Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

Car Hater


A happy place for bike commuting

Allow me to predict my own demise. Or better yet, you can probably guess it. Because you see, I’m a bike commuter. I ride through downtown Seattle five days a week all year long. And I intend to continue using a bicycle for practical transportation as much as possible until I’m dead and buried or get so old I can’t remember where I left my bike.

So the smart money is on my demise being delivered when a few thousand pounds of moving metal, plastic, glass, and rubber crushes my body against the pavement.

This is one reason I hate cars (but not the only one): They kill and maim an insanely high number of innocent people, and are a constant threat to those who are simply trying to exist peacefully on planet Earth. They are especially dangerous for children—in the U.S., car accidents are the leading cause of death among children. Every parent instinctively knows this and it is a relentless source of stress.

But check this out this amazing stat: A recent study found that “children die in traffic accidents in New York City at less than one third the national rate, due to New Yorkers’ high reliance on public transportation.” Put another way, the average child in the U.S. is more than three times as likely to die in an auto accident than is a child living in New York City. Because people drive less in New York. Wow.

You might think that the evidence of how cars slaughter our children would be in itself a powerful motivation to create urban places that don’t require incessant driving. But you would, of course, be wrong. Because most Americans don’t think rationally when it comes to the ugly side of cars.

And that leads to another reason I hate cars: They bring out the worst in people. Something about being inside that isolating, protective cocoon has the power to transform otherwise calm, polite people into raging psychos. But even deeper than that, when we so willingly buy into a system that trivializes the value of human life, we are dehumanized.

If I do get hit, chances are it will happen because the person in control of that few-thousand-pound machine was being careless—in other words, not taking responsibility for engaging in an activity that seriously endangers other people. You know the standard excuse: “I didn’t see him.”  Oops.

It’s truly remarkable how people who are normally safety-conscious and care about the well-being of others so often seem to disregard those predispositions when it comes to cars. Why are the laws so lenient and the driving so unskilled and sloppy? For example, piles of data demonstrate the risk of using cell phones while driving and we now have a law against it, but people still do it all the time.

It may well be that our brains are simply not wired to adequately handle the responsibility that comes with the power of technology like a car: It’s just too intoxicating. Lewis Mumford, one of my all-time favorite thinkers, wrote that our culture’s biggest challenge is to create “human beings capable of understanding their own nature sufficiently to control, and when necessary to suppress, the forces and mechanisms they have brought into existence.”

There’s so much more car-hating fodder and so little blog bandwidth, but I can’t stop myself from providing a condensed list: Air pollution, noise, toxic runoff from roads that is killing Puget Sound, fossil fuel dependence, greenhouse gas emissions, the massive expense of building and maintaining car infrastructure, the burdensome cost of car ownership, the loss of farmland, forests, and habitat to sprawl, the trashing of most American cities caused by the desire to accommodate cars everywhere, social isolation, the decline in health due to less walking.

Really people, what’s not to hate?  Oh right, I forgot. They can go really fast.

SHOCKING FULL DISCLOSURE: My family owns a car and I drive it sometimes.




  • tvguide

    Dan: Thanks for posting a photo that shows what the surface option for the viaduct (that you so naively accept as workable) would look like.

  • Blah blah blah

    Apparently, they aren't very good for light rail trains, either.

    http://www.king5.com/news/local/Light-Rail-coll…

  • kgdlg

    shout out to the villa apartments in this picture, one of CHH's best, where the majority of residents live very affordably without a car.

  • Stacy

    Actually, that's what Pioneer Square and Uptown will look like with the tunnel.

  • ivan

    Bla, bla, bla! You want people out of their cars? Build transit! What's your plan for that?

  • gloomy gus

    No, cart BEFORE horse, silly. It makes perfect sense alphabetically!

  • morning

    I'm convinced. Having the 4 lanes of the tunnel will cause more congestion than not having any lanes.

    Btw we can still close down exits and re-stripe lanes of I-5 even with the tunnel.

    Stacy do you have a link to the actual surface plan?

  • morning

    Campaigns – Stop Horse Drawn Carriages

    http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/act-c-shd…

    Horses Kill 1, Injure 23 at Iowa 4th of July Parade – 4 Jul 2010
    Unreported Carriage Accident in New York City – 1 May 2010
    Car Crashes Into Horse Carriages in Philadelphia's Old City – 19 Apr 2010
    Carriage Crash Victims Identified – 19 Apr 2010
    Unmanned Horse Carriage Bolts in Vienna – 9 Apr 2010
    Broken Ribs, Smashed Carriage and Spooked Horse Mar Spring Night – 6 Apr 2010
    Horse Drawn Carriage Involved In Hit-and-Run – 25 Dec 2009
    Horse Breaks Free from Carriage in Cincinnati’s Hyde Park Square – 23 Dec 2009
    Car Hits Horse-drawn Virginia Holiday Wagon; 14 Hurt – 15 Dec 2009
    Runaway Carriage Horse Scatters Crowd at Peddlers Village – 6 Dec 2009

  • Stacy

    Do you have a link to the actual tunnel plan? No, because it's not even a plan yet; we're only in the draft draft EIS stage, which doesn't even include the $4 tolls on the tunnel when it looks at traffic impacts. Remember, the DBT started as a political agreement after the Stakeholders Group came out with a surface/transit and an elevated as it's two recommended options given the criteria they used for analysis.

  • morning

    they favored an elevated. can you point me to the the draft deis surface plan?

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2009/01/…

    their plan isn't finished, but the so-called surface plan isn't started. will it have a four or six lane AW urban highway? will the viaduct to the battery street tunnel be covered or open? is the 7% grade workable?

  • Paul Holmes

    And what if you have a family with small children that you need to take somewhere? Or it's rainy outside, and you don't feel like being messianic with your transportation choices? Or you need to carry groceries or tools?

    I agree with most of what you've said. But bicycle commuting has inherent issues that will prevent it from assuming an all-pervasive user base like cars. I wish someone on this blog (or any other) would post some sort of intellectually honest estimate of how transportation should break down ten, twenty, and thirty years from now, and how we're going to get there, rather than angry diatribes about the evils of cars and countervailing posts about the (real, and present) self-righteousness and obnoxiousness of biking advocates.

  • Steven

    You advocate for the existence of places which are particularly safe for bikers, and you say New York is an imperfect example of this, but an example nonetheless. I would argue that it would be more efficient for society for you to move to New York than for Seattle to reorganize its entire public transformation and organizational infrastructure.

  • ivan

    BINGO! Comment of the month!

  • WarOnCars

    I hate bikes– how many times has a self-absorbed rider cut me off as I've tried to walk across an intersection? I hate planes– not only do lots of people die when they crash, but they were used as weapons of mass murder on 9/11. I also hate Segways. Only douchenozzles (and traffic cops) ride them. Oh, and I hate crotch rockets because I always assume that the guys who ride them have small dicks.

    But seriously? All of this “cars are evil / bikes are stupid” sniping actually gets in the way of a productive conversation that would potentially move real transit forward in our city. Every time you rant about cars, those of us who drive (and hey! LOVE!) our cars (and road trips and singing along with the radio and visiting family in distant places and…) feel shame. That shame makes us feel defensive and hardens positions that actually are not all that far apart. People drive cars and when you talk about hating cars, you are implying that you hate the people who chose to drive them. This is counterproductive.

    I drive a car (although my current job allows me to walk or take the bus to work so I do). I also want effective transit. Those are not oppositional ideas or even oppositional priorities (buses need roads). Don't demonize me or my choices. Let's have this civic conversation without needing to make one mode superior to another. Because the tack this post takes really makes me hate smug bike riding assholes who hate cars.

  • JoshMahar

    Good post Dan. I know you like railing on the tunnel, but I think constantly pointing out the absurdity of not just our reliance, but our undying love, of one of the most dangerous machines ever created is a more foundational argument.

    Just to extrapolate on your comments, why is it that even though cars kill far more people in this country than guns, we debate the right to own a gun but not the right to own a car? Even though driving has enormous environmental and social implications, why do we take it for granted that a person should be able to drive anywhere, at anytime with very few restrictions? Why is it some kind of right to be able to get from downtown Bellevue to Downtown Seattle in under a half hour, a speed made even more absurd by that fact that it is across a lake and over numerous formidable hills?

    I don't think anyone is trying to argue that cars should not exist at all. As Dan points out, he uses them on occasion and I'll admit that I absolutely love being able to get to enjoy the Peninsula or the Cascades without it being a week long excursion. But I think there needs to be a greater realization of what it means to drive 2,000 lbs of metal, very, very quickly. It is an unbelievable privilege to move so much, so quickly, and at the same time, it is quite possibly the most dangerous activity that most individuals will ever undertake; there should be a very high sense of reverence and responsibility whenever you are behind the wheel.

    When the act of driving is considered under this lens, I think many of our local transportation arguments become absurd. No offense to the anti-road diet crowd, but when I hear arguments against the Nickerson St. Improvements, which could literally save lives, simply because it might increase an already speedy trip by a few seconds, it nearly makes me sick to my stomach. When the efficiency of a metal machine take precedence over the livelihood our fellow community members, there is something seriously wrong with our civic cohesion.

    Whenever I hear people complain about traffic, or the price of gas I always think of this skit from Lewis C.K. about technology and flying:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOtEQB-9tvk

  • fgruben

    I hate people that like to over simplify complex matters. Car's are evil. What a bunch of hooeey. I have been a bicyclist for 40 years. I ride all the time, and I find the condescending attitude of most bicyclers ( yeah i said that) in the seattle area very offensive. Shouldn't you also have the mines where the steel and titanium is mined. What about the child labor that might have went into your bike parts. Get over yourself.

  • fgruben

    oops. typo. hate the mines, not have the mines

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    I hate the mimes.

  • Leroy Sunset

    I rode a bike as my primary source of transportation for 10 years. Good exercise, good in traffic, cheap as hell. Then I got a car. Speedy, convenient, expensive. Then I got a large scooter (250cc, like a smaller motorcycle). It's the best of both worlds. Very cheap, very convenient, very fast. If millions of these things are on the road in Asia, there must be a good reason for it. I only wish the cagers (car drivers) paid more attention. My commute went from 1 hour on the bus to 15 minutes on my scooter, and I pay less for gas than I was paying for bus fare.

    McGinn, please support motorcycles in Seattle. We get great mileage, we help decrease traffic congestion, and we are easy to park. How about free parking areas? How about city-sponsored riding classes?

    Oh, right. Bicycles are the only way to go.

  • http://twitter.com/Zelbinian Dustin Hodge

    People keep driving because there's no transit, but they don't want to fund transit because it'll take money away from car infrastructure. Catch-22.

    Want us to build transit? Give money to the projects that need it and stop giving money to the projects that don't. It's pretty much that simple.

  • dpsea

    Maybe you should start your ask for a civil conversation without saying “I hate bikes… I hate this… I hate that.” Just sayin…

  • http://twitter.com/Zelbinian Dustin Hodge

    If you want to bash bicyclists, why don't you go comment on a car-lover's forum?

    (See what I did there?)

  • http://twitter.com/Zelbinian Dustin Hodge

    I have to wonder how often have people on these threads pointed out to you, specifically, citing sources, that SDOT, WSDOT, and the stakeholder council all certified the viability of a highway-less option for the waterfront.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    Ah, the good old “love it or leave it” argument. Theme song of the true conservatives. If only all of the people that want to change my world would go away, things won't have to change.

    Except they do. Keep building roads and you'll keep increasing sprawl. Keep increasing sprawl and you'll keep creating traffic. Keep creating traffic and you'll keep adding time and distance to the average commute. Keep increasing sprawl and you'll have to build more schools, more roads, more miles of sewers, more power plants, more ugly chain-filled strip malls, more parking lots…

    Wait long enough and you'll set yourself up for massive failure when peak oil hits. Keep waiting and you'll change our climate, killing billions of people.

    The world is going to change. The question is whether you're willing to work with those changes, or will you stick your head in the sand and pretend you're still living in the '70s.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    More gondolas.

    Reduce the reason why people commute.

    The great daily nerd migration could get cut down by having more fiber in our commuting diet.

  • WarOnCars

    Rhetorical device. Just sayin'…

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    I'd love to see a city spider-webbed in gondolas. Imagine one in each neighborhood connected to downtown, and to two other neighborhoods. Total number of operators would decline dramatically, and we'd have (somewhat) rapid, yet safe, transit all around the city for very little money.

    Ah, World's Fair. What happened to your promise of monorails and gondolas?

  • Mr. X

    With regard to feeling shame – that makes one of you. My reaction is more along the lines of wanting to tell these self-righteous puritanical zealots to go f*** themselves.

    (but yes, I otherwise agree with the rest of your post).

  • seandr

    I hate haters.

  • anotherneighborhoodactivist

    You remind me of people who argue that anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist because we had a really cold winter.

  • anotherneighborhoodactivist

    Assume Peak Oil. Consequence–escalating oil prices with occasional fall backs due to recessions (but never all the way to the starting cost). So, in ten, twenty, thirty years, what are you going to do for your commute with gas costing $10, $20, $30 a gallon (in 2010 dollars). Or more. Got your electric car infrastructure ready?

  • ivan

    Oh, rubbish! Don't presume to decide for road-dependent areas that they don't “need” road projects.

    Look, I'm all for amending the Constitution to allow gas-tax money to be spent on transit, and I always have been. But it's a political impossibility in this state, so face reality, OK? I'm all for local option MVETs to fund transit, and it means taxing myself to do it, I'll do it gladly.

    I'm all for new revenue sources to fund transit — except for tolling — but I want you to tell me what those are, and how we go about getting them. So far, nothing. Just “we hate you and your cars and we're going to make your driving existence a living HELL in this town.”

    Intrusive, coercive, punitive. That's all you've got. Well eff you. There are more of us.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    Ok, sorry to go off on a tangent. But looking at my previous Gondola post (what? doesn't everyone have a gondola post?), Crystal has spent around $3.5M per mile on its new high-speed quad ski lift. Assuming a similar cost (yes, construction is expensive in an urban environment, but then we don't have to lug equipment up a mountain), we could build around 1,100 miles of gondolas for the price of the tunnel. Since each leg would be an average of about 5 miles, that's 220 seperate gondola legs – about 10x as many as we'd need. That means we could actually build this system for about the cost of the over-run fund.

  • Uh Huh

    Fine, let's get rid of all the cars in downtown Seattle. Bicyclist can take up the slack that car owner pays in taxes and parking fees. It's time to make bicyclist pay their fair share. Bicyclists also need to have an operators license and liablility insurance for when they knock down someone while riding on the sidewalk which seem to happen fairly regularly. Don't like cars, move to Roslyn.

  • morning

    Electricity is available just about everywhere. Roadside “stations” will appear as soon as there is demand.

    http://www.nwcn.com/news/business/Driving-the-a…

    Doesn't all that hilly terrain suck juice? Yes. But Nissan still promises owners around these parts can reasonably expect 100 miles from a full charge. If you put the car into Eco mode and head downhill, the motors regenerate power along with braking, extending that range by about 10 percent.
    Due out in December, the Nissan Leaf still needs to win over potential buyers. Translation: Nissan has to get buyers over “range anxiety.”
    “All the technology in the car is there to eliminate any worries about range,” said Mark Perry, Nissan's Director of Planning and Advanced Technology Strategy. “I mean, how many times do you run out of gas in your driving life? Roadside assistance is standard with the vehicle.”
    The dash board has no shortage of information. The most obvious is a range map that shows how far you can go in any direction and still have enough charge to get back.
    Just how the Leaf fits into people's lives is more of a perception issue, says Perry. Nissan's research says the vast majority of people drive less than 40 miles a day – well within the car's range.
    An infrastructure of charging stations at the work place and around shopping malls is just getting started. Steven Lough, president of the Seattle Electric Vehicle Association, says the world will become a much more convenient place for all-electric vehicles as that infra-structure builds out. He's hoping for sooner than later.

  • morning

    Au contraire, I believe that by far the fastest way to reduce GHGs is by converting to electric cars.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    Here, perhaps. In the country as a whole? No way. Coal is much worse for global warming than gasoline – and that's saying a lot.

    One problem is that even here if we all switch to electric cars, that's a whole lot of new electric capacity, and our dams are maxed out. That means we buy coal from other states, unless we fund a whole lot of new wind or solar power construction and build up a smart grid.

    The only way switching to electrics could really be a GHG solution would be if we implemented a carbon cap. Sadly, Congress just killed that idea.

  • Chip_the_Accountant

    Matt, I would expect more from an engineer. Your numbers are WAY off. Portalnd just built an urban tram at a cost of $57 million – for all of 3,300 feet. So your system would cost about 30x what you propse above. Then again, that is just about the margin of error that I would expect from an engineer…

  • wes kirkman

    Paul, I believe Dan does in fact have children as do many people that don't drive to every destination they have everyday.

    Groceries are easy: live close to a grocery store and you can carry them home. Instead of a once a month uber costco run, swing by on your way home and pickup a few bags of groceries.

    These of course are just responses to your questions, not me telling you specifically what to do.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    They have a massive, gold-plated gondola. I'm thinking of those people-movers you see in my linked picture, or in Disneyland.

    Large gondola = much larger cable, stations, structure, more land… yet less frequency! I think it's a terrible idea compared to the small 4-person type.

    That said, I'll accept that as an upper limit of construction. That means that one tunnel would equal 44 miles of massive gondola. That's only 9 lines, but still enough to connect all of our neighborhoods to downtown. That still beats a tunnel hands down.

  • wes kirkman

    Hmm, or you could go and make the changes that all urban cities are making right now that much easier for us to accomplish.

  • Anc

    I don't hate cars, I just hate being forced to use them b/c our infrastructure funding is so focused on maintaining and even expanding the auto-centric lifestyle.

