Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Our Members

Many thanks to Ronald Erickson and Nina McGuinness some of our many supporters.

ALL MEMBERS »

A big city needs more in the way of environmental emphasis

Big projects may be off the table in tight financial times, but a city like Seattle with an environmental-minded mayor should step in more modest ways. How about building sidewalks and encouraging electrical conservation?

A sidewalk in the Columbia City neighborhood: Significant areas of Seattle, particularly in the north and south ends, lack sidewalks.

A sidewalk in the Columbia City neighborhood: Significant areas of Seattle, particularly in the north and south ends, lack sidewalks. edgeplot/Flickr (CC)

We have learned over time that the things we all can do to reduce negative impacts on the environment make up a diverse menu. We can make some painful changes, and some easy ones. Some might have a significant impact, some might have very little impact at all, and sometimes its hard to know the difference.

It's like that with government, too. But we know there are some real changes that can make a difference, because sometimes we can see the results. So here are two things the City of Seattle can do, from different ends of the environmental spectrum, that can make a difference.

Spring is approaching, the din of the viaduct debate is mercifully declining, and Seattle still has an officially environmental mayor. So we, as a city, ought to do some environmental stuff. Maybe not things that will put us in "the forefront of sustainability" — that's political rhetoric, not reality. And certainly not things that cost money — the City doesn't have any money. But there are things we can do that reflect Seattle voters' expressed interest in shrinking our carbon footprint and improving transportation.

So here's a proposal for two initiatives: building sidewalks and introducing marginal cost pricing in City Light rates.

Each of those actions would have a demonstrable impact on reducing auto use and encouraging energy efficiency. Neither need have any impact on the budget; both are well understood and have been implemented for years by Seattle's neighbors; and both can be accomplished with modest bureaucratic effort.

These are not lofty goals, but then it doesn't make sense to aim too high. For instance, there are urban heating and cooling districts, like the successful seawater heat-pump system serving large sections of Stockholm, or, on a smaller scale, Vancouver, British Columbia's recent sewer heat recovery project. But those aren't good models for us. Seattle isn't Stockholm, budgets are tight, and dealing with issues like urban heating and cooling requires slow and painful adjustments of entrenched interests.

Sidewalks and marginal cost pricing are achievable, and neighboring cities have been doing them for enough years now to give us some confidence going forward. It's the low-hanging fruit category (green, but ripe):

  • Sidewalk construction. Walking is good for us; it's useful for those who don't own or can't manage a bicycle; and it gets cars off the roads.

Sidewalks also increase property values. Tacoma has been building sidewalks for years, and it doesn't cost them any city money — they are built with Local Improvement Districts in areas where property owners have agreed to pay off the cost over time.

It's not just Tacoma doing this. Cities all over Washington state use local improvement districts. Kent,  Bainbridge Island, and lots of other cities much smaller than Seattle manage to make the structure work. In fact, much of Seattle's existing network of sidewalks was originally built using local improvement districts, and some of us old-timers still remember that the Aurora Bridge was financed using a local improvement district, along with the former Waterfront Trolley, and, for a modest piece of the cost, the downtown bus tunnel.

If Tacoma can do it, we can do it, we can build sidewalks.

  • Marginal cost pricing for large electric customers. It involves establishing a baseline of historic usage, then agreeing on charges that start off low but escalate as a company approaches or exceeds its previous electric requirements. 

This one sounds a more complicated that it is. Marginal cost pricing means companies save a lot of money by using less electricity and pay a lot more if they don't conserve. A customer that figures out how to save electricity saves a lot of money. It's a way of using the market to push conservation, and there are a lot of well-developed models for implementing marginal cost pricing, and lots of successful examples of how it works in practice.

Happily, one of the most relevant examples is BC Hydro, a utility several hours to the north of us, that has been using marginal cost pricing for years. It doesn't mean any particular customer pays more than under the current rate schedule — just that there is a strong incentive to conserve energy.


Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Tue, Mar 13, 4:55 a.m. Inappropriate

Washington's Democratic Party's immigration policy is incompatible with its environmental policy. So long as we welcome unchecked immigration we will not "save" our environment.

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_21_3/tsc-21-3-hurlbert-salmon.shtml

BlueLight

Posted Tue, Mar 13, 4:55 a.m. Inappropriate

Seattle has no money so let's build sidewalks? Must be a sidewalk sale giving away free sidewalks.

Do what the City of Shoreline does, plant trees between the sidewalk and the road so that eventually you need to replace the sidewalk. Sidewalks don't cost any money and trees are free. If you plant money trees you could actually make a profit.

salmonjim

Posted Tue, Mar 13, 11:38 a.m. Inappropriate

The sidewalk initiative could be linked to construction of rain gardens by homeowners in that neighborhood, and along the sidewalk to absorb stormwater runoff, all coulsd become part of WSU-Stewardship Partners "12,000 Raingardens" campaign.

ctb

Posted Tue, Mar 13, 1:13 p.m. Inappropriate

Sidewalks the way SDOT requires that they be built, at one million dollars a block, are not on my top ten list of things a city needs, ever, regardless of economic prosperity. The sidewalk pictured in the article, while lovely to look at in daylight, illustrates an unsafe walking environment. Dense foliage provides hiding places for muggers, thieves, taggers, and car prowlers, among others. Review sightline guidelines in Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design/ CPTED, or have a community safety audit performed.

In addition, the traditional Seattle design is an inefficient use of limited street rights of way. It serves moving cars best, bikes very poorly, and walkers only somewhat. The cost per mile of additional miles walked of traditional SDOT sidewalks doesn't pencil out. Let's not advocate building more of an expensive and marginal design. There are better options, that will encourage walking more, and help all street uses. Greenways as a concept, though I'm not sure of the current design, are a good start.

I walk about 5 miles a day, and I vary my routes extensively. The lack of sidewalks, doesn't stop me. Overgrown plantings in planting strips, cause me to alter my routes, even if I am walking a mastiff.

Catherine

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »