ABOUT JOE

ENDORSEMENTS

ISSUES

EVENTS

ASK JOE

DONATE

VOLUNTEER

IN THE NEWS

BLOG

EN ESPAÑOL

DOWNLOADS

A Plan for a More Sustainable Seattle

Seattle needs to be part of the worldwide effort to find solutions to our planet's potentially catastrophic climate situation.  Previous statements by members of the Seattle City Council and Mayor Nickels were important in raising consciousness on the issue, and they have taken some rudimentary actions to reduce carbon emissions. However, the Mayor and City Council have not addressed the more significant areas where we need to dramatically reduce our carbon footprint.

I agree with the statements made recently by climate scientists at the University of Washington that, while the city has taken a few meaningful steps, we need to take much more significant action in order to work towards truly viable solutions to this drastic global problem. What follows are some steps I will pursue if elected:

Street Issues

Viaduct Replacement
I was one of the dozen (or so) people who testified against both the tunnel as well as the viaduct replacement. Both options would lock a large percentage of our regional transportation dollars into more cars and carbon emissions. That said, we must have a solid plan in place to efficiently move people and freight before we tear down the Viaduct.

The city seems to be moving toward putting together a surface-transit solution that would move people and goods more efficiently with fewer carbon emissions. The city's $8.1 million study—advocated by Councilman Peter Steinbrueck—however, does not expressly mandate this type of solution but indirectly prioritizes its implementation.   Thus, there is some hope that the city will move in the direction laid out by the People's Waterfront Coalition (www.peopleswaterfrontcoalition.org).

The Waterfront Coalition's plan does not require a Viaduct rebuilt.  Instead, it would use bus rapid transit in the existing transit corridor, prioritize lanes for freight to preserve blue-collar jobs on the waterfront, and reconfigure existing street capacity to better integrate traffic. This plan, which reflects many of the priorities laid out in the city study, is based upon another produced by the State Department of Transportation in the event that an earthquake brought down the Viaduct.

520
I support the proposal backed by the No Expansion of SR 520 Citizens Coalition. This proposal calls for four lanes over Lake Washington, with intermittent pullouts rather than large, continuous shoulders.  The bridge, then, would not be as wide as the State Department of Transportation proposes. Two of the lanes over the Lake would be HOV lanes (one in each direction); over Portage Bay there would be five lanes: three HOV lanes with one that could be reversed and linked to downtown express lanes. This proposal would produce a smaller environmental impact than the other proposals through fewer car lanes, more HOV traffic, and the elimination of the ramps from the lagoon and Arboretum.

There has been national and international concern among advocates of parks about the effects of increased traffic through the Arboretum. The construction and runoff from the proposed six-lane Pacific interchange and its sheer size would produce devastating impacts on the ecology of the wetlands around the Arboretum.  It would also impact the recreation by bird watchers, canoeists, kayakers, and others.  The draft environmental impact statement fails to adequately address these environmental and quality-of-life concerns, and mitigation for these impacts has historically proven inadequate for similar projects.

The 520 bridge was built through the arboretum (over strong opposition by state legislators, including Dan Evans) largely because it did not require purchasing or condemning private land. This was possible in the early 1960's, but today federal laws discourage using park lands for highways.

The cost of this proposed four-lane option is estimated to be less than two billion, allowing more investment in transportation alternatives and affordable housing so that people can live closer to their workplaces.  It would cost less than half that of Pacific interchange option.  The No Expansion option, however, still includes bicycle and pedestrian paths across the lake.  Allowing cars with high fuel economy or low environmental impact) to use HOV lanes with fewer passengers should be examined as well, in order to encourage cars with smaller carbon footprints.

There is a desperate need for more visionary thinking with respect to regional transportation and development.  We need to improve our quality of life without blighting our landscapes and minimize our carbon footprint.

