Mayor Greg “Green” Nickels announced a partnership between Nissan and the city of Seattle today to promote plug-in electric cars and to build infrastructure to charge them in Seattle. “From light rail to street cars to electric vehicles, we’re reducing the impact of transportation on our climate.”
That’s nice and all—better electric vehicles than, say, gas-guzzling muscle cars—but if elected officials REALLY wanted to reduce the impact of transportation on our climate, they’d go after transportation infrastructure—the development patterns that make it necessary for many, many people to drive everywhere they go. The problems of sprawl aren’t merely technological, and a million electric cars plugged into a million suburban garages (and the electric cars Nickels is promoting do have to be plugged into specially installed equipment in individual garages, making them geared toward single-family developments) won’t eliminate the impact of all those roads, all those strip malls, all that redeveloped farmland, on our natural environment. Even if it sucks carbon out of the air, no electric car is going to be better for the climate, and for our overall well-being, than living in a compact urban community without a car and interacting with actual human beings every day. Not to mention the fact that much of the climate impact of any car happens before the car even leaves the lot, in the form of the steel needed to make it, the energy used in manufacturing it, and the gas used in getting it to the dealership. Electric cars are a nice small step, but they’re a very small step. The problem is, the bigger steps are harder—and they’re the ones we should be taking now.
Nope, not going to do it. Your lifestyle does not appeal to me.
You speak the truth, ECB.
If only we had a Mayor who understood such things… a Mayor more into smart policy than press releases…
The mayor has no control over such things.
People live in the sticks and drive long distances because they have to; they can’t afford to live in the city. Houses in the central city cost a fortune, and there’s all those new developments out in — hey, have you seen Milton lately? There’s a really great Indian restaurant out there at Thrasher’s Corner. And townhouses are CHEAP. Seattle itself is increasingly a rich white ghetto, while all the poor and working class are forced out into deep exurbia. Where cars are necessary (they’re necessary in most of the city too).
bigger steps like, um, not building highways? incidentially, ron sims was great today at the cascade bicycle club’s fundraiser. as hud deputy, he said he wanted to make it a priority to build, “no new highways.” and yet…there’s that tunnel. thanks greg nickels. you’re so green…compared to china. hella leadership.
see # 10 here: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/00…
so glad mcginn is in the mayors face on this stuff so he can’t get away with it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcssGa94s… and you too ECB.
Nickels is very good at taking small steps forward, but he is even better at taking huge steps backwards. He chose to push the Roads and Transit ballot measure in 2007, which would have sucked billions of dollars from taxpayers and built over a hundred new highway miles. He is a cheerleader for the new Alaskan Way Viaduct tunnel, which will cost billions of dollars for a mere two miles of tunnel—usable only by cars and trucks. Further, when faced with the growth in waste collection by Seattle Public Utilities, Nickels supported building a new transfer station in Georgetown. When the “green” alternative is easy, as with fluorescent bulbs or electric cars, Nickels is all over it. But we need better leadership than that. Make the tough choices, Mayor Nickels.
you know, with people like sgiffy, i’m tempted to say “alright, you go live in your little world and we’ll live in ours” but then we’d never solve global warming, now would we?
alas, like all tough decisions in human history, we either make it of our free will, or have it forced upon us later. it’s your decision sgiffy. everyone in the world can’t live the convenient life of the american.
No, I’m pretty sure an electric car that sucks carbon out of the air would be an awful lot better than just density. I mean holy crap, the more we drive, the less the carbon?
I mean, what else is going to suck up all the carbon generated by this massive project to tear down the suburbs and fill the city with Will’s idiotic skyscrapers? Or even just deal with all the carbon from the meat that certain people are never going to give up?
I realize that a carbon eating electric car is nonsense and talking about its merits is beside the point, but I’m not the one who brought it up, OK?
Erica I agree. Give me my car. I don’t care what kind of car, I want a car. And I want roads for my car. and I want a parking space for my car. CAR CAR CAR. Get out of my way when i am in my car. It’s about the car. I refuse to change how I live because I want a Car. An electric car, a hydrogen car, a hybrid car, a nuclear car, a solar car, a wind car. Just get out of my way when I am in my car. I want taxes to go for roads for my car. Technology and the American market will solve the problem of my wanting a NEW car. Did I say it’s about the car?
Yet another reason to remove Nickels from office, he is not mean, he is not green, he is not real. That’s it. Sorry Mayor Gridlock, people WANT to live here. Businesses WANT to HQ here. You have to give em something most of the time, but not everything all of the time. And a car and truck only tunnel is an overly huge waste of money. If we had the viaduct problem all worked out somehow and and rail going across i-90 to Redmond and a new 520 and a completed line to the Udistrict then I’d think okay maybe we do need this $4B tunnel and all this new Mercer fixings–but the fact is we really don’t have JACK yet (one measly LR line and a streetcar to nowhere do not count, hell its barely a start!) If you coulda done something big, for real and not just the easy stuff then maybe I’d support you but potholes and barely snow removal and mowing your yard with your orange electric mower just don’t cut it; you’re done.
It’s time to stop subsidizing the suburbs.
In every way.
