Search results

MTV Has Taken Over My Neighborhood Bike Shop

The scene tonight at 2020 Cycle on Union Street in the CD.  Lynne Shelton, director of the awesome Humpday is behind it, so maybe it will actuallly be good when it’s all done.  Bikes are that cool now.

Mike Bikes

When mayoral candidate Michael McGinn showed up at the King County Municipal League Awards ceremony last Wednesday night at the Seattle Art Museum, he strolled in lugging two big, bright yellow bike panniers.  The fact that he was slated to address a room packed with Seattle’s most prominent players and politicos did not stop McGinn from riding his bike to the event in his city clothes.  And it wasn’t just a stunt — it’s well known that McGinn rides his electric-assist bike everywhere.  It says a lot.

Yesterday the McGinn campaign released a critique of Mayor Nickels’ environmental record — Publicola has a good summary here.  Nickels has a relatively solid green reputation, which will no doubt be tricky for McGinn successfully challenge and not be perceived by some as a fringe environmental wacko. 

One thing that struck me about the official Nickels campaign response is the strategy to play on people’s anxiety over the economy.  Spokesman Sandeep Kaushik told Publicola that “[McGinn] seems to be out of touch with the people of Seattle who are worried about jobs.”  This is not the message of a visionary leader.  The kind of leader we need now is one who recognizes our current challenges as opportunities.  Now is not the time to go backwards and neglect progress toward creating a sustainable culture in which everyone will thrive over the long term.  Now is the time to be bold.

 

Bike Love

I never saw Momentum magazine before a friend dropped a copy on my desk the other day, but it was hard not to immediately like a publication that, in its latest issue, manages to strike several hugeass chords: my neighborhood bike shop, 2020 Cycles; architect David Baker, one of my personal favorites and juror at the Seattle AIA Honor Awards; and there’s even a geeky article on LEED.

I love being reminded that urban cycling is such a growing trend.

On the back cover was an ad for Trek’s new singlespeed that dumps the traditional bike chain and replaces it with a carbon composite belt. Who cares if it’s fixie counterculture commodified by one of the corporate behemoths of bike companies. Because more bikes = good.

Not to be outdone, the Biomega Copenhagen uses a drive shift in lieu of a chain.



Bike Lanes on 23rd Ave: Patience Grasshopper


[ Diagram of a “road diet,” which will be necessary to fit bike lanes on 23rd Ave ]

As previously reported, the City of Seattle’s new Bike Master Plan shows bike lanes on 23rd Ave, south of Madison St. Since 23rd Ave is so narrow, the only way this could happen is if the road loses two motor vehicle travel lanes. But because 23rd Ave is such an important north-south arterial, I have always thought it highly unlikely that the City would follow through on the plan and sacrifice car capacity for bike lanes. There has already been one case in which the plan was watered down, on Stone Way in Fremont.


[ Stone Way bike lane protest ride, August 2007. Photo: Seattle Times ]

My suspicions were aroused upon reading a statement from SDOT posted here that said more analysis would be necessary before a decision would be made on 23rd Ave. In contrast, the bike master plan web site implies that thorough analysis has already been done:

“Relevant city arterial streets, determined by the existing data review and public input were further analyzed for potential addition of bike facilities using GIS (Geographic Information Systems) analysis and field evaluation. This study arterial network was further refined to develop a comprehensive and continuous bicycle network appropriately distributed throughout the City.”

So I fired off an email to SDOT asking for an explanation of why the Bike Master Plan is subject to further analysis, and what the process will be for coming to a final decision. Today, exactly one month later, I got a reply.

The short version is that in some cases SDOT decided to show recommendations that were not yet entirely backed up by traffic analysis, instead of showing nothing at all. Detailed evaluation of 23rd Ave will begin next Fall, and by March 2009, a final decision will be made. SDOT invites community involvement in the process.

In one way, the year-long delay may be a good thing. Because as time passes, public awareness of global warming, peak oil, and the importance of modifying our cities for less reliance on cars will only continue to grow. Ultimately, the decision on 23rd Ave will reveal that either we are coming to grips with future reality, or we are still stubbornly clinging to our car addition.

For the hardcore: full text of SDOT’s response after the break.

Read the rest of this entry »

1 Car = How Much Bike Parking?

Kind of old news, but worth noting…NYC is first city in country to replace on-street parking with bicycle racks

http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/trading-car-parking-for-bike-racks/

Rethinking Bike Lanes

Car Lane
via Ads of the World

Parking Policy Pickle

[ Editor’s note: HAC is pleased to publish the following post by Sara Nikolic, Co-Director at Futurewise ]

The City’s no park-and-ride policy around light rail stations has long been contentious, and this past week the controversy  heated  up when several SE Seattle businesses were ordered to stop selling spots to commuters in their underutilized surface lots near the stations.  Yesterday, Mayor McGinn responded by imposing a 30-day moratorium on enforcement of the policy.

On the surface, the policy strikes many people as silly—or worse, counter to the goal of encouraging more people to take transit. After all, the dense and pedestrian-friendly transit-oriented communities that many expected to sprout up in advance of light rail have yet to materialize, and alternative modes of station access are underfunded, insufficient, and in some cases, unsafe.

And it’s true that if the goal is to maximize ridership in the short term, then the City should encourage parking at every station.  The park-and-riders would come, and the trains would be fuller.  

But unfortunately, pursuing that myopic goal would torpedo the long-term, transformative potential of the light rail investment.  The vision for these station areas—as articulated in the 2001 station area plans, and on track to be upheld in the neighborhood plan updates currently underway in three light rail station area neighborhoods—is the conversion of an auto-dominated area of the city into pedestrian friendly, mixed-use neighborhood centers where people can easily access light rail by foot, bike or bus. Allowing park and ride facilities is not only a flagrant disregard for that vision, but would also make it more difficult to achieve for two key reasons:

  1. In many cases, these surface lots are the very properties that the city hopes will redevelop to help create more dense and pedestrian-friendly transit-oriented communities. Allowing income generation from retaining the surface lots will delay the necessary tipping point at which it becomes profitable to redevelop the properties.
  2. Surface lots are hostile to pedestrians. They are unpleasant to walk along, and in poor lighting or with heavy traffic, can also be unsafe. Encouraging more cars to enter and leave these lots during peak commuting times, when people may be accessing the station by foot or bicycle, will only exacerbate safety issues.

