High above the Seattle early evening skyline on Thursday, at the Harbor Club on Second Ave., a group of citizens and leaders concerned about the future of Seattle's waterfront gathered to hear about lessons in waterfront revivalism and sustainability from their City of Brotherly Love brethren. The discussion, organized by Discovery Institute's Cascadia Center, focused on what Seattle can learn (and potentially apply) from a process that the historic city of Philadelphia went through over the last several years to reclaim its waterfront along its equally historic Delaware River.

Seattle's waterfront, with its magnificent vistas of mountains, islands and the Puget Sound, is arguably the grandest in all of the United States. It is home to marinas, the port, restaurants and shops. Amidst discussion of replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct and the seawall, however, a uniting geographical coordinate on the map has sometimes become a divisive point of debate. Underlying that debate, of course, is concern -- ultimately it is concern about the best steps the Emerald City can take to maintain and improve this most valuable of natural assets in a way that embraces the future while also respecting the past.

This set of circumstances -- uniting a city behind a collective civic vision for the long term sustainability of a waterfront -- is one that is most certainly not unique to Seattle. And in the case of Philadelphia, after several ill-fated attempts over the years to tackle its waterfront challenge, success only came through a civic-driven process, characterized by openness, transparency and integrity.

"HOW DO YOU CONNECT THE WATERFRONT BACK TO THE CITY?"

In the Fall of 2006, then-mayor of Philadelphia, John Street, authorized via executive order PennPraxis to develop and lead a publicly focused planning process for the city's central Delaware riverfront.

"The central Delaware (in Philadelphia) had become a landscape of big box stores and gated communities," Harris Steinberg, executive director of PennPraxis, told the assembled crowd at the Harbor Club discussion on Thursday. "It wasn't living up to its promise."

PennPraxis is headquartered out of the University of Pennsylvania School of Design, and according to its Web site, is a "vehicle for carrying out practical or applied projects for external clients." It is difficult to get more practical and applied than confronting a major project that is at the center of a city's soul.

"The question we had before us was, 'How do you connect the waterfront back to the city?'" said Steinberg. He said it was a grim situation, as the central waterfront was "disconnected, under threat and under seige."

In a paper he wrote about the project, he describes the waterfront in question as "an 1146-acre post-industrial landscape that had been undergoing slow and unplanned change over the past 50-years...a federal highway built in the 1970s and 1980s severed the area from the dense residential neighborhoods adjacent to the river, creating difficult public access to the waterfront." The city "began calling for a plan that would guide development for the central Delaware," Steinberg wrote, and "PennPraxis, with the support of the William Penn Foundation, was invited to lead the effort." PennPraxis, he told the Seattle gathering, was approached in part because "no one really trusted the planning commission."

Listening to Steinberg, who comes across as sincere, informed and likable, it seems like he was made for the job. Indeed, to hear him describe the mood of distrust that permeated the very idea of revitalizing the seven-mile area, and the context of the city's earlier failed attempts, you'd be excused if you chalked his success up to the great man theory. But Steinberg -- and the facts -- would disagree with you.

Ultimately, as described to the group assembled in Seattle and in his paper, the successful 13-month process (Oct. 2006-Nov. 2007) "engaged more than 4000 Philadelphians in the creation of A Civic Vision for the Central Delaware." He describes it as "one of the largest public planning processes in Philadelphia's history with respect to the extent of citizen involvement." Critical, too, he says was the role of the press in engaging the process and ensuring a transparency to it. PennPraxis worked closely with local media (especially the editorial board of The Philadelphia Daily News). Additionally, PennPraxis created a news site -- PlanPhilly -- to cover the entire visioning process including public meetings and events. PlanPhilly, he says, essentially created a reporting beat (in the form of a news site) exclusively devoted to covering the issue.

"TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND INTEGRITY"

The lessons articulated in the Civic Vision for the Central Delaware are founded on an open, civic-driven process characterized by transparency and integrity.

The first set of lessons begins with having a respected, unbiased team with responsibility for the project. In the case of Philadelphia, for example, PennPraxis and the William Penn Foundation wouldn't take the project unless it met these criteria: citizen-driven; open and transparent; having involvement of the press; and, that recommendations created by the process and the implementation of those "would be accountable to the public voice that created the plan." The second set of lessons revolves around creating values and principles deriving from the citizens involved in the process. For Philadelphia, agreed-to values revolved around safety, culture, the environment, the economy and history. The principles established included: reconnecting with the water, honoring the river, designing with nature in mind, and protecting the public good.

"At the central section of the project area, cover, sink or remove the interstate in order to reconnect the city with the river."

Another important lesson is that design ideas were tethered to values and principles. Only after values and principles were created, for example, did the process in Philadelphia move to the design-recommendation stage. And even once there, the five design teams were "to respect the civic planning principles." According to Steinberg, that level of consistency and commitment eventually yielded several concrete ideas for the central Delaware, including integration of the "industrial past into the public open space system," designing the waterfront to allow for "a wide mix of uses," and "at the central section of the project area, cover, sink or remove the interstate in order to reconnect the city with the river."

Seattle isn't Philadelphia, and a river isn't a bay. But as was clear in listening to Steinberg and his colleagues, despite the two cities' differences, both benefit from a fundamental strength: an ingrained civic-mindedness. So, even though Seattle isn't done with its process, there are many lessons that PennPraxis and Philadelphia have to teach. Maybe the most important one? None of this has to take forever: Once the momentum was there, it only took Philadelphia 13 months to create, organize and implement a plan for its valued, historic waterfront.

Cascadia Center of Discovery Institute's Bruce Agnew recently became the chair a NAFTA-chartered commission focused on the issue of sustainable freight transportation.

The Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) has embarked on new study to evaluate opportunities making freight transportation more sustainable in North America. Bruce Agnew, Executive Director of the Cascadia Trade Corridor, discusses the role of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation in evaluating opportunities for making freight transportation more sustainable in North America.

The commission is nearing the completion of a report that will be shared with Trade and Environmental Ministers prior to the G-20 session in the summer. Agnew recently attended a working session for the group in Mexico. (Above, in his own words.)

The Cascadia Center for Regional Development (Discovery Institute's transportation center) yesterday hosted two events -- a corridor tour and a dinner policy discussion -- focused on the future of the rail and trail corridor on Seattle's Eastside.

As 2009 closed, the Port of Seattle and BNSF (Burlington Northern Santa Fe) reached an agreement that allows the 42-mile corridor running from Renton, Wash., in the south to Snohomish, Wash., in the north to remain intact. Under the end-of-year agreement, King County, Sound Transit, the City of Redmond, Puget Sound Energy, and the Cascade Water Alliance will purchase segments of the corridor.

It has long been Cascadia Center's view that the Eastside corridor can accommodate a trail and commuter rail. The purchase agreement represents an unprecedented opportunity for the future development of transportation in the corridor -- a corridor that once operational could serve as an example of smart and sustainable growth with opportunities for transit oriented development at station sites.

This issue -- and especially lessons that Seattle's Eastside can learn from those in Sonoma-Marin (Calif.) who navigated a similar opportunity in their backyard -- was the focus of discussion for most of the day on Wednesday for a group of local leaders and concerned citizens attending two Cascadia Center-sponsored events. From 3:00-6:00 p.m., a group of 45 people packed a tour bus to examine first-hand the corridor, going as far north as Woodinville and making stops along the way to see what the corridor looks like and envisioning what the future could hold for sustainable growth along a fully functioning rail and trail corridor.

After the corridor tour, from 6:00-9:00 p.m., in a dinner program held at the Bellevue Club in downtown Bellevue, Wash., a packed room heard from Sound Transit CEO Joni Earl, and absorbed critical "lessons learned" presentations from Andy Peri and Deb Hubsmith of the Marin County Bicycle Coalition. Both Mr. Peri and Ms. Hubsmith were for years intricately involved with the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) train and pathway process in California. (SMART will bring passenger train service to Marin and Sonoma Counties plus a 70-mile bicycle and pedestrian pathway/route that will run from Larkspur to Cloverdale.) Mr. Peri had a leadership role in running the grassroots election campaigns in 2006 and 2008, which was victorious in Nov. 2008. Ms. Hubsmith worked for more than a decade on the development and campaign for the SMART train and pathway, which was approved by 69.5 percent of voters as Measure Q in Nov. 2008; $91 million was included in Measure Q for a 70 mile bikeway parallel to the train.

The day closed with a community response panel, on which Chuck Ayres of the Cascade Bicycle Club, seemed to sum up the mood of cooperation that everyone -- despite ongoing, legitimate differences in viewpoint and approach -- is seeking when he indicated that although there are many, many details to continue to be weighed, ultimately he is in favor of rail with trail. It's a worthy goal, and the one that Cascadia Center, and many others, hopes gets one notch closer to reality as all of the diverse groups involved in making the decision continue to reach for a consensus.

The idea of better high-speed rail in the Northwest's Cascadia Corridor came out of the ether and into the realm of reality last night in the nation's capital and today in Florida with President Obama's announcement of $590 million for the region's high-speed rail development. Amidst the applause and subtle guffaws so typical at all State of the Union addresses, Washingtonians -- especially those who have so long worked on the issue in this part of the U.S. -- cheered.

As the Seattle Times' reported this morning, "The money represents the Northwest's piece of an $8 billion stimulus package for high-speed rail, to be announced Thursday in Florida by President Obama."

Washington's Governor Christine Gregoire, in a press release said:

“These funds will offer great returns: We will put people to work and improve a transit service on which more and more Washingtonians rely,” Gregoire said. “Thanks to these investments, we will move more people, move them more efficiently and move them more reliably.”

The funding will be used for everything from upgrading tracks to increasing the frequency and speed of service along the Cascadia Corridor.

The annual meetings of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) have always been a reliable barometer of the key transportation issues of the day as seen by the transportation community. This year’s meeting—which attracted 10,100 participants and featured over 500 technical sessions and workshops—was no exception. What follows are some impressions from the conference, after listening to some 60 presentations and holding informal conversations with a number of conference speakers and other participants during the 4-day meeting, January 10-13.

The overall impression was one of a pervasive climate of uncertainty about the future. Conference sessions and informal conversations were full of speculations concerning the status of the surface transportation reauthorization, the potential solutions to the funding dilemma, the fate of the climate change legislation, the future direction of the federal high-speed rail program and the impact of the upcoming midterm elections on pending legislation, notably the surface transportation reauthorization and the climate change bill. The outcome of the second job stimulus bill was also a subject of much speculation. The bill, which already has been approved by the House and now awaits action in the Senate, would inject substantial interim funds into the surface transportation program and extend the surface transportation authorization through Sept. 30, 2010. The $154 billion measure would allocate $36.7 billion for highways, transit and Amtrak, credit the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) with $19.5 billion in foregone interest payments and allow the Trust Fund to accrue interest in the future. But, as one congressional source attending the TRB Conference told us, the Senate prospects for the deficit-funded jobs bill appear uncertain.

Senate opponents claim there is plenty of stimulus money still in the pipeline and the bill’s requirement to spend the money within 90 days imposes an unrealistic deadline given the lengthy contracting process involved in infrastructure procurement. Additionally, Senate opponents may be expected to argue that the law establishing TARP requires unspent and repaid funds to be used to pay down the soaring national debt. The prospect of another vote to raise the debt ceiling might further discourage the Senate from redirecting the TARP money.

