Besides keeping carpools and transit moving, the SR-167 HOT lanes have an additional value: they give researchers more nuanced understanding of how much people are willing to pay for a quick trip. And when we took a look at the SR-167 HOT lane data last year, the numbers surprised us: apparently, drivers really aren’t willing to pay much for a faster commute. Few drivers on SR-167 opted to the free-flowing HOT lanes, so HOT lane traffic volumes typically stayed low.

University of Washington PhD students Austin Gross and Danny Brent have taken our initial research several steps further. I’ll probably mention more about their work in a subsequent post. But in the short term, I was struck by their data showing how badly WSDOT transportation planners misjudged demand for the HOT lanes:

That’s right: actual HOT lane revenue in 2012 was about one-third of the “low case” projection that WSDOT made before the lanes were opened. That was likely due to two separate effects: fewer cars than anticipated using the HOT lanes; and lower toll rates needed to keep HOT lanes from clogging up. Both effects flow from flawed early assumptions and beliefs about how much demand there would be for driving in general, and for the HOT lanes in particular.

These findings don’t prove that HOT lanes are a bad idea! But they clearly have a bearing on today’s transportation debates. For well over a decade, the Washington and Oregon departments of transportation been planning massive highway megaprojects—wider urban highways, higher-capacity bridges, expensive tunnels, and more. And they’ve pursued these plans in the belief that bigger highways will ease congestion—and that drivers put a high value on congestion-free trips.

But the SR-167 HOT lane experiment shows that most drivers on that stretch of road simply aren’t willing to pay much for a fast commute. Which raises a question: given that drivers may not be all that willing to pay for a quicker trip, does it really make sense for taxpayers to invest so much in trying to give them what they won’t pay for themselves?

Note: just to be clear, the interpretations of Gross’s and Brent’s numbers are my own, not theirs. And their research goes much, much deeper into the specifics of pricing and driver willingness to pay; the chart above is just the tip of the iceberg. I’m very much looking forward to diving into their findings! And hat tip to GoodMeasures.Biz for the graphic!

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

maistora, flickr

Of the 100 medical opinions I’ve gotten, 97 of them say that my liver damage is a result of binge drinking. Two of them weren’t sure if it was caused by the booze, and one actually disputed the idea.

My friends aren’t so sure though. I’ve asked ten of them, and only four think it’s mainly the liquor at fault. So although no one denies I’m in serious danger of liver failure, there’s some uncertainty over the cause, particularly among non-doctors.

Whatever. The point is: I’m heading out to happy hour soon.

If by chance my reasoning strikes you as problematic, you may enjoy reading the results of a thorough survey of published climate science:

The survey considered the work of some 29,000 scientists published in 11,994 academic papers. Of the 4,000-plus papers that took a position on the causes of climate change only 0.7% or 83 of those thousands of academic articles, disputed the scientific consensus that climate change is the result of human activity, with the view of the remaining 2.2% unclear.

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Northwesterners should pay attention.

Cascadia is home to federal atomic facilities at Hanford and eastern Idaho, where much work remains to be done. Each site is heavily contaminated with atomic and chemical wastes from past weapons-connected operations, and the US Department of Energy (DOE) is carrying out environmental cleanup in both locations. Previous Sightline posts have covered each site. At Hanford, state and local officials are most concerned about “high level” radioactive wastes, in the form of some 50 million gallons in huge underground tanks, wastes that remain in liquid form today. Among other contaminants, Idaho holds liquid and solid “transuranic” wastes containing plutonium or other elements of higher atomic numbers than uranium. Elected officials have been fighting the federal government for decades, trying to get those wastes stabilized and moved out of state.

A dilemma for Hanford, eastern Idaho, and similar sites across the country is that the contamination already there makes them targets for receiving even more when federal officials go looking for locations to store chemical or atomic wastes. In fact, in 2007, DOE identified eight federal facilities, including Hanford and the Idaho nuclear site, as recipient candidates for one particular category of atomic wastes produced at federal facilities and by commercial atomic plants. This is the map of the eight candidate locations:

Locations that the US Department of Energy (DOE) designated in 2007 as candidates to receive a particular type of radioactive wastes from across the nation. All eight are federal facilities, managed and/or being cleaned up by DOE. [Map Source: US Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Environmental Management.]

