Tag Archives: Sustainability

King County Metro: To Increase or Decrease Fares?

This strikes me as sort of a chicken and the egg problem – do you lower fares to increase ridership or do you increase ridership to lower fares?  The editorial acknowledges the issue of access, though, which seems to me to be more and more important the further you get from the Seattle metro area.

I’m lucky in that I live in an area where there’s at least five routes that run through regularly to various areas (a good chunk of them to the UW), but that wasn’t true in Olympia, where I was so far away from bus access that it was a literal impossibility to use the system, even if it was substantially cheaper than driving.

Here’s an Idea: New Water Taxi Service

As Washington State Ferries prepares to sell two passenger-only ferries so that they can focus on their main vehicle ferry fleet (New York Times, Seattle Times), why don’t we consider a new foot ferry program between the University of Washington and Kirkland, allowing foot travel across northern Lake Washington? We’ll be faced with traffic delays and issues as the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (otherwise known as the 520 Floating Bridge) is replaced in a few years. The idea has been suggested before by King County councilman Dow Constantine, and a similar program exists in the Elliott Bay Water Taxi program offered by King County Metro. It would definitely make it easier for people to get across the lake, considering that transit options into places like Kirkland and Bellevue from the University are decidedly lacking.

Other good reasons for this:

  • We don’t have to remove boats from the region that are already here.
  • The program would encourage people to leave their cars at home if the route were designed in a sensible manner with good connections to Metro, Sound Transit, or Community Transit on either end of the taxi route.
  • The program would be a great link-in to the already proposed and hopefully soon-to-be-implemented Sound Transit light-rail link to the UW.

Some challenges exist, of course:

  • Who owns/runs the boats? The University of Washington? King County Metro? A private operation?
  • How do we encourage ridership?
  • Can this be a year-long program? Currently, the Elliott Bay Water Taxi shuts down for the winter.

Update (11:50PM): here is the link I was originally searching for from Dow Constantine’s research into the subject back in 2005.

Why I Voted No on Proposition 1

November 6th marked election day in Washington State.  One of the biggest items on the ballot was Proposition 1: REGIONAL ROADS AND TRANSIT SYSTEM, which was soundly defeated in the polls with 55.47% voting no.  This was the largest transportation bill ever proposed to King County voters and those within the districts affected by the proposed changes.

Looking at the list of proposed improvements, a good chunk of them are necessary improvements to the existing transportation infrastructure in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties.  So why vote it down?

  1. The measure was, quite simply, too big, and this is the fault of the state.  Voters had no ability to vote yes on individual portions of the proposal and had to either accept or reject the entire package.  This is explained in the King County Voters Pamphlet, which exposes the text of the measure itself.  That text includes the following statement:”WHEREAS, in 2007, the State Legislature, enacted Substitute House Bill 1396, which requires Sound Transit and RTID to submit their proposed transportation plans in a single ballot question in order to provide voters with an easier and more efficient method of expressing their will, and which included findings that transportation improvements proposed by Sound Transit and RTID form integral parts of, and are naturally and necessarily related to, a single regional transportation system . . .”

    The state legislature effectively doomed the measure by requiring this.

  2. We don’t need to keep throwing money at fixing and expanding an infrastructure that is in bad need of rethinking.  It is not sustainable to add yet more capacity to the system, which will not encourage the use of alternatives like light rail, bus lines, bikes, and carpooling.  Increasing population density and making the existing city cores more walkable and livable in general will help create an environment where we don’t need to drive as much (if at all).  The goal here should not be continuation of the status quo; it should be a complete reversal and rethinking of it.
  3. We need to start thinking about how to best preserve the spaces we have, which is not assisted by further sprawl and massive projects to revamp infrastructure.  The Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle is a perfect example.  This is a major highway into and out of Seattle, granted, but there are other ways to direct traffic through the city.  When the bus tunnel closed for maintenance several years ago, everybody assumed that it was the end of the world and traffic would grind to a halt.  This never materialized.  We adjusted.  We would adjust to not having access to the Viaduct and being rewarded with a more welcoming waterfront.

