Cascadia Center is co-sponsoring an important West Coast Corridor Coalition conference -- The Climate Policy and West Coast Transportation Conference -- at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif., on Sept. 16-17, 2010. Federal and state policy makers will join private sector leaders to explore cross-border opportunities in exciting initiatives like the Interstate 5 Green Highway. 

Issues to be addressed at the conference include:

• An overview of the economic, security and environmental reasons to move beyond oil in transportation.
• Congressional action on climate and energy legislation and the effort to find bipartisan solutions that will benefit the economy, national security and the environment.
• The Bipartisan Policy Center's National Transportation Policy Project report on the metrics needed to measure success in transportation policy.

Two months ago we reported on the railroad industry's reaction to the FRA's directive setting forth the terms of the so-called "Stakeholder Agreements." Those are the agreements between state authorities and Class I railroads that will govern the shared-use freight-passenger rail service in rail corridors receiving federal aid under the Administration's high-speed rail (HSR) program. The FRA directive stunned and angered railroad executives by what they regarded as unreasonable demands, and burdensome requirements. For example, the government proposed to impose penalties on freight railroads for failing to meet on-time performance standards for passenger traffic. Railroad executives also objected to the peremptory manner in which the directive was handed down. Reportedly, they had no advance knowledge of the announcement nor did they participate in the preparation of the guidance. Although none of the parties would go on the record at the time as threatening to break off negotiations and walk away from the high speed rail program, senior railroad executives left no doubt that there were limits to how far they were willing to compromise their primary responsibility to maintain safe operations and keep commitments to their customers -- a responsibility that requires giving precedence to freight operations, especially in capacity-constrained corridors. As we wrote at the time:

Photo Source: WSDOT

"Is there a culture war being waged for the soul of Seattle?," asks Jordan Royer in an article that appeared today in Crosscut. A one-time candidate for Seattle City Council and former public safety staffer for Seattle mayors Paul Schell and Greg Nickels, Royer's article folds the debate about replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct into his article, "How a Quiet Culture War is Dividing Seattle." 

The great debate raging about the Alaskan Way Viaduct is another place where the cultural battle is playing out. Some are eager to test the theory that reducing car capacity forces people to get around by other means. The problem with conducting this experiment on our waterfront, however, is that you squeeze the port and all those well paying jobs. The Port of Seattle is contributing up to $300 million for the tunnel project, and it's not because they want to be nice or because it's part of their responsibility. They are contributing because they know they are in a competitive fight for survival as a major container port and understand what's at stake if the project doesn't move forward.

Photo Source: Washington State Department of Transportation

Today on KUOW 94.9 FM's "The Conversation," Ross Reynolds and reporter Deborah Wang took on a comprehensive reporting assignment to look at the deep-bore tunnel--the transportation option chosen in 2009 by Seattle, King County and Washington State to replace the aging Alaskan Way Viaduct.

Cascadia Center and Discovery Institute have been front and center on the idea of a deep-bore tunnel since the beginning of the debate. And Cascadia Center director Bruce Agnew provides an abundance of context and background for the KUOW report. 

KUOW's report summarizes the history, policy and dynamics of replacing an aging, elevated highway with a highly advanced and technical tunnel. Listen to the report here. 

Over the past eight months the U.S. Department of Transportation has been conducting a series of "listening sessions" around the country to solicit new ideas from stakeholders and interested citizens for the next multi-year surface transportation bill. The sixth and final session on the national listening tour was held at the U.S. DOT headquarters on July 14. Participating in the latest town hall meeting was the full complement of the department's senior management team (save Secretary Ray LaHood). Complementing the session with U.S. DOT officials were four panel sessions involving local officials and transportation professionals discussing local transportation issues, program funding, state and local needs and outreach to the public.

A Game Changing Event

The latest listening session took place amid growing speculation by political analysts that the Democrats may lose control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November. This speculation has been reinforced by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs who commented on last Sunday's "Meet the Press" and again at his regular press briefing the following day, that "there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control." Gibb's conclusion was not inaccurate, given that about 60 Democratic seats are in jeopardy and Republicans need a net gain of only 39 to re-take the House. But, as Washington Post political observer Dana Milbank pointed out, when the president's chief spokesman announces that his party is in trouble, it could become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

At 55 feet in diameter, the Puget Sound's deep-bore tunnel is in the higher range of tunnels around the world that have been completed largely on time and within budget. Tunneling success has spread to North America, too. While the often-maligned Boston Central Artery project (Big Dig) is cited for cost overruns, another Boston project, the Wastewater Treatment Tunnel, was completed successfully with little notice. Other on-time and on-budget tunnel projects include the 1.2 mile, $538.8 million Allegheny subway tunnel in Pittsburgh and the "Gold Line" rail tunnel in Los Angeles. For navigating complicated soils with far more history and debris than Seattle's, the just completed tunneling for New York's No. 7 Subway Line to 34th Street bodes well. According to the city transit authority, "the 24-hour construction operation was completed in six months instead of 2-3 years as originally planned."

