Daily Score Blog

For our latest research report, we looked at gasoline consumption data in the Northwest for 2008 and found some significant drops. In fact, total gasoline consumption saw the biggest drop since 1980. It would be easy to attribute this to high gas prices and the economic downturn we experienced last year, but the fact is that this drop actually marks an acceleration of a trend that's been going on in the Northwest for nearly a decade.

That's right. Per capita gasoline consumption has dropped in 8 of the last 9 years. Northwesterners are leading the way as the nation takes steps to get off the volatile fossil fuel roller coaster. So, while price and economic factors play a role, we can also track a decade of smart trends that reduce consumption: several decades of smart growth policies, increased transit use, and improved fuel efficiency are just a few.

And even now that gas prices are a bit lower, early 2009 data indicates that our healthier new habits are sticking. In early 2009, Vehicle Miles Traveled have dropped as well adding some depth to our picture of how folks in the Northwest are taking steps to get off the volatile fossil fuel roller coaster.

What does it mean for local decision-makers? For one, investments in freeway capacity no longer make as much sense as investments in transit, walkable communities, and efficiency.

The full report is available here. Here are some of the key findings:

A study published in the Journal of Urban Economics  uses a model that combines residential density, driving and gasoline consumption that confirms something that most of us already suspect: sprawl means fewer transportation choices, more time sitting in our cars, more of our incomes spent on gas, and less time for other, more important stuff like family and friends.

So, even if it's true that people in areas that are sprawling really do tend to roll in bigger, less fuel efficient rides, it’s not just about personal choices (good or bad). More sprawl means more driving and more gasoline use and when school, the grocery store and work are miles away from each other the only sensible thing to do is drive. Unfortunately, short of where we live, many “choices” are made for us by the built environment.

Erik Pennington’s commute is 13 miles. He filmed it from his bike, sped up the film, and put it to music.

Film your own commute and let us share it!

Or, search YouTube and other video sites for the best bike-commute videos from around the world. Post them in comments or email me your favorites . Here’s one for starters that shows insane, between-lanes-of-cars cycling in Manhattan.

(Hat tip to Jeff Youngstrom.)

Two stories in the news today are on a topic near to my heart: public art.

Before exercising great restraint in sharing his encyclopedic knowledge of Sound Transit construction methods, Seattle Times reporter Mike Lindblom offers a fun preview of the space-age art that will greet Beacon Hill boarders as they wait for their ride. Video of the Hubble Space Telescope, subliminal messages, purple starfish, green jellyfish, stars on the ceiling.

Even wierder is the project profiled in the LA Times, with the city of Seattle hiring an artist-in-residence to work in the northeast tower of the Fremont Bridge. To start, she's collecting stories about the historic drawbridge, from those who curse its fickle, traffic-stalling ways to a woman who'd lived her whole life nearby and allegedly figured out how to fulfill her dream of riding it on the way up. (Read more about the project on the artist's blog.)

As a reporter at the Seattle P-I, I liked writing about public art (here and here, for example). It was a good excuse to roam the city on foot, and I happen to believe that art and aesthetics in the public realm matter.

It's the argument of the century: which is better, Seattle or Vancouver?

It's an issue near and dear to many of our hearts. And this week, two of Cascadia's most provocative thinkers (and friends of Sightline) will duke it out in a no-holds-barred, anything-goes debate.

OK -- that might be an exaggeration. But I bet they will have some interesting things to say on the issue. Gordon Price (from Vancouver) will be arguing for Seattle, and Peter Steinbrueck (from Seattle) will be arguing for Vancouver.

The details:

Vancouver debate:

• When: Tuesday, June 16 7:00-8:30 (debate), 8:30-9:30 (reception)
• Where: Simon Fraser University at Harbour Centre, 515 West Hastings Street

Seattle debate:

• When: Thursday, June 18 6:00-7:30 (debate), 7:30-8:30 (reception)
• Where: Seattle Public Library, Microsoft Auditorium, 1000 Fourth Ave

While putting together an analysis of gasoline consumption, I have been trying to figure out just why Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the Northwest has been dropping. Part of the challenge of explaining downward VMT is that it has typically never happened in a sustained way. But, in the last year or so it has been sustained, defying the conventional wisdom of transportation planners. One factor that comes to mind is how easy (or difficult) it is to park.

But before I talk about how parking might affect VMT I have two confessions.

If you read beyond the dubious headlines today, "Think Twice About 'Green' Transport, Say Scientists" and "Train Can Be Worse for Climate than Plane," you'll find an interesting study that suggests policy makers go beyond tailpipe emissions when calculating the carbon impacts of planes, trains, buses, and cars. University of California-Berkeley researchers attempted to also account for greenhouse gases released when building the vehicles, generating fuel to run them and for building and maintaining the infrastructure they use.