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

National Journal takes a look behind the scenes at what Republican leaders and activists are saying about climate change, and it includes some good news.

Anna

The best thing I read this week was this European history told the way we’re used to hearing about Native American history. It’s funny in that way that also makes you want to cry for shame.

The best thing I heard this week was Barbara Ehrenreich on Alternative Radio talking about how in this country we have a nasty practice of kicking people when they’re down. “Do we lend a helping hand to the poor? Barely. Let them eat op-eds about values and the virtues of hard work. There’s billions to fund the latest F-whatever fighter jet but scant little for people in distress. The pounding the needy are taking is particularly severe because much of the social safety net has been shredded. Can anyone say compassion and caring?”

And, trusty old Bill Moyer talks to the authors of Lead Wars: The Politics of Science and the Fate of America’s Children—continuing his excellent series on how money secretly (or not so secretly) rules politics in this country.

Eric

Check out the table on the bottom of the first page of Pew’s polling on European attitudes. My favorite element is that, almost without exception, every country believes that it is the least arrogant and most compassionate country in Europe.

The Washington Post’s world map of racism is worth absorbing. Based on a Swedish researchers’ (admittedly limited) survey, it produced results that I did not find entirely surprising.

Washington is the least foul-mouthed state.

I confess that I find Michael Pollan to be insufferable. So on the occasion of his recent visit to Seattle, I wallowed gratuitously in the writings of those who share my point of view here, here, and here.

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Poster for Tox-Ick stormwater campaign.

We recently updated you on the new stormwater permits that will soon dictate how Washington State’s most populated areas manage polluted runoff that damages water quality and can flood low-lying property. Here we’ll tackle the new Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, which covers the next most populated areas and affects nearly 100 cities around the state.

These cities are legally obligated to try to control water that runs off pavements, roofs and streets in built areas every time it rains. Along the way, that water picks up toxic metals, motor oil, lawn fertilizers, animal droppings, and a cocktail of other pollutants before it washes into local waterways and oceans. The rules governing how cities and other jurisdictions manage this dirty runoff are contained in municipal permits, which were recently updated in Washington State and are about to kick in throughout much of the state.

There are actually two Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permits: one for western Washington and one for eastern Washington. That’s because each side of the state has very different climate conditions, soils, and geology, which are important considerations when thinking about how water moves around.

The Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, which goes into effect on August 1, 2013, covers 80 medium and small cities and the urban portion of four counties. The Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, which takes effect one year later, covers 18 cities and urban areas in six counties. Both will remain in effect for five years.

As you may imagine, there are significant differences between two region’s Phase II permits. In particular, the new low-impact development (LID) regulations are very different. So let’s take a look at each permit in turn.

Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit

eutrophication@hypoxia, flickr

The new western Washington permit contains important new requirements in three areas:

1. New watershed-scale stormwater planning requirements
2. New monitoring and assessment requirements
3. New low-impact development (LID) requirements

The first major change is based on the concept that many pollution and flooding problems are best addressed at the watershed level. That wider focus also helps identify the most cost-effective pollution control strategies to meet clean water goals. The watershed planning process, outlined in an earlier post, requires Phase II permittees to work with counties and other municipalities in the watershed. After pulling together water quality data, flow records, biological baselines, and zoning maps, they must collectively develop strategies to change land use plans and development codes in ways that can manage polluted runoff more effectively.

The second major change involves the new Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program (RSMP) that will collect information on water quality, habitat, and biota in the Puget Sound basin; conduct regional studies of stormwater practices; and develop a public information repository. Permittees can either pay to participate in the regional program or comply with individual monitoring requirements on their own. The benefit of the RSMP is that it will provide a comprehensive approach to monitoring in the Puget Sound basin (think economies of scale).

Rain garden in West Seattle’s High Point development; Lisa Stiffler.

The third major change involves low-impact development that works with nature to manage stormwater as close to its source as possible, rather diverting it into pipes or large collection areas. LID techniques include rain gardens, vegetated rooftops, rain barrels, French drains, and permeable pavement that allows water to soak through rather than run off hardscapes. These tools reduce the impact of built areas on local water bodies and help water move more naturally through an ecosystem or watershed.