Cascadia attended and reported from the North American Tunneling Conference in Portland, Ore., earlier this week. The Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement project (a key Cascadia issue for many years) was highlighted as a project that could "advance the U.S. into the major leagues with Europe and Asia in tunnel technology."

See the full article here or in the extended post.

Ever since President Obama announced his high speed rail (HSR) program initiative and Congress approved $8 billion to fund it as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February 2009, many States have lined up to stake out a share of the new money. States that had been working on high-speed rail plans for years saw it as an opportunity to finally bring their projects to fruition, while others scrambled to get rail corridor planning underway so that they too could qualify for a share of the pie. The prize looked particularly attractive because the dollars will flow directly to the recipient states without requiring a local match.

For most states, competing for a piece of the action meant developing a plan in cooperation with the Class I freight railroads to upgrade existing infrastructure to accommodate passenger rail service at speeds higher than 79 mph. While such speeds would hardly qualify as "high-speed" in Europe and the Far East, they became the de facto threshold standard for qualifying under the HSR program. Only California and Florida have proposed construction of dedicated new track that would allow true high speeds, i.e. top speeds of 150 mph and higher (however, Florida's Tampa-to-Orlando project is expected to operate only at average speeds of 86 mph; see "Weighing the Future of High-Speed Rail in America," NewsBrief, October 29, 2009).

For the Administration, there was a political incentive to focus on the projects requiring upgrades to existing infrastructure. While the Florida and California high-speed lines will take years to complete, long after the present generation of political leaders has left office, most of the "upgrades" could become operational in a shorter time frame and become part of this Administration's catalogue of accomplishments to be proudly cited in the 2012 presidential election campaign. Major grants have been awarded for improvements in the Chicago-St.Louis, Madison-Milwaukee, Seattle-Portland, Raleigh-Charlotte and Cleveland-Cincinnati corridors. These projects typically will involve reconstructing track to meet more stringent requirements for higher speed operations, building bypass tracks, eliminating grade crossings, installing advance signal systems and implementing positive train control technology.

Though it often gets pushed off the front page, everyone knows that the U.S. is going to require money and minds to solve and secure its infrastructure future. An agreement signed today in Washington, D.C., will help make sure that women remain -- and advance -- as a key part of that effort.

With the WTS audience as witnesses, I signed an understanding between DOT and WTS to encourage women to complete undergraduate and graduate degrees in science, technology, engineering and math--without having to put their transportation careers on hold.

Those are the words of U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, who today signed an agreement with WTS (Women's Transportation Seminar International), the leading group dedicated to advancing the careers of women in transportation.

As Secretary LaHood wrote on his blog, Fast Lane, "the entire (transportation) industry is full of opportunities," ranging from "environmental engineering and alternative fuel research" to "railroad, construction, and aerospace." Those opportunities, however, won't be without challenge -- a challenge requiring the best science, engineering, technology and math minds the country can offer. The agreement signed today is important for sure. And it will hopefully help ensure the country has the resources and talent to meet its inevitable future infrastructure needs.

Seattle's Center for Wooden Boats was the setting Thursday evening for a gathering of passenger-only ferry advocates, including those from Kingston and King County, Wash., and the U.S. federal government.

The well-attended event (followed by an Ivar's Seafood-sponsored reception) was organized within the specific context of a new passenger-only service between Kingston and Seattle, and a broader context of supporting more service throughout the region. The Port of Kingston will launch passenger-only service between Kingston and Seattle this fall. (This article in the Kitsap Sun offers details about the new service.)

Capital funding for the new link came from the U.S. Federal Transit Administration. The Port has also developed public-private partnerships to cover initial operating costs. It will, as reported in the Kitsap Sun, "cater to commuters" at first, cutting down on travel times for those who commute to Seattle.

