The Daily Score blog - Sightline Daily

Fair Funding for Stormwater Cleanup

Lisa Stiffler — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:09:20

It's a huge challenge to clean up the nasty water that gushes through gutters and into Washington's rivers and bays. But cleaning it is essential to reaching the region's goals for saving Puget Sound.

Legislation was just proposed in Olympia that takes an important step towards solving our stormwater woes. House Bill 3181 and Senate Bill 6851, called the "Clean Water Act of 2010," would boost a tax that's already added to petroleum, pesticides, and other chemicals that are fouling waterways from the Spokane River to Lake Chelan to the Duwamish River.

The tax hike is expected to raise about $225 million more a year. It would increase the current 0.7 percent tax for toxic chemicals to 2 percent. That might add a few pennies to a gallon of gas (see a great analysis of the tax in this post by Eric de Place), as well as a slight bump to pesticides and other dangerous chemicals that are covered by the state's Model Toxics Control Act.

The money collected would be used by cities, counties, and the state Department of Transportation to pay for projects that reduce and clean stormwater, and for other environmental projects. It also makes low-impact development -- the smartest, cheapest, and best way to deal with stormwater -- a priority for a portion of the funds raised.

Raising this tax is a well-reasoned strategy for addressing the state's sizable stormwater problems. Here's why.

Data show that stormwater is the number one way that the majority of pollutants are getting into Puget Sound (and probably most other waterways). When the rain falls, it washes into ditches that flow into streams that empty into larger bodies of water. Along the way, the runoff picks up oil and grease that drips onto roads and driveways, pesticides sprayed on plants and roofs, dog poop and farm-animal waste, and countless other hazardous agents that are part of our daily lives.

Approximately 14 million pounds of pollution wash into Puget Sound alone each year -- and 58 percent of that is petroleum pollution (note these are low-ball estimates of the total pollution volumes). Likewise, the tax collected from petroleum products would be the biggest source of funding should the bills pass.

This legislation is an improvement over a failed stormwater bill from last year. That measure targeted petroleum products alone, and while that's the biggest pollution source for Puget Sound by volume, this new approach will capture additional pollutants that are highly toxic to fish and other wildlife, such as pesticides, mercury, and other heavy metals.

One shortcoming of the measure is that for the first five years, a portion of the tax will be used to plug holes in the state's general fund, which pays for education, Medicaid, corrections, and other public programs. In the first year, 69 percent of the tax increase goes to the general fund. The slice going to general fund shrinks over time and by mid 2015, the entire increase in the tax will be used for stormwater and water-quality programs.

Storm drain and rainbow sheen photo used thanks to Flickr user Runs With Scissors.

Fewer Cars, Safer Mortgages

Clark Williams-Derry — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 11:05:01

Interesting. The Journal of Sustainable Real Estate recently accepted a paper showing that, after controlling for incomes, neighborhoods with low car ownership have fewer defaults on mortgages. NRDC took a look at the findings, and concluded that...

...factors such as neighborhood compactness, access to public transit, and rates of vehicle ownership are key to predicting mortgage performance and should be taken more seriously by mortgage underwriters, policymakers, and real estate developers.

In their review, NRDC suggests a few reasons why neighborhood car ownership is so closely linked with mortgage defaults. First, folks who live in transit-oriented neighborhoods face lower financial risks when gas prices spike -- which is just what they did in the runup to housing market collapse in 2008. Second, homes in transit- and pedestrian-friendly locales retain their resale value better than homes in sprawling suburbs -- so mortgages are less likely to go "underwater," with homeowners owing more on their mortgages than the house is worth. Third, all else being equal, homes in transit-oriented neighborhoods sell quickly -- so homeowners who can't make their mortgage payments can sell their homes rather than fall into default.

The study's not in print yet, but I'd be interested in seeing what other demographic factors besides income the authors controlled for. What if folks in low-density exurbs are younger than average, or have more kids per household? If so, they may have fewer savings or higher monthly costs -- which could also elevate foreclosures. In that case, car ownership and mortgage defaults would merely be linked by correlation, not by causation.

Regardless, this study is just the latest in a growing pile of evidence that living in a transit- or pedestrian friendly neighborhood may be able to protect household budgets. As the Center for Neighborhood Technology has shown, when you combine both housing and transportation costs, living in a seemingly "affordable" suburb can actually be more expensive than living in a place where you don't need a car for every trip. And researcher Joe Cortright has found that, after controlling for other housing amenities, high walkability (as measured by a home's Walk Score) can add tens of thousands of dollars to a home's value -- a finding that adds some weight to NRDC's contention that high resale values in transit-oriented neighborhoods protect against mortgage default.

[Image by Brendel, via Wikimedia Commons.]

Trading Places

Roger Valdez — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:56:10

We’ve highlighted a couple of explanations of how cap and trade works. Essentially, cap and trade establishes a limit on carbon emissions and ramps them down over time by reducing the number of emissions permits that are available to polluters. Because the permits would represent a scare commodity (the right to emit carbon) they would result in a price on emissions, and therefore an incentive to reduce emissions. Would it be possible to apply a similar principle to energy efficiency; and would this help accelerate weatherization and retrofitting of buildings?