Secretary LaHood’s address at the TRB Annual Luncheon, announcing revised criteria for New Starts funding, received a generally positive reception from the TRB audience. Under the new policy, proposals for new rail transit projects will be judged by a broader range of factors than in the past. In addition to cost-effectiveness, the criteria will include economic and environmental benefits, land use impact and "livability." One beneficial effect of the revamped policy should be a wider consideration of streetcars. This was first made possible several years ago when the Bush Administration made streetcars eligible for federal funding under its "Very Small Starts" category (Interim Guidance on Small Starts, July 26, 2006.) As many as 40 U.S. cities are in various stages of considering or planning streetcar projects according to a survey conducted by the Community Streetcar Coalition. As we observed in an earlier NewsBrief, "just as 30 years ago a less costly light rail transit LRT technology began to replace expensive heavy rail systems, so today, streetcars are offering to medium-size cities a more affordable fixed-guideway alternative to light rail systems." (The Streetcar Makes a Comeback, Innovation NewsBriefs, September 2006.)

The future of climate change legislation remains in doubt. Chances of enacting tough greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions during this session of Congress appear "close to zero" according to John Stoody, aide to Senator Kit Bond (R-MO), a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Stoody participated in a panel on "Federal Climate Change Legislation and Policies" whose general mood could be described as sober. Several factors could be responsible for the weakening of the prospects for climate change legislation according to observers we sought out after the session. They include growing public skepticism about the reality of global warming; disappointment over the inability of the Copenhagen Summit to reach a binding agreement to reduce carbon emissions; the revelations of ClimateGate casting doubts on the integrity of some climate scientists’ objectivity; opposition of 14 Senate Democrats from coal-dependent states who fear that a cap on GHG emissions would raise energy costs and utility rates; and the impact of the upcoming congressional mid-term elections. Public opinion could also be influenced by critics such as Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copehagen Consensus Center, who argue that after 20 years of getting nowhere, it’s time to take a fresh look at the problem and adopt a different approach. According to Lomborg, the only way to reduce the use of fossil fuels without crippling the world economy is to radically ramp up green energy technologies— to the point where one could increase reliance on them by several orders of magnitude. As Lomberg argues: "Instead of condemning billions of people to continued poverty by trying to make fossil fuels more expensive, we should make green energy cheaper." (From Copenhagen’s Ashes, a Better Way to Fight Global Warming, The Washington Post, January 15, 2010.)

Perhaps that is why, with the hopes of enacting a comprehensive cap-and-trade bill fading, attention is turning to a stand-alone energy bill as advocated by Sen Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Even confirmed advocates of comprehensive climate change legislation should be willing to admit that an energy bill that would lay a foundation for a technological solution to more efficient green energy would be better than ending up with nothing. Performance measures are receiving increased attention but also are raising some questions. The need to establish a set of targets to guide the federal transportation program and to use a set of performance measures to judge its success has been widely accepted, but implementing a performance-based system has raised a contentious issue: How should the standards be set and who should set them?

A debate at the TRB meeting disclosed a familiar split between advocates of federal versus state prerogative. For Pete Rahn, director of Missouri’s Department of Transportation, who spoke at a session on "Performance-Based Reauthorization," there was no doubt as to who should be in charge. "We don’t envision a process in which the U.S. Secretary of Transportation would impose uniform nationwide performance targets on the states," he said. "That function, belongs to each individual state." Federal officials begged to disagree. National goals should be set by the U.S. DOT in collaboration with states, FHWA executive director, Jeff Paniati argued. But he avoided an open conflict by ruling out any strong-armed tactics to force compliance. States which failed to reach the national performance standards, he said, would not lose federal transportation funding.

The TRB meeting was marked by a new emphasis on "livability." "Livability" was the subject of a well-attended half-day workshop on "Livability, Sustainability and Congestion Pricing," and it was chosen as one of the themes of the next Annual TRB Meeting. The term "livability" owes its new popularity to the rhetoric emanating from the U.S. DOT, HUD and EPA which have made "livability" a prominent goal of their respective programs. But the ambiguity of this term has raised some questions which are bound to be debated well beyond the TRB meeting. What is the meaning of "livability" and who decides what is "livable"? For the three federal agencies, "livability" seems to mean denser living patterns, less dependence on the automobile, more walking and less driving. Or, as Transportation Secretary Ray La Hood put it, "livability" means going the entire day without having to get into your car. But these definitions may be too narrow for most people, whose notion of "livability" may include living in a safe neighborhood, having access to good schools, enjoying the privacy of one’s own back yard and the freedom, comfort and flexibility of personal transportation. "Livability" as a euphemism for a federal policy of giving preference to one particular form of development and travel behavior, and ignoring the living and travel preferences of a great majority of Americans, is bound to meet with a cool reception from local officials, the citizenry and the transportation community. The 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board adjourned having demonstrated once again its value as the transportation community's premiere forum for dialogue, debate and exchange of information.

“Our new policy for selecting major transit projects will work to promote livability rather than hinder it,” said Secretary LaHood. “We want to base our decisions on how much transit helps the environment, how much it improves development opportunities and how it makes our communities better places to live.”

The Obama administration is indeed proposing a "dramatic change" that adds two more criteria for major transit projects to receive funding: economic development and benefits to the environment. The current policy only focused, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, "primarily on how much a project shortened commute times in comparison to its cost."

Among the type of projects that might benefit from the change in policy would be projects such as streetcars--ones that The New York Times reported Secretary LaHood as saying would make it possible to "...make the case for investing in popular streetcar projects and other transit systems that people want..."