Phase II permittees have to incorporate LID standards into their development codes by December 31, 2016 (except for newly added permittees, who have an extra year to comply). Once those are in place, builders and landowners will be required to consider and use low-impact development best management practices (BMPs) when they’re developing or redeveloping land. The process is detailed in Appendix 1 to the Western Washington Phase II permit. Depending on the size of the project, where it’s located, and where runoff winds up, builders must work from one of two lists of recommended low-impact development practices. The developer must consider each BMP on the list, in the order listed, and use the first one that is feasible.

Finally, another important change is that the new Western Washington Phase II permit requires that certain standards apply to sites less than one acre. The prior version exempted new development, redevelopment, and construction sites that disturbed less than one acre of land.  That exemption has been removed.

Eastern Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit

The eastern Washington permit differs in two main areas—monitoring and low-impact development. In particular, the LID requirements for eastern Washington are wholly different than the requirements for western Washington.

They’re less evolved, in the sense that they’ll be phased in. The eastern Washington permit requires that initial steps be taken to implement low-impact development techniques. By December 31, 2017, for instance, eastern Washington permittees must require certain projects to retain runoff on-site or in regional facilities allowing it to percolate into the ground, or to develop feasibility criteria that factor in local conditions like soils that are too poor to let runoff soak in.

The new monitoring requirements for the Eastern Washington Phase II permittees require them to work together on studies that evaluate stormwater management programs. The hope is to start gathering basic information that will improve the permittees’ programs and future permit requirements.

In addition, the Washington Department of Ecology is working with eastern Washington permittees to develop a low-impact development manual for that side of the state. The state agency is also planning to support low-impact development research in eastern Washington, training for local government staff and contractors, and education to expand the use of LID practices.

So that’s the landscape for Washington’s municipal stormwater permits through 2018. That is, if the permits aren’t changed due to pending legal appeals.

Ashley Pedersen is an environmental attorney and policy analyst who lives in Seattle.

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

What else can we say?

HUGE THANKS to everyone who chipped in (and even chipped in extra!) to support Sightline during GiveBIG yesterday. All told, we raised $40,940 from 181 donors. From our first gift at 12:52 a.m. to our last at 11:42 p.m., you sent the message to us—over and over again—that you appreciate our work and want to see more of it.

More coal export research, more legalizing inexpensive housing, more stormwater and polluted runoff work—more of the transformative and innovative policy and communications research that will achieve a more sustainable Pacific Northwest for years to come.

So thank you. We are grateful, flattered… and full!

We upgraded this year and celebrated with platesful of homemade (well, office-made) waffles! Complete with butter, maple syrup, sliced bananas and strawberries, and the extra special topping of your generosity… well, it was a very rich breakfast.

Thank you for your support yesterday and throughout the year. A special thanks, too, to The Seattle Foundation for hosting and helping the entire community raise more this year than ever: $11.1 million. Way to GiveBIG, all!

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Today, Sightline is releasing a new report in Canada, one that tallies the potential carbon emissions from fossil fuel export infrastructure planned throughout the Pacific Northwest.

Across British Columbia, Oregon, and Washington there are active proposals for seven new or expanded coal terminals, three new oil pipelines, and six new natural gas pipelines. The projects are distinct, but they can be denominated in a common currency: the tons of carbon dioxide emitted if the fossil fuels were burned. Taken together, these projects would be capable of delivering enough fuel to release an additional 761 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide.

The Northwest enjoys a reputation for leadership in clean energy and environmental policy. Yet the new fossil fuel infrastructure planned for British Columbia, Oregon, and Washington would eclipse the region’s green reputation, transforming the Northwest from an aspiring climate leader into a carbon export hub of global consequence.

You can find the full report here.

[Editor's note: At the Vancouver Sun, Pete McMartin devoted his May 18 column to Sightline's report. His piece is well worth reading.]

Sightline will be releasing a US version of this report soon, so American readers should keep their eyes peeled.

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Metro service cuts hearing

Here’s a picture of hundreds of people who crowded into a hearing room Tuesday to protest looming and massive bus cuts at King County Metro. If this looks familiar, it’s because we went through a similar exercise two years ago. This time, if the Washington State Legislature doesn’t grant the transit agency new taxing authority to backfill an immediate $75 million budget hole, Metro says it will begin eliminating 600,000 service hours next fall, or 17 percent of the transit service it currently offers.