Permit trading has been tried with other pollution problems like acid rain. In my ongoing scan of the literature about realizing the promise of energy efficiencies, I couldn’t help but be drawn to an article by Tom Tietenberg called “Reflections—Energy Efficiency Policy: Pipe Dream or Pipeline to the Future?” I have asked myself the same question. The article is a good high-level and thoughtful review of many of the issues I have already written about like the need for financial incentives and better information to spur demand for energy retrofits. Tietenberg takes a look at an idea for creating an energy efficiency market called Transferable White Certificates (TWC).

Tietenberg knows permit trading, having studied it for years as it has been applied in dozens of different ways, from fish to forestry. He suggests it might also work for efficiencies by mandating efficiencies (much like a cap) and then enabling successful parties to sell their energy savings to parties who failed to comply (basically, trade).

Here’s how it might work. National, state, or local government would set a quantifiable goal for energy efficiency in a sector each year requiring that multiunit housing use 10 billion gigawatt hours less than the year before. Businesses or households would be able to trade in certificates—perhaps in kilowatt hour denominations—for cash from other businesses or households who didn’t save energy, or used more than they did in a previous year. Those who didn’t save energy would have an interest in acquiring the certificates because of the hefty fines they would face for not holding permits sufficient to cover their energy consumption.

It is just too early to tell whether this kind of scheme would work. A preliminary analysis of this kind of program in Europe is mixed. The experts say that programs like this can work, but a “proper balance between high efficiency-effectiveness and low administrative burden must be found.” This balancing act is the same one that frustrates the implementation of energy efficiency programs already (see my post on prevailing wage issues)

I like the idea of TWC because commodifying future energy savings would create liquidity—cash—where there currently isn’t any. The sale of units of energy savings by businesses that want to save or generate energy could help offset the upfront capital costs of energy efficiency and infrastructure. For example, an owner of a large multiunit building might be motivated make energy-saving improvements to her buildings because she could sell certificates to other landlords that weren’t saving energy.

On the other hand, it is hard to see exactly why such a scheme would be better than the low-interest loans and other financing mechanisms that we already have. And it would certainly be more complicated. We have seen again and again that financial incentives alone don’t always spur investment in energy efficiency. A TWC program could end up generating mandates to reduce energy use but little interest in the certificates.

There are already a couple of good reviews of the TWC idea. After thinking about the concept and reading some of the literature, I have three thoughts.

Large scale efficiencies that lead to jobs won’t be easy. There probably isn’t a silver bullet, and while TWC schemes are interesting it is an idea that needs much more development before it can even be tested here.
Keep an eye on countries and states that are trying the idea and learn from what happens.
If programs elsewhere have some success it might be worth implementing a pilot in the region to determine whether it is feasible here.

Correcting the Oil Industry's Errors

Eric de Place — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 10:05:13

Flat out wrong. That's the only way to describe the oil industry's claims about a proposed increase to Washington's hazardous substance tax. Consider this ill-informed article at Washington State Wire:

[subhead] As Much as Six Cents a Gallon

The money has to come from somewhere, though – your local gas station, for instance. Opponents say the plan could raise gas prices as much as six cents a gallon, if oil companies can find a way to pass the full amount on to consumers. Because of the competitive nature of the oil business, refiners may have to eat some of the cost.

This is wrong -- obviously wrong -- on at least two counts. 1) It's bad math. 2) It's self-contradictory.

First, let's do the math. The current tax is 0.7 percent on the wholesale price of toxic substances, including gasoline and other refined petroleum products. A new bill would raise the tax to 2.0 percent.

Calculating the maximum impact on consumer gasoline prices is simple arithmetic. Assuming that the wholesale price of gasoline is $2.30 (roughly consistent with recent and current prices, as well as the near-term futures market) the calculation is simple: $2.30 x 0.7% = 1.6 cents. In other words, the current tax adds 1.6 cents to the price, at most.

Now let's calculate the proposed higher tax rate: $2.30 x 2.0% = 4.6 cents. In other words, the proposed higher tax rate could raise the tax amount to 4.6 cents.

The last step is so easy that even an oil lobbyist can do it: 4.6 cents - 1.6 cents = 3 cents. So, in reality, the proposal might increase prices by just 3 cents. Not 6 cents. 3 cents. The oil industry has wildly overstated the effect of the new tax. (It's an over-statement of 100 percent for math-inclined folks). The only way the oil industry claims could be accurate is if wholesale gasoline prices were about double what they actually are.

But it gets worse: the arguments from the oil industry are actually contradictory. Remember that they admit "refiners may have to eat some of the cost." In other words, even according to the oil guys, consumers won't pay the full cost of the tax anyway, because the refiners will pick up a portion of it. So the real impact on consumers is less than 3 cents.

The extent of "price pass-through" is a somewhat debateable subject. It's often assumed that gas taxes get fully passed on to consumers, but that may not be true. (And it's instructive that the oil industry apparently believes it's not true.) In fact, a 2004 article in the Journal of Economic Education makes a strong empirical case that gasoline excise taxes are not fully reflected in consumer prices -- meaning that producers and consumers share the cost of new taxes (and share the benefits of reduced taxes).