What follows is a brief analysis that has led us to this conclusion. Shortly before the scheduled December 18 expiration of the third temporary extension of the federal surface transportation program, the House and the Senate passed yet another short-term extension, this time through the end of February 2010. Their action underscored once again the continued inability of the Congress to address the long-term transportation needs of the nation. Before adjourning for the holidays, the House also passed by a vote of 217 to 212 a second job stimulus bill (H.R. 2847). The $154 billion measure, endorsed by Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee, allocates $36.7 billion in additional funds for highways, transit and Amtrak, extends the surface transportation authorization through Sept. 30, 2010, credits the Highway Trust Fund with $19.5 billion in foregone interest payments and allows the HTF to accrue interest in the future. But because the new stimulus program and its infrastructure component are to be funded with dollars from the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), the bill will face an uncertain future when it reaches the Senate early this year. Opponents may be expected to argue that the law establishing TARP requires unspent and repaid funds to be used to pay down the soaring national debt. The prospect of an impending vote to raise the debt ceiling might further discourage the Senate from redirecting the TARP money. The measure also faces possible White House opposition, given President Obama's strong desire to limit further deficit spending and embark on a more sustainable fiscal policy.

Environmental advocacy groups, while supportive of the House measure, expressed disappointment that it failed to focus on long-term transportation reform or include a National Infrastructure Bank. Even Rep. John Mica (R-FL), ranking member of the House T&I Committee, who generally supports Chairman Oberstar, was moved to criticize the House bill. The "Son of Stimulus," Mica wrote in Roll Call, will be no more successful in creating permanent new jobs in the transportation sector than was the first stimulus bill, since the dollars are being spent on short-term transportation enhancement and road repaving projects that provide jobs only for a few weeks or months. Our own impression, based on local evidence, tends to confirm Rep. Mica's conclusions: the stimulus money has merely allowed local and state highway agencies and their contractors to avoid layoffs and enabled them to keep existing road crews working at full strength. This would be the likely effect of the second stimulus as well. Its effect on job creation (as opposed to job preservation) would be negligible according to many observers. In short, the latest House action is seen by the transportation community as another example of Congressional equivocation, extemporization and inability to come to grips with the nation’s long-range transportation needs in a fundamental way.

Public Perceptions
But the dilemma facing transportation advocates is that these warnings fall on deaf ears as far as the general public and many elected officials are concerned. People do not seem to share a sense of an impending crisis, nor are they alarmed about the deteriorating state of the infrastructure. Toll road operators attending the IBTTA meeting told us informally that their customer surveys show a high degree of satisfaction with the quality of service and the physical condition of their facilities. While we did not have a chance to pose the same question to directors of state DOTs, we suspect that they would give similar answers concerning state-operated facilities. Collapsing bridges are happily few and far between, and the focused attention that state and local highway agencies devote to repair and maintenance of their assets keeps signs of aging infrastructure largely hidden from view. To be sure, another aspect of transportation— traffic congestion— is highly visible and public dissatisfaction with it is well documented. But the driving public has grown skeptical that more money or program reform will bring effective congestion relief. Perhaps they have come to accept the truth of the oft-repeated refrain that "you cannot build your way out of traffic congestion." What is more, traffic congestion leaves vast stretches of rural and small-town America (and their elected representatives in Congress) unaffected and unconcerned. Traffic congestion may be the source of great concern to many individual urban communities, but it is not perceived as a crisis warranting congressional intervention. We offer the above arguments not to deny the reality of the nation’s aging infrastructure nor to refute the need for action, but only to suggest that they provide a plausible explanation for why there has been no popular outcry about the stalled transportation authorization and no groundswell of public demand to reform the transportation program or undertake a massive new program of infrastructure modernization.

Facing an Uncertain Future
Absent a public sense of urgency, hopes for early enactment of major reforms in the transportation program are fading. The economic recession and the approaching midterm elections have placed on hold any plans for a fuel tax increase, and the political imperative to reduce the budget deficit and the public debt casts a shadow over any plans for ambitious new infrastructure investments. Proposals for novel sources of financing—such as a National Infrastructure Bank or a federal capital budget— meet with congressional disinterest or outright skepticism. And the public and most politicians, as we have noted earlier, seem unconcerned despite warnings by numerous advocacy groups and trade associations of dire consequences of inaction. Significantly, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood did not include the reauthorization of the surface transportation legislation in his year-end resolution of goals to be achieved in 2010. Given the probable--some say near-certain--prospect of a congressional realignment next November, continued legislative inaction on transportation reform even beyond 2010 is a distinct possibility according to seasoned political observers. One of our readers, a respected transportation practitioner, shared with us his concerns about the uncertain future of transportation reform. While we do not fully subscribe to his pessimistic assessment, we believe his comments, reproduced in part below, reflect the mood of many others in the transportation community. "The only good news these days is Warren Buffett’s recent investment in BNSF [Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway.] The private sector is perhaps the only solution we have since Washington and most state legislatures and their respective DOTs are stymied by the rigor mortis which has set in, in recent times, regarding pricing, taxing, and other innovative ways to restructure the nation’s transportation system.... I am skeptical the public sector has anything to offer but earmarks and squandered resources, while the overall transportation system remains under-funded and decaying. "We have come full circle whereby government regulation and its abrogation of fiscal responsibility have condemned our publicly-funded transportation system to a beggar role, diminishing its ability to serve the nation’s transportation needs. This is what happened to the freight railroad industry between 1887 and 1987. Now the freight railroads have the chance to regain their footing while the highway system is looking more and more like the failed railroads of the 1970s. ... "Unfortunately, we are witnessing the passing of the American century where the inability of our leaders to lead is placing the nation in an eroding competitive position on the world’s diplomatic, military, and economic scenes. ... The nation’s influence continues to decline. The fate of our nation’s transportation infrastructure is perhaps the most visible example of this decline since the steel industry left the nation in the 1970s and 1980s. "The prospects are indeed bleak except for Mr. Buffet’s eternal faith in the American economy. It is interesting which mode of transportation he decided to invest his money in – not highway and bridge PPPs but in basic freight railroads which remain a stalwart foundation for moving freight and perhaps, in the near future, increasing percentages of the nation’s commuters and intercity travelers."