So what does that look like? Well, for starters, they would be the largest service cuts in Metro history. About 70 percent of current riders would be negatively affected: Some people will lose bus service entirely, some people will have to walk further to get to a stop, a lot of people’s buses will run less frequently, and a lot of buses will be more crowded.

It would, in short, be a fairly epic change in the wrong direction for a growing county that prides itself on being green and economically savvy yet hasn’t sufficiently agitated for a stable funding source for the very service that efficiently delivers people to their jobs and allows them to do errands without clogging up roads and spewing carbon pollution. Seriously, just spend a minute with this interactive map that shows just how the cuts might go down.

In Seattle, parts of Leschi and Montlake could lose all bus service, as would all of Maury Island and some neighborhoods in Issaquah, Mercer Island, Shoreline, North Bend, Kent, the Sammamish Plateau and dozens of other communities. People who live in Sunset Hill, North Beach, or Vashon Island could find themselves bus-less outside of the morning and evening commutes. On busy routes, more riders (who will likely have just seen their fifth fare increase since 2008) will be stranded at stops while packed buses pass them by.

Forget, for a minute, all the people who rely on Metro to get to their jobs: The architects and biotech scientists and project managers who have access to cars and won’t be shy about using them if buses become too inconvenient, or the people who take Metro from Tukwila or Carnation to get to jobs cleaning hotels and guarding courthouses and staffing parking booths in downtown Seattle. And forget about anyone who, by choice or necessity, gets around the city without a car.

Here’s why everyone else in the region should care: A more anemic Metro system will, without a doubt, make everyone’s life harder. Think about what happens when the Alaskan Way Viaduct comes down, or when bridges to the Eastside need replacing. Construction, or tolls, dump more cars on local streets, gumming up bus routes and making service slower. Getting around by bus starts to become more unpleasant because Metro has just whacked nearly 20 percent of its service and overloaded routes that survived. And the agency has zero money for new investments that could help an ever-growing population to get to jobs and baseball games and Microsoft meetings without considerable hassle.

So what do people do then? They avoid downtown and other congested areas entirely, which is why business organizations like the Downtown Seattle Association and Seattle Chamber of Commerce are lobbying for new transit money. Some will get back in their cars; Metro estimates the service cuts will add 25,000 to 35,000 vehicles to the region’s roads each day. That screws everyone else who’s trying to get around and a regional economy in which businesses depend on things being delivered in a timely fashion.

Oh, and those who don’t have the luxury of hopping back in their cars will just be, well, screwed. Because they’ll be shelling out more money in fares for longer waits and sketchier service. And businesses—from hospitals to law firms to the airport—will have more trouble maintaining a stable workforce.

How did we get into this mess?

In short: More than a decade ago, voters reduced the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax levied on cars and replaced that relatively stable funding source for King County Metro with a portion of sales tax, which now makes up about 60 percent of its operating funds.

Save Metro hearing

But sales tax revenue is volatile, and as the national recession unfolded and people stopped spending so much money, sales tax revenues dropped by nearly 18 percent. That left the transit agency with a $1.2 billion budget shortfall from 2008 to 2015. Until now, the agency has weathered its fiscal cliff without major cuts in overall service (though it did eliminate the downtown free ride zone and made real cuts to many routes last year, that service was actually reallocated to busier routes.)

It has also raised fares four times, spent its reserves, delayed expected service expansions, and negotiated a bigger share of county property taxes. Faced with a similar level of massive service cuts in 2011, the legislature granted the King County Council the authority to approve a temporary congestion reduction charge that raised vehicle fees by $20 for Metro. But that was only for two years until a more permanent solution could be found. That stopgap funding will expire in the middle of next year, and the reserves that Metro has been borrowing from will be exhausted at the end of 2014.

What can we do about it?

Save Our Metro shirt

King County Metro needs a stable and sustainable funding source, so it doesn’t have to beg for band-aid funding every other year, traumatize its most vulnerable riders with visions of transit Armageddon, and constantly rearrange deck chairs with no new money as it’s asked to cope with major traffic and congestion issues in the region that were not of its making.

In fact, a transit agency that serves the state’s most populous and economically important county actually needs to grow, just to keep up with people moving here.