Still, one might wonder whether its fair for the oil industry and refiners to pay a higher tax rate on the import of hazardous substances into Washington. I'll leave that values question alone except to note one final thing. The tax increase helps pay for water cleanup. And while it's levied on all hazardous substances that harm water quality, not just on oil, petroleum products are, by volume, easily the largest pollutant in the runoff that fouls Puget Sound.

Safer Sippy Cups Coming to NW?

Lisa Stiffler — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:52:19

Northwest lawmakers finally appear swayed by the mounting evidence showing that bisphenol A, or BPA, is a threat to human health and that its use should be curtailed. BPA is a key ingredient in hard, clear, glasslike plastics, such as baby bottles.

Oregon lawmakers today began considering a ban on BPA in products used by children under the age of three, including baby bottles and sippy cups and the lining of baby-food containers.

Washington lawmakers are pursuing a similar BPA ban. The Senate last week approved a bill barring BPA in kid's food items alone, while a measure approved by the House also included a ban on BPA in sports bottles. Now all the two chambers have to do is reconcile their differences. (Governor Gregoire is expected to sign the bill.)

Canada last year decided to ban BPA. The government is considering further ways to limit its use.

Oregon and Washington both have pursued limits on BPA in the past. So what's changed in 2010? In January, the US Food and Drug Administration reversed its stance that BPA was safe to people at current levels of exposure. It now has adopted an opinion in line with the National Toxicology Program (a division of the National Institutes of Health).

The National Toxicology Program way back in September 2008 ruled that there was reason to be concerned about BPA harming human health -- namely people's behavior, brain, and prostate gland -- and particularly when it came to exposure to fetuses, babies, and children. Other research links early exposure to the chemical with obesity and reproductive problems later in life.

One has to wonder how the FDA with a straight face could have ever ruled that BPA was safe for kids -- the danged chemical has been used as synthetic estrogen since the 1930s. (Check out this great Scientific American story on how Patricia Hunt, a scientist at Washington State University, accidentally identified one of the ways that BPA messes with hormones.)

And while there's particular concern over BPA's effect on babies and children, it's believed to do not-nice things to grownups too. The chemical is linked to heart disease and Type II diabetes. It could be making chemotherapy drugs used to treat breast cancer less effective. The list goes on.

So while Northwest lawmakers debate a ban on bisphenol A, what can a concerned person do to reduce exposure? It's tough. BPA is ubiquitous. It's used to make polycarbonate -- the hard clear plastic. It turns up in eye glasses, compact discs, the lining of food containers, dental sealants, toys, and countless other items. And those recycling symbols on the bottom of some plastic items won't necessarily help guide you to a safe alternative. BPA falls into the "other" category, which is denoted by the number 7 recycling symbol -- the same symbol that covers biodegradable, plant-based plastics.

But more help is potentially on the horizon. Lisa Jackson, chief of the EPA, announced in September that she'd try to crack down on toxic chemicals found in everyday products. But while the FDA now acknowledges that BPA is a problem, the agency claims it's unable to regulate it for some technical reasons.

If you want to track the legislation in Oregon and Washington and get in touch with lawmakers, information on the bills can be found below. Note that Oregon senators had a hearing on the bill today and are expected to vote in committee some time next week.

Oregon Senate Bill 1032
Washington House Bill 1180 and Senate Bill 6248

Sippy cup photo thanks to Flickr user seandreilinger.

The Bored Tunnel's $60 Million Cost Increase

Eric de Place — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:05:48

$60 million isn't chump change, but it didn't get much notice last month when the state released new cost estimates for Seattle's deep-bore tunnel. According to the revised numbers, the deep-bore tunnel cost projections have already risen by $60 million -- which works out to 3.2 percent. And that's before builders have broken ground.

What was sold to the public -- and approved by the legislature -- as a $1.9 billion tunneling project is now projected to cost $1.96 billion. If that increase seems miniscule, it's only because the scale of the project is so huge. Consider:

$60 million is more than the entire budget shortfall for the city of Seattle.
If Seattle residents picked up the tab directly, it would work out to roughly $400 for a family of four.

And remember, these figures are not for the cost of the entire deep-bore tunnel project, but just for the latest, seemingly tiny, cost increase of about 3 percent. And it's troubling, especially in light of the somewhat perplexing attitude that state leaders have taken so far.

"I don't think we're going to have overruns." -- State House Transportation Chairwoman Judy Clibborn quoted in the Seattle Times on April 24, 2009.

"There won't be any cost overruns." -- State Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond quoted in the Seattle Times on April 29, 2009.

"We don't envision any cost overruns on this project." -- Pearse Edwards, spokesman for Gov. Chris Gregoire quoted in the Seattle Times on April 22, 2009.

So now that there is a $60 million cost increase, will state leaders renew their pledges that costs will not rise further?

It's a question that should be on the minds of Seattle taxpayers. That's because, with the release of the new numbers, the state DOT reminded us:

As outlined in ESSB 5768, the state's contribution to the replacement program is capped at $2.8 billion.

In other words, as ESSB 5768 says, the cost overruns fall on Seattle. And while it's true that there's been a heap of debate about whether the "Seattle pays" provision is enforceable, it's clear that the state believes that it is a genuine legal commitment.