  • Bill B in the Central District

    it seems we need a transition period that, sadly, will last for years, maybe a decade or more. during this period we will need to extra taxes to enable both transit AND roads projects (the latter with a focus for laying an infrastructure for a future with less cars and more bikes and peds and public transit capability).

    the one or the other debate that ends up on these HAC threads is a loser game.

    the challenge will be to get people to cough up the extra dough, which a large portion IMO needs to come from development impact fees/transportation benefit district fees on all the density growth that this blog also promotes.

    and seattle residents need to kick in too of course. $20/month from each household should provide enough money to lay 7 miles of streetcar per year.

    in a decade we could have a 70 mile network linking our urban villages and providing Seattle residents a real reason to leave their cars at home or on the dealer's lot.

    maybe even Dan would give up his car.

  • morning

    The vast majority of the transit infrastructure of the poster cities was built 70 to 100 years ago. They did it with slave labor and no safety standards.

    What is a non-urban city?

  • morning

    If you were paying attention, electric generation is switching away from the bogeyman coal. Natural gas plants get about 50% efficiency and electric cars are near 100%. ICE get about 20% efficiency.

    Right now we have enough night time excess capacity to “fuel” 72% of the cars on the road. Electric cars will be storage facilities for electric power, selling back during peak usage and buying at night. The owner will be able to make a profit.

    By converting all heating away from electric (worst use for it) we can free up even more electricity.

    And the fact is, we do have clean water and wind power, maybe the solution will not be the same everywhere. So what.

  • joshuadf

    Honestly people, Dan posts something completely unrelated to the viaduct and you bring it up in the very first comment?

  • morning

    Streetcars are the worst of all transit choices. They cost $40m to %50M per mile to build and cost twice what a bus costs to run. Their rational is that richer people will ride them and they are located to serve that very demographic.

    $20 per car is about $7M or $8M per year or about 1/7 of a mile of streetcar. $20 per household would be even less.

  • ivan

    We're trying to maintain the capacity that we have, and even that's not enough for you lot.

    There's nothing “progressive” about you and nothing “conservative” about me. I want more transit and you're not telling me how we're getting it, only that we must decrease our highway capacity and mobility, or stand accused of “killing the planet.”

    Is there any disagreement that we can expect a million more people here over the next 25 years? Can we expect each and every one of them to live packed like sardines in high-rise apartments, and bike or bus everywhere they go, and not own cars?

    You can't tell me what transit we need, how we're going to pay for it, and how we're going to raise that revenue. All you can say is “NO MORE ROADS!” And then you accuse ME of “sticking my head in the sand.” Take your bullshit and start a fertilizer business, OK?

  • anotherneighborhoodactivist

    What post are you responding to? To follow up on Matt's comment, check out http://www.transitionus.org/why-transition/peak… Basic reality. A key quote from that page: “Technology is often heralded as the panacea for fossil fuel depletion. However, a careful review of technological “solutions” indicates their immaturity; their disastrous environmental consequences; or their inability to supply energy on the scale we are accustomed to.” For “technology” read “electric cars” or “wind power” or “biomass” etc. Connect the dots.

  • anotherneighborhoodactivist

    See posts a page or two scroll up. Shifting to electric cars without any reduction in the lifestyle supported by private cars (instant gratification all the time) simply isn't going to happen.

  • doug_in_seattle

    Cars are the leading cause of death of children. Read that again and think about it for at least a few seconds, please: Cars are the leading cause of death of children.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    “electric cars are near 100%” Not even close. More like ~25% efficiency, though this article claims IC engines are closer to 15% efficient. But in a GHG sense, 15% efficient in gas beats 25% efficient in coal, no problem. Do you know what beats that? Living close to work and walking.

    “Right now we have enough night time excess capacity to “fuel” 72% of the cars on the road.” I'd buy that. But without a smart grid, how are you going to get people to not plug in during peak hours? Peak hours in cooling climates are generally around 6pm, when people come home and turn on air conditioning and lights while offices still have air conditioning and lights on. Add the load of plugging in your car when you get home, and that's adding all of that car's demand to the peak load.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    First, I didn't know you were Steven. If that's the case, it makes the “comment of the month!” comment a little tacky.

    Second, Steven was using the old “love it or leave it” argument, was he not? What about asking those that want change to leave is not conservative?

    “Is there any disagreement that we can expect a million more people here over the next 25 years?” None at all. But you apparently want them all out sprawled in the suburbs and exurbs. This is a terrible use of resources. “Can we expect each and every one of them to live packed like sardines in high-rise apartments” We can certainly work to build more apartments and condos in the city, which will save a huge amount of resources and energy (and children's lives, if you follow the NYC study logic). And if city housing prices are any indication of demand, they'll fill up as fast as we can build them.

    “We're trying to maintain the capacity that we have, and even that's not enough for you lot.” Really? Do you know how much road building is going on in WA right now? Just in our area there's widening of 405 and the widening of 520 (all I know of first-hand, but I don't drive much). We're spending billions a year on new roads.

    “You can't tell me what transit we need, how we're going to pay for it, and how we're going to raise that revenue.” Sure I can. I have strong opinions on all of these issues. You're fighting a strawman.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    I live in one of Seattle's many streetcar suburbs, built a hundred years ago. It's not rocket science to build that infrastructure back up (without slave labor – wait, did Seattle have slaves back then?).

  • beef

    in the first paragraph of the page you link.

    “But many of these deaths can be prevented. Placing children in age- and size-appropriate car seats and booster seats reduces serious and fatal injuries by more than half.”

  • Paul Holmes

    Thanks for your reply.

    Ultimately, I agree that our usage of cars is unsustainable, and yes, they're dangerous and our utter failure to collude as a society in transportation choices is ridiculous in context. But it's unhelpful and self-aggrandizing to devote an entire post to how much you hate something that is going to be pervasive for a long time to come.

    Instead, I'd like Dan to write more posts asking for people to make smart, sustainable, and economical choices as they look to buy a new vehicle, move to a new home, or choose to commute by bicycle more often. Make this post an intro paragraph, followed by some sort of actual solution. Like if Nate Silver (fivethirtyeight.com) were to talk about urban density.