I push for the idea of sustainability because I recognize my impact on the world.  I recognize the need to maintain the infrastructure that exists already, but I do not recognize the need to expand upon it unless such expansions support new transportation options rather than simply inviting more cars to join our already-clogged highway system.  I recognize the need for transit, but I also recognize that the more single-occupancy cars we add to our roads, the faster the infrastructure deteriorates and the sooner we need solutions that make sense.  That solution is not a gigantic package where voters have no choice in what they can and cannot accept.  We need a la carte voting on these measures so that voters can properly speak their minds.  If this ever happens, I will support mass transit in favor of less sustainable transportation expansions.

Followup: Friedman Sets Off Stink Bomb

I got the following response from Toyota fairly quickly:

We want to thank you for taking the time to write us here at Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

We are sorry you heard of the inaccurate assertion that we are actively lobbying against increased fuel economy standards, and we want you to be aware of our company’s position supporting increased fuel economy.

There are various bills before Congress that would mandate a new target of 35 mpg by 2020 and require both cars and trucks to meet that standard. Our engineers tell us the requirements specified by these proposed measures are beyond what is possible. Toyota spends $23 million every day on research and development but, at this point, the technology to meet such stringent standards by 2020 does not exist.

Toyota has long supported an increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards. Moreover, Toyota has always exceeded federal fuel economy requirements. We are continuously striving to improve our fuel economy, regardless of federal mandates.

Toyota currently supports a proposal known as the Hill-Terry bill, HR 2927, that would set a new standard of up to 35 mpg by 2022 (up to a 40% increase) and maintain separate categories for cars and light trucks. Although this won’t be easy, we believe it is achievable.

To learn more, please visit our blog "A Call to Action-Let’s Move Forward on Fuel Economy" at: http://blog.toyota.com.

You may also want to review the testimony given on March 14th, before the United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Energy and Commerce Committee by Jim Press, President of Toyota Motor North America, regarding Toyota’s plans and goals regarding increased fuel efficiency and lower vehicle emissions.

Toyota remains committed to the environment and the goal of sustainable mobility and we appreciate you taking the time to contact us.

Toyota Customer Experience

So where does Friedman get his information? There is no disclosure of sources in the article. Further, responding directly to this e-mail, how do Toyota engineers deem that "the requirements specified by these proposed measures are beyond what is possible" when they have cars and technologies that do this already, with vast improvements rumored for the next generation of their Hybrid Synergy Drive technology? I’ve been told by Toyota salespeople personally — not that I ever trust salespeople farther than I can throw them — that Toyota intended to hybridize its fleet by 2010. If the technology exists, despite that this assertion is an all-out lie, why not?

Why is Toyota so reluctant to step up to the plate? They disprove themselves when they state that it’s impossible. If what they mean is that the demand for vehicles with hybrid drives outstrips the supply of parts to manufacture those drives, why not say that rather than sidestepping the issue?

I decided to reply to the message Toyota sent in an effort to perhaps get some clarification:

I find your argument that the technology doesn’t exist to be highly vexing, and, quite frankly, misleading. I drive a Toyota car – the Prius – that proves that technology does exist to support higher vehicle mileage. The Hybrid Synergy Drive system was built for the purpose of increasing mileage on vehicles, and is in active use on several Toyota models. Does Toyota mean to say that the demand for hybrid drives outstrips Toyota’s ability to manufacture such drives in large enough quantities to support the market? If that’s the case, then come out and say it. Hiding behind such blatantly wrong statements to the effect of “the technology doesn’t exist” doesn’t make sense. Of course it exists – Toyota invented it!

Friedman Sets Off Stink Bomb

Thomas Friedman in the New York Times today set off a stink bomb when he claimed that Toyota has been backing American automakers in resisting higher fuel economy standards. The Union of Concerned Scientists responded with a campaign almost immediately – below is the text of my submission for that campaign. The first and third paragraphs are the automatically generated default drivel used by the system, the second is my own:

President, Toyota North America Shigeru Hayakawa

Dear Mr. Hayakawa,

I am writing to express my deep concern that your company has decided to actively oppose the Senate-passed increase to U.S. fuel economy standards. Toyota already complies with Japanese fuel economy standards aimed at reaching approximately 46 miles per gallon (U.S.) by 2010. Why are you denying American consumers the access to fuel efficient choices that both hybrid and conventional technologies can deliver in all vehicle classes?