So what's caused the projected cost increase? According to the new report, it's primarily because the tunnel is being lengthened by 640 feet. (That's an increase of about 7 percent in the total length.) However, the lengthening of the tunnel also results in a straighter alignment that engineers believe will be less risky. So while projected construction costs for the tunnel have risen by 15 percent, state officials have reduced the "risk and inflation" fund by 27 percent.

Here's the full breakdown:

Okay, okay, before everyone freaks out, there's a caveat: the costs here are for the deep-bore tunnel alone. They don't include the entire Alaska Way Viaduct replacement, of which the tunnel is just one component (albeit the largest component by far). Because of projected savings in other areas -- particularly the design of an interchange south of King Street -- the state is claiming that the total cost projections have actually decreased by about $12 million, or 0.4 percent. In other words: the tunnel looks to be more expensive, but other projects could be less expensive.

Nothing further for now, except to remind folks that the history of tunnel costs in the Seattle area is worrisome.

520: Your Way on the Highway

Eric Hess — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:30:11

There’s been a lot of talk recent about a replacement for the 520 bridge over Lake Washington. We produced this video a few years back imagining what 520 might look like with more transit. Have a look.

One thing that’s clear to us: any new 520 configuring should accommodate a variety of transportation choices.

Heavens to BETC

Roger Valdez — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:48:21

Tomorrow Oregon’s legislators are considering changes to the Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC), a program that has made Oregon’s energy policies the envy of the Northwest. We've written about some of the twists and turns in the discussion about BETC has taken over the last year.

BETC has really put Oregon on the clean energy map. Any changes should focus on strengthening BETC. Sightline has outlined how the legislature can uphold Oregon’s commitment to leadership in the clean energy economy.

Sightline recommends that the legislature:

Keep BETC strong by committing to a significant level of tax credits.
Extend the sunset of credits, ideally through the end of 2016.
Build in accountability with a “claw back” provision.

Download Sightline’s two-pager, “A Better BETC: Improving Oregon’s Business Energy Tax Credit”

BETC is among the most innovative and effective job-creators in the Northwest’s energy sector. As businesses consider efficiency and renewable energy projects, Oregon should encourage smart, new investments. Please forward it along.

Fish for Thought

Anna Fahey — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:19:42

Editor's Note: Anna wrote this post (and several others) before leaving on maternity leave. She gave birth to a healthy baby girl in December.

To eat fish, or not? If you’re pregnant, nursing, or even thinking about becoming pregnant, it’s a Catch-22. Seafood is the best possible source of the long-chain omega-3 fatty acid DHA, which is critical for a baby's brain and eye development, both in utero and in the “fourth trimester,” while the baby is nursing and the brain is still developing. But there’s a catch: seafood contains contaminants that can be harmful to babies—particularly methylmercury, which can harm the developing nervous system, causing subtle deficits in language, memory, motor skills, perception, and behavior.

So for a pregnant woman, the decision whether to eat fish is now freighted with consequences. Eat fish, and you're putting your baby's brain at risk of from toxic contaminants. Skip fish, and you're denying your baby's brain of crucial nourishment.

Pregnant and nursing women never asked to make this choice.

Mercury is everywhere, even in the air we breathe. It comes from a variety of sources, but the largest in the US are coal-fired power plants, which exhale elemental mercury in the fumes of coal smoke. The mercury drifts around on air currents, and eventually settles into water bodies, where bacteria convert it into a far more troublesome form called methylmercury. Methylmercury binds to protein, and accumulates in every-higher concentrations at every step of the food chain. It’s poison. It hurts babies’ brains. All fish contain some methylmercury, and some fish species contain enough that doctors recommend that expectant mothers avoid eating them completely.

And that's a shame, since there's s no better source of DHAs than fish. DHAs build brain connectors while a baby’s body is developing in the womb.

So, there, in a nutshell, is the dilemma. As a community, we’ve allowed one of the most healthful foods for pregnant mothers to become contaminated with a compound that can harm developing babies' nervous systems. We've given polluters free rein; but left the tough choices to women, and the hardships to the children they bring into the world.

What's the right choice for an expecting mother? Well, as a fisherman’s daughter, a former Puget Sound gillnetter myself, and proud resident of “Salmon Nation,” I believe in the power of fish—particularly salmon—as a super food. And the more I read, the more I believe it’s also super brain food. My favorite book about nutrition during pregnancy and early childhood, Nina Planck’s Real Food for Mother and Baby, goes so far as to say that your baby’s brain is “made of fish.”

But that decision -- "Yes, I'll eat fish" -- prompts one question more: How much fish is safe?

Well, it depends on the type of fish. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officially advise women who “may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children” to limit consumption certain fish and shellfish to 12 ounces a week, and to avoid shark, swordfish, king mackerel, and Tilefish completely. (Drat -- I’ve always loved swordfish!) EPA says that, and I quote: “By following these recommendations for selecting and eating fish or shellfish, women and young children will receive the benefits of eating fish and shellfish and be confident that they have reduced their exposure to the harmful effects of mercury.” In addiiton, each state has its own advisories about fish consumption as well.

Generally speaking, the fish to avoid are large predators. Peak predators act as concentrators for bioaccumulative toxics: their bodies absorb the methylmercury from their prey, which, in turn, have absorbed methylmercury from living things lower on the food chain. And the bigger the predator fish, the more fish it eats. Larger fish also tend to live longer than smaller fish, so there's simply more time for mercury to build up in their bodies.