The Port of Kingston's Eric Osnes told the audience assembled at the Center for Wooden Boats that though this new route will connect Kingston and Seattle, they "don't see this as a Kingston-only ferry." Echoing what many have said about a regional approach to the issue, he said he and the Port are interested in the "whole logistics chain not just to Seattle, but beyond." Designed with commuters in mind, Osnes told the crowd that the new Kingston ferry will allow commuters to travel between Kingston and Seattle in 45 minutes and will initially offer two morning and two evening departures.

Cascadia Center has advocated for expanded passenger ferry service for years, having launched the Passenger Ferry Coalition aboard the Royal Argosy on July 1, 2003, with U.S. Senator Patty Murray, U.S. Representative Norm Dicks, and 300 community leaders. Reduction in greenhouse gases, well-paying careers in local marine manufacturing, advancing technology and tourism are just some of the reasons the organization has supported expanded service. Early on Cascadia Center suggested a "Return of the Mosquito Fleet," a theme articulated in this 2008 op-ed.

Though building a network of passenger-only ferries in the Puget Sound is a long process, the new service between Kingston and Seattle, is an important piece of the puzzle. And if the excitement on display at Thursday's event is any indication, communities throughout the Puget Sound could follow in Kingston's footsteps. They'll have to in order to complete the puzzle and, as Cascadia's Bruce Agnew wrote in 2008, "to develop a Salish Sea Express regional foot ferry network transcending political boundaries...."

Hoping to sustain interest in the Committee's efforts to enact a new multi-year transportation bill during this session of Congress, Reps. James Oberstar (D-MN) and Peter DeFazio (D-OR), leaders of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, convened a hearing on April 14 to explore innovative ways of financing highway and transit investments. But while the hearing provided a useful survey of available financing tools and programs, it produced no new answers to the key question that has bedeviled transportation advocates for many months and remains as the chief obstacle to moving the legislation forward-- the question of how to pay for the proposed multi-year surface transportation program.

The Administration's opposition to increasing the current 18.4 cents/gallon federal gas tax-- the most obvious means of generating the needed funds-- was reiterated once again at the House hearing by Christopher Bertram, U.S. DOT's Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The White House has also announced its opposition to any additional taxing of motor fuel as part of the Senate energy legislation. "The Senators don't support a gas tax, and neither does the White House," the White House said in a statement, thus squelching any secretly entertained hopes that the energy bill might offer a backdoor way of raising the gas tax in the guise of a " carbon fee." (The proposed Kerry-Graham-Lieberman energy plan reportedly would have called for an additional levy of 15 cents/gallon. To fully fund the proposed $500 billion six-year transportation bill would require approximately a 20 cents/gallon increase in the gas tax.)

White House opposition to a gas tax increase is only one of several obstacles standing in the way of an early passage of a multi-year law. Three other factors make passage of the legislation this year unlikely:

1. The Senate faces a crowded legislative agenda that includes confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court justice and consideration of the Finance Reform Bill in addition to the energy bill. The likelihood of taking up a multi-year transportation bill on top of that busy agenda in the 60 legislative days remaining before the pre-election congressional adjournment, appear remote according to congressional observers.

2. Passage of the HIRE Act has taken the pressure off the lawmakers to move the multi-year bill this year. The Act not only has extended the existing law until the end of December 2010; it also has transferred $19.5 billion from the General Fund into the Highway Trust Fund and restored an earlier $8.7 billion rescission of contract authority. The latest projections by the Congressional Budget Office indicate that the General Fund transfer, when added to the projected revenue stream from the gas tax, is expected to support highway and transit programs at the levels authorized for Fiscal Year 2009 through the end of Fiscal Year 2012 and into FY 2013 (Congressional Budget Office, "Highway Trust Fund Projections, March 19, 2010.) Our own reading of the CBO projections suggests that both the Highway Account and the Transit Account of the Trust Fund could remain solvent as long as the second or third quarter of Fiscal Year 2013. With assured funding possibly through mid-2013, the case for passing a multi-year transportation bill this year has become less than compelling. In an unspoken acknowledgment of this state of affairs, many interest groups have quietly dropped their efforts to lobby for enactment of the reauthorization bill this year.

3. Last but not least, there are no signs of a popular outcry about the stalled transportation authorization. Despite extensive documentation of the needs for new infrastructure investments (notably, U.S. DOT's 2008 Conditions and Performance report and the findings of the two commissions established by Congress to study future transportation funding needs) there seems to be no sense of urgency on the part of the public to embark upon a massive program of infrastructure modernization. Signs of aging infrastructure are kept largely hidden from view thanks to diligent efforts by state and local highway agencies to maintain their assets in good repair. In the absence of any visible signs of system deterioration, warnings by advocacy groups about "crumbling infrastructure" are falling on deaf ears. The recent injection of some $50 billion of federal funding into surface transportation in the form of Recovery Act (ARRA) stimulus funds, TIGER Discretionary Grants and High Speed Rail grants has further weakened the argument that the transportation sector is not receiving adequate attention and that we are vastly under-funding our transportation needs.