As a current Prius owner, I am deeply disturbed by Toyota’s reluctance to set the standard. While I laud Toyota’s work on establishing one of the highest MPG automotive fleets anywhere, I am distressed that Toyota feels the need to continue the status quo, which, as you should well know by now, only damages the very environment Toyota claims to care about. Put your mouth where your money is, sir, and push for higher fuel economy standards in the United States.

I ask that you reverse your current course of action and declare publicly that Toyota can and will comply with the Senate fuel economy standards of 35 miles per gallon. You have the power to help Americans meet their varied driving needs while reducing oil dependence and global warming pollution.

I look forward to your reply.

Update (4:48PM): The Union of Concerned Scientists campaign is available here.

Seattle: Transit Woes with Intellectual Energy Wasted

Living in Seattle at the moment is both weird and a bit scary. Scary because the Washington State Department of Transportation is currently ramping up to a major shutdown of a portion of Interstate 5 just south of downtown Seattle for major repair work between the 10th and 29th of this month. This is being billed as one of their biggest projects ever. Weird because, the way I look at it, it’s sort of a traffic armageddon, but it’s also a major opportunity for the City of Seattle that’s being grossly neglected.

Businesses are responding by trying to make it far easier for employees to get to work by offering telecommute or shared commute options, even promoting use of transit via our local transit agencies (Metro, Sound, and Pierce Transit, specifically). Metro, rather glaringly, doesn’t have any extra capacity to add in case it gets slammed, while other agencies seem to have some surplus. But this is truly strange in that, despite exhortations from the Department of Transportation to avoid commuting through that particular stretch of I-5, nobody seems to see this as a prime opportunity to rethink the way that Seattle itself is organized.

We have a number of major traffic arterials that are slowly aging and will be in desperate need of replacement within the next 20 years. One of the biggest is the Alaskan Way Viaduct, which is way over capacity; another is the Highway 520 floating bridge, and Interstate 5 ranks high in that list. Political fisticuffs have been flying around the subject of replacing both the Viaduct and the floating bridge, with people arguing quite vocally about construction methods and timeline. These are vital infrastructure – or so we think. I can’t argue that the floating bridge doesn’t provide a major west/east corridor – of course it does. But what if we sat down and re-visioned the idea of Seattle and the communities surrounding it? What if we decided that, instead of expending our mental energy and our physical resources on reconstructing these resources, we increase population density in Seattle’s downtown core, massively improve transit presence throughout Seattle, and offer disincentives to drive downtown (imitating London and cities in Germany)?

The problem is, we sit around debating. Some of the most drastic rethinking of what it means to be in a city comes from politicians that take immediate action without allowing time for debate. Yes, Interstate 5 is being repaired, and it will undoubtedly be a mess. So why are we ignoring the chance to rethink what it means to live here rather than simply saying “things will get worse, deal with it”? Why do we push this off until the Viaduct closes and we are faced with much the same problem?

The Source of Bottled Water: That’s Not The Problem, Really

It seems like people miss the point entirely when they worry that companies selling bottled water don’t make it clear where that water comes from. The problem isn’t really the source – the problem is that they’re selling bottled water in the first place. There’s a huge difference between water bottles that are typically bought and used once and, say, my trusty Nalgene bottle that follows me all over the place and always has fresh water in it.

Not that I’m not guilty of buying bottled items – I do occasionally indulge in a Nantucket Nectar or two, which are sold in glass, not plastic, bottles. I’ve also been known to make a hapless coffee cup go on a nice, long journey to the landfill. But there’s something about bottled water that just seems somewhat redundant. The fact that it puts tons of plastic into the waste stream is a very large drawback, but the fact that major brands may simply be purifying municipal water sources and shipping it elsewhere has its own set of problems – the energy used in bottling and transportation alone greatly outweigh just drinking from the tap in the first place. You can always get a water purification system, though these systems are problems in and of themselves.

Update (August 1, 2007): The New York Times makes a slightly stronger case on this issue than I do.