But just as some fish contain high levels of mercury, others contain less. Five of the most commonly eaten fish that are considered “low in mercury” are shrimp, canned light tuna, salmon, pollock, and catfish. Albacore ("white") tuna, another commonly eaten fish, has more mercury than canned light tuna. So when choosing your two meals of fish and shellfish per week, the EPA/FDA recommendations suggest you limit yourself to up to 6 ounces (one average meal) of albacore tuna per week.

But how confident can you be, really, that fish are actually a healthy, safe food for you and your kids?

Studies are mixed. Planck points to a few that indicate more fish is better. In 2005, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health announced that the government mercury warnings could cause pregnant women to eat too little fish to nourish her baby’s brain. In 2007, Joseph Hibbeln, an expert on omega-3 fats at the National Institutes of Health, published a study of more than eleven thousand pregnant women near Bristol, England. The women consumed varying degrees of seafood each week: none at all, around the recommended portions, or more than 12 ounces (at least 3 servings a week.) Researchers later assessed the women’s children, aged six months to eight years, for various measures of mental and social development. Even after accounting for about two dozen confounding factors—social disadvantage, perinatal health, diet, etc.—the children of women eating less than two servings of fish per week had lower verbal, fine motor, and social skills than the children of the fish-eating mothers. The lower the seafood intake, the higher the chances of poor development. Some health researchers have even begun to wonder whether fish oils might even protect against toxic methylmercury.

Biologist Sandra Steingraber in her book Having Faith, An Ecologist’s Journey to Motherhood, on the other hand, cites a bunch of studies that strike fear in any mother-to-be. A study in the Faroe Islands, for example, carried out by Danish researcher Philippe Grandjean, looked at 1,022 babies born in 1986-87 to women who ate fish and high-mercury content whale meat while pregnant. When they were seven years old, the children were evaluated on their cognitive and motor skills. The results were sobering. Deficiencies were found in memory, learning and attention that were proportional to the level of mercury that had been recorded in their umbilical cord blood and maternal hair. “These children were not actually sick. They were just slower in solving riddles and other puzzles.” In the 1970s, a group of mothers in Iraq unknowingly ate flour milled from mercury-dressed wheat. At high concentration levels of mercury, their children developed progressive retardation and paralysis.

In 2000, the National Academy of Sciences released a report that concluded that each year in the United States, as many as 60,000 children are born at risk for neurodevelopmental problems owing to prenatal exposure to mercury—these are kids that the report described as “struggling to keep up in school and who might require remedial classes or special education.”

Steingraber points out that “Big Fish”—fisheries industry lobbies equivalent to “Big Oil”—have stood side-by-side with utility companies to fight tighter standards for mercury. If this kind of pressure wins out, it means that levels of the metal could keep rising to the point where the choice would be all too clear: forego brain-nurturing fish altogether. (As I mentioned recently, the US has taken some baby steps towards curbing mercury pollution.)

In my own deliberations, I’ve erred on the side of fish. Seafood is simply the best way to get the DHA my baby needs. Salmon is among the safer seafood choices and it’s a personal favorite. A 3.5-ounce portion of wild sockeye salmon contains more than 1,200 milligrams of omega-3 fats—and it’s a yummy delivery system. I’ve eaten it a couple times a week during my pregnancy and now that I’m in the heavy-duty brain-development stage (third trimester), I’m trying to eat even more. And even though every bite (while delicious) reminds me of the serious consequences I’m toying with, I will continue to do so when I start breastfeeding.

That’s the gamble I’m taking with my own baby. I’ll also continue to work toward climate and energy policy that frees us from the shackles of dirty energy—because the pollution from coal plants not only threatens the climate, but byproducts like mercury are also hurting all our kids.

What’s your fish story? Did you eat fish during pregnancy? And how did you sort out all the conflicting information? What can moms do to insist on better standards for mercury pollution?

Images courtesy: JG in SF and Manuel W, Flickr.com.

The Crash in Car Crashes

Clark Williams-Derry — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:46:45

Roger's post on car crashes a few weeks back got me to thinking: what are the local car crash trends looking like, in an era of expensive gas?

And as it turns out, the trends are looking good!! The state of Washington recently released fatality statistics for 2008, and their figures show a sharp dip in fatality rates in the past few years. As the chart to the right shows, crash fatality rates have been on the decline for decades; but the decline has actually accelerated in the past few years. (Data are here, in table E8, in case you're interested; and they're "age adjusted" to compare apples to apples each year.)

The same thing is happening in British Columbia, by the way. The data I've found (click here for an Excel spreadsheet) aren't directly comparable to Washington's, and only go back through 1986 and stop in 2007. But the province has experienced a similar "crash" in car crash risk.

This is all good news: car crashes have long been the leading killer of people under 40 in this part of the world, and any dip is welcome. Of course, the time we spend behind the wheel remains some of the riskiest we spend all day -- and our total risk goes up for every mile we drive. But the fact that cars are still dangerous shouldn't keep us from celebrating a decline in motor vehicle fatalities.