  • WarOnCars

    “Groceries are easy: live close to a grocery store…” Map out the grocery stores in Seattle. Then, check into zoning regulations. Next, observe the patterns of grocery store development. Oh, and, just for kicks, imagine you have two kids under the age of five.

  • morning

    Matt,

    From your source:

    To put the issue in more familiar terms, a PHEV (Plug-in hybrid-electric vehicle) or BEV (Battery-electric vehicle) offers fuel economy equivalent to as much as 188 miles per gallon.

    The 25% number comes from electricity generated from primarily coal fired plants that are on their way out. He says they are 30% efficient, so pure electric cars are almost 100% efficient.

    Add the load of plugging in your car when you get home, and that's adding all of that car's demand to the peak load..

    Electric car drivers will be able to plug in and sell electricity during peak hours and charge in the middle of the night using timers.

    and Now let’s talk pollution. A huge advantage of PHEV and BEV cars is that their energy can come from renewable sources, such as hydroelectric, wind, or solar. Even if the energy source is fossil fuel, installing state-of-the-art emission controls on a few big power plants is way easier than installing ’em on hundreds of millions of motor vehicles. What’s more, since many electric plants use natural gas, CO2 emissions from power generation are a modest 1.27 pounds of CO2 per kWh — 1.9 pounds per productive kWh once we account for losses during battery charging and so on. Compare that to gasoline, which produces the equivalent of 3.9 pounds of CO2 per productive kWh..

    Electric cars will drop GHGs immensely.

    from wiki: he burning of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, or petroleum). In hot gas (gas turbine), turbines are driven directly by gases produced by the combustion of natural gas or oil. Combined cycle gas turbine plants are driven by both steam and natural gas. They generate power by burning natural gas in a gas turbine and use residual heat to generate additional electricity from steam. These plants offer efficiencies of up to 60%.

  • ivan

    Wrong again! I don't “want” them in the suburbs and exurbs. That's YOUR straw man. I don't care where people live. That's up to them.

    People will live where they want to live for any number of reasons, because they can. How many people do you think care what YOU consider a waste of resources? Are you the “resource czar” or something?

    Build all the high-rise apartments you want. If people want to live that way, they will. People will decide for themselves the best use of their time and money, and that will be the chief determinant of housing trends, not ideology.

    I get that we're widening 520 and 405. Guess what? We need it, even if you don't think YOU do. Another million people? Don't pretend that road capacity is adequate. Quit pretending.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    From the same source “About 70 percent of that amount is wasted generating the power and transmitting it to your door. Additional energy is lost when charging batteries and running electric motors.”

    I can find a more detailed study, but trust me: electric cars are far from 100% efficient. I'd love for you to be right that coal plants are on their way out. We failed to pass the carbon cap bill, so they're here to stay for an uncomfortably long time.

    “Electric car drivers will be able to plug in and sell electricity during peak hours and charge in the middle of the night using timers.'' Yes, that's the vision that you've been sold. But it doesn't exist yet – your rate is exactly the same in the middle of the night as it is in the middle of the day. So even if your electric car could push electricity back on the grid at peak hours (the current generation can't), it would cost you money to do so – ignoring the fact that batteries wear in number of cycles and you'd be wearing down the most expensive part of your car.

    “Now let’s talk pollution.” That quote was talking about natural gas. You'd be my hero if you could change just one of our coal plants to natural gas. But the fact is coal is cheap and plentiful, and you'll have to pry it from the utility's cold dead hands.

    “These plants offer efficiencies of up to 60%” Yes, you're talking to a mechanical engineer that did quite well in his power systems class. Combined cycle natural gas plants are great if we're going with fossil fuel electricity. But see my point above about coal, especially the bit about cold dead hands.

    —————-

    General comment: I actually strongly agree that if we're going to have to drive, electric cars are definately the way to go. It's much easier to convert source energy than site energy uses, since you only have a few thousand plants to change over (if we ever get the political will to do so). But the fact is that currently – on average – converting our contry to electric cars will increase GHG pollution. I'd much rather build dense, walkable cities where people want to live and not rely on cars much. At the same time we can work on capping carbon and increasing gas prices, but this will be very expensive and pollitically unpopular and therefore will both take time and be a risky strategy. I'd like to believe that our love of the planet and desire not to kill of potentially billions of people from by changing our planet's temperature will trump our access to vast amounts of cheap energy (coal). But I'd rather set up societies that use less energy in the first place, leaving fewer eggs in that basket.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    “If people want to live that way, they will.” People do want to live this way – check the unit prices in the city versus the suburbs. The issue is that we're not dealing with a free market. Long ago people were shown pictures of run-down 100sf homes and convinced that they needed restrictive zoning. We're still far from overcoming that, and have tight zoning restrictions.

    Then the federal government and the state decided to build freeways and highways all over the place (like 520, that was really a bridge to nowhere), and effectively subsidised suburban sprawl.

    The best answer to this? Put a real price on driving (such as the tolling you're against, or gas taxes that actually pay the real cost of roads), and remove most of the city zoning restrictions. That'll free up supply (allowing building downtown) while leveling the playing field on demand (though the limited supply has already driven up demand, despite this uneven field).

    What I'm saying is be careful about playing the free-market card. I suspect I'm a much stronger advocate of the free market than you are.

    “We need it, even if you don't think YOU do” Then try to pay for it purely with tolls, and see how many people agree with you.

  • Bill B in the Central District

    obviously cost/mile will vary, but our light rail has cost us (depending how the beans are counted) $150-200M/mile, and i believe you'll find that at grade street cars are an order of magnitude less, and about half what you state.

    the urban village network is meant to connect one community to another. most of our buses run hub/spoke from downtown. though frequent buses between UVs are ok with me as an interim solution as well. (but i think that there is evidence that our buses when loaded are doing damage to our roads, particularly loaded articulated buses) which implies that a beefed up road surface is often necessary. so might as well as make it railed)

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    I believe grocery stores map fine with density (see: Uptown, Ballard, Cap Hill, etc.). The issue is that grocery stores don't map well with low income. But that's the case in the suburbs as well (and good luck getting groceries when your car breaks down in the suburbs…).

