Articles by Eric de Place

There’s more to freedom than free parking

I keep seeing the phrase "social engineering" used to describe policies that don't kowtow to the car. See, for example, this inexplicable subhead about a third of the way through this Seattle newspaper story. Not only is this usage annoying, it's exactly backward (as others have noted before me).

First, let's look first at specifics. The paper reports that the city will put parking meters on some formerly-free spots in a rapidly urbanizing district near downtown Seattle. The newspaper calls this "social engineering."

I suppose that's right, at least to the extent that parking meters alter the incentive structure for parking, which ultimately may change some people's behavior. But if anything, the alternative to the city's plan -- continuing to provide public rights-of-way for exclusive, uncompensated use by a handful of private car owners -- is closer to "social engineering" than charging a small fee for the privilege. Really, the question is not whether the city will engage in "social engineering," but what kind of social engineering. And in particular, will government continue to use public resources to subsidize private cars?

Speaking more generally, just about any transportation policy -- or any policy at all, for that matter -- can be described as "social engineering." And using that inflammatory language is a game anyone can play. Consider some (slightly) overheated rhetoric: today's car-centric system is the result of Soviet-style social engineering.

Governments used the awesome power of the state to take money from the populace. Then central planners used the money with an ethic of brutalism, forcing gigantic car thoroughfares across neighborhoods, into the hearts of cities, and then out into far-flung farmlands and wild places.

In town, America's Soviet-style planning wasn't much different.

Realizing that freeways are not free

Every once in a while there's a truth that everybody knows, but that no one will acknowledge. And when someone finally says it aloud, it sounds shocking. Like this:

... what we're doing now isn't working. Not for drivers, taxpayers or the environment. We can't tax and build our way out of this.

That's Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat in his column this week, talking about what most people in Seattle already know: the area's freeway system is flat broke and busted. Even the biggest package ever to go before voters -- this fall's $16 billion roads-and-transit measure -- won't pay for the toughest infrastructure problems, like rebuilding the 520 floating bridge, and is only a fraction of the estimated $40 billion needed over the next few decades. Moreover, even that full $40 billion isn't expected to reduce congestion much. So what can we do?

Enter the occasion for Westneat's column: King County executive Ron Sims, who has stepped up (big PDF), yet again, with a remarkably visionary plan: region-wide congestion pricing. Wow. Without getting into the details here, Sims is proposing what is perhaps the only thing that could simultaneously generate the money, reduce congestion, and ease environmental impacts -- all without raising taxes. (In fact, that's why Sightline Institute has been preaching congestion pricing for years.)

If it all sounds too good to be true, it is.

Why we should ban compressed chemical dusters

I have an untidy habit of eating while I'm working on my computer. Heck, I'm eating a doughnut while I write this post.

Unfortunately, my habit inevitably results in little crumbs of sandwich or potato chips or whatever making their way onto my computer keyboard. Every once in a while I look down at my crumb-ridden keyboard, get disgusted, and embark on a cleaning frenzy. And as many office workers may know, one of the easiest ways to clean a keyboard is with those compressed chemical canister thingies (pictured above). So the other day, while I was merrily blasting away at my keyboard I decided to read the contents. Big mistake.

My little 10-ounce canister contains 100 percent tetrafluoroethane, a greenhouse gas that's sometimes known as HFC-134a (meaning it's a form of hydrofluorocarbon). Before your eyes glaze over, just keep in mind that over a 20-year period, HFC-134a is roughly 3,300 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Nice.

So unless I missed something in the number crunching, using up my 10-ounce can of cleaner will have the same climate-changing effect over the next 20 years as burning at least 100 gallons of gasoline. With that much gas I could drive my trusty Honda Civic from Seattle to New York City. And then back to Chicago. And I would likely still have plenty of fuel left over for side-trips.

All that, packed into a canister retailing for $10.99 at the Office Depot around the corner.

This is not a good idea.

And it strikes me as an instance where the best remedy is pretty simple: just ban it.

Cool feature in Nat’l Geo

National Geographic has a fairly awesome new web feature. It's an interactive look at smart growth that does a good job of spelling out -- with pictures! -- some of the key differences between low-density sprawl and healthier compact communities. There's more in the magazine.

Unfortunately, NG's representation of healthy urban development seems to make a puzzling omission. I was unable to find the multibillion dollar giant new elevated freeway through the heart of town -- the hallmark of responsible planning for the future.

A bit odd, if you ask me.