I would like to get some of whatever you are taking.
The “new highway” you’re complaining about has existed for more than 50 years.
Now, explain how the Mayor of Seattle is supposed to stop the construction of major new roads in Maltby (sorry, not Milton as I said above, although the same questions, and problems, apply there). It’s NOT IN SEATTLE; it’s not even in King County. And that is where the action is, road-building-wise.
Seattle can fuck around with its sharrows and lane markings, but it doesn’t make one teeny-tiny bit of difference out where the population is. I was in Thrasher’s Corner a few weeks ago, and I was astonished; the last time I’d seen it was almost a decade ago, the last time I went out to Flower World. There was a gas station and a bar there. Now, it’s huge mega-developments, box stores and strip malls, on all sides. While you people have been fretting over whether the balconies on condo buildings are too small or not, entire cities have sprung up out in the wastelands.
Neither Mayor Nickels nor you have anything to say about that.
Just another superficial change meant to give the Mayor a green reputation without actually having to be green. You can’t advocate for an enormous expansion of regional freeways and be green. You can’t push an exorbitantly expensive mega-project meant to whisk people past downtown and be green. You can’t look at the city’s transit system, shrug your shoulders and say “not my job”, and be green.
We need a Mayor who can envision where we should be as a city, and then asks what we need to do to get there. What we have is a Mayor who’s more interested in making piecemeal changes in order to score a political win than he is in building a better city. Time for a change.
Go McGinn.
@14, you’re hilarious. And your candidate is a twat.
Our transit system ISN’T the mayor’s job. You can “envision” all you want, but that fact isn’t going to change. Schools: ditto.
And the megaproject is critically important to the region. Ironically, the “let’s just grass it all over” approach favored by the People’s Waterfront Coalition is, in fact, the most suburban development idea ever proposed for a major US downtown.
Well, to be fair, Nickels authority only goes to 145th street to the north, and Roxbury to the south (give or take a few blocks)
It will be interesting to see how much electrical demand these cars create, and at what time of day they create it. If the demand happens at night, it will be a good thing, as demand is low at night, and much generation potential is lost. If it happens during the day, it will add to the peak load, and require more purchasing on the energy market.
let’s build a 2 mile $4 billion autos only bored tunnel, and have the city voters pick up all the cost overruns. They will only be about $4 billion or so!
And while we’re at it, NO TRAINS IN THE TUNNEL, NO BUS RAPID TRANSIT IN THE TUNNEL, NOT EVEN A FUCKING BUS STOP IN THE FUCKING TUNNEL.
And here’s the sweetener: I’m for a couple of e car plug in stations. Woo-hoo!
Now, where’s my greeniosity award??
Electric cars just aren’t the answer. When plugged in, they suck energy from a filthy coal power plant a lot of the time. They are ideal for areas with renewable energy. When everyone plugs their cars in, home energy prices will go up instead of auto gas prices.
Oh please. Only rich people can afford to live in the city? Wow, all those Latinos, blacks, and immigrants in the south half of the city must be rich as fuck. I hope they don’t buy out Maple Valley and Woodinville to turn them into their summer resort with all their cab driving and day labor riches.
@18, as Catalina has explained, you’ve got it backwards. Power isn’t something you just pour out of a tap, and when you run low, you make more. The real hard work is balancing the load. Using more at off-peak times doesn’t require more generation. And non-renewable electrical generation is actually very flexible (you can ramp coal plants up and down), while renewable energy, for the most part so far, is very INflexible — the juice is either on or its not. So the biggest hurdle for renewable energy is finding a way to avoid wasting it by generating it at times when you don’t need it. One good thing about hydro dams (against many bad things) is that they can act as storage batteries, using unneeded electricity to pump water back above the dam for use at peak times. Except we don’t do that in the US for some reason.
Electrical generation and transmission is a pretty fascinating and complex subject.
If there was a massive uptake of electric cars, where would all the extra power come from? It would be ironic if that required shitloads of new coal, nuclear etc power stations.
@19, feel free to go look up what’s been happening in the south half of the city over the past decade or two and report back. And no, one hipster on Cap. Hill living below the poverty line doesn’t hold up against several million people in the low-rent burbs. Seattle is less than 1/5 of the Metro area.
Plus, more than half the city has no sidewalks and can’t even walk around without risking life and limb. (That’s not hyperbole.) Can’t think of a basic infrastructure thing that is greener than getting people to walk more by giving them a safe place to do so.
You, ECB, will NEVER be satisfied. Even working for the city I was recently transferred to another workstation making a huge difference in my commute…. doing the same job, just relocated. Should I sell my house and buy a different one closer to the new installation?
PS- You’re a shitty bike rider and I thought it was fucking hilarious last night when you thought I was going to run you down. I knew where you were every second but you, unable to ride defensively, put yourself in a bad situation and I used the opportunity to scare the shit out of you.
Fnarf dear, we DO have pumped storage in the US, in many places. Grand Coulee does it. City Light doesn’t. I don’t know why.
As far as renewable generation is concerned, the system operators, after quite a bit of initial resistance, are embracing it, despite its transitory nature.