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    Know what reduces it even more? Not putting them in steel boxes and zipping them around at high speed near other steel boxes.

  • morning

    How many do you think would be killed if they were ferried around exclusively by bike?

  • morning

    Here go to http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/about/docs/Stre…

    page 31 – they estimate that the cost is$30M to $50M per mile, but to date neither has come in under $40M. The last FTA report on operating costs has them at $215 per hour, double a bus. Do your research on what the systems have and will cost us. You may wish they are less, but they aren't.

    Please note that the estimate for a brand new rubber-tired electric streetcar (low floor, flat floor, off vehicle payments, level loading from platforms) is estimated at $6M to $8M with a 12' concrete lane included in the cost.

    Light cost us about $200M per mile for the first 14 mile, is costing about $600M for the Cap hill tunnel and the ST2 segment is $300+ per mile.

    You can check ST finance numbers – from memory – $12B (doesn't include all the costs) and 38 miles – do the friggin math

  • Eastcoastangle

    Well, duh…but why does an article about the negatives of cars have to include a transit plan?

  • Eastcoastangle

    Where does electricity come from?

  • morning

    Matt the country is switching to NG.

    Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter yesterday signed a new clean-air bill that will require Xcel Energy to cut nitrous oxide emissions by up to 80 percent from several aging coal-fired plants by the end of 2017. And the utility has to give natural gas first consideration when it looks at how to reduce emissions from those plants..

    Another article
    http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB1000…

    Power companies are switching generating plants from coal to natural gas or other less-polluting fuels, in response to tighter clean-air rules and big gas finds expected to keep prices low for years.

    Among the big electricity generators making the move are Calpine Corp., Progress Energy Inc. and Southern Co.

  • Eastcoastangle

    If you want more road capacity, wouldn't it be more “socially efficient” for you to move to, say, Phoenix?

  • taybax

    Nah, it's actually a pretty bad one. “Social efficiency” is meaningless and unmeasurable outside of an economics textbook. Of course, this is also the argument used by the real, serious conservatives who are conservative in the sense that they are desperately afraid of change.

  • morning

    Think about it.

  • morning

    Matt

    NEMA Design B Electrical Motors
    Electrical motors constructed according NEMA Design B must meet the efficiencies below:.
    Power
    (hp) Minimum Nominal Efficiency1)
    1 – 4 78.8
    5 – 9 84.0
    10 – 19 85.5
    20 – 49 88.5
    50 – 99 90.2
    100 – 124 91.7
    > 125 92.4

  • morning

    When conservatives want to go back in time they are reactionaries.

    When liberals want to go back in time they are progressive new-urbanists.

  • joshuadf

    The problem here is that everyone sees somewhere else as an example of where they want “those other people” to move. Seattle's reputation is much more like New York or Vancouver BC than the reality, but increasing bikeability would hardly require a grand transformational reorganization. Likewise if you were to move to a supposedly car-centric city like Dallas or Los Angeles you might be surprised to find a substantial number of people fighting for better transportation options.

  • taybax

    Someone who pays taxes and doesn't own a car is already paying much more than their fair share. Driving is underpriced, and the more you do of it, the less you pay per mile.

  • joshuadf

    Why not tolls? It may not pay for the whole thing, but like a bus fare it signals the costs associated with providing the service. The electronic tolls even take most of the awkwardness out of the process.

    Sure there is a need for some road projects (especially maintenance), but I'd also argue that there a far more people that want to escape car dependence than enjoy it. In fact, a Transportation For America poll quantified the preference for more options at 59% of voters nationwide:
    http://t4america.org/blog/2010/03/30/new-t4-pol…

  • Sarah

    There's one very important prioblem with cars and bicycles sharing a road, including often, in Seattle, sharing one lane: Car drivers are supposed to look AHEAD, not to their right. But that's the city we have now and striping doesn't solve that. I can generally see what cars are going to do because they're big and obvious and they're usually ahead of me. I can't see what a bike is going to do, even though I'm definitely interested because I don't want to HIT the damned bike.

    Where do you intend to get the money to remake this city, Dan? And god knows why people are arguing in these comments about electric cars since they are, indeed, CARS, and therefore Dan hates them.

  • morning

    Gawd, there's a national FOS pollster.

    Anybody that takes this seriously please read the poll.

    Only 59% would like more options – that's amazingly low

  • Goretex Guy

    Ah! Hate! That'll help everything…more hate. Once we hate more then we can justify acting destructive and hateful. Ghandi was wrong.

  • Bill B in the Central District

    don't get me wrong, morning. i'm down with buses. what i'm not down with us losing focus on the urban village strategy and its networked transit. because so far we have been unsuccessful in linking our communities together, and are for the most part keeping ourselves dependent on cars to get around. light rail is a regional system and doesn't really serve the bulk of our populace.

  • taybax

    Good answer. All articles must include everything related to the point at issue, even when only tangentially so. Got it.

  • taybax

    I guess that would depend on what it is from the past you'd like to bring back.

  • morning

    Bill it would be nice for you acknowledge the costs of streetcars

    After heavy lobbying by South Lake Union businesses, including Vulcan, the Seattle City Council approved the development of the neighborhood into a biotechnology and bio-medical research center. Included in that plan was funding to investigate a 1.3-mile (2.1 km), US$45 million streetcar line. The line was approved in 2005 at a cost of $50.5 million, with $25 million paid by property owners along the streetcar's route and the remainder paid by federal, state, and local funds.[6] The final cost was $56.4 million; additional costs were mostly utility work needed after the line opened.