But wouldn’t it be okay if the policy change is only temporary, as McGinn proposed?  Maybe.  But the difficulty of taking away something after it has been granted cannot be underestimated.  For instance, how would it be decided when was the optimum time for the parking ban to be reinstated? 

What’s needed here is patience. We will likely have to wait for the next development cycle before much building happens in the SE Seattle station areas, and they will remain less than ideal in the near term.  Because while the City had the vision in advance of light rail to implement policies that discourage auto-oriented uses, it unfortunately didn’t commit to the kind of meaningful public investment that would have catalyzed the creation of real transit-oriented communities.

The current economic slowdown presents a great opportunity for the City to make those investments out ahead of the next wave of development.  And that would entail addressing the very concerns that SE Seattle residents have raised for years: improvements to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, economic development, crime and safety, school funding.

But now is not the time to backpedal on policy and accept band-aid fixes that will ultimately hold back progress towards establishing the walkable, mixed-use communities that make so much sense for high-capacity transit station areas.

The consequences of banning park and ride lots in station areas are not unintended.  The policy resulted from a thorough planning process, and its goal is long-term progress. Nothing has changed between 2001 and now that justifies abandoning that important long-term vision.

Seattle’s Transportation Carbon Footprint: Can Electric Cars Save Us?


[ Seattle’s 2008 GHG emissions from the transportation sector, which accounts for 62 percent of total emissions ]

Transportation is not only the single largest source of Seattle’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—accounting for 62 percent—but it is also the only sector from which emissions are still escalating: Seattle’s GHG inventory shows a seven percent increase in emissions from the transportation sector between 1990 and 2008.

There are two ways to reduce transportation emissions: travel less, or increase vehicle efficiency.

First, a word about air transportation: wow. It’s a remarkably large chunk of the transportation footprint considering how small a part of our typical daily lives air travel is compared to driving. Airplanes have passenger-mile efficiencies in the same range as cars—it’s the long travel distances that rack up the GHG emissions. Barring an unexpected breakthrough, it is unlikely that airplanes will ever become significantly more efficient. (Translation: airline stocks are not a wise long-term investment.)

Road travel constitutes nearly two thirds of Seattle’s transportation-based carbon footprint, and it also accounts for most of the increase in emissions since 1990. Crunching the road vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data shown in Table 3 below reveals that per capita VMT in Seattle were nearly identical in 1990 and 2008 (with a slight bump in 2005). In other words, VMT have risen at the same rate as population growth. From 1990 to 2008, passenger vehicle fleet efficiency increased by about nine percent, but that was not enough to offset the increase in emissions due to more driving.

The most promising strategy for reducing travel in personal vehicles is to create compact, walkable neighborhoods served with high-quality transit. This topic has been covered many times on this blog, and the case is made at length in Transit-Oriented Communities: A Blueprint for Washington State, the new report by Futurewise, GGLO, and Transportation Choices Coalition. The graph on the left is a concise summary the story:  population density is a proxy for the important physical ingredients of transit-oriented communities, and as density goes up, VMT go down.

But some contend that restructuring our built environment is too expensive and will take too long to be an effective response to climate change, and therefore that our focus should be on increasing vehicle efficiency. And the type of vehicle most often touted is the electric car.

Like most urbanists, my feelings about cars were well captured by Lewis Mumford when he wrote, “Forget the damned motorcar and build the cities for lovers and friends.” But has that bias resulted in unfair dismissal of solutions that don’t involve getting rid of cars? Given the dire threat of the climate change, we can’t afford to be hamstrung by such biases.

So the first question to answer is: How much more electricity would be needed if Seattle’s entire fleet was converted to electric vehicles?

The Nissan Leaf can travel about four miles on one kWh of electrical energy. But since many people need larger cars and light trucks let’s assume an average of 3 miles per kWh for the fleet. The 3,292,031,000 miles traveled by cars and light trucks in Seattle in 2008 would consume about 1,100,000 MWh. That represents a 14 percent increase over Seattle’s total 2008 electricity consumption of about 8,000,000 MWh (data from this report). An all electric fleet of commercial trucks—which are about one fourth as efficient as cars and light trucks—would require another 12 percent.

Thus, the total conversion would add about one quarter to Seattle’s current electrical demand. First reaction: that’s a lot less than I would have guessed given all the kinetic energy involved—we’re not talking about needing to double or triple electricity production or anything totally unfeasible like that.

And what would be the impact on GHG emissions? Because our regional carbon-free hydropower capacity is tapped out, new electrical demand is typically treated as “marginal,” with an emissions factor that assumes electricity is generated from fossil fuels. As discussed in this post, a 3 mile/kWh electric car using marginal electricity with an emissions factor of 600 grams CO2 per kWh, would emit 200 grams of CO2 per mile. Applying those assumptions, the full electric conversion would cut Seattle’s road transportation emissions about in half, which would reduce the City’s total carbon footprint by about one fifth.

That’s a big reduction, but unfortunately still not enough. Though there are two factors that could boost the upside of electric vehicles:

  • Our electricity will become less carbon-intensive over time as renewables come on line, resulting in a corresponding drop in GHG emissions associated with electric vehicles.
  • Electric cars can charge during off-peaks hours (at night) to take advantage of underutilized electrical generation capacity. And they also could be used as networked storage devices to feed power back to the grid when advantageous.

Of course, there are also many downsides left out of the above analysis:

  • There are significant GHG emissions resulting from car use in addition to those associated with simply propelling the car. For example, Toyota estimates that manufacture accounts for 30 percent of a Prius’ lifetime GHG emissions. In addition, the infrastructure required for cars is a source of GHG emissions—one study estimates that roadway construction and maintenance adds another 26 percent to the GHG emissions associated with operating a conventional car.
  • Rising fossil fuel costs and carbon pricing will inevitably result in rising demands on carbon-free electricity from all sectors, and electric vehicles may end up competing for energy needed to supply the basics, such as heating homes.
  • The Puget Sound region is projected to grow by 1.6 million people by 2040, an increase of more than 40 percent. If we do nothing other than convert our fleet, we can expect VMT to rise proportionally. And in this scenario, we’d have to choose between a massive amount of road building or total gridlock. Note that this this scenario would also mean a forty-plus percent increase in electricity consumed by electric vehicles.
  • Electric cars are expensive (it’s all about the batteries). A new $30k electric car for every Seattle household would cost about $9 billion—more than twice the City’s total annual budget of $3.9 billion.
  • And lastly, electric cars, like conventional cars, inherently cause a host of negatives, including accidents, high cost of ownership, sedentary lifestyles, social isolation, land consumption, impervious pavement, and the proliferation of terrible urban design.

So then, do we have a verdict on electric cars?  First of all, like most ideas applied to the real world, they are not a silver bullet solution.  In the short term, it makes sense to get a lot more electric vehicles out on the road as soon as possible, simply because they are much more energy efficient than conventional motor vehicles. 

In the long term however, it is delusional to think that we can go on with car-centric business as usual if we simply switch to electric vehicles.  Indeed, our future prosperity will be determined to a large degree by how successfully we reduce reliance on cars.  And that means reshaping our urban areas such that (1) people can meet many of their daily needs with short trips that can be made on foot or bike, and (2) convenient public transit is available for longer trips. (Hint: some folks like to call such places transit-oriented communities.)

Climate Change Mitigation Is A Win-Win-Win-etc.

Assessments of mitigation strategies in four domains—household energy, transport, food and agriculture, and electricity generation—suggest an important message: that actions to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions often, although not always, entail net benefits for health. In some cases, the potential benefits seem to be substantial. This evidence provides an additional and immediate rationale for reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions beyond that of climate change mitigation alone.

So says a summary of  a new series of reports on climate change mitigation and public health, recently published in the Lancet (full article here).  Yet another example of what’s good for the planet is good for people.  No coincidence, that.

Meanwhile the call to make Seattle a carbon-neutral city by 2030 continues to reverberate. And one of the main conclusions in the Lancet series that’s most relevant to Seattle is this:

In terms of strategic choices, the greatest health gains seem likely to result from changes towards active transport, and from diets that are low in animal source foods, at least for adult populations in high-income countries.

Regarding animal source foods, the persistence of meat-based diets in educated and progressive cities like Seattle is a remarkable example of the power of culture. Most of us know that eating less meat makes both us and the planet healthier, and that meat production is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Yet relatively few of us take that information seriously enough to make meaningful changes to our lifestyles.

The term “active transport” is code for walking and biking. Copenhagenize has a good post on the transport piece of the Lancet series, writing:

The report suggests that funds be redirected away from roads in order to make walking and cycling “the most direct, convenient and pleasant options for most urban trips”. Pedestrians and cyclists should also benefit from having a “priority” over cars and trucks at intersections.

And also noting the key point that:

Walking and cycling came out on top even when compared to increased use of low-emission vehicles that are widely sold as “green” solutions.

Because our transportation choices are so dependent on land use patterns, change on this front is a task far more challenging than eating less meat. Nevertheless it is a path that we should pursue, because (1) we need to be working on many strategies in parallel if we hope to avoid catastrophic climate change, and (2)  because the potential benefits extend beyond climate change mitigation and health.

We already have a proven model for restructuring our built environment to promote active transport:  transit-oriented communities (TOC). Futurewise, GGLO, and Transportation Choices Coalition recently published a report on TOC in the context of Seattle and Washington State, summarizing that high-performing TOC have the potential to:

  • Promote health by encouraging walking and bicycling, cutting air pollution, and reducing motor vehicle accidents;
  • Lower household expenses for both transportation and housing;
  • Reduce municipal infrastructure costs;
  • Provide a high return on public investment in transit infrastructure;
  • Help meet the growing demand for walkable neighborhoods;
  • Curb land consumption and thereby help conserve working farms and forests, and protect natural ecosystems and water quality; and
  • Cut energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions associated with both transportation and the built environment.

We also know that climate change mitigation has the potential to be an economic win: carbon-free prosperity is possible. And we also know that the cost of doing nothing is likely orders of magnitude higher than the cost of mitigation, and will be disproportionally felt by the poor.

How many vital reasons will we need before we get serious?

>>>


[ Confused about what this graph from the Lancet summary report is trying to tell us?  You’re not alone—it’s a great example of bad visual communication.  My take on it, without bothering to read the details, is that “active transport” and “lower carbon driving” have about the same potential for GHG reductions, but you get more health benefits from active transport.  Not surprising.  But also: the potential benefits from cleaner electricity generation dwarf transport, even in the EU. ]

What Just Happened?: The meaning of McGinn’s win

1258597756-mcginngreen

Photo: Jen Nance

There is a story being told (see Grant Cogswell’s piece in The Stranger, “Late Returns”) today about what Michael McGinn’s big win means.

It goes like this: McGinn raised an army of volunteers, called them into service to reverse the defeat of the Monorail, slap passive aggressive Seattle in the face and crush the Establishment. It is a story full of sound and fury. But is it true?

I don’t think so. This story is sewn together with scraps of past resentments and frustrations at the “Seattle Way,” and the Seattle Establishment each of which we have all blamed for whatever civic ailments we find most irksome. It is a story of scores being settled. But it does have one thing correct: our city will never be the same.

The reason is that McGinn’s win is far more significant than some might think and powerful because it sets the stage for true transformation of our city. The volunteers are the cast with Michael McGinn as the leading man. But the star, I would argue, is the people of this city and the story is about the resolution of a dialectic—an argument between two small groups with divergent views of the city’s future—that has bedeviled the city for 40 years.

If only this was true . . .

If only this was true . . .

First, let us do away with the idea that Seattle has an Establishment; a room full of old white men smoking cigars and pondering the future of the city. If only such a thing existed. You would find me outside the door begging for 15 minutes to persuade them (with a power point of course) to adopt my agenda. I would wait for years, because, after all, the men inside control immense wealth, and the machinery of political power. With a shrug and a grunt they could unleash all that power to do all kinds of things like up-zone Laurelhurst, get the major development projects completed and create a new neighborhood in places like Interbay.