There is a lot of thought that car batteries can be the “storage” for renewable generation, but I don’t know how practical that is.
Simac, the main reason there are no sidewalks in certain parts of the city is because most of those neighborhoods were developed when they were not part of Seattle, and were annexed by people anxious for city services.
If the city were to go and claim all of the land necessary to establish sidewalks, the costs would be more than prohibitive, and it would take decades.
It’s like the people who complain about how we have all the overhead electrical lines. If the citizens were willing to jack their electrical rates up twentyfold, and see the town torn up for the next fifty years, it could all be undergrounded – but they’re not willing to do that.
Fnarf, the average listing price in south Beacon Hill is $250k. The average listing price in Greenwood or Columbia City is $350k. In Maple Valley, $450k. Woodinville, $700k. Exurbanites pay a premium to live AWAY from the city.
ECB – How’d the interview for the job with the city go?
Not all people can give up their cars, right? So, why so negative when a big city mayor is trying to spur demand for plug-in electric cars by working to make his city more accommodating to them? You should really try to cool the snark.
@1, your “lifestyle choice” is not a matter of preferences. It’s a plain fact that we’re going to have to redevelop out of our car culture if we want to preserve our economy, our health, and a survivable environment.
@28, I think it’s important that someone be there to point out, when the Nickels’ of the world are touting electric cars as a solution to our gasoline cars, that cars are part of the problem, not the solution, and that better cars are only going to be less of a problem, not a boon. What’s wrong with looking two steps ahead instead of one?
Good is definitely, always, absolutely, the enemy of great. Except when it isn’t. Right, Erica?
@24 ecb brings nothing
You’re a really awful person, and Karma will repay you. Don’t comment here anymore.
@28 Bluneck
You say, “Not all people can give up their cars, right?” Of course they can’t, and that’s why Nickels’ proposal is a good thing. The end goal (at least not ours) is not to ban private vehicles from cities. But the goal is to reorient our transportation infrastructure so that a much greater percentage of miles traveled (not all, just a larger share) happens via cleaner and safer modes: transit, walking, biking. This is about the environment, sure, but it’s also about the economy, people, health, urban neighborhoods, and social justice for the poor, the young, and the elderly (on that last point, see http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/04/08/sa…).
@27, yes, and houses on Mercer Island cost a fortune. As do those in Broadmoor. Way to cherry-pick your data. What’s the average cost of a dwelling unit in Kent, Puyallup, Mill Creek, Marysville, Lakewood?
Catalina, I didn’t know. I thought it was mostly a Norwegian thing. The car thing makes sense, since it is batteries, after all, which are the most obvious kind of batteries. But making batteries is hugely inefficient.
The modern greening of the world is going to be largely a matter of expanding the grid (which spreads the load), adding capacity (and replacing dirty capacity with cleaner), and figuring out a way to accurately price the load. Someday soon, you can expect to pay ten times as much for your electricity first thing in the morning and again at 6:00 PM.
Maybe we could offer a tax incentive* to convert the taxi fleet to electric. They use a big central garage for off duty cars and it would be great option for those of us who don’t have cars when its raining buckets.
maybe an initial write off followed by annual deductions which would mitigate the cost of car payments.
Ah, fresh air…except for Centralia where Gregoire renewed the lease of the country’s dirtiest coal generating plant…well, gotta go, my “smart car” should be charged up in another 3 or 4 hours…
i guess i don’t understand the big problem you have with electric cars, that seems to be something that they can do right now. the city does seem to be getting more dense but in the meantime…how is this bad again???? is light rail expansion not an example of changing transportation infrastructure? It seems like you need to give some credit here, not criticise.
@27 you’re kidding right? This here is Chocolate Chip City.
Fnarf, I specifically mentioned South Seattle, Maple Valley, and Woodinville and you inferred that South Seattle was more expensive. ALL of the south half of Seattle is less expensive except for a few neighborhoods on Lake Washington, for obvious reasons.
But, if you must know, even though Puyallup and Lakewood aren’t exurbs of Seattle:
Lakewood – $424k average listing price (higher than 31 neighborhoods in Seattle)
Marysville – $320k average listing price (higher than 11 neighborhoods in Seattle)
Maple Valley – $452k average listing price (higher than 35 neighborhoods in Seattle)
Kent – $321k average listing price (higher than 11 neighborhoods in Seattle)
Puyallup – $307k average listing price (higher than 9 neighborhoods in Seattle)
For fun, the other most populous exurbs of Seattle:
Renton – $418k
Auburn – $337k
Shoreline – $541k
Kirkland – $843k
Edmonds – $556k
Samammish – $787k
Lynnwood – $335k
Bothell – $423k
Burien – $462k
Des Moines – $388k
Issaquah – $747k
All of them more expensive than at least a dozen neighborhoods in Seattle.
http://www.trulia.com/home_prices/Washin…
Has anyone here read the book “Sprawl: A Compact History” by Paul Bruegman?
I’d be curious to hear their reactions. While I didn’t necessarily agree with a lot of it, it was a very thought provoking book and made me examine a little more careful lot of assumptions I had about the topic of sprawl and urban density.
that should read “a little more carefully a lot…”