  • Eddiew

    I like all modes; I walk, bike, drive, ride the bus, and row a dory. all have their place.

    in transport, we have market failure because we do not price common property resources well (e.g., curb space for parallel parking and lane space on limited access highways). we should dynamically toll all the limited access highways in Pierce, King, and Snohomish County; all would flow better; it would also raise plenty of revenue. I would be willing to limit toll revenue to roadway purposes, but that would focus on pavement management, bridge replacement, and new sidewalks. I drive and bike carefully, as it is dangerous out there. Seattle will have traffic congestion, as it is an attractive place that folks want to live in and visit. we could use safer infrastructure for all users, but especially for pedestrians. there are several multilane arterials that should have better access management and driveway consolidation (e.g., Aurora Avenue North, Rainier Avenue South, 15th Avenue NW, W, and Elliott Avenue West). two models could be Division Street in Spokane or SR101 in Port Angeles.

    some arterials should have a higher priority for cars, some for transit, and others for bikes. all arterials should treat pedestrians well.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    You're all focusing too much on technology. How we move people around the city quickly is by using dedicated right of way or even grade separated transit. This can be buses, streetcars, light rail, monorail, SkyTrain, gondolas, or ETB's. There are cost and capacity pluses and minuses with each one, but the important part is that they're not stuck in traffic.

    If the streetcar had signal priority and ways around traffic, it would be a success even at the high price we paid. As it is, it's exceeding ridership predictions and will be an attraction. But that's probably just because people like streetcars right now.

    [morning] are you proposing path-separated buses? If so, where? What will that cost? Can you get the political support to remove a car lane?

    I'd be fine with rapid ETB instead of streetcars. I think we'll get more support for streetcars in their own lane and the cost of the technology won't be the limiting factor – the cost of the road will. But that's just my opinion. As to whether streetcars are the “worst” form of transit – that depends on your criteria.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    If there were no cars? Seven. And those will be killed by off-leash pit bulls.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    Our governor just extended the massive tax breaks to our one coal plant.

    Please note that installing scrubbers on coal plants (like the Colorado example) does nothing for carbon emissions.

    Your second article seems to be about Calpine buying existing natural gas plants – not about shutting down coal plants. That's just an accounting shift.

  • ivan

    These people invent their own reality. They're like the bible-thumpers.

  • Trevor

    Publicola: save yourselves from your rapid decline into anti-car irrelevance. You can start by firing Dan, who owns a car yet can't even explain why.

  • http://www.datadoctor.biz data recovery

    The world is going to change day by day so you have to work according changes. Everyone have desire to buy car. That is main reason increasing number of car on road.

  • giffy

    Well, yeah, but children live incredibly safe lives these days. The actual number per year is about 2000 and most of those stems from not wearing a seatbelt or using a carseat correctly.
    http://www.articlesbase.com/law-articles/childr…

    Considering there are about 60,000,000 kids that age in the Country that is not nearly as alarming as one might think.

  • giffy

    So the smart money is on my demise being delivered when a few thousand pounds of moving metal, plastic, glass, and rubber crushes my body against the pavement.

    I'm not sure what your definition of “smart money” is but the fatality rate for cycling is around 1 per 10,000,000 miles traveled. Assuming you biked 20 miles every single day for 50 years straight you would only cover about 365,000 miles.

    Old age is a much more likely culprit.

  • morning

    Calpine was quick to reassure investors it would convert coal-burning units

    Look Matt, conversions are happening and coal is falling from favor – there still is the clean coal crap, burying the CO2, but the move is to NG.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    I'll believe it when the coal plants actually come off line. The fact is that coal is cheap, existing dirty coal is grandfathered into all legislation, and the only legislation with teeth has been abandoned.

    Note that the article was dated in April, during the run-up to the carbon cap legislation. It's possible this is spin aimed at specific legislators trying to convince them that the utilities will clean up coal all by themselves. Again, I'm more than a little bit sceptical of corporations going against their own financial interests in order to do the right thing – at least as a large trend.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    Please tell me you're not looking at the motor efficiencies and calling them system efficiencies. Let's run through the process.

    Assuming natural gas (since you're convinced it's on the way everywhere):

    Mining efficiency: I'll guess 80%
    Transportation efficiency: Assuming land-based pipelines and we don't need to ship the stuff, probably 95%
    Plant efficiency: 60% (if we're assuming combined cycle, which is expensive, plus I doubt you'll even see 60% in real life)
    Distribution efficiency: around 93%, depending on how far your house is from the generation
    Charging efficiency: about 90%
    Motor efficiency: 88.5%
    ————-
    Total system efficiency: 34%

    This means 34% of the energy that existed in the natural gas they pulled out of the ground ended up actually pushing you forward. The rest is wasted along the way.

    I suppose for a fair comparison to gasoline we should cut off everything before the burning of the fuel. That would still be a 44% efficiency. Hardly 100%.

  • Drive-By-Trucker_(Soapboxin')

    His article on State College, PA was pathetic. I lived there 25 years ago and I know people living there now. He visits for a few days and decides to bless us with his ponderings and reflections. Guess what? They're uninformed and useless.

    What is happening to Publicola? It seems like, after seriously flirting with seriousness and credibility, it's now on a slippery slope to complete irrelevance.

  • joshuadf

    Considering it's a national poll I thought 59% was amazingly high. These polls aren't done for me or you anyway though, they inform policy makers about needs. The same is true for the safety statistics Dan cites above.

  • morning

    I never used the term system efficiencies. I said electrics were almost 100% efficient, meaning that the cars were nearly 100% efficient. I specifically pointed to the fact that even when using carbon based electric generation the electrics were much more efficient.

    The Nissan Leaf has a 100 HP motor which shows at 92% efficiency not the 88.5% you use.

    Even if we use your numbers (including the 15% ICE efficiency) electric cars running on NG produced electricity would be more than twice as efficient. Here it would be much higher because of our generating mix.

    Instituting variable rates and allowing the sale to utilities is hardly a new idea. Germany already has this.

    Electric cars have the potential of significantly reducing city pollution by having zero tail pipe emissions.[4][5][6] Vehicle greenhouse gas savings depend on how the electricity is generated. With the current U.S. energy mix, using an electric car would result in a 30% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.[7][8][9][10] Given the current energy mixes in other countries, it has been predicted that such emissions would decrease by 40% in the UK,[11] 19% in China,[12] and as little as 1% in Germany..