As far as I can tell, there are at least two separate trends in play here. First, driving is getting safer. And second -- measured per person, at least -- we're driving less.

Let's look first at car safety. Over the years, federal safety standards, coupled with insurance industry pressure, have steadily made our cars safer. Take a look, for example, at this video of a 2009 Chevy Malibu demolishing a 1959 Chevy Bel Air.

Note that the Bel Air is actually heavier than the Malibu. Not by a lot -- but still, in this case the lighter car wins. This shouldn't all that surprising, really. As this report (somewhat dated, but still interesting) shows, car design is a better determinant of vehicle safety than weight; heavy SUVs, for example, are no safer for their occupants than a mid-sized sedan.

For me, the important thing to remember about safety improvements is that the auto industry fought tooth and nail against many safety advances, often claiming that government safety regulations would put them out of business, or restrict consumer choice. So when you hear the same sort of crocodile tears from the auto industry about efforts to boost fuel economy, to levy carbon taxes, or to institute a carbon cap and trade system, you'll at least know that there's a long history of that kind of silliness.

Second, let's look at driving trends. The chart to the left shows that in Washington state, per capita vehicle travel fell by about 8 percent between the middle of 2005 and the end of 2008. During that stretch, vehicle fatalities in the state fell by about 20 percent. Although it might seem a stretch to attribute a 20 percent decline in fatalities to an 8 percent drop in per-capita driving, it's at least somewhat plausible. As Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute points out, crash risk tends to accrue by the mile, and because most traffic crashes involve more than one vehicle, every 1% dip in VMT should result in a nearly 2% dip in car crashes.

There was a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about skyrocketing gas prices a few years back. That's understandable: many families felt like they didn't have a choice about how much they drove, and rising gas prices really put a squeeze on many household budgets. But it's important to remember that, as unpleasant as high gas prices seem, they've got a silver lining: higher gas prices means less driving, and less driving means fewer traffic deaths. And saving lives has an economic upside; the National Safety Council estimates that each traffic fatality corresponds to about $5.96 milion in costs. All told, there were 149 fewer traffic deaths in the state 2008 than in 2005 -- the equivalent of a $900 million boost to Washington's economy in 2008 alone.

So what will happen next? Will crash in car crashes continue? Or if gas prices stay low, or if the economy picks up, will we see an uptick in both driving and crashes? I've got no predictions, really -- just a hope that the traffic fatality rate keeps going down, regardless of what happens to driving trends.

Boardman Looks to Biomass

Jennifer Langston — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:20:19

The Oregonian had an informative story this weekend about the prospects for converting the Boardman coal-fired power plant to burn "biomass" from plants. Many utilities are looking at replacing some fraction of their coal with plant material as a way of reducing emissions, but few have proposed anything on the ambitious scale that Portland General Electric is considering. (The utility recently announced that it would seek to either shut down the state’s only coal-fired power plant in 2020 - about two decades earlier than planned - or convert it to run entirely on an alternative fuel.)

So what kinds of plants might a former coal plant burn? The utility is looking at using wood pellets that are used in home heating stoves, which might optimistically replace 20 percent of the coal Boardman now consumes. The rest of the fuel, PGE hopes, might come from plants that are roasted at high temperatures until they resemble something like charcoal.

It's still an experimental technology. And it remains to be seen whether PGE could get its hands on enough plant material to fuel a 585 MW power plant (about 15 percent of the energy serving its current customers.) One of the leading prospects is a tall fast-growing cane called Arundo donax that's also used to make reeds for oboes and clarinets. It's partial to riverbanks, sucks up a lot of water, and has become a nettlesome invasive weed in other states. But, according to the Oregonian story, the utility believes it could be farmed safely.

Still, Oregon farmers would apparently need to grow about 90,000 irrigated acres of the giant cane to serve Boardman's needs. That's more than all the irrigated farmland planted in food crops today in the northeastern Oregon county where the power plant is located. Needless to say, that’s a lot of giant cane, which raises big questions about whether Oregon's farmers would embrace a new crop on such a large scale.

But that’s just one of many puzzles that the utility, regulators, power consumers and other stakeholders will be working through in the next few months, as Oregon's Public Utility Commission decides the fate of PGE's proposed long-range power plan.

Arundo donax photo courtesty of flickr user Valter Jacinto via the Creative Commons license.

Read more about the Northwest's energy future in Sightline's special series: The Dirt on Coal.

Get Your Mind Out of the Gutter

Lisa Stiffler — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:18:31

For years, environmentalists have touted "low-impact development" -- letting soil and vegetation soak up heavy rains, rather than channeling storm runoff into gutters and sewers -- as the best solution for stormwater. But as it turns out, LID has picked up a whole host of new fans: smart economists, developers, builders, and government regulators are now singing LID's praises as well.

The fundamental principle of low-impact development is that it's better -- both for people's pocketbooks and for streams -- to prevent storm runoff than it is to treat it. That means building green roofs and rain gardens, installing rain barrels and cisterns, and using porous concrete and pavers. The conventional alternative is building an elaborate and expensive system of concrete storm sewers that funnel stormwater, as well as the trash and toxics it picks up, into streams, lakes, and bays.