We understand the reasons for our reader’s somber perspective but we are more inclined to embrace Warren Buffet's and Felix Rohatyn’s optimistic faith in America’s dynamism and spirit of continuing renewal. As Rohatyn points out in his book, America’s transportation history has been marked by a series of "bold endeavors"— Erie Canal and the transcontinental railroad in the 19th century, the Panama Canal, the Interstate Highway System and, we might add, the vast privately-funded electrical grids and telecommunication networks, in the 20th century. In the long run, we believe, this nation will emerge from its current state of apathy and resume its tradition of boldly investing in the country’s transportation infrastructure. It just will take something or someone to light the fuse.

We're not sure what outgoing Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels has on his holiday wish list, but continuing the progress being made to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a deep-bored tunnel is likely on there. Mayor Nickels, along with former King County Executive Ron Sims and Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, came together earlier this year in a decision that commits the State of Washington to tearing down the viaduct and replacing it with a deep-bored tunnel.

The West Seattle Herald has an informative report about progress being made to prepare for the actual viaduct replacement work.

Within the next few weeks, crews will finish relocating electrical lines from the viaduct to underground locations east of the structure between S. Massachusetts Street and Railroad Way S. This project, which began in September 2008, prepares us for replacing the viaduct south of S. King Street and also helps protect downtown’s power supply in the event of an earthquake.

Members of the program team met with the north portal and south portal working groups this month to discuss new design options for the proposed bored tunnel alternative. The working groups, which include neighborhood, freight, pedestrian and bicycle organizations, and business representatives, help inform the design and environmental review process for the viaduct's central replacement.

And in other news that things appear to be moving along, last week The Seattle Times reported that the Washington State Department of Transportation has named several design-build teams that have the qualifications to "submit proposals for the Alaskan Way Viaduct bored-tunnel project."

Washington State's transportation secretary, Paula Hammond, is quoted in the article saying, "'We are very pleased with the quality of the contractor teams vying for this project.... Their world-class expertise will be invaluable as we identify innovative ways to deliver the tunnel on time, within budget and with the highest level of quality.'" All four teams will be eligible to submit their proposals in Fall 2010. The proposals will detail how each team would go about "completing the tunnel design, constructing a tunnel boring machine and building the tunnel, including the interior roadway, tunnel systems, ventilation buildings and portal connections." Cascadia Center of Discovery Institute's Bruce Agnew, when interviewed last week on KUOW's Ross Reynolds show about the region's "Most Overlooked News of 2009," talked about the deep-bored tunnel and how such a big story was "under-reported" vis-a-vis cost comparisons and related issues.

The debate about how to best replace the aging, earthquake prone Alaskan Way Viaduct has been going on for years, and for good reason, reaching a solution hasn't been easy. Another thing that couldn't have been easy was -- after considerable study and examination -- making the decision to take a stance on a tough regional issue. Although it is Cascadia Center of Discovery Institute's view that the deep-bored tunnel is the wise choice for the region's future, reasonable people can (and do) certainly disagree on the best course of action for replacing the viaduct. It's a complex issue for sure, and it's best for the region that it has been examined from all angles. For his part, however, as he prepares to leave the city's leadership scene, Mayor Nickles might take pride in the fact that it looks like the viaduct replacement work is continuing on schedule. That might be the only gift he needs this year.

Secretary LaHood didn't mention the Cascadia Corridor in his "Daily Show" interview. But Cascadia Center of Discovery Institute, like many in the region from British Columbia down through Oregon, believes strongly that the Cascadia Corridor should be among the first to receive high-speed rail investments. The arguments in favor of this corridor are plentiful. The Washington State Department of Transportation's grant request outlines how some investments could be allocated.

The Cascadia Corridor, of course, is bi-national, requiring investment and cooperation on both sides of the U.S.-Canada border. Earlier this month, as part of Cascadia's effort to help push the issue of securing Canadian investment in the corridor for additional passenger rail service, our organization sponsored a trip to Vancouver, British Columbia. Washington State Senator Mary Margaret Haugen led a delegation of 60 people -- private sector and government leaders -- to engage in discussion about some of the ways to assure future success of passenger rail in the corridor.

For the Cascadia Corridor, the 2010 Winter Olympics and the need to transport tourists along the corridor is the most immediate impetus for increased service. But long-term, long after the last athlete has left the Olympic village, a robust and healthy passenger rail system in the Northwest could very well play an important role in the region's vitality.

Last week, KUOW's Ross Reynolds show focused on the "Most Overlooked News of 2009." Cascadia Center's Bruce Agnew was asked to weigh in:

I’m not sure there was a bigger news story this year than the (Alaskan Way) Viaduct (replacement) deep-bore tunnel. Certainly, it was the biggest issue in the mayor’s race. Yet there seemed to be precious little media attention to the difference between the deep-bore tunnel and the infamous Boston Big Dig, which was a much, much bigger, more complicated, multiple tunnel and bridge project. And later, there was no real media comparison to the tunnels completed here in Seattle, like the recently-completed Sound Transit Beacon Hill light rail tunnel, which came in on time and on budget. Certainly now, the media would do us all a favor comparing the difference between the Brightwater King County project (and the Viaduct replacement tunnel) in terms of (cost overrun) risk.”

You can link to and listen to the full "Most Overlooked News of 2009" show here. Bruce Agnew's interview is near the end of the show.