  • morning

    Asking people if they would like more options is a ridiculous question.

    Almost everyone will say they would like more options if a cost isn't associated with it.

    These polls aren't to inform anybody about anything. They are propaganda.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    Saving 30% on emissions misses the point. Your original claim was “I believe that by far the fastest way to reduce GHGs is by converting to electric cars.” Assuming a 20 year average car life, that's 20 years to just save 30%, and that 30% is only one component of our GHG emissions (and a component that will solve itself, come peak oil). I could argue that switching to hybrids would make more of an impact than that.

    What could save GHG emissions faster? Building up our cities and increasing the cost of driving. Saving 30% of your driving emissions still leaves 70% in the air. Walking to work saves 100% of your driving emissions. Plus urban households use far less electricity, heating fuel, and a dozen other resources than suburban households.

    What else could save GHGs faster? Implementing a carbon cap, or straight outlawing coal power. Building nuclear plants. Widescale concentrated thermal solar. Windfarms. Forest thinning to pellet based biomass for heat in heating oil regions. Regulating the concrete industry. Implementing a sales tax on disposable goods. Etc.

    Again, electric cars are a net positive and I'm all for them. But they aren't a free pass to keep the status quo in our sprawled cities.

  • TheSkyIsNotFalling

    Yet another jejune bicycle nazi article. <yawn>

  • Insider Outsider

    That is the lamest comment of the month!

  • kurisu

    That wouldn't have helped the two little boys who just got hit in a crosswalk in Federal Way

  • kurisu

    You should be more concerned about the *person* riding the bike.

  • Inside Outside

    I am an urban planner, an environmentalist, an avid pedestrian and transit rider. I support the tunnel alternative for complex reasons but if the tools to make a surface transit alternative work actually existed I could support it too (I just don't believe it will work/happen just like I did not believe Obama would save the world in one year).

    Despite the fact that Dan and I respectfully disagree on that matter (basically over wonky details) does not mean we don't have the same values overall. I support creating vibrant, compact communities well served by transit and with great investment in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. I support that because, as Dan articulates this choice about our urban form has many, many, many benefits for individuals (pocketbook and health issues) as well as for our society (lower taxes, lower carbon footprint, less isolation and better health in general).

    Let's get a grip people! Just because you may disagree with Dan about the Surface/Transit v Tunnel/Transit alternatives doesn't mean that we can't acknowledge that he is COMPLETELY RIGHT about creating communities where people can choose to live without a car and instead conveniently rely on transit, biking, walking, taking the elevator downstairs for your “trip”, etc.

  • ivan

    I am neither serious, nor conservative. I just like to puncture pompous gasbags, and I'm an equal opportunity offender. Bertolet is a dependable, irresistible target.

  • kurisu

    what's your problem with T4america? I assume you know nothing about them than that their poll makes you squirm.

  • demonic e car lover…

    yes, he's right we should have communities where you don't need a car; this is totally different from the 100% wrong, snopbby elitist snooty coalition-destroying point of view that we shouldn't push for e cars or that cars have to go! or the midnless and false religious statement that “it's been shown the negatives of cars outweigh the positives”.

    he can't even point to one major city that doens't HAVE CARS, so please, let's work with cars in a responsible way instead of demonizing???

  • wah-wa

    oh snap! careful not to cut yourself with that wit…

  • Be Nice

    Dan is actually a really nice guy. Why so mean Ivan?

  • anotherneighborhoodactivist

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_P…

    Tell me how you're going to reduce the red band (fossil fuels) by using electric cars. I'd really like to know.

  • anotherneighborhoodactivist

    I think your moral compass is seriously bent.

  • anotherneighborhoodactivist

    “”Is there any disagreement that we can expect a million more people here over the next 25 years?” None at all. “

    There is disagreement by me. Assuming never ending growth at any level (local, regional, global) is as wrongheaded as it gets. There are limits to growth in a finite system. Earth is a finite system last time I checked.

  • Johns

    and what has been said before – if not here then elsewhere – work to expand farmer's markets, neighborhood food projects (Conlin has done some great work there, allowing people to sell what they raise) and P-Patch opportunities, as well as making it easier for smaller grocery stores to be built. Not rocket science, just detailed policy work.

  • Johns

    he could point to plenty of cities that prioritize the car far lower than every other mode. And are healthier and safer as a result. Sometimes I think we need a corollary to marijuana-law enforcement – make going after pot smokers your lowest priority, make cars your lowest priority.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    I think we're both looking at the Puget Sound Regional Council's prediction of an extra 1.5 million people in our region from 2007 and 2040. I agree, population won't grow without end. But it's good to be prepared for growth when it does come, which is why the PSRC looks at these things.

  • blah blah blah

    Ivan – lighten up, it was a joke.

  • bigyaz

    I find it comical that so many people suggest that cities with world-class transit systems have somehow turned themselves into these car-free meccas.

    Yep, no cars in Manhattan — and pure heaven for bicyclists. Piece of cake driving around London. Tokyo? Again, lots of transit and absolutely hellish traffic.

    It's not a reason to not invest in transit, but let's not kid ourselves that cars are going anywhere.

  • Inside Outside

    Places like Cap Hill and UDistrict have something like less than 50% car ownership.

  • Gomez

    Gee, you're right, he brought it up for reasons absolutely unrelated to the viaduct.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    These are all great examples of why cars and cities don't play well together. Once you get to a certain population density, cars just don't make sense anymore because there are more cars than there are roads. Yes, all major cities have too many cars. But in those major cities that have good transit systems and well designed density, that doesn't matter. You don't need a car to get around in Manhattan, and often you don't need to go very far anyway.

  • ivan

    Because every city is Manhattan, or should be? NOT!

  • David

    Yep, I won't take buses with bums. Give me a tram, train, street car and I'm on it.

  • the educater

    what about a tram, train, or street car with bums?

  • the educater

    He’s right. Parents bad driving habits are the baby killers.

  • the educater

    Well if your children’s safty is an issue, don’t drive. Since most of you gas huffers seem out to kill kids i doubt that will happen.