And recent studies from around North America show that the principle has promise: real-world evidence shows that LID is, in fact, a cheaper way to handle stormwater, and it does so without the flooding risk or the damage to marine life, that the conventional approach to stormwater often carries with it.

Take, for example, this 2005 study by researchers from the University of Southern California and the University of California, Los Angeles. They point to a previous study, which had estimated that it would cost a whopping $284 billion, and require building 65 drinking-water treatment plants, to clean the filthy torrents streaming off of LA's highways and rooftops. But the researchers concluded that LID, coupled with related strategies, could deal with stormwater in the sprawling metropolis at a cost of $3 billion to $7 billion -- treating stormwater at pennies on the dollar, compared with the conventional approach.

Seattle Public Utilities has done some number crunching of its own. The utility found that using LID, or what they call "natural drainage systems," to retrofit streets in need of stormwater treatment that the city spent $325,000 per block, compared to $425,000 if they had built traditional storm-drain-and-pipes infrastructure.

A good chunk of that savings likely came from the fact that the LID street has only one sidewalk (this is in a neighborhood that previously had no sidewalks) rather than two. But the comparison doesn't count the many other benefits of LID, including improved property values (thanks to the improved aesthetics of the natural systems) plus the near elimination of runoff. That means no flooding and less dependence on combined-sewer overflows that can dump raw sewage along with stormwater into the sea and rivers (this talk outlines these additional benefits).

If you're looking for good examples of smart LID projects, this EPA document is a stormwater solutions throw down. It concludes that, in 11 of the 12 projects studied, LID is the economic winner over conventional strategies. The savings ranged from 15 to 80 percent. Let's take a look:

SEA Street Seattle: If you're an LID fan, you already know about SEA Street, or 2nd Avenue Street Edge Alternative. This 2001 literally groundbreaking project was a rebuild of a residential street in which the road was narrowed, some sidewalks removed, and wide ditches called swales built along the pavement to catch runoff. The amount of impervious surfaces were reduced by 18 percent, and the redesign captures nearly all of the runoff according to studies tracking its performance. Plus, it's really pretty with native plants and trees lining the street. It's been replicated in neighborhoods around the city.

PROJECT COSTS

For a conventional retrofit: $868,803
LID retrofit: $651,548
Difference: $217,255 in savings

Parking lot retrofits, Bellingham: The city opted for rain gardens instead of underground vaults to capture and treat runoff from parking lots at city hall and Bloedel Donovan Park. Three of the city hall's 60 parking spaces were converted into the rain garden. At the park, a 550 square-foot area was converted.

Rain gardens typically look like traditional landscaping, but can include planted depressions that are lined with layers of gravel and porous soil. Sometimes the depression can contain a drain that leads into traditional stormwater infrastructure to accommodate unusually heavy rains.

PROJECT COSTS

For vaults: $80,400
For rain gardens: $18,400
Difference: $62,400 in savings

Crown Street, Vancouver, BC: This 2005 retrofit of a Vancouver street was based on the SEA Street model. The project is expected to reduce runoff by 90 percent. The city opted for the LID design because the street reportedly drains into the last two salmon-bearing streams in Vancouver.

PROJECT COSTS

For a conventional retrofit: $364,000

LID retrofit: $707,000 (this includes $311,000 in consulting fees that would not be required for additional projects, making the cost $396,000)
Difference: $32,000, discounting consulting fees; however, according to the EPA report, the city estimates that the LID approach would be less expensive than a traditional stormwater system in areas of new development

Downspout disconnection program, Portland: Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) are a scourge of urban sewer-stormwater systems. In these systems, stormwater and sewage are mixed and treated in sewage facilities. In heavy storms, the treatment plants are overwhelmed by the extra runoff, and the combined waste gets dumped untreated into rivers and bays. And they're really expensive to fix by separating the systems or increasing capacity.

So Portland is opting for a program that pays homeowners $53 for each downspout it disconnects from the stormwater system. Instead, the water flows into rain barrels or the home's yard. More than 50,000 downspouts have been disconnected, channeling more than 1.2 billion gallons of water out of the CSO system.

PROJECT COSTS (based on numbers provided for the EPA's December 2007 study by which time there had been 44,000 downspouts disconnected)

For added capacity to CSO: $250 million
For disconnection program: $8.5 million

If you want some more examples, the Puget Sound Action Team (now the Partnership for Puget Sound) published "Natural Approaches to Stormwater Management" a few years back. It's a great document providing dozens of case studies showing LID in action from around BC and Washington.

I could go on, but you get the idea. LID is smart for the pocketbook, and the only answer for the built environment.

Green roof photo from Rob Harrison under the Creative Commons license.

Which Northwest City Wins the Baby Game?

Anna Fahey — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:17:44

Editor's Note: Anna wrote this post (and several others) before she left on maternity leave. She gave birth to a healthy baby girl in December.

When Fit Pregnancy Magazine set out to rank the best cities in America to have a baby, they found that Northwest cities did surprisingly well: they ranked Portland number one, while Seattle landed the number four spot. (Minneapolis came in second, San Fran third.)

So why did Portland take the cake? The Oregon metropolis does well on healthy food, walkable neighborhoods, lots of birth options, and solid breastfeeding numbers.