Leveraging Future Revenue Streams

Although the House hearing shed no new light on how to generate new revenues for the federal-aid transportation program, it sent a strong message that innovative financing methods can help expedite project delivery and offer other benefits to the public. Under traditional methods of financing, transportation projects are completed on a pay-as-you-go basis: projects are built incrementally as public funds become available over a period of years. Using financing tools, notably tax-free bonds, state and local transportation agencies can gain immediate access to the funds necessary to advance projects into construction, and use their traditional funding or project-generated revenue streams to liquidate the indebtedness over time. While toll revenue is often used as security (collateral) in highway financing, project-generated user fees are not the sole means of backing debt issuances for transportation projects. Other types of security include dedicated sales tax revenue, future federal grants and revenues derived from tax assessment districts, transit-oriented development and other "value capture" projects. As Philip Washington, General Manager of the Denver Regional Transportation District testified, this has enabled transit agencies to gain access to private capital even though transit lacks sufficient project-generated revenue to use it as collateral for long-term debt obligations.

Seattle Times editorial columnist Lance Dickie just penned a strong piece about the Eastside Rails and Trails issue -- the 42-mile corridor that connects Seattle's Eastside communities. It's the same corridor that Cascadia Center has been encouraging be used for both rails and trails.

Bruce Agnew, policy director of the Discovery Institute's Cascadia Center, has a ready answer: Rails and trails must be done simultaneously. It is the only way Agnew sees it happening.

He views the Cascadia Center as the neutral broker among a variety of public entities and potential users of the corridors. The center is a longtime proponent of rail from Eugene to Vancouver, B.C., and has actively led discussions and hosted field trips on the possibilities for the Eastside corridor.

Agnew, consultant Thomas M. Jones of TMJ Group, LLC, and Loren Herrigstad, president of All Aboard Washington, have crunched the numbers to find competitive estimates for refurbishing tracks, building and paving a bike trail and developing commuter service.

I'll let the article do the talking. Here it is.

Optimists always like to look for the positive, even in the most dire of situations. Even so, you almost hate to talk about silver linings with regard to the slow economy that has hurt so many individuals, families and businesses. But the lower-than-expected bid that came in yesterday for replacing a section of the Alaskan Way Viaduct just might fall into that category. The Seattle Times reports that all of the bids to replace the Sodo section of Viaduct "were below the state engineers' estimate of $153 million, a reflection of the recession making construction companies hungry for business."

"....We have the benefit of being in one of the most favorable environments for affordable, low-cost construction bids and we need to take advantage of them now," Gov. Chris Gregoire said. "The fact that today's bids for the south mile of the project came in millions below our estimates is proof of that."

The project manager for the Viaduct told the Seattle Times that this "could be a sign the bid for a proposed tunnel under the central waterfront also could come in under estimates." And Washington State officials say "about 600 construction jobs" will be created by the Sodo project.

Jobs. Cost-savings. Important infrastructure work being done. Maybe, despite the surrounding economic gloom, it's okay to find the silver lining.

With the City of Woodinville's support, Seattle's Eastside this week took one more step toward realizing a vision for a dual use rails and trails corridor along the 42-mile Eastside corridor. The Woodinville City Council passed a resolution expressing its support for an idea long supported by Cascadia Center. From the resolution:

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WOODINVILLE, WASHINGTON, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Support of Dual Rails and Trails Use of the Eastside Rail Corridor. The Woodinville City Council supports dual rails and trails use of the entire Eastside Rail Corridor, including the main line between Snohomish and Renton; and the spur between Woodinville and Redmond.

Section 2. Support of Dual Rails and Trails Use by All Communities. The Woodinville City Council encourages all agencies and communities along the Eastside Rail Corridor, including the mainline and the spur, to actively support dual rails and trails use of the corridor.

There is more to do, of course. But this is an important step in the creation of a functioning North-South corridor that would have an immediate positive effect and that would extend to future generations on Seattle's Eastside.

A recent series of events, notably an invitational conference on Public-Private Partnerships convened by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), has focused attention on the role of public-private partnerships (PPPs) in transportation, and underscored once again the need to more clearly define  the proper federal role in PPP oversight.