Among the findings: including these additional sources of pollution in a life-cycle assessment (which is no simple task) more than doubles the greenhouse gas emissions of train travel, with its stations, miles of track, lit parking lots and escalators. Proportionally, they add less to the carbon footprint of cars and planes.

The study also found electric cars and trains have hidden emissions if the electricity they run on is generated by burning coal and other fossil fuels. And when it comes to mass transit, how many passengers are on board matters.

Early next month we’ll be updating last year’s report on trends in gasoline consumption. Some numbers are out from the Federal Highway administration on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the first months of this year. 

And it’s good news: Vehicle travel in the United States and the Northwest States is declining.

Recently I wrote about a study that looked across a few decades of data about housing and health. And we have written more than once about the relationship between the environment, location, health and price as it relates to food. Certainly there are systems issues that conspire against us when we try to make the right decision about food -- including the tactics and practices of our food industry.

Blaming the food industry might be an easy thing to do. But a combination of policies that improve what we eat and encourage alternative transportation is the recipe we need to follow. 

There are many things to take issue with in Knute Berger’s recent piece in Crosscut about smart growth and sprawl.  

But let’s pick two things. 

The Center for Neighborhood Technology has made a new addition to its Housing + Transportation Affordability Index website that maps carbon dioxide emissions. The press release announces that “Urban Living Helps Curb Global Warming” and invites readers to compare where they live to other neighborhoods in their region.

So I did.

Here's what Washington Governor Chris Gregoire had to say about the executive order she signed Thursday to reduce the state's greenhouse gas emissions: "I wanted cap and trade. I didn't get it. This is the next best thing."

After the Legislature punted on several of her climate change initiatives -- including participation in a regional cap-and-trade program --  Gregoire took matters into her own hands. Using her executive authority, she directed state agencies to take steps to curb emissions that are warming the planet.

That's good news, given this withering critique from The Economist of the political sausage-making that's gone into crafting a federal cap-and-trade bill that the magazine argues is currently weaker than it ought to be.

A recent Gallup Poll reveals solid majority support for higher fuel efficiency standards such as those President Obama announced Tuesday. A March poll found 80 percent of Americans in favor of higher standards. So, why are reporters painting a picture only of consumer woe and sacrifice when it comes to this landmark announcement?

Obama launched his proposal along with state governors from both sides of the aisle -- and public support is refreshingly bipartisan. While Democrats show more widespread support for higher fuel efficiency standards, 72 percent of Republicans also say they are in favor (see graph below). But a big AP story (front page of the Seattle Times, Wednesday) and a USA Today story -- along with all kinds of other coverage -- dwell almost exclusively on a litany of trumped up downsides: increased consumer costs, soccer moms jamming their families into smaller cars, and compromises on choice and safety for the sake of efficiency. This is odd when the proposal will encourage more consumer choice and more efficiency -- exactly what Americans seem to want.

Buried deep in these stories is the important factor that Obama has stressed, that the upfront cost increase (estimated to be $1,300 per vehicle) would quickly be offset by savings at the pump. He estimated a more fuel-efficient vehicle will pay off in as little as three years, and that over the vehicle's life the typical driver would save around $2,800.

Last Friday was bike to work day and I was in Vancouver for a meeting being hosted by the Candian Centre for Policy Alternatives on climate justice. Before I got on the train for home I walked over to the Burrard Bridge. I have been reading lately about efforts to create a dedicated bike lane on the bridge.

In other posts I have written about what supports increases in bike ridership. One big issue is safety. Vancouver, like Portland and Seattle, is struggling with making biking a viable alternative to driving to work. 

The City of Vancouver is discussing some major changes on the bridge to improve safety for cyclists. The proposed dedicated lane for bikes has created a lot of controversy.

Editor’s Note from Alan Durning: I read with great interest Jeff Mapes’ new book on the US cycling movement. Here’s a guest post that Jeff wrote for The Daily Score in honor of Bike to Work Day:

As I researched my book Pedaling Revolution: How Cyclists are Changing American Cities, I couldn’t help myself. Everywhere I went, I critiqued the local streetscape by asking: is it good or bad for bikes?

When I visited my sister and brother-in-law on the Sammamish Plateau east of Seattle, I was quick to judge. We drove up a steep hill to get to their house, the main roads were narrow and filled with fast-moving cars, and the distances were long--too long for easy cycling. Except for the East Sammamish Trail along Lake Sammamish, there didn’t seem to be any infrastructure at all for cyclists or pedestrians.

In short, the fast-growing Sammamish Plateau seemed to share the crux transportation problem of sprawl everywhere: residents seemed locked in their cars for every trip.

My bike-riding brother-in-law John—a man who is hardened enough to have often commuted by bike to such far-flung workplaces as Redmond and downtown Seattle-- proved my perceptions wrong.