Andrew Adonis, Britain's Secretary of State for Transport, penned today in The Times a forceful argument in favor of what he describes as a "21st-century transport revolution -- high-speed rail." Read it for yourself, but his article presents strong arguments countering what some in Britain see as insurmountable obstacles to developing a more robust high-speed rail network for the country, including cost, the relative proximity of major cities, and the question of the practicality of long-term planning amidst the recession.

As the United States for the first time in decades seems to be seriously wrestling with the idea of how, when and to what extent to further invest in rail, it's instructive to see a comparative debate happening across the Atlantic pond. In Britain, of course, it is more a question of improving upon a system that most American tourists who have visited the country would probably say seems pretty good. Here in the U.S., however, we'd need to do a lot more building of new and improving of old lines. And that's just a start. With apologies to the The Beatles (and Lord Adonis), it is here that we'd really be talking about a revolution.

House approval of the Jobs Bill (H.R. 2847) on March 4 by a vote of 217-201 has put an end to the series of temporary month-to-month extensions and placed the federal surface transportation program on a solid financial footing for the rest of the year. The bill, which extends the federal transportation program through December 31, 2010, transfers $19.5 billion from the General Fund into the Highway Trust Fund and restores an earlier $8.7 billion rescission of contract authority. These resources, when added to the expected revenue stream from the gas tax, should allow the Trust Fund to support highway and transit programs at the levels authorized for Fiscal Year 2009 through the end of 2010 and into 2011. Because the House altered the measure somewhat, the bill has been returned to the Senate for another vote before it is sent to the President for signature.

Reposted from Discovery News

Congratulations, Canada!
BY Bruce Chapman

Reserve used to be a characteristic trait of Canadians. Not patriotic. Defined by what they weren't--that is, not Americans.

No more. Canadians these days can't stop singing, "O, Canada" and painting their faces red and white. They shout and carry on like, well, I can't help noting, Americans.

Tonight they deserve congratulations and thanks. They have staged a magnificent Winter Olympics in the fabulous world city of Vancouver and the superb modern resort of Whistler-Blackcomb. They could have been stumped by the unseasonably warm weather, but they weren't. They could have been undone by the pressure of media and transportation. They weren't. Their guests are flying out of town feeling happy and grateful.

Especial praise goes to our Cascadia ally, British Columbia. What incredible strides the province has made in a generation or so!

Some said that Canadians should feel chagrined that they didn't win as many medals as the U.S., or even the Germans. Nonsense. Canada is a fraction of the population of the U.S. (even if you only count the states that have winter sports), and yet they managed a huge haul, including, of course the men's hockey gold, which was about all they seemed to care about this sunny Sunday afternoon.

Well, let them have it. We, in turn, are fortunate to have such fine, fun neighbors. They are excellent hosts and friends.

From Philly to Seattle: America's Waterfronts are Urban Development Issue of Decade
BY Bruce Chapman

Call it "On the Waterfront" Meets "Philadelphia Story." The remake of the famous harbor of Philadelphia is the major development issue of that big city today. Three thousand miles away, the impending replacement of the Alaska Way Viaduct in Seattle has opened the opportunity and necessity of redesigning the waterfront there. Many other cities have similar issues in front of them as industrial era usages in central locations are being replaced by new interests in recreation and tourism and less unsightly transportation.

In a recent visit to Seattle, Harris Steinberg of PennPraxis at the University of Pennsylvania, explained to a Seattle citizen planning team how his group and the William Penn Foundation, backed by the City of Philadelphia and local media and civic groups, have redesigned the general plan for the riverfront along the Delaware River, a deteriorating area of old piers and warehouses and "big box stores".

The Central Delaware region includes 1146 acres along seven miles of waterfront. Until three years ago its development was dictated largely by private deals brokered by local politicians and bureaucracies. What Steinberg and his associates accomplished was a professionally led participatory process that built trust that "public good, not private gain" would prevail in the future. The idea is not to substitute the private sector, of course, but to provide a reliable vision and predictable standards.

Discovery Institute's Cascadia Center hosted the Steinberg presentation, in conjunction with former Seattle Mayor Charles Royer and businessman Bob Donegan of the citizen waterfront teams that advise local government on how Seattle's central harbor might function once the Viaduct is demolished and through traffic is diverted to a new upland deep-bore tunnel. Architect and former Seattle City Councilmember Peter Steinbrueck helped arrange the meeting and Cascadia director Bruce Agnew presided.

Related Links:
"Keystone State Experts Share Insights for Seattle's Waterfront," Cascadia Prospectus

In what has been reported by The Seattle P-I as "an unusually high-profile political move," Microsoft Corp., yesterday told regional leaders that it's time to take action on replacing the 520 bridge over Lake Washington. With a full-page advertisement placed in The Seattle Times, the software giant dove into local political waters, creating waves almost as choppy as the real ones sometimes whipped up alongside the 47-year-old bridge. From the advertisement:

While there are still some final design issues that need to be resolved with the City of Seattle, we should not let last-minute objections undermine the hard-won agreements already in place for the rest of the project. Doing so would cause yet more delay, increase the cost to taxpayers, and put this vital transportation and economic corridor at risk.

As reported in the P-I, at a news conference on Tuesday, Microsoft's general counsel Brad Smith said the time for discussion was over and that a plan called A+ (Washington State's plan that calls for a six-lane structure that includes HOV lanes) "is the kind of plan that should move forward." Microsoft's public call for action comes on the heels of an early February move by Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn and several state lawmakers to get traction for a rebuilt 520 bridge that, according to the P-I, "would dedicate lanes to only buses and light rail." Such a plan would likely present a problem for the Redmond-based Microsoft, which says 5,000 of its employees -- 4,200 using the company's proprietary Connector shuttle -- cross the bridge each day.

Cascadia Center of Discovery Institute's Bruce Agnew (who has written extensively about solutions to the region's transportation challenges, including this Seattle Times op-ed highlighting the innovative Connector bus), told the P-I in a separate story yesterday that "McGinn's proposal would undo 20 years of regional planning and investment in company van pools and HOV lanes as a way to reduce the number of cars on the road." More Agnew:

"The Microsoft Connector is fabulously successful," Agnew said. "It supplements Metro bus service and it's a green option for thousands of Microsoft employees. So the mayor's policy is that we're not going to allow the Connector in bus lanes because it's not a real bus? I'm glad Microsoft is speaking out."

It's taken over one decade to reach "an agreed-upon design and funding plan for a new bridge," according to Microsoft's full-page advertisement. And though some officials are concerned about the company's call to action -- Washington state senator Ed Murray was quoted in the P-I saying the announcement equated to a "punch in the face" -- Cascadia Center's Agnew says Microsoft should let its voice be known. "Microsoft is speaking up when other regional leaders should be," he said.

The magazine, BC Business, reported an extensive feature article, which included an interview with Bruce Agnew, director of Discovery Institute's Cascadia Center, on the Cascadia region and how the Winter Olympic Games plays into the fabric of this unique corner of the world. It's worth a read.

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.)

“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.

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.