The Seattle Establishment?

The Seattle Establishment?

However, this idea of the Seattle Establishment is a fantasy. It doesn’t exist. Developers have failed completely to dominate the discourse in the city. Their internal divisions have rendered them essentially inoperative as a political force. During the land use battles of the last several years Vulcan and Wright Runstad feuded over incentive zoning and whose projects would be most harmed. Industrial lands consumed them as they fought over whose ox would be gored and over where the boundaries would be drawn. Incentive zoning, which they uniformly hated, was passed in spite of their efforts to stop it.

What about the business community? True they mustered forces effectively to foist Joe Mallahan, the Mayor of Tunnel City, on Seattle. It was a breathtaking performance, with the Governor and the Legislature organizing themselves into a phalanx of consistent messaging: tunnel or else. Some might point to their failure as the “death of the Establishment.” But the backward facing folks who created this critical mass are similarly divided over a broad agenda for the city. They opposed the Monorail and Sound Transit but supported the repeal of so called “head tax,” a small tax supporting bike and pedestrian infrastructure, while simultaneously urging that billions of tax dollars be spent for a tiny stretch of buried highway. The business community is really an unrepresentative group of people who are clutching on to the status quo, with no vision for the future other than complaining about taxes and wrapping their arms around the legs of Boeing and Microsoft. And they spent thousands of dollars on a losing candidate in the last election.

Business as usual . . .

Business as usual . . .

What about the NIMBYs? It is true that Seattle could field a team for the NIMBY Olympics with Jeannie Hale (Children’s Hospital is destroying Laurelhurst!), John Fox (saving Laurelhurst from Children’s will help homeless people) and Pat Murikami (Transit Oriented Development will turn Southeast Seattle into a Bombay slum) as star players. But the NIMBYs are only as good as the level of fear on City Council. More panic on the Council’s part about up-zones or new land use strategy hands the NIMBYs victories now and then, enabling them to blow up individual projects. But the NIMBYs have no vision either; they have no concept of the city’s future only their past.

NIMBYs have no vision.

NIMBYs have no vision.

No, none of these frightened backward looking groups represent the Seattle Establishment. Rather they are the groups that have shown up to stop change. And occasionally (like with TOD or Children’s) they form an axis now and then, aligning, for example, the interests of homeless people with the interests of single family gentry. But this is hardly a movement amounting to an Establishment.

So what did happen? My theory is that the people of this city are ready for a new story. They are rejecting the Forward Thrust vs. Lesser Seattle, Spy versus Spy, conflict which has defined politics in our town since the 1970s. These two parties were pretty clear, the latter focused on big capitol projects the former focused on keeping Seattle a small town dominated by fishermen and descendents of pioneers. One group supported the Nordstrom Parking Garage (remember that one) and the other opposed it, for example. The Thrusters saw the garage as supportive of growth which would create economic development and the Lessers saw it as another attempt to pretty up Seattle for Yuppies and people from out of town.

Jim Ellis: Thesis

Jim Ellis: Thesis

Emmett Watson: Antithesis

Emmett Watson: Antithesis

The old Thrusters were behind the tunnel and oddly so were many of the Lessers. The Thrusters loved all the financing and concrete because after all, concrete and financing mean progress. The Lessers saw the tunnel as a solution for capacity to prevent congestion. City’s are about cars and the city needs less congestion and more mobility. Suddenly in Joe Mallahan the two sides of Seattle’s heretofore blood enemies found common cause.

And they lost. Both the view that we will build highways to economic recovery and that we should board up Seattle’s windows and doors to new growth were soundly defeated by the McGinn campaign. Their combination gave Seattle voters a clear picture of the co-dependent grip which was holding their city hostage. So, instead of insider transitions, which would give the Lessers something to rail at and the Thrusters something to game, the McGinn transition is open source, accessible and maddeningly transparent.

Cymbals of change (from Publicola)

Cymbals of change; photo: Publicola

McGinn and his band of advocates have reset the game clock and the rules of the game. This isn’t about beating the establishment, but rather about the future. The new story is not about the internecine struggle between small, unrepresentative groups working the City process with fear and anxiety about what will happen if we do or don’t do a big project, but rather about building a common cause for a sustainable city. People believed this new story about all of us working together for a common vision of where we live, a future together not fraught with fear but with hope.

Ironically, the demolition of the old Thrust versus Less narrative elevates and weaves together the highest ideals of both sides. The Thrusters believed in taking risks on cleaning up Lake Washington and building transit even though the expensive was bourn today with benefits in the future. The Lessers were the epitome of ruggedness and community, banding together to build a city in distant, wet and tree infested land always resisting freeways and more concrete in favor of local people and neighborhoods.

So McGinn’s election is about this city and its transformation into a different place, rooted firmly in the best of its past and reaching up towards its persistent ideals of community, place and self-sufficiency. The outcome is not assured, but the momentum is going in the right direction. Anyone who was at the event at New Holly (a kind of McGinnaugural ball) last week understands what I am talking about. This is something different.

It is an end to force fed megaprojects and a step toward more transparency. It means welcoming growth and planning for it rather than pretending like growth won’t happen. It means thinking big and being innovative; think “bonds on bikes.”

Michael McGinn:Synthesis

Michael McGinn:Synthesis

Understanding what the McGinn win means is important. Seeing it as the latest in a tit for tat, us versus them, smart versus dumb battle denigrates its promise and dooms it to repeating the same old tired battles. The McGinn win is nothing less than a win for the future of our city through a synthesis of two older views of what that future should be.

>>>
>>>
>>>

My Work Is Done

The reason for my lack of posts over the past five days has now been revealed: Clearly I subconsciously intuited that today would bring the pinnacle of my blogging career, the sweet payoff for two years of sleep deprivation and bad posture hunched over a laptop. Yes, today my blog was mentioned by the Uptight Seattleite. I can now die happy. Has anyone started my Wikipedia entry yet?