Over at Discovery News, my colleague (and Discovery Institute founder and president Bruce Chapman), has a good post about how deep-bore tunneling projects are making a run for the Outstanding Civil Engineering Award of 2009.

An innovative deep-bore tunneling operation devised for Sound Transit in Seattle is one of five projects in competition for the Outstanding Civil Engineering Award of 2009, a contest conducted by the American Society of Civil Engineers. One of the Seattle project's competitors is another tunnel in California. All in all, tunnel technology is being revolutionized these days, with extensive implications for urban design as well as transportation.

You can read the original post here. It is also re-posted below.

Engineering Contest Sees Tunnels in Urban Future
By Bruce Chapman
Discovery News

An innovative deep-bore tunneling operation devised for Sound Transit in Seattle is one of five projects in competition for the Outstanding Civil Engineering Award of 2009, a contest conducted by the American Society of Civil Engineers. One of the Seattle project's competitors is another tunnel in California. All in all, tunnel technology is being revolutionized these days, with extensive implications for urban design as well as transportation.

All five nominated 2009 civil engineering projects are impressive and tend to renew one's confidence that technology can provide breakthroughs in human life comparable to the great feats of the past century. The successful Sound Transit project is also significant for the next deep-bore program in Seattle, a tunnel under the downtown to replace the Alaska Way Viaduct, a 60 year old elevated freeway alongside the harbor. Eventually, the waterfront tunnel project may offer a national model for cities that wish to recover surface land in high density urban areas for multiple uses--land now used for the single purpose of motor traffic. Tunnel technologies like those in Seattle also could help remove the reputation for waste acquired by the "Big Dig" project in Boston.

Here is what Erik Sofge of Popular Mechanics says about the already completed Sound Transit tunnel:

"Whether or not you're a believer in the universal benefits of public transit, this project deserves respect. To build a passenger rail station in the Beacon Hill area, south of downtown Seattle, contractors had to create the largest and deepest soft-ground sequential excavation method (SEM) tunnels in North America. SEM refers to the practice of digging a tunnel in sections, supporting each segment as you go. The pair of mile-long tunnels—part of a 14-mile light-rail project—were nearly twice the depth and diameter of previous such projects, running under a 352-feet-high hill. When initial test shafts found a surprisingly large amount of fine sand, engineers quickly rearranged the design and path of the tunnels, pioneering new construction techniques that should benefit future SEM projects in soft soils. The final result is inherently unassuming—the Beacon Hill station is 160 feet underground, accessible in 20 seconds by elevator—so the 642-ton, 330-feet-long earth-pressure-balancing tunnel-boring machine that dug the tunnels will have to stand testament to this nimble and literally ground-breaking project."

The Seattle Times' Keith Ervin reports this morning about the myriad public and private sector parties that are coming together around different elements (and sections) of the 42-mile Eastside rails and trails corridor. This month -- and perhaps as early as next Tuesday -- the "...Port's purchase of the rail corridor is scheduled to close...."

King County, Redmond and a utility consortium are prepared to pay more than $43 million to buy land or easements along an abandoned Eastside rail line they hope to give new life as a rail and trail route in the future.

The corridor is unique in the opportunity that it potentially offers citizens and businesses on Seattle's Eastside -- a point that Cascadia Center has voiced repeatedly in the last several years. Read the full article here.

The purpose of the meeting was to solicit advice on a set of recommendations stemming from the Miller Center's fall transportation conference. The central challenge was posed succinctly by Gov. Baliles at the outset of the meeting. The transportation sector, he suggested, is being neglected despite the evidence of a mounting crisis - aging infrastructure, growing traffic congestion, strained freight and logistical facilities. Both the Congress and the Administration are extemporizing rather than taking bold steps to avert the looming crisis.

Where is the outrage, Baliles asked. Why is there no popular outcry? And what can we do to overcome this inertia? How can we create a sense of urgency and develop a narrative that will reverberate with the public, capture the media's attention and goad Congress and the Administration into action? The Governor's conclusion: we must involve "the three Ps": the Public, the Press and the Politicians.

Does the public perceive a genuine "transportation crisis?" Opinions differ. While catastrophic failures such as the bridge collapse in the Twin Cities are a powerful reminder of the need for constant vigilance, such dramatic failures are happily few and far between. The public does not necessarily share the transportation officials' sense of urgency or alarm about "crumbling infrastructure" because its signs are mostly hidden and the Minneapolis bridge collapse is a fading memory. While the severity of metropolitan traffic congestion and its adverse impact on the economy and people's lives are readily acknowledged, the driving public has grown skeptical that more money or program reform will bring effective congestion relief. Perhaps they have come to accept the truth of the oft-repeated refrain that "you cannot build your way out of traffic congestion." What is more, traffic congestion leaves vast stretches of rural and small-town America unaffected and unconcerned. As one participant pointed out, the average nationwide commute time of 25.5 minutes has not increased for the past eight years according to Bureau of the Census data. Traffic congestion may be of great concern to many individual communities, but it is not necessarily perceived as a "crisis" of nationwide scope and thus deserving national attention.

Supporting a Transportation Vision

If evoking an impending transportation crisis is not a convincing way to gain public support, could an appeal to the people's sense of vision be more effective? After all, America's transportation history has been marked by a series of monumental transportation initiatives - Erie Canal and the transcontinental railroad in the 19th century, the Interstate Highway System, the urban rail transit networks and the air navigation system in the 20th century. Can't public support be rallied around a bold new transportation infrastructure agenda responding to the needs of the 21st century? The positive reception given to President Obama's high speed rail initiative would suggest that a new transportation vision can still capture the public's imagination. And if a giant new infrastructure program on the scale of the Interstate Highway Program no longer is financially feasible, could one not enlist public support for a more modest capital program of infrastructure expansion and modernization? The answer, we believe, is a tentative "yes" - provided, as one meeting participant noted, that the infrastructure plan is presented as a collection of tangible projects whose significance can be grasped by the public rather than as vague and poorly understood promises "to improve transportation performance."