Here’s the rundown:

To compile its rankings, Fit Pregnancy collected data on 47 topics, for the 50 largest US cities, using the most recent information available from government agencies, private foundations, professional associations, and public databases. Here's what put Portland on top:

Relative to population, Portland has more specialty retailers of healthy/organic foods and vitamins than most places.
Portland has 150 miles of stroller-friendly trails and public pathways, according to a survey of parks departments. In a per capita comparison, that's 163 percent more than the average city surveyed (3rd highest overall relative to population).
14.9 percent of births statewide are attended by midwives. That's 98 percent more than average. Midwifery is more widely available in Portland than anywhere else surveyed, with 189 percent more midwives than average. Relative to the number of live births per year, Portland has 64 percent more doulas than average--that figure is the 5th highest in the survey.
25 percent of babies in Oregon are born via Cesarean section. That rate is 8 percent less than average, and among the lowest in the survey.
26.6 percent of Portland mothers breastfeed their babies exclusively (meaning no solids, formula, or other liquids) for six months or longer (as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.) That's among the top 2 percent of cities in the survey. Eighty-nine percent of Portland mothers attempt breastfeeding. That's the highest percentage of any city in the report. Portland moms are 20 percent more likely than average to at least try breastfeeding. Compared to the number of babies born, Portland has 81 percent more lactation consultants than average. That's the 2nd highest ratio Fit Pregnancy found. And, once Portland mothers begin breastfeeding, they are 19 percent more likely than average to continue through 6 months. That's the 3rd highest level of follow-through of any city studied. Finally, By six months of age, 42 percent of Portland babies are still being breastfed. That's the highest percentage of any city in the report.
According to data from the CDC, maternal mortality in Oregon is especially low.
Portland babies are 22 percent less likely than average to be born prematurely.
Oregon allows greater dependent-related tax breaks than most.
Portland babies are 25 percent less likely than average to be born with low birth weight.
Portland has 22 licensed home day cares for every 1,000 children under 4 years, the 9th highest in the survey. State laws require stringent background checks for day-care workers
Portland has plenty of high-risk pediatricians, 78 percent more than average and the 10th highest in the survey.

Where could Portland use improvement?

State laws do not require health insurance companies to provide or offer any fertility-related services.
Portland lacks access to fertility clinics that offer advanced reproductive technology, as reported to the CDC.
There are just four licensed day care centers for every 1,000 children under four years. That's 41 percent less than average.
Portland has a 26 percent higher property crime rate than average, the 7th highest in the survey.

Let’s look at Seattle too, while we’re at it. While Seattle shares many of the “pros” that Portland boasts, it also has some blemishes on its report card:

At $100, the average doctor's office visit here is the 7th highest in the survey, compared to a national average of $82.
Air quality here is worse here than most cities in the survey. Air quality has been linked to childhood asthma and fertility rates, among other things.
State laws do not require health insurance companies to provide or offer any fertility-related services.
Seattle has 1.8 NICU facilities per 10,000 births, 9th lowest in the survey. The average city surveyed has 3.4 NICU facilities per 10,000 live births.
Seattle has a 21 percent higher property crime rate than average, the 9th highest in the survey.

This covers the Northwest's big cities. But our smaller communities? What kinds of choices do families in Spokane or Bend have when they want to have a baby? (Leave a comment and let us know how your town measures up.)

And of course, having a baby is only the first step. I’d like to hear how Northwest cities rank when it comes to livability for families in general. Is housing affordable in safe, family-friendly, walkable neighborhoods? How do we rate on early childhood education—or all levels of schools for that matter? Is healthy, organic food affordable and accessible?

Where’s the best place to grow up?

Photo courtesy: Sean Dreilinger, Flickr.com.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/seandreilinger/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Clean Energy Working in Portland

Roger Valdez — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:54:02

I was in Olympia again yesterday tracking the progress of the Energy Efficiency Financing Act, a bill being considered by the Washington State Legislature. The legislation would make it easier for local governments to create innovative financing for energy efficiency retrofits in the residential sector.

Improving financing options would stoke demand for retrofits and lead to more jobs in the energy efficiency sector. One of the examples I have used is Clean Energy Works in Portland. Here is a video created by Green For All highlighting Clean Energy Works' recent progress on green collar job creation.

The prospects for current legislation in Washington are promising and we will continue to keep an eye on the progress of that bill and others affecting energy efficiency financing.

Teen Pregnancy: Too Little Data, Too Late

Clark Williams-Derry — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:59:11

The latest headline: teen births in the US are on the rise!

I'm going to spare you a diatribe on abstinence-only education -- except to note that these figures confirm the abundant research showing that abstinence-only ed programs are almost comically ineffective.

No, the important thing to note here is this: here we are in 2010, and the latest teen birth data we've got is for 2006. That's right, we had to wait for 3 full years, and then some, just to get some reliable numbers on a deeply important social indicator.

This, to me, is clear evidence that we're simply not serious about teen birth rates. Sure, we do a lot of hand wringing about "babies having babies." Yet we haven't bothered to set up a system to monitor whether our efforts to delay teen childbearing are working. Look, teen births just aren't that hard to track. But at the national level at least, we simply haven't bothered to track them.

And as a result, we've got a 3-year delay on a lagging indicator of a failed social policy -- and a lot of policymakers who are flying blind.