The last time Greyhound Lines had to look for a home in Seattle, Calvin Coolidge was still president. But with an eviction notice earlier this fall, the bus line will need to move from its Stewart Street location by April 2013.
As Crosscut's C.B. Hall writes, the company says if a location can't be found, it'll need to leave Seattle. It's a test, he says, to Seattle's "commitment to mass transportation."
Greyhound officials, according to Hall's reporting, say the company's preference for a new home would be at or near King Street Station in Pioneer Square. According to Hall's Crosscut article, "Greyhound's first choice, says [Greyhound] district manager Mike Timlin, 'would be to go in with King Street Station, with other providers, to turn King Street into a sort of intermodal hub.'"
Once upon a time, according to Hall's reporting, King Street Station as intermodal hub had even more political will behind it than it has today. Former Seattle mayor Greg Nickels and former city council Transportation Chairwoman Jan Drago were strongly behind the notion several years ago. But, as Hall reports, even though the station is going through a restoration, the political landscape has changed (including more of a regional focus on the deep-bored tunnel to replace the Viaduct). Though Seattle once wanted Greyhound included in the transportation hub, it isn't clear whether that can now work out. (The Crosscut article includes artist J.Craig Thorpe's drawing of what a remade station with bus terminal might look like. Cascadia Center has often relied on Thorpe's talents to help communicate complex policy issues visually.)
Comparing the opportunity for turning King Street Station into a true multimodal terminal, as has been done in Vancouver, British Columbia and Meridian, Miss., among other locations, Hall poses the only question that really matters: "Does Seattle intend to seize the opportunity?"
An agreement signed between the U.S. and Canada will make traveling between Vancouver, British Columbia, and Seattle, Wash., faster and more efficient.
The "Beyond the Border" accord, signed by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama, includes provisions for pre-clearance. That means, among other things, that travelers heading south from Vancouver will no longer have to undergo inspections in both Vancouver and Blaine, Wash. The inspection functions will be consolidated in Vancouver.
From the Cascadia Center's official statement in support of the accord:
By eliminating duplicative inspection functions and increasing the speed of travel between Canada and the U.S., the Beyond the Border accord serves as a long-awaited landmark agreement. ... By December 2012, with pre-clearance a reality, the region will benefit from one - instead of two - inspections, meaning a faster and more efficient train travel experience. The decision is also better for the inspection officers who will be able to consolidate their efforts in Blaine, Wash., to one central location in Vancouver, British Columbia.
In conjunction with the Canada Border Services Agency's decision in August to permanently waive the inspection fee, the Beyond the Border accord points to a brighter future for the Amtrak Cascades service.
The official statement supporting the agreement can be found here.
Innovation Briefsare published by Ken Orski. Cascadia Prospectus reprints them with permission. The content of Innovation Briefs does not necessarily represent the view of Cascadia Center of Discovery Institute.
On November 18, President Obama signed into law a bundle of
appropriation bills for FY 2012including appropriationsfor the U.S. Department of Transportation. The measure had been passed
earlier in the House by a vote of 298-121 and inthe Senate by a vote of 70-30.
The bill provides $39.14 billion in obligation limitation
for the highway program, a reduction ofalmost $2 billion from FY 2011; however, an additional $1.66 billion is
appropriated for highway-relared "emergency relief." The transit program
is funded at $10.31 billion (incl. $1.95 for New Starts), a $400 million
increase from FY 2011, and Amtrak at $1.42 (incl. $466 million for operating
expenses). The discretionary TIGER program is retained at $500 million, a
slight decrease from FY 2011.
Conspicuously absent in the new budget is any funding for
high-speed rail and the Intercity Passenger Rail Service program --- a fact
cheeredby fiscal conservatives
but mourned by boosters of high-speed rail and supporters of the California
bullet train. The California High-Speed Rail Authority relies heavily on
further federal funds to complete the project. According to its business plan,
it expects $33-36 billion to come from the federal government. Failure by
Congress to appropriate money for high-speed rail for a second year in a row
makes the prospect of future federal support for the California rail project
increasingly doubtful.