Here’s what Metro most wants: The state legislature to give King County the authority to levy a new (up to) 1.5% Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET), which would be split 40% for roads and 60% for transit. An owner of a car worth $10,000 would pay $150 a year, and the tax would generate about $85 million for Metro and $55 million for road maintenance.

Right now that MVET option for King County is frustratingly embedded in HB1954, a larger transportation revenue package that puts highway mega-projects ahead of virtually everything else (we and others have enumerated its terribleness here and here). It’s still alive in the special session that just started in Olympia this week, but it’s fate is very much up in the air.

King County could always try again next year, but it would already be deep in the process of eliminating and reducing service. And it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get a new MVET program up and running in time to stave off the first wave of bus cuts. So, how about we save everyone a lot of heartburn and just give King County the opportunity to fix it now? It shouldn’t be so tough for the state legislature to empower the people who live here to decide what kind of transit system they’re willing to pay for.

Here’s what some of those King County residents had to say at Tuesday’s hearing:

This is not a recipe for continued economic recovery. We just got out of the recession. We can’t let this bus service go now. —Kate Joncas, President of the Downtown Seattle Association

We simply cannot allow these cuts to occur, nor can we afford the human and economic costs if the legislature kicks the can down the road to the next session. —Josh Kavanagh, Director of Transportation for the University of Washington

I take the bus everywhere even though I own a car. It’s such an egalitarian thing, just like the library, which I also love. Whether you’re rich or poor or middle class, everyone can ride the bus if they don’t raise the fares too much. But the cuts coming are really immense, especially when you take into consideration that there’s not enough bus service as it is. —Sue Hodes, ESL instructor at Bellevue College

There’s a lot of us who have disabilities that make it difficult to drive and there’s many of us who cannot afford to drive. For us, it’s a matter of losing our jobs. —Siri Schroder, transit dependent South Lake Union resident and banquet server at a Bellevue hotel

I’ve been a bus rider by choice for a lot of years, but now by necessity I am. I use transit to connect me to my grandchildren, to groceries, to meetings like this, to museums and parks, to the symphony. Transit is the difference in my ability to remain a productive citizen in this city —Lois Laughlin, who relies on the following routes that would likely be affected by service cuts: 2, 5, 8, 11, 10, 12, 43, 72, and 16

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Coal dust shrouds an East Coast coal train. Photo credit paulv2c.

Roger O. McClellan is regularly trotted out by coal export backers whenever they are trying to dismiss concerns about coal dust pollution. Yet last week in a Seattle Times opinion piece on  pollution from coal transport, he called for a comprehensive review of coal export plans, including along railways:

Debate over the terminals should be grounded in scientific facts and analysis. Well-established scientific approaches should be used to evaluate any potential environmental and human-health impacts.

Scientific assessments such as the one being conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers should provide clarity and context for decisions by public officials. Science-based assessments should also identify any constraints needed to assure protection of the environment and public health. The public at large should encourage and, indeed, demand such assessments.

Good for him.

Although this is not the first time McClellan has said he supports a comprehensive review, such a plain public statement should come as a blow to coal export proponents.

When someone like McClellan calls for a comprehensive analysis of the dangers of coal dust escape from trains, it signals the true breadth of the opposition to fast-tracking approval for the proposed terminals. He has, after all, made a career of arguing for relaxed air quality standards, and he has often been paid by fossil fuel interests to provide expert testimony to government regulators. Yet as McClellan says, the Power Past Coal campaign and others are absolutely right to demand a region-wide assessment of the impacts of shipping coal.

Now I think it’s fair to say that McClellan is skeptical that coal dust escape is harmful. Fine. My own review of the science suggests that while the evidence is worrisome, it is spotty enough not to support definite conclusions.

We should all be able to agree, however, that the right course of action is a thorough scientific review of risks to the environment and human health—a review that includes a look at potential contamination along Northwest railways. I hope that the coal export backers will now come around on this point.

At the risk of nit-picking, however, the article did contain at least one factual error that should be corrected. He writes:

Coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana is currently being shipped by rail to ports in Washington state and Oregon… These terminals, which serve as a gateway to Asia, have been an important part of the regional economy for more than a century.

I’m really not sure where this comes from.

