Cascadia Report

Remove freeways, sure. And provide alternatives

Seattle's waterfront is in political limbo since voters this month rejected replacing the viaduct with new freeways either in a tunnel or overhead. Maybe the idea of a freeway itself is the problem.

Cities from New York to Seoul have replaced freeways without seeing massive traffic jams. In Cascadia, Portland opted for the first MAX line instead of building a new freeway. Vancouver has survived with almost no freeways, yet traffic and sprawl there isn't much worse than in many American cities.

One of the comments on this article correctly points out that cities should be in the business of providing incentives and new options, not eliminating them. That's why adding transit and building more pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods is important.

To get there the author suggests congestion pricing, of course, and a "parking cash-out" system. Here's his definition:

Businesses could be required to give employees commute allowances instead of free parking. Employees could use the allowance to pay for the parking they used to get for free, they could use it to pay for transit, they could keep part of the allowance if they car-pooled to work, or they could keep the entire allowance if they walked or bicycled to work. It is estimated that this policy could reduce commuter traffic (and peak demand for road space) by about 20%.

Cascadia cities need a safety valve

Sure there's healthy rivalry in Cascadia among Vancouver, Seattle and Portland. But between Portland and Vancouver, Washington?

Willamette Week explores the idea that smug Portland benefits in many ways from the Vancouver on the other side of the Columbia River.

Strict growth rules have helped make Portland into what's widely considered a development model. Maybe Clark County, Wash., which has nearly doubled in population since 1990, now functions as a safety valve for Portland?

What if the region's success at controlling growth while still maintaining one of the nation's more robust economies is because of...Vancouver? Or more specifically, because Vancouver has fewer land-use laws and limits on growth? Has Vancouver become a convenient place to handle Portland's overflow, for those who wanted to live, work and play in the area, but who also wanted a bigger yard, lower taxes and a house on a cul-de-sac? All this so Portland could build its light rail, trams and condo towers.

The point is just as valid around the Puget Sound area and in the Lower Mainland. Dense development makes transit and the infrastructure to preserve open space feasible. Where is the safety valve for the region?

Portland transit fans set example by uniting

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.

How to save the mix of residents downtown

Cascadia's cities have made housing unaffordable downtown over the years by cleaning up areas of old buildings. Unless they create incentives to boost the supply of housing, they will destroy the mix of people that makes being in cities desirable.

Substitute any city for "Portland" in this passage and it still works:

Portland's vaunted livability attracts people with money. But let's not end up like San Francisco, where dot-com money took over the city, driving the middle class to the suburbs and the poor to the streets.

The Oregonian article addresses laws to maintain affordability. Even more important is investing in transportation to relieve the costly burden of car ownership (insurance, gas, payments and parking) and make privately funded dense housing more attractive. Then allowing taller units near transit and requiring smarter development will increase supply and eventually cut the price of housing.

Oregon lawmakers doing their jobs

Lawmakers in Oregon appear close to doing their jobs. The people's representatives hashed out a tax package Wednesday designed to fund long-term investment in the state -- and they didn't simply refer the issue back to voters.

Even the lobbyist for the Oregon Business Association was impressed:

"To me it's a historic moment," he said. "We finally set partisan politics aside long enough to look at the good of the state."

But wait. On Thursday -- days before the tax plan is formally approved -- Republicans and an outside anti-tax group launched ads attacking Democrats for the proposal.

Seattle can learn from Portland on viaduct

Seattle should follow the example Portland set by replacing a riverfront highway and proposed new freeway with transit, writes Floyd McKay, who covered the city in the 1970s:

The challenge for Seattle is to take a giant leap of faith — as Portland did when it reversed those two huge highway projects — and commit to a future that is not asphalt-driven.

He correctly notes that spending billions of dollars to boost car capacity along Seattle's waterfront makes little sense because the true challenge is moving more people and freight. Meanwhile the region's larger bottleneck is the 520 freeway bridge.

Incentives lure nonstop connection to Paris

Air France will launch the first nonstop flights from Seattle to Paris, a sign that that a package of incentives designed to lure international flights may be paying off.

A nonstop to Paris has been under discussion for years -- I remember reading that it was imminent in a Seattle Weekly article at least a decade ago. Meanwhile Seattle has steadily lost international air connections to Hong Kong, China, Mexico and elsewhere, despite the region's growth as a travel market and even as Vancouver and Portland added flights.

Under a plan approved last week by the Port of Seattle, landing fees for new international air service will be waived during their first year and 75 percent of the fees the following year, according to the Seattle P-I. Facilities charges will be cut 75 percent for each of the first two years, and the Port will contribute $250,000 the first year, $160,000 the second year and $45,000 the third year to a marketing program for the route.

Oregon used a similar marketing program to lure nonstop routes to Mexico, Japan and Germany. Portland beat Seattle to lure Germany flights and has since restored several domestic nonstops. Compared to some of the other financial deals ports do, these incentives are practically a bargain.

Don't overlook regional trade

The booming trade between Cascadia and China is important and regularly grabs headlines. But that shouldn't make the key trade across the Canadian border an afterthought. See yesterday's story in The Oregonian: "Canada remains Oregon's No. 1. foreign customer for a fifth straight year."

Imagine if trade within the region got media and political attention commensurate with its economic importance.

Takeover is end of an era, cause for concern

The takeover of Longview Fibre by a Toronto property company represents the abrupt end of an era. It's unclear how Cascadia will benefit.

Family-run Longview was bound to get caught up in the consolidation of the industry. The 80-year-old timber company was barely profitable and as recently as 2004 handled communications by fax and postal service instead of email. Acquisition by Brookfield Asset Management, one of the leading global investors in timberlands, will surely bring the operation up to date.

It's far from clear how acquirer Brookfield Asset Management can afford to pay a hefty premium for Longview's mills and forests. Lumber prices are falling and there will be pressure to cover the debt by cutting costs and selling more. This should concern officials in towns where the company dominates and anyone who believes in the sustainability of the region's forests.

How the rest of Cascadia handles the Olmsted Bros.

Apparently a movement is afoot to replace the long row of cherry trees along Lake Washington with native plants that would more closely follow the original Olmsted Brothers' design for the park. Danny Westneat refers to this as "botanical correctness."

There are similar Olmsted designs in Vancouver and Portland. Any idea how they've handled updating these master-designed parklands that help make the cities so liveable?