But hold on, time out here, the beeps from my satire radar are growing louder…  Oh dear me, could it be that I was not only mentioned, but—say it isn’t so—mocked? Heavens yes, I think I now get the cleverly hidden subtext: If the Uptight Seattleite likes bikes and European transportation models and hugeasscity, then the take home message can be none other than this: the hugeasscity guy is just another typical psudo-new-agey, eco-hypocritical, knee-jerk liberal, hyper-PC, passive-agressive, super nice, uptight Seattleite.  The phrase “shooting fish in a barrel” comes to mind.

(Granted, it is a strange coincidence that I also play bass in a 40-something funky blues rock cover band.*)

So then, as payback for the Uptight Seattleite’s help in establishing hugeasscity in the local cultural lore, I would like to suggest a way we all could help bring greater fame and fortune to the creative mind behind the column: out him/her. That’s right, can anybody out there share with us the true identity of the author of Uptight Seattleite?

Or is that not PC?

Or am I just embarrassingly out of the loop, and everyone in the know already knows? I googled for it, albeit halfheartedly, but came up empty.

Or perhaps there is some serious, justifiable reason why the identity should not be revealed? But it’s not like Uptight is being critical of Obama or anything psychotic like that. At worst, Uptight is a little bit mean-spirited.

And the cool thing is commenters can revoke Uptight’s anonymity anonymously. Yup, I have a beef with anonymity in the media. Cause with rare exceptions, it’s just plain bad mojo.

>>>

*though I played guitar on this one.

Don’t Lose Your Head Tax

The story of the so called “head tax” must wind up being about accountability.  How will the Seattle City Council be held accountable for repealing the tax in the face of so many rational reasons to keep it?  First, let’s go back to the beginning.

Over the summer some of us learned that the “head tax” was on the chopping block, mainly because promises had been made to the Seattle Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Seattle Association. People running for Council had promised to remove the dreaded tax.

Supporters of the tax rallied. Calls were made, research done and opinion pieces submitted to the Seattle Times.  The Times wouldn’t publish the piece because they supported repeal.  Visits were had with members of the City Council and the case was presented. Here it is:

Our request to you is pretty straightforward. Please do not vote to repeal the so called “Head Tax” this year.

This repeal won’t help business and will create more budget challenges at a time when revenues are down and financial challenges for the city are increasing. Consider the following:

  • Is now the time to give away more than $4.5 million in revenue? That is more than $20 million dollars over the next 5 years. The budget short fall this year exceeds $70 million dollars. If you repeal this tax you simply add more to that gap.
  • The tax won’t create any relief for businesses in Seattle. Businesses paid, on average, $92 per year for this tax, and remember businesses earning less than $80,000 in revenue pay nothing toward this tax.
  • People voted in favor of the Bridging the Gap (BTG) ballot measure based on the inclusion of the revenues from this tax. Repealing the tax now is not keeping faith with the voters who supported the BTG package which included revenue from this tax.
  • This tax can create real, living wage jobs for construction workers and local contractors. The funds from this tax add to pedestrian and bike infrastructure projects. At a time when our state’s unemployment rate has increased to 9.2 percent why would we forgo the opportunity to support more work for these local people.
  • The tax incentivizes alternative transportation. Some say that this does nothing to discourage driving because the tax is so small. That isn’t a reason to repeal the tax but a reason to increase it. Please don’t allow the false logic of it being too small of a tax to encourage repeal.  If the paperwork is a challenge, focus on fixing that problem first.

One of the key features of this tax that makes it even more important to hold on to is that it is bondable, meaning every dollar that we collect brings with it more potential dollars in the form of low interest, or no interest loans in the form of bonds. If you repeal this you also repeal that leverage

Two other important facts to note; the same Council that repealed the “head tax” and rushed a tunnel agreement forward for a vote (9-0) took more than a year to pass legislation allowing 800 square foot backyard cottages. In a multiple year pilot in the southeast section of the city, less than two dozen cottages were built. Yet it took the City Council over a year to do what Portland did years ago and Vancouver BC did much faster. Sustainable cities allow cottages because they create more options and choices. The City Council chose to make simple decisions overly complicated and complicated ones overly simple.

Reason was just a speed bump on the drive to satisfy a very narrow set of business interests—the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Seattle Association—on the “head tax.” Again, this was the repeal of a tax that did everything right—funded pedestrian and bike infrastructure at the expense of people who drive to work—for very little cost to business ($92 a year for the average business). And there was no outcry from actual, real businesses about the tax.

Personally, I would have been irritated by the repeal but accepting if it actually created jobs and helped small and medium sized businesses. I would have shrugged if the tax was replaced with another source of revenue, in this budget, that was dedicated to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.  And if that revenue was derived from auto intensive uses like parking taxes and tickets, for example, I probably wouldn’t be outraged. And finally, had the Council deliberated more on the billion dollar tunnel vote and a lot less on backyard cottages I almost certainly wouldn’t be writing this bill of particulars. But that isn’t how it happened.

So maybe someone in our city will organize around this issue and little by little and in quiet ways get ready for the 2011 council elections, when there are five seats up for election.  It is early yet for 2011. But it isn’t too early to find candidates willing to run for open or occupied seats. Bold? Maybe it is. Ill advised? I don’t think so.

Is there any other way to create a happy ending to the story of the ill fated “head tax?” Can the shape of Council change by 2011? Or will the story end with good stewardship of public resources and sustainability abandoned by politicians in favor of pleasing a couple of business organizations. Will the Council create a dedicated fund for bike and pedestrian infrastructure in this budget?

Only time, and the voters eventually, will tell whether this was an easy win for business soon forgotten by the losers, or if it will be but one battle in a longer struggle to make Seattle a city that has leadership willing to pay for sustainability not just talk about it.

Questions That Lead To More Questions

Though I’m not one of the official McGinn transition ambassadors, how could I not post the three questions?

  1. How do we build the strongest possible team to achieve the policy objectives and values set forth by the campaign (grass roots community involvement, transparency and neighborhood focus)?
  2. How do we build public trust in the new administration?
  3. What do you view as the incoming administration and the city’s greatest challenge – what should we do first out of the gate?