The Press

The popular press and mass media can be captivated by and serve as an effective communicator of bold new transportation visions - especially ones with a high technological content. The daily press and television also can effectively dramatize and draw public attention to spectacular transportation failures such as a bridge collapse or traffic gridlock. But the media's attention span is short and its ability to stay on subject is limited by a constantly shifting news focus. Moreover, many of the issues central to transportation reform are considered as too arcane by newspaper editors and editorial writers to be of interest to the general public.

Trade and "niche" publications do provide more depth but their outreach and influence are confined to the universe of their subscribers. The same can be said about most of the blogs. They cater to small self-selected audiences and their influence seldom extends beyond the immediate groups of like-minded followers. We are left with a conclusion that getting the message across to the broad public and effectively mobilizing public opinion will require a sophisticated strategy that reaches beyond the conventional communication channels and involves, importantly, opinion-makers and centers of influence at the state and local level.

The Politicians

There are several explanations for the delayed plans to enact a transportation bill and more generally for transportation's relatively low standing on the list of Congressional and Administration priorities. The most obvious reason is the already crowded Obama policy agenda and the importance of the competing priorities of health care overhaul, the challenge of job creation, financial regulatory reform, and climate change.

Contributing to the legislative inertia on the transportation front is the Administration's reluctance to use deficit financing or tax increases to support expensive new government initiatives. Administration officials have signaled that the President's focus next year will bear heavily on bringing down the deficit. This mindset is matched on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers are conscious of the political, if not economic, danger of increasing the national debt and reluctant in an election year to consider measures that would add to the soaring deficit. As one participant remarked, the political community appears unwilling to buy into the crisis scenario or to admit that there is an infrastructure problem. More likely, the politicians do see a problem but not serious enough to warrant additional deficit spending.

There is an equal reluctance to consider tax increases. Proposals to enhance the Highway Trust fund revenue by raising the gas tax - to the extent such proposals are still heard these days - are coming from interested stakeholder groups and lobbyists rather than from the grassroots. Interest group pleas are meet with a skeptical reception on Capitol Hill, a bare twelve months before the congressional mid-term elections. One telling indication of congressional reluctance has been the unwillingness of the House Ways and Means Committee to consider a tax increase to fund Rep. Oberstar's proposed $500 billion surface transportation bill.

Suggestions as to other sources of funding - such as a National Infrastructure Bank, a federal capital budget, mileage (VMT) fees and financial transaction fees - have likewise met with congressional and White House disinterest or outright skepticism.

Short-term vs. Long-term Funding

To be sure, there is the possibility of a short-term infusion of funds in the context of a new job creation initiative. Highway and transit interests have seized on the White House "jobs summit" of December 3 to push for an $84 billion package of "ready-to-go" projects, and the House is readying a jobs bill that would provide up to $70 billion for "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects and aid to small business. However, this places transportation advocates in a quandary. They need to be part of the current job creation dialogue in order to stake out a claim to any stimulus funds that might be forthcoming. However, any short-term infusion of funds will remove - or at least seriously reduce - congressional urgency to act upon the larger need for strategic investment in transportation infrastructure. This dilemma was evident in President Obama's remarks at the job summit. What's good for the long term, Obama is reported to have said, may not necessarily work as an immediate short term jobs stimulus, which remains the Administration's paramount objective. There are tensions in the process of allocating infrastructure spending, the President said, between immediate "shovel-ready" projects as opposed to long-term visionary projects. He intimated that much as he favors infrastructure investment to promote long term economic growth, the short-term goal to spur job growth would take priority.

The Clouded Future

Thus, the prospect for an early enactment of a reform-minded multi-year surface transportation authorization remains murky. Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has abandoned his quest to enact a six-year $500 billion bill by the end of the year in the face of continued Senate and House leadership opposition. Instead, he announced during a press conference on December 2 that he would agree to the Senate-proposed six-month extension of the existing program, provided that there is an agreed upon time line for enacting a longer-term authorization. One possibility could be a staged process consisting of a two-year "front-loaded" transportation bill focused on creating construction and construction-related jobs (and possibly funded with TARP money), followed by a longer-term bill containing broad policy reforms. However, at this point, the constantly shifting dynamics concerning the nature of the second economic stimulus makes any predictions concerning congressional action beyond December 18 a mere speculation (December 18 is the date the current short-term extension is due to expire.) Only one thing is certain: getting the lawmakers to enact an ambitious long-term surface transportation program in the tax- and deficit-averse political climate of an election year will be a daunting challenge.

In case you missed it, the Bellevue Reporter newspaper, which covers the city of Bellevue on Seattle's Eastside, had a good article recently about an innovative proposal -- supported by Cascadia Center -- to make use of the BNSF (Burlington Northern Santa Fe) corridor in a way that protects homes and businesses in Bellevue's booming downtown core.

The proposal, "Vision Line," is the brainchild of Bellevue Council member Kevin Wallace. According to the article, he says it will match the ridership numbers projected by other ideas and do so "at a much lower cost."

The Vision Line aims to protect residential homes and downtown businesses. But it adds another option to a growing list of alternatives for Sound Transit's East Link light rail project.

Council member Wallace's "Vision Line" includes an artist's rendering (above) showing what a downtown Bellevue station that brings light rail along the abandoned BNSF line might look like. Cascadia Center, long an advocate of keeping the 42-mile BNSF corridor in public ownership, co-funded the "Vision Line" drawing, created by locally based and nationally known rail artist Craig Thorpe.