Neither Washington nor Oregon ship any coal to Asia. In fact, neither state has a coal terminal of any kind. Needless to say, then, coal ports are not an important part of the regional economy!

Maybe he’s mixed up about British Columbia’s Westshore Terminal? As I’ve documented, that terminal has been receiving modest volumes of US coal since about 2009, coal that does travel via railway in Washington. But even that doesn’t explain the “more than a century” bit because Westshore has only been around since 1970.

According to official figures, the volume of coal now traveling to Westshore—around 4 million tons if you believe US Customs and around 8 million tons if you believe the terminal—is miniscule compared to 100 million tons planned for proposed new terminals in Oregon and Washington. In other words, the region’s past experience with coal trains and coal dust is no guide at all to the future envisioned by coal terminal supporters.

Before the Northwest goes down that road, we should know more—a lot more—about the risks of coal and coal dust. That’s something that environmental activists and industry experts alike can agree on.

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.

Even after years of staring at it, I never realized until this week that the oh-so-familiar recycling symbol is in the shape of a Möbius strip.

Wow: Google’s Earth Engine now displays 28 years of satellite images, pretty much anywhere on the planet. Here’s an aerial time-lapse view of coal mining in Wyoming. Here’s the growth of Las Vegas. I won’t depress you with views of Amazon deforestation, but I’d encourage you to use the search tool to take a look at greater Seattle: the areas that were urbanized in 1984 didn’t change all that much, but you can clearly see the sprawl and clearcutting on the urban fringe. To me, aerial images like these help put debates about the health of Puget Sound in context: over the long haul, the biggest threats to the Sound come from the ways we’re changing the landscape of the watersheds that feed the sound—which is all the more reason to work to curb low-density sprawl, and the transportation infrastructure that makes it possible.

Anna

It’s something Washingtonians don’t like to think about, but a problem we stew about a lot nonetheless: “The most toxic and voluminous nuclear waste in the US—208 million liters—sits in decaying underground tanks at the Hanford Site (a nuclear reservation) in southeastern Washington State.” It may be worse than we thought. This Scientific American article warns that Hanford clean-up may simply prove too dangerous to carry out.

I know every little kid is tempted on hot days spent in the back yard. I know it’s way more fun than water delivered any other way. But, don’t let your kids drink out of the garden hose. Here’s the terrifying skinny on the high levels of hazardous chemicals, many of which have been banned in children’s products, that are found regularly in garden hoses. (The only good news: There’s a bit less lead in garden variety hoses than there was a couple years ago. But, um, there’s still lead in them too!)

Here’s another photo essay worth checking out: What a week of groceries looks like around the world. (I found it particularly noteworthy which countries consume most of their food packaged in plastic and which ones seem to eat food that’s never even come into contact with a plastic bag—and which looks more appetizing.)

Finally, here’s some pretty awesome video of straight people being asked the type of question gay people are asked all the time about their sexuality: When did you choose to be straight?

Eric

Watching the Seattle City Council engage in the eight millionth battle in our local density wars—this time, the South Lake Union rezone—strengthened my conviction that the city needs a sort of Affordable Housing Master Plan, similar in scale and ambition to the excellent Climate Action Plan and Transit (and Bike and Pedestrian) Master Plan we already have. The city’s affordable housing goals ought to be less nebulous and ad hoc than they are (or at least than they appear to me), and they ought to be informed more clearly by a rigorous analysis marking out a path to achieve them.

Toward that end, I enjoyed reading Sharon Lee’s criticisms of the rezone legislation at Real Change and The Slog. Lee is executive director of the Low Income Housing Institute and she brings a valuable data-driven pragmatism to the debate.

Washington State Representative Reuven Carlyle released his annual survey of state tax spending and flow. If there’s a better analytical project in service of sane tax politics in this state, I don’t know what it is. The data reveal that most of the state’s more liberal counties are tax “donors,” getting back less in expenditures than they generate for the state in revenues, while many conservative counties, especially east of the Cascades, receive far more in spending then they generate. King and San Juan Counties are particularly notable, each receiving back only about 65 cents for each tax dollar they provide.

In Unburnable Carbon 2013, Carbon Tracker and the Grantham Research Institute make the case that we are in danger of winding up with costly wasted capital and stranded assets, particularly in the fossil sector, unless we soon begin allocating our investments according to the carbon constraints that we will one day have to realize.