My kneejerk reaction to McGinn’s proposed transition process is lukewarm—I am skeptical that anything groundbreaking will be learned, and I would rather see the transition team’s limited time and energy spent defining goals, and working out the big picture strategies for achieving them.  But I am trying to control my skepticism.  Because McGinn has surprised me before—e.g. although I was an early supporter, all along I was skeptical that he could actually win.

I’m not going to attempt to answer the questions here but would love to see ideas batted around in the public forum of the HAC comments.  And I think it’s safe to say the McGinn team will be looking on.

Saving Grace


[ The horrors of Snowpocalypse 2008 ]

One of the smartest decisions the next mayor of Seattle could make would be to retain Grace Crunican as the director of the Seattle Department of Transportation.  But sadly no, both Mallahan and McGinn have said said they would not.  Given Crunican’s record, it’s hard not to interpret that positition as pandering.

Since being appointed by Mayor Nickels in 2002, Crunican has completely transformed the heart and soul of SDOT.  What had been an inflexible, close-minded, car-centric, typical American big city transportation department, has been reborn as an agency that embraces the concept of “complete streets;” that produced the bicycle and pedestrian master plans; that delivered Seattle’s first modern age street car; that has been dedicating significant resources to slowly but surely chipping away at the task of improving infrastructure for non-motorized transportation.

Crunican has been consistently pushing for a two-way boulevard to fix the “Mercer Mess,” a proposal that sends the “all developers are evil” crowd into convulsions.  But when you have urban designers, transportation engineers, and bike/ped advocates all agreeing, you can be pretty sure you’re on to something good.  All indications are that Crunican would also promote a balanced solution for the waterfront after the viaduct comes down.

Crunican is arguably one of the most progressive city transportation directors in the entire country.  So why all the zealous calls for her head?  Because of “Snowpocalypse 2008?”  The infantile reaction that some Seattleites had to the snowstorm is an embarrassment to humanity.  Or simply because she’s a convenient scapegoat to appease car-headed whiners?  Because she’s tainted by Nickels?  Somebody help me out here.

For two outsider candidates lacking experience in City Hall, saving Grace would demonstrate a recognition that in some cases stabilty and continuity are as important as renewal.

A Message From The People’s Waterfront Coalition

(Editor’s note:  The following is a letter from Cary Moon to friends and supporters of PWC, reproduced here with permission.)

>>>

Dear friends,

It’s been a while since I wrote to share news with PWC friends and supporters. The politics around this viaduct decision were already tricky, and continue to get weirder. Here’s a recap from my perspective, to reestablish some facts and assess the next steps:

In December 2008, at the conclusion of an exhaustive and excellent stakeholder process, the three Departments of Transportion (DOTs) recommended either Surface /Transit / I-5 or the elevated as two viable options for viaduct replacement. Both solutions met the criteria for affordability, public safety, and mobility for people and freight, and the Surface/ Transit / I-5 plan fared better on the three other goals. (Remember –even tested against the worse case of regional car trips increasing 20% by 2015, modeling showed the Surface / Transit/ I-5 solution works great.) At that time, significant consensus among Seattle decision leaders was emerging around doing Surface / Transit / I-5 now, with continued study of also doing a single-bore tunnel.

By January 2009, the political playing field shifted, and the Governor, KC Executive, and Mayor announced a different decision: the State uses their money to dig a bored tunnel and help pay for the new Alaskan Way surface street, and the City and County do a scaled-back set of the proposed transit and street improvements with other money the State would help secure. The state legislature recommitted the state’s $2.8 billion to their part of this deal in March, called it final, and WSDOT is moving ahead.

It’s worth noting that officially, the State’s bored tunnel proposal is not a done deal, since a) WSDOT is not supposed to start a project before completing an EIS where the costs, risks, and environmental impacts are made public, and b) it isn’t fully funded. The County’s transit improvements– which would have been funded with $190 million in new Motor Vehicle Excise Tax – fell through when the 2009 legislature did not grant authority for King County to raise MVET fees. The City’s projects—streets improvements, the seawall, utility relocation, and transit enhancements ($930 million total, all good and necessary projects) – are moving forward with varying degrees of certainty and funding.

Many reasonable people like this compromise, are relieved the arguing is over, and are happy the waterfront is back safely in Seattle’s hands (29%- 49% of Seattleites, depending on how the question is asked). Many reasonable people don’t like this compromise (43% to 64%), and think that the bored tunnel is too risky, doesn’t fit Seattle’s future, goes against our City and State’s mandate to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and is too expensive given other unfunded priorities. Some of these tunnel opponents like surface /transit /I-5, and some like the elevated.

This fall, Seattle is in the midst of a Mayoral election where the tunnel is a key issue. We’ve heard a lot of arguing over the decision that happened 9 months ago. At this point, it would be really helpful to know how the new Mayor will move forward from here. Here are some key questions we should all be asking both candidates:

1. Mobility within Seattle, with or without the State’s proposed bypass tunnel, will depend on well-connected streets, expanded transit service, better bike facilities, and a new surface Alaskan Way after the viaduct is removed. The recent stakeholder process thoroughly examined the local transportation system, and proposed a set of projects to improve mobility. What street and transit projects are in your plan for Seattle, and how will you fund them?

2. The EIS for the State’s proposed tunnel is underway, and will reveal crucial information about the tunnel’s cost, risk of overruns, constructability, effects on Seattle’s urban fabric, and environmental impacts. Other alternatives are not being considered in the EIS, and neither are the broadly supported I-5 improvements. What information do you expect to come out of the EIS? What will you do as Mayor if the tunnel’s cost escalates, if the risks are too high, or the environmental impacts are excessively harmful?

3. Even though the viaduct is primarily used for short in-city travel (85% of trips), the State holds a lot of power in this decision, and gets to decide what they do with their $2.8 billion. Whether you stop the tunnel (McGinn) or if the tunnel becomes infeasible (Mallahan), what is your alternative? How will you work with the State and regional players to fund your alternative and ensure it serves Seattle’s mobility needs well, removes the unsafe viaduct structure in a timely schedule, helps reduce VMT long-term, and redevelops the waterfront with the future of the city – and not just cars – in mind?

