Daily Score Blog

We all know cars take up more space than buses, bikes, or feet (not to mention generate more pollution, etc.). But there's nothing like visuals to make it real.

This Sunday, I-Sustain, along with regional transportation agencies, is shutting down Seattle's Second Avenue between Cherry and Marion Streets to do a staged photo demonstration--from 6am to 1pm--of alternative transportation vs. cars They're looking for 200 volunteers for the shoot. (That's where you come in. See I-Sustain's website for details or contact Kristie Maxim.)

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and King Count Exec Ron Sims will be on hand to flex their transportation street cred.

The pictures at left--taken in Scandinavia in the 1970s--tell the story that's expected to be repeated for Puget Sound. As the photos show, it takes 177 cars to move the same amount of people that can fit in a single bike lane, 2 1/2 buses, or a single light rail train.

It's good timing in our books, now that Seattle commuters have surprised planners and media alike with a much more adaptable response than expected to the I-5 lane closures.

P.S. -- The section of Second was chosen because it's the only one-way street in Seattle with a bike lane, a bus lane, and the Space Needle in the background.

We're continuing to make improvements to the Climate Pricing 101 page. So if you found it confusing earlier, take another look. It's getting better all the time!

I've also been asked to provide a shorter summary here. So, if you want climate pricing boiled down -- and want to see where Sightline's research is pointing us -- here are a couple of takeaway points:

• Economists generally tend to favor carbon taxes on the grounds that taxes are the most economically efficient way to discourage carbon emissions. There are two big downsides, however: taxes guarantee a price for carbon emissions but not a limit, and it's limiting emissions that's really the goal. The second big problem is that it's a tax; and taxes are politically tough, to say the least.
• Industry -- particularly big historical emitters -- like grandfathered cap and trade because it doesn't cost them anything to obtain allowances to continue emitting carbon. But passing out credits for free confers fungible commodities (the credits) to polluters -- the more pollution, the bigger the payout.
• Sightline's current preference is for cap and auction. Auctioning the permits gives an advantage to clean industries and utilities, and it helps to ensure that the lowest-cost cuts in emissions are made first.
• One of the biggest questions about any carbon limit is fairness. How do we protect consumers and low-income folks from rising prices? How do we smooth the economic transition away from polluting? A source of revenue -- from either taxes or auctioning -- can go a long way toward helping out.

That's a start anyway. As I said yesterday, this stuff gets complicated quickly. But take a look at what we've got and chime in.