Also refused any funding in the FY 2012 congressional
transportation appropriation are two other Administration priorities:the Livable Communities Initiative ($10
million requested in the President's budget); and the National Infrastructure
Bank ($5 billion requested).The
conference committee action would seem to put an effective end to any further
attempts to create the Bank, at least during the remainder of this session of
Congress.
This guest post was reported and written by Larry Ehl, publisher of the
e-newsletter/blog, Transportation Issues Daily, read by people in 43 states.
Mr. Ehl recently attended the ITS World Conference on behalf of the
Cascadia Center. In this post, and in several forthcoming, he shares his
thoughts about how technology is impacting transportation and touches on
Cascadia's efforts in this arena. The content of this post does not necessarily
represent the view of Cascadia Center of Discovery Institute.
Thousands descend
on Orlando, Fla., to talk transportation technology Experts focus on technology's role in moving people and goods quicker, safer, cleaner
By
Larry Ehl
When
you travel today -- whether by car, bus, rail, plane or bike -- technology made
your trip safer, faster and cleaner than in the past. That technology may have
been obvious to you (hybrid vehicles, GPS) or not (traffic light
synchronization, interstate weigh-in-motion for trucks).
Yet
our transportation network can be much, much safer, efficient and cleaner. Every
year nearly 40,000 people are killed on our highways. Congestion cost about
$101 billion and 4.8 billion wasted hours in 2010. Transportation accounts for
nearly 30% of our greenhouse gases.
Making
transportation safer, more efficient and cleaner was the focus of a recent
conference -- the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) World Congress, held
Oct. 16-20, in Orlando, Fla. -- attended by about 8,000 public- and private-sector
transportation specialists from more than 65 countries.
Innovation Briefs are published by Ken Orski. Cascadia
Prospectus reprints them with permission. The content of Innovation
Briefs does not necessarily represent the view of Cascadia Center of
Discovery Institute.
President Obama's new $50 billion infrastructure initiative--part of his $447 billion American Jobs Act (AJA)--offered no surprises. It's almost an exact replica of his FY 2012 budget request which included a sum of $50 billion for transportation to "jump start" a proposed $556 billion six-year surface transportation reauthorization.
The rhetoric may have changed--Obama avoided using the terms "stimulus" and "infrastructure" in presenting his AJA initiative to Congress--but the substance of the two initiatives is remarkably similar. Both proposals would fund an identical mix of programs (highways, transit, Amtrak, high-speed rail, aviation and the TIFIA credit program) and both would establish a National Infrastructure Bank.
The FY 2012 transportation budget request failed to obtain congressional approval for two reasons: (1) the Administration failed to show how the proposed $50 billion program would be paid for; and (2) there was no convincing evidence that the program would promptly create new jobs. Indeed, all evidence pointed in the opposite direction. The $48 billion in Recovery Act funds for transportation had failed to create the millions of jobs promised by the Administration. The money earmarked for highways had been spent largely on short term roadway maintenance-type contracts and had produced only temporary jobs. Nor was there much to show for in terms of an improved condition or performance of the nation's transportation system. As for the Infrastructure Bank, it is widely believed that at least one or two years could pass before the Bank would become operational and in a position to begin financing large-scale job-creating infrastructure projects.
The same reasons that led Congress to ignore the Administration's FY 2012 transportation budget request will likely cause the lawmakers to reject the new transportation initiative. They are skeptical that a fresh infusion of funds will succeeed where the first stimulus failed. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results may not be exacly insanity but it does suggest a certain denial to look facts in the face.