4. The State legislature added a provision to the tunnel funding bill requiring a handful of unsuspecting Seattle citizens to pay any cost overruns WSDOT or their contractors might incur. This betrayal of public trust is absurd, and probably illegal. Do you think this is unfair, and how would you remove it?

5. When the viaduct is torn down, our generation gets to reweave the urban fabric and connect future Seattle to the waters of Puget Sound. How will you lead the effort to make a magnificent place, where the new street, the seawall and beaches, new parks, pedestrian and bike paths, and bordering properties all function beautifully together as the civic heart of Seattle?

This is not the only issue, of course, but it may be the most complex challenge / opportunity our next Mayor will face.

The People’s Waterfront Coalition is currently working hard with our allies on three things:
– organizing the waterfront planning framework so the waterfront unfolds to its most brilliant potential,
– helping define smarter goals and more innovative ideas for the seawall project, and
– helping build political momentum for more sustainable funding for bus transit.
More soon on those topics.

— Cary Moon

The Truth About Density Advocates

City Council Candidate David Miller, known in some circles as a tireless neighborhood advocate and in others as a wackjob NIMBY, had this to say on Publicola a few weeks back:

“There are two thoughts in density in Seattle. One suggests density is inherently good for Seattle and the environment, the other suggests that only density done well is good for Seattle and the environment. I’m firmly in the latter camp.”

Let me be clear: these categories do not exist, and I can only interpret such a statement to be an attempt by David to paint himself as reasonable and to pander to “neighborhood-interest” voters.

Now, the members of the HAC Collaborative be some of the most unrelenting density advocates out there, but not one of us would fall into Mr. Miller’s first category, although I suspect we are the very ones he had in mind with this description. His suggestion that any of us care more about density than quality of life is as overly-simplistic as it is insulting. News flash to David (and John Fox, and anyone else who seems to think there is such as thing as a density-for-density’s-sake-dogma): us density advocates are all people, neighbors, community members. We have homes, some of us even own them, and care about our property values. We have kids in the Seattle Public School system and care about the quality of their education. We live around the corner from this shite and think the city owes residents and neighbors better design in our multi-family housing. We don’t think trees should come down just because a new building is going up. We want our neighborhoods to have better sidewalks, better bike lanes, better transit. In short, we care, very deeply on both personal and collective levels, about the quality of life in our community.

All that said, I don’t think my neighborhood, or any neighborhood, should have a choice about accommodating additional growth. We should allow detached accessory dwelling units in our single-family zones (yep, even mine)—and not just the paltry 50 per year that the city is current proposing—in order to maximize the potential for more flexible and affordable ground related housing, especially for extended family households. We should upzone many of our transit-served arterials (yep, even the one 100 feet from my front door) to maximize the opportunity for people to live near our transit investments. And encouraging more development in our transit-rich station areas and urban centers? Well that is a no-brainer.

Because here is the truth that density advocates understand: Density is good for the environment. And density done well is good for Seattle.

Yes: density is good for the environment. Mitigating climate change. Restoring Puget Sound. Conserving our rural and resource lands. Responsible growth management. Oh yeah, and it’s also good for affordability and physical health.

But to reap the environmental and physical benefits of density, it’s got to be welldesigned, offering foot, bike and transit access to homes, jobs, and community services, and affordable to a range of incomes. That makes it livable. And that is good for Seattle.

So how do we ensure density and livability? Well, we plan. But not the way David Miller suggests here a few months back (from PhinneyWood interview):

And while [David believes that] development needs to happen in the city to address housing density issues without creating urban sprawl, “[The city’s] job is to protect the people who already live here.”

Argh! No! Land use planning efforts should not hold my interests (or those of any other current resident of this city) paramount! We density advocates believe that we have a moral responsibility to be a wee more forward thinking than today’s interests, especially when those interests may be at the expense of future generations. After all, a building that goes up today could be on the ground for 100 years, and I sure won’t be around then, so why should my interests come first? I want to city to plan for my kids’ interests, and your kids’ interests, and our kids’ kids’ interests, not to be beholden to the short-term and short-sighted interests of today. Such limits on thinking and innovation are obstacles to implementing long term vision for the region, and necessarily squelch any political leadership to get us there.

And as such, us density advocates believe that the city, and sometimes, yes, the state, has an integral role in ensuring that our land use and transportation policies are forward thinking for the long-term. And sometimes that means making some top-down decisions to make sure that the broader public interest of sustainability is achieved. That is the intent and essence of the Growth Management Act.

So, the David Miller and John Fox types of the world may call my ilk top-down, heavy-handed wide-eyed enviros out to destroy homes and communities. The truth is that we are both environmentally conscious and socially responsible, and understand the absolutely essential role that increased urban density plays in long-term environmental and social sustainability.

And as far as I’m concerned, anyone who does not share this understanding should not be in a position of making public policy.

Stating The Obvious: Hugeasscity Wants You To Vote For Mike McGinn In The Mayoral Primary


[ Mike McGinn at the Umojafest Parade today in the Central District ]

Hey, super!   But does anyone give a flying fug what those “hugeasscity guys” think? Do endorsements matter?

Mayor Greg Nickels has a massive endorsement list—check it out for yourself below after the break—a who’s who of local enviros and politicos.  But does anyone outside the bubble notice?  And most of the Nickels endorsements were given months ago—why so early in the race?  Two weeks ago former Seattle City Council member Peter Steinbrueck was quoted in Publicola saying that “McGinn is right on the mark. I misjudged him after his kickoff. The more I hear him the more I like him.”

Right, and what’s with the Cascade Bicycle Club’s endorsement of Nickels? It is obvious—and the CBC admits it—that McGinn is more aligned with their values, yet CBC chose to endorse the “friendly incumbent.”  So did CBC endorse Nickels because they believe he would be more effective than McGinn at advancing their agenda, i.e. McGinn’s values are inconsequential?  Or are they playing politics, not wanting to dis the Mayor in case he is reelected, while knowing that if McGinn wins he’ll be on their side no matter what?  But the thing is, if Nickels is truly committed to urban sustainability he’s not going to snub the cycling agenda to spite those who did not support his campaign.  Pro-cycling policy benefits the City as a whole, not just the members of CBC, and from that perspective, Nickels needs CBC more than they need him.