The Seattle Transit Blog brought welcome news that the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest is studying alternative transportation. Clearly it’s not possible to serve every possible destination in the sprawling national forest, but there are certainly marquee destinations that would be easy to serve. A year-round Seattle/Bellevue to Alpental run, for example, would be easy to imagine, providing access to prime country.

Serena

Dominic Holden has a brilliant piece in The Stranger this week on the controversy over micro-housing options in Seattle—though, frankly, it’s a piece urban planners anywhere struggling with questions of density and development should read. Holden thoughtfully engages the various arguments put forth by opponents of these much needed, less expensive housing options, and he demonstrates the prejudice underlying their opponents’ efforts. “Accommodating our growing population by shipping workers into the low-density sprawl of the exurbs is not the way a city should operate—and it reeks of inequity and classism.” (Additionally, if you’ve ever used Swifty Printers, you won’t do so again.)

And now for something completely different, “slacktivism.” Thoughts? And the original commercial:

Alan

Enrique Peñalosa points out that the next few decades of city building around the world will probably be the biggest ever: a global population surge is tapering off at the same time as urbanization is at full speed. City building in the United States will have especially large implications, both because of the country’s high rates of resource consumption but also because other nations’ cities may continue copying American urban form.

He then makes the case for “a dense city with a large percentage of buildings facing pedestrian-and-bicycle-only promenades or greenways…. Imagine a Manhattan crisscrossed by greenways.” He also calls for most urban waterfronts to become public promenades, not roadways or private land.

The Olympic Peninsula’s Elwha River is, in some ways, the perfect allegory for Cascadia and its future. The river runs a steep, rain-forest-lined course from the heart of the Olympic Mountains northward to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It once boasted some of the biggest, fiercest salmon in all the world. Then, a century ago, our human predecessors stapled closed this artery of the peninsula, damming the river a scant few dozen miles from tidewater. Two giant concrete walls blocked passage of the river’s salmon into most of the Elwha’s valley, from foothills to headwaters. This habitat, now protected in the Olympic National Park, is more wild, pristine, and salmon-ready than any dam-blocked place in Cascadia.

The Elwha is an opportunity for ecological restoration and the rebirth of a sustainable economy—salmon!—on a monumental scale. Seizing this opportunity has been the work of decades for an array of tribal leaders, conservationists, fishing interests, and their political representatives. It has taken far longer than it should have, yet the critical stage of the task is nearing completion. One dam is now gone; the second is almost gone, too. (Sightline’s most-watched video ever shows a time-lapse view of dam removal, and you can see all that’s left of the second dam on this Park Service webcam.)

Compared with most of the industrial world, all of Cascadia is like the Elwha watershed. We have a larger share of our original ecological endowment intact. Our whole region is a monumental opportunity for ecological restoration and sustainable economy. Our progress in seizing this opportunity has taken far longer than it should have, but we are also father along the path than are other parts of North America.

Because of the Elwha’s allegorical place in my mind—and the memory of a visit to the lower river with my ex-wife in 1990 when love was young and new and the green of the vegetation along the banks was nearly magical in its beauty—I’ve long been fascinated by the place.

So I’ve been anxiously awaiting the release of Lynda Mapes’ definitive book on the Elwha’s restoration. One of the Northwest’s leading journalists, Mapes has been covering the resurrection of the Elwha for years. She’s put in weeks in interviews, tramping the river banks with scientists and digging through archival materials. Her book is a tribute to this undertaking commensurate to the importance of what’s unfolding there. Steve Ringman’s photography completes the package, and the Mountaineers Books and the Seattle Times together published the resulting Elwha: A River Reborn. It may be 2013’s most important environmental title in Cascadia.

As Mapes makes clear, even after the second dam’s removal is completed this year, the river’s restoration will take decades. But once the second dam is gone, the forces of nature will carry the restoration forward ineluctably. Let’s hope that a similar dynamic holds true for Cascadian sustainability more generally: that once we’ve accomplished some of the key tasks, such as putting a price on carbon, progress will gain momentum and carry itself forward ineluctably.

You can hear Mapes discuss the book at one her upcoming readings.

Sightline Institute researches the best practices in public policy for a sustainable Pacific Northwest. Read more at daily.sightline.org.