The President said that "everything in this bill will be paid for" and that he will call on the Joint Deficit Committee to come up with additional deficit reductions necessary to pay for the American Jobs Act. But by proposing to end tax breaks for people making more than $200,000 and for oil and gas companies, the White House is setting itself up again for a fight with the Congress which already once before rejected this approach to "revenue enhancement." It remains to be seen if the independent congressional committee will do Obama's bidding. With the President's approval ratings at an all time low, they just might be emboldened to ignore his plea.
The second Amtrak Cascades service to Vancouver, B.C., which could have ended in October if the Canadian government had decided to implement a previously proposed $1,500 inspection fee, received a reprieve when Canadian Public Safety Minister Vic Toews announced after a meeting with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, his decision to permanently waive the proposed fee.
Cascadia had worked closely with the Washington Department of Transportation, Amtrak, the Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER) and All Aboard Washington in pointing to the strong ridership and great economic impact to B.C. from both trains. In July, at the PNWER Summit in Portland, we collectively pressed the case with Canadian Ambassador Gary Doer. Canadian Consulate General Denis Stevens also deserves great credit for focusing Ottawa on the regional impact of the train.
Now the region can continue to press for "pre-clearance" of southbound passengers at the Pacific Central Station (to eliminate the 15-minute delay from the current double inspection at the station and at Blaine). We are counting on the new Beyond the Border Accord between Prime Minister Harper and President Obama for this reform.
Though one hesitates to say something in Seattle is ever actually finished, in the land of indecision, it appears that a decision has finally been made. With nearly 60 percent in favor, Seattle voters told their elected officials on Tuesday to move forward with a tunnel replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct.
As The Seattle Times reports, the defeat of the effort to recall the earlier decision to build the tunnel sets into motion the final bureaucratic and regulatory approvals that will move the project forward rapidly and allow "the state Department of Transportation (DOT) to tell its tunnel contractors by Sept. 1 to move into final design and construction."
In a bi-partisan pitch, former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell (a Democrat) and current Mesa, Ariz., mayor Scott Smith (a Republican), argue in today's Wall Street Journal for a stronger U.S. investment in transportation infrastructure.
Whether it involves highways, railways, ports, aviation or any other sector, infrastructure is an economic driver that is essential for the long-term creation of quality American jobs.
When it comes to transportation, Washington has been on autopilot for the last half-century. Instead of tackling the hard choices facing our nation and embracing innovations, federal transportation policy still largely adheres to an agenda set by President Eisenhower.
Investments in transportation infrastructure--especially strategic, long-term investments--are investments in the future of the country. And as Rendell and Smith argue, true transportation investments aren't (or shouldn't be) a partisan issue.
Building America's transportation infrastructure has been a national goal since Thomas Jefferson promoted canals and roads and Abraham Lincoln helped forge the Transcontinental Railroad. And still today, there remains a justifiable federal responsibility to address the country's infrastructure decline. But it must be addressed thoughtfully, and much differently from the past. The sole responsibility can't be left up to the federal government--from a financing or management perspective. (Indeed, given the current economic outlook, we're probably well past the days when this made sense--if it ever did.) Instead, infrastructure investments could benefit tremendously, especially in terms of innovation and financing, from public-private cooperation.
Ultimately, despite the economic chaos we find ourselves in, we need infrastructure improvements that will contribute to the long-term economic growth of the country. Hopefully, Messrs. Rendell and Smith aren't the only ones willing to cross the political aisle to cooperate on this issue.
Washington state's Legislative Committee on Economic Development and International Relations held a hearing in Seattle to examine the future of high-speed rail in the state of Washington as well as the Northwest. Cascadia Center's testimony, done jointly with All Aboard Washington, can be watched in the clip below. Video of the entire hearing can be found at TVW.
However, it is important with all these stories to note that energy
is still needed to CHARGE a car. You save gasoline (and its fumes) in
this process, but you don't save net energy. If one lives in an area
that generates energy through hydropower, it's all a plus; almost the
same with nuclear power; less so with natural gas; none at all or even a
minus with coal or oil.
