduct shouldn’t be replaced with another freeway.

    Cascadia Report made the case last winter for a combination of transit and comprehensive street improvements to replace the earthquake-damaged eyesore. Gov. Gregoire and Mayor Nickels were among those who poo-pooed the idea by insisting that any replacement had to accommodate the same number of vehicles as the current viaduct.

    Now, Gregoire has changed her mind. Several agencies have pledged to work together for a comprehensive fix. Today even the Seattle Times editorial board — a mostly suburban group that generally supports roads over transit — came out in favor of transit + road fixes.

    It’s about time. Now let’s get to work on a long-term fix that values the waterfront heart of the region’s biggest metro area.

  • Death and life of great cities

    A few weeks ago, during a long weekend in New York, I found myself wandering Manhattan on a Monday. All the usual museums were closed so I tried a small gem of an exhibit on the life and accomplishments of Jane Jacobs.

    Lower East Side NYC; carsareevil.comJacobs is the activist who helped save swaths of Manhattan from freeways and urban renewal through the 1960s. She’s often credited with the basic idea that walkable neighborhoods inhabited by residents are healthier than impersonal housing projects on “super blocks.”

    It’s a great lesson that’s been internalized by planners worldwide. But I couldn’t help think the pendulum has swung too far. Instead of protesting for strong neighborhoods it seems neighborhood activism — often under the guise of Jacobs’ lessons — is simply against development, period.

    This describes Seattle, where investment in new buildings in a close-in neighborhood is scorned. The Seattle P-I wrote in sympathy of neighbors of a University District coffee shop who didn’t want a parking lot developed because a new building would cast shade on a patio! Never mind the benefit of more residents, workers or customers in the neighborhood. Of course, there’s also some backlash to development in Portland and Vancouver.

    Even in New York, the protest and NIMBY movement is strong. I choose to remember the row of old two-story buildings being torn down in favor of the Santiago Calatrava-designed transit hub. Instead of hand-wringing, the New York Post brushed off concerns of the tenants, calling the buildings “scuzzy.”

    So where’s the middle ground? I’d vote for transparent development rules and design review. But most important is leadership that can make a clear case for what the city gains from development.

  • Critics of tall Seattle buildings have it backward

    Critics of plans for taller buildings in Seattle’s South Lake Union area have it exactly backward.

    underdeveloped South Lake Union; djc.comIf anything, the city should encourage more building in the area, creating demand for transit rather than encouraging sprawl. Instead critics want to soak the developer to pay more into a fund to create “affordable” housing.

    Now, zoning in the area requires special permission to build even 12 stories. Why not require that buildings be at least that tall? Set design review standards, sure. But let’s build the workplaces for thousands of employees and new residents.

    What’s wrong with a supposedly sweetheart deal between developers and the mayor, as long as the city gains? Among the benefits: More housing supply in the city should lower overall prices and make transportation options feasible.

    Of course the city should negotiate to get the best terms in this area, but better those rules be streamlined and transparent to encourage more, better building instead of hinder it. Unfortunately the potential benefits are totally lost in today’s story and the reader comments.

  • Missing the Olympics ‘bounty’

    It’s refreshing to see a story in the Seattle Times today about how Washington risks losing out on the economic benefits of the 2010 Olympics.

    Cascadia Report has mentioned this issue many times, including here and here (and don’t forget the Olympics category here).

    There are a few problems with the story:

    — Border hassles are a big factor. But what about the falling value of the U.S. dollar?

    Both sides are noticing a drop in travel. From January to April of this year, same-day visitors from the U.S. to B.C. dropped by almost 13 percent, Periwal said.

    Travel to B.C. is a lot less interesting to Americans when their money buys 20 percent less than it did just months ago. On Sunday night, it took 10-15 minutes to cross the border southbound while northbound waits were over an hour. It was the reverse on Friday evening, at the end of a day of post-Thanksgiving sales.

    — Canada isn’t necessarily more feel-good about the border:

    G. Kathleen Hill, deputy consul general at the U.S. Consulate in Vancouver, pointed to a fundamental difference between border priorities: While the U.S. priority is security, Canadians value the free flow of goods and people, she said.

    Try telling that to each driver with Canadian plates entering B.C. ahead of me on Friday. They had to open each car door so the border agent could search their vehicle. (Of course, U.S. agents are no strangers to over-the-top screening.)

    — Roads aren’t the only solution:

    Driving is unlikely to get dramatically more pleasant, especially when you factor in worsening congestion along I-5 and throughout Vancouver. That makes boosting train service an obvious opportunity to boost mobility. Amtrak currently offers a single train and four buses each day between Seattle and Vancouver. Why isn’t B.C. funding improvements north of the border to accommodate more trains?

  • Cascadia as global outsourcing way station

    The Tyee has an interesting article questioning the benefits for the Vancouver area of a new software research center in Richmond, B.C. There are some smart comments too.

    To me, this seems like a trend B.C. should support. Obviously the U.S. and Canada are very different labor markets, especially for skilled technology workers with Asian passports. Even if the new research center doesn’t mean more Canadian hires, every Asian worker will make B.C. more fertile for technology and, over time, pay off by making it a more dynamic business environment.