Water taxis
I favor setting up water taxis that would—to the farthest extent possible—run on sustainable bio-diesel. To begin, a triangular route could connect West Seattle, Downtown and Magnolia. Public transit would receive priority access to the taxis and be set up so people can easily move from boat to bus and vice versa.

Bikes
The city should improve and follow through on its bike master plan. The Bicycle Master Plan is a great start, but the city council needs to make sure that the city follows through with commitments make in that plan. For example, the bike paths on Stone Way Avenue North (between North 34th and 40th) need to be maintained and not replaced with "sharrows."  The Mayor's stated goal of making Seattle "the best bicycling city in the nation" (Seattle Times 4/4/2007) and the Master Plan’s goal of tripling bicycling and reducing the rate of bicycle accidents by one-third by 2017 can only be achieved if the Master Plan is followed and expanded upon.

Seattle should follow the lead of Paris, France in making bikes easy to rent all over the city and that of Copenhagen Denmark in building concrete barriers between bike and car lanes to promote safety. More bicycle and pedestrian bridges are also needed.

Pedestrians
The city's master plan for improving pedestrian safety and mobility needs to be upheld and strengthened. The city's  $8.1 million Urban Mobility Plan study for Viaduct replacement options is a step in the right direction. The resulting plan is supposed to enhance pedestrian street crossings to "increase transit ridership and pedestrian safety." Another possible improvement would introduce clean car stickers that provide additional parking opportunities to cleaner (and generally smaller) cars that improve visibility and safety, especially Downtown.

Lastly, the city needs to better enforce the laws designed to increase crosswalk safety with respect to drivers. The city should support pedestrian safety for school children by fully funding crossing guards, an area that the mayor recently cut.

Neighborhood Sustainability Councils
I propose that the city create sustainability councils in each of the city's 39 neighborhoods. These councils would be charged with finding creative local solutions to meet carbon reduction targets in their respective areas. Although the neighborhoods should have input on the targets, a starting goal of 4-5% per year would be strongly recommended.  Current consensus among experts is that we need to reduce our carbon emissions worldwide by 60-80% in the next 10-20 years.

The city should provide resources, ideas and technical assistance to help each neighborhood to reach their carbon reduction targets while simultaneously improving the livability of their neighborhoods.  By creating neighborhood climate councils charged with specific goals we can help unleash the creativity and ingenuity of our neighborhoods. Efforts that the city is already undertaking including those related to the development of an electric plug-in facility at city hall should be extended to every neighborhood, and expanded to include sustainable bio-diesel facilities. In some areas the reductions can come from financial assistance to the city for low-income people with high emission vehicles to switch to cleaner alternatives.

Clean Car Incentives
The city should provide meaningful incentives for people to reduce their own carbon footprint. In addition to promoting transit, the city should encourage those who drive to switch to cleaner cars. HOV lanes should include incentives for drivers with cleaner vehicles such as those that run on hybrid-electric or sustainable bio-diesel. Parking preference should also be given to these types of vehicles in parking.

Housing Issues

Ban Third-Party Billing
The city should ban the use of third-party billing for tenants' use of public utilities.  The practice of third-party billing—whereby a landlord contracts a private company to charge tenants for water usage—acts as a disincentive for water conservation.  Under third-party billing, a tenant is charged not by the quantity of water they use, but by a formula created by the company that is usually based on the number of tenants living in a given residence.  In this way, tenants are ignorant of their actual water consumption and cannot take informed steps to reduce their water consumption.  Additionally, tenants pay fees to these unregulated private companies for access to a public utility, an unnecessary economic penalty that further obscures the true cost of water consumption.

Joe proposes that third-party billing be made illegal in Seattle.  Connecting water consumption to the actual cost of that consumption will provide tenants with economic incentives to conserve water.  Seattle residents should know how much water they use every month so that they can make informed decisions concerning water conservation.  Banning third-party billing will give thousands of Seattle tenants both the economic incentive and the necessary information to practice water conservation.