The NCSL Conference on Public-Private Partnerships. For the past 18 months, a working group of the National Conference of State Legislatures has been studying domestic and international experience with public-private partnerships. The group's objective has been to provide state legislators with an informed and objective appraisal of PPPs-- something that the NCSL believes has been missing from the public dialogue. "Boosters and detractors of PPPs have dominated public debate," states NCSL, "while reasoned voices have been hard to discern."

To share its findings with the transportation community and seek its input, the NCSL invited an influential group of state legislators and leading members of the transportation community to a meting on March 26 to consider the next steps. Opening speakers featured Jane Garvey chairman of the investment fund Meridiam Infrastructure (North America) and the recently appointed board chairman of the Bipartisan Policy Center; former Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters; and U.S. DOT's Regina McElroy, Director of the Office of Innovative Program Delivery. Co-sponsoring the meeting was UK Trade and Investment (UKTI), the economic  development arm of the British Government. The NCSL program was designed as a US-UK government-to-government dialogue.

The formal presentations and subsequent breakout group discussions evidenced strong support for the use of PPPs as a method of financing transportation infrastructure. However, support for PPPs was conditioned on the need to protect the public interest in PPP transactions.  A key theme running through the discussions was the appropriate state and federal role in protecting that interest.  The tenor of the day-long discussions could be summarized as follows:

The discussions proceeded from the assumption that state legislatures are primarily responsible for deciding whether and on what terms states can enter into public-private partnerships. Currently, 28 states have PPP enabling statutes. These statutes are designed  to guide PPP implementation and ensure through  groundrules for the contracting process and bidding procedures that the public interest is properly protected. State legislation also provides for legislative oversight--typically on a program rather than project basis, although eight states require individual PPP proposals to be approved by the state legislature. State executive agencies are responsible for negotiating specific contracts with the private parties. Key provisions that protect the public interest in PPP contracts include length of concession, bidding procedures, performance standards, toll policies, labor protections, revenue sharing, risk allocation, use of toll proceeds, transparency, and public participation.

The federal role in PPP oversight is less clear. As a financial partner in PPPs (through TIFIA, Private Activity Bonds, TIGER grant program and other financial mechanisms) the federal government  has a legitimate interest in and shares the responsibility for protecting the public interest. But a highly regulated oversight of PPPs at the federal level would preempt state authority and could have, in the words of more than one speaker, a "chilling effect" on private sector participation in infrastructure investment.

The proposed federal Office of Public Benefit (OPB), which would have the authority to approve or disapprove all tolling and PPP projects on a case-by-case basis, came in for special criticism. OPB represents "regulatory overreach" that could stifle partnership initiatives and  discourage private investment in infrastructure,  many participants asserted. Private investors, it was alleged, may be reluctant to develop costly project proposals if there is a risk that federal approval will be withheld even though the project conforms to all state legislative requirements and has been selected and approved by the governor and the state DOT.

Striking the proper balance between the federal interest in protecting the public interest and the states' right to determine the appropriate level of private sector participation and to exercise oversight over the contractual PPP process will be a critical challenge in designing future federal legislation. The prevailing sentiment among the conference participants was that the proper federal role should be one of encouraging rather than inhibiting public-private partnerships. The responsibility to regulate PPPs and ensure that they protect the public interest should be reserved to the states.

With an agreement announced today at the New York International Auto Show, Ford and Microsoft will, according to the Associated Press, "work together on a computerized link between houses, electric cars and utility companies to help manage energy use."

The system would start with the all-electric Ford Focus compact car that is scheduled to go on sale late in 2011. Called "Microsoft Hohm," it will allow utilities to vary electric rates based on the time of day. A computer would determine the best time to recharge the car at the lowest cost and the least burden on the utility's generating system.

With this deal, the two companies are taking a major step toward addressing how to blend technology, vehicle advancements and energy. This is an issue that Discovery Institute's Cascadia Center has addressed as part of its "Beyond Oil" conferences in the last several years. At the 2009 conference, the all-electric Ford Focus -- appearing for the first time in the Northwest -- was among the key attractions for regional leaders.

"Ford is the first automaker announcing the use of Hohm..." according to the company's press release about the announcement. "Hohm will help owners determine when and how to most efficiently and affordably recharge battery electric (BEV) and plug-in hybrid (PHEV) vehicles. It also should help utility companies manage the added demands of electric vehicles on the electric grid."