Here’s a one way to market light rail: highlighting the ethnic eats along the route. The new Gold Line in L.A. has mad culinary appeal. In Seattle, Sound Transit’s new “Link” light rail line might also benefit from a promotional campaign highlighting adjacent dining and other neighborhood attractions. Just one of many points of interest: In between the Othello and Edmunds stops, and right across from the Link tracks at Graham Street, is Joy Palace, one of the region's best restaurants for Hong Kong style Chinese entrees, and the bite-sized savories and sweets known as dim sum. Take it from me, or Yelp fans of the place. In the same urban mall is a wondrous Asian supermarket, Viet Wah. Go there to buy shredded green papaya, Asian greens and fresh herbs, Asian fruits, fresh egg and rice noodles, fresh meats, fish and seafood, Chinese barbeque, Tibetan beer, and condiments galore. The mall also features Tony's Vietnamese deli, with tasty, budget-friendly hot take-out, and a traditional Chinese apothecary.

And you thought there was no such thing as a sexy bus. Launching in full Nov. 30 is Washington state’s first "bus rapid transit" line, from Community Transit in Snohomish County. It’ll ply the SR 99 corridor, going as far south as the Aurora Village Transit Center in north Seattle, where King County Metro buses continue on to other points in the city. No corridor length bus-only dedicated lanes, but many other BRT features. How about on board WiFi one day?

Another piece of the puzzle begins falling into place. New partners announce their intent to join with the Port of Seattle to buy and preserve for public use a strategic commuter rail and recreational trail corridor in high-growth Eastside suburban cities.

Across Puget Sound in Kitsap County, the Port of Kingston has pulled together $3.65 million, just $350K short of their estimated full nut, for four years of fast passenger-only ferry service to and from Seattle. Commissioners may opt for a used vessel.

Surface Transportation Funding

NYT reports that a growing tab and lower-than-expected sales tax revenues have left a $2.2 billion gap in Denver's planned light rail system, approved by voters in '04. Another tax vote is due. But sales tax hikes aren't the future of transportation funding; they're the past. A better way to fund roads and transit: congestion-based electronic tolls of express lanes on all a region's highways.

An old bridge across Lake Champlain between upstate New York and Vermont has been closed. It is considered too dangerous for traffic and beyond renovation. There is no money available at present to pay for replacement. There are 110 more bridges in New York state classified similarly, but yet to be closed, and many more moving toward that status. New York’s plight is emblematic of deteriorating surface transportation infrastructure nationwide. Federal money alone won’t be nearly enough. To repair, operate and maintain key roads and bridges; and to help fund carefully-vetted road extensions and widenings, plus transit system improvements, states and regions need RFID tolling of highway corridors now, public-private partnerships, and eventually charging for all miles driven by time, distance and place, as the gas tax is phased out. No more rowboats, OK?

Highways, streets bridges are like your house: there's a lot to do after the purchase, thanks to wear and tear, or growing usage. Congressional Budget Office Director and Clinton budget director Alice Rivlin - now at Brookings - says regions must employ robust road user fees such as congestion pricing on highways and eventually a vehicle mileage tax.

A Brussels-based satellite navigation expert tells a Portsmouth, U.K. transportation technology symposium that taxing drivers by miles traveled rather than fuel purchased would have a major green upside. Developed nations should explore the policy further at Copenhagen talks.

The Dutch are aiming to implement wide area pricing, also known as a “vehicle mileage tax," by 2012. This approach typically includes on-board units in vehicles, and is likely coming to U.S. within 10-15 years. Washington state and Oregon have already completed key field tests. The University of Iowa is conducting a 12-region, federally-funded field test. Major funding for more R&D, and advanced testing of the concept is likely in the next federal surface transportation bill. If, as is possible, the long term approach adopted by U.S. policymakers is to package wide area pricing with the phase-out of the ineffective per gallon gas tax and the phase in of mileage based consumer incentives such as pay-per-mile car insurance, then the controversial strategy could be a somewhat easier sell.

An international conference on road pricing was held last week in Toronto, on the heels of an OECD report that the region loses $2.7 billion a year in productivity and consumers pay an extra $3.3 billion annualy due to traffic gridlock. The regional transportation board will closely consider expanding electronic (variable-rate) express lane tolling on the region's highways to help pay for $40 billion in transit and road improvements needed over next 25 years.

China's Electric Vehicle Challenge

"China Confronts Global Warming Dilemma,” the Christian Science Monitor reports. If China is not a full partner, global action on greenhouse gas emissions will be ineffective. It's already the world's largest emitter and per-capita rates will grow with increasing urbanization. The state-owned power sector is reliant on cheap coal, and projections are for an increase in vehicles from 65 million now to 300 million by 2030. A carbon tax to drive faster adoption of renewable energy sources would help, as would ramp-up for widespread electric vehicle infrastructure.

Auto sales are already hitting a record pace in China as the huge nation’s economy continues to grow. Some key players in China are trying to help gear up for electric vehicles. The source of electricity matters, but even with coal, there are significant emission reductions on a per-vehicle basis when electrics replace fossil-fuel-powered. Air pollution and public health are additional reasons for developed and developing nations to move beyond oil and coal. The worst form of air pollution, particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5), is at heinous daily levels in urban China; 750,000 people there die prematurely each year from fouled air. James Fallows, in The Atlantic.

The "X" Files

NYT: apparently there are limits to communitarianism, even in Paris, and under a genuine Socialist mayor. Nearly 80 percent of the 20,600 Velib public rental-bikes put into circulation there have been stolen or vandalized. They cost $3,500 each. Sheesh. France a civil society?

Iranian president Ahmedinejad wants to unleash his mojo on Tehran’s traffic jams. Remember, Mahmoud: more carrot, less stick.