Worldchanging co-founder Alex Steffen is the only prominent enviro that I know of who has forsaken Nickels and given his endorsement to Mike McGinn.  Steffen is a big picture thinker whose work doesn’t rely on direct interaction with city policy makers.   This grants Steffen the intellectual freedom to endorse without being encumbered by political relationships, although some would no doubt argue that any such endorsement carries little weight precisely because it is disconnected from the political realm, since getting real work done always hinges on politics.

The Stranger has just officially endorsed McGinn, and has also argued that McGinn deserves support simply because he would be the most constructive challenger to Nickels.  Agreed.  McGinn would shift the debate to the left, while other the other serious challengers are to the right of Nickels.

Though this post is sure be the most rambling, unquotable and therefore most useless endorsement McGinn has yet received, for what it’s worth, I will be voting for McGinn in the primary.  To anyone who follows this blog this should come as no surprise, e.g. McGinn was awarded the Hugeasscity Badge of Integrity way back in March.  My support of McGinn is largely based on personal conversations I have with him over the course of the last year or so.  We see eye to eye on all the the major issues that I care about—the issues that have come to define this blog.  Go McGinn!

Read the rest of this entry »

Trains Are Magic

Even though my only credential is that I created a blog with the word “ass” in the title, yesterday I was allowed on the Link Light Rail VIP preview ride.  It’s a strange and beautiful world.

What is it about trains?  Everybody loves them.  And yes, of course, the Link Light Rail trains are sweet; the stations are sweet.  The populace will love it.  The allure of the train will draw more people to transit, and the permanence of the stations will catalyze rational and compact development patterns.  Urbanist wonk heaven.

But don’t think for a minute that I don’t have something curmudgeonly to add.  Because as has been noted ad nauseum on this blog—here, here, here, and here—the stations in the southeast Seattle portion of the line completely lack the kind of compact, walkable urban form that is appropriate for high capacity transit station areas.  And now that the trains are running, it’s only that much more embarrassing.  The light rail line itself is a huge achievement, but now the equally challenging task at hand is to transform the built environment around the stations.

The photos below give some flavor of the sad situation on the ground in the southeast Seattle and Tukwila stations:


[ Looking east from the Mt. Baker station platform, with Franklin High School in the background. ]


[  Looking west from the Columbia City station. ]


[ The Park & Ride at the Tukwila station.  Note the wall preventing easy access to the station from the housing. ]


[ The Tukwila station itself is a nice piece of work. ]

Bonus celebrity shots:

.
[ Seattle City Council candidate Mike O’Brien brought his bike along for the ride; King County Executive candidate Larry Phillips and corporate journalist Josh Feit feeling the light rail love. ]


[ Good timing for Mayor Greg Nickels, who happens to be up for reelection. ]

Unauthorized Rogue HAC Endorsement of Mike McGinn for Mayor

Disclaimer: The following is the sole opinion of Dave and doesn’t necessarily represent the views of anyone else past or present at hugeasscity (but probably does).

Last night I had the pleasure of being invited for a leisurely bike ride down to Mount Baker to attend an informational house party hosted by the McGinn for Mayor campaign. Arriving fashionably late, we managed to enter right as McGinn began to explain to attendees why he should be Seattle’s next mayor. Now I have to admit, I’m predisposed to support McGinn. While serving as chair of the Seattle Sierra club, McGinn’s voice was the lone outspoken critic of the “Roads and Transit” initiative. Mike’s leadership was key in convincing voters like me that environmentalist and transit advocates need not accept the Faustian bargain presented to us. “Roads and transit” failed, and last November Sound Transit 2 passed overwhelmingly.

This time around, McGinn is targetting another potential disaster, a $4.2 billion tunnel through downtown that no one in Seattle seems to want or pay for. The state has announced by decree that Seattle will have a tunnel and that Seattle will pay for it. Now no offense to the state, but there are plenty of other world class cities that don’t have waterfront highways, and even one just a few hundreds miles north that has no highways cutting through it at all. Lets face it, with the school district closing schools and the library cutting hours, this city really doesn’t have the money to pay for a 1950’s auto extravagance in 2009. McGinn is the only candidate in this race who opposes the tunnel. Voting for him in the August 18th primary ensures that we have serious debate on the issue during the general election.

Now for some constructive criticism. McGinn’s campaign has three core pillars: transportation, education and internet infrastructure…Wait internet infrastructure? Huh? As a tech geek and engineer I have to admit that a city run fiber optic network does seem kind of cool, but there are many more pressing issues he can and should concentrate on. My neighborhood for instance has a huge gang problem. Last year marked one of the worst in recent memory for gang related shootings in the city. How is he going to address this problem? Artist are being run out of Capitol Hill, how do we as a city prioritize the need for a vibrant art community which makes neighborhoods like Capitol Hill desirable for all us condo buyers? I’m also curious about his position on night life in the city. The law may say that bars must stop serving at two, but 1:15 unfortunately seems like the norm these days. These and other questions about the future of our city will be asked if McGinn makes it into the general election. Some well thought out answers would be nice.

Etiquette Question

Say you’re riding home on your bike on a nice sunny evening, and you’re a few blocks from home on 24th Ave behind the post office at 23rd and Union, and you see a man and a woman huddled together against the chain link fence, and while he is busy lighting up some kind of pipe and billowing smoke, she glances over at you with a jittery dear-in-the-headlights look and says “what’s up?”  What is the proper reply?

(Note to Seattle:  there be a whole lotta crack smokin going on around 23rd and Union.  All day every day.  Odd, isn’t it?  Gosh, it’s so un-Seattle!  But there it is, a mere half-mile from Seattle’s nucleus of hipsterdom a.k.a. Pike/Pine to the west, and only a mile from multi-million dollar lakeside homes in Madrona to the east.  Too bad the meltdown stalled a six-story mixed-use project that would have been about the best possible medicine for street crime.   Anyhoo,  I have to wonder how many of those folks who frequently enjoy a good hit of crack are concerned about the lack of progress on TOD in Seattle.   Any crack smoking hugeasscity readers out there?  C’mon, fess up, it’s anonymous!)