Cascadia Scorecard Weblog

Plan B: I Quit

The Director of Women's Health at the Food and Drug Administration, Susan Wood, resigned today in protest over the agency's delay on a decision to approve the emergency contraceptive "morning after" pill, sometimes called Plan B, for over-the-counter use. Late Friday afternoon, the FDA stated that they would neither approve or reject an application to allow women over 17 to get Plan B without a prescription, citing "unresolved regulatory issues." In response, Wood cited unwarranted interference in agency decision-making in her choice to leave.

The FDA science staff has overwhelmingly favored approval of improving access to Plan B, but the agency has twice delayed the approval, and stated this time around that a formal and "possibly time-consuming" rule making process would be needed for approval. It seems that in what should be a science-based process, the FDA may be bowing to political pressure from the Bush administration and anti-abortion activists to keep the drug off the market with endless delays.

Seven states have already approved over-the-counter access to Plan B, including Washington, and all Canadian pharmacies now offer emergency contraception without a prescription. As we've written about here, and here, universalizing one-stop access to emergency contraception at pharmacies is one of the best public policy options toward reducing the number of unintended pregnancies—perhaps by as much as half. Children conceived intentionally receive better prenatal care and have lower infant mortality rates. Approving better access to Plan B sounds like a good plan for women's health, it's no wonder that Wood said that her employer's actions were "contrary to my core commitment to improving and advancing women's health."

Last Chance to Comment

The public comment period for our discussion of sustainability fundamentals will soon come to a close. For all of you who have already left your comments, thank you! The discussion has been fascinating so far.

If you have an interest in the broad question of how NEW should define sustainability for itself, and how we should focus our messages about values and principles, please head on over to our parallel blog and read our proposed language and the comments it has inspired. And, by all means, add to the string!

Sometime soon, we will close the blog, make some changes based on the feedback we received, and begin a new phase in the testing of these ideas with specific audiences. If you have strong ideas about the direction we take, this may be your last chance to speak up...

When you head over to the other blog, you'll find some introductory background information and more detailed language around these three values:

1. Strong Communities
2. Thriving Nature [or "Thriving Commons"]
3. Free and Fair Markets

And these five principles:

1. Measure what matters
2. Grow up, not out [or “Build great places”]
3. Make prices tell the truth
4. Ensure every child is wanted
5. Prove safety first

Don't leave your comments here, though. Navigate to the fundamentals blog and comment to your heart's content there! Thanks.

UnHoley Ozone!!

Here's some feel-good news for today: US atmospheric scientists say that the ozone layer has stopped shrinking. The international effort to stop producing ozone-depleting chemicals seems to have worked. That raises my hopes for saving the world. Of course, the ozone layer is still very thin in places and may not be healed within our lifetimes, but score one success for global cooperation. Now, on to global warming.

Last West-Coast Clean Car Domino Falls

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski just tipped over the last clean car domino on the west coast:  he's directed his Department of Ecology to draft regulations for adopting California's clean-car standards.

This is a major step.  Washington State had opted for California's standards, provided that Oregon adopted them too.  Because Canada has adopted similar standards, Oregon's move has created a clean car corridor stretching from San Diego through northern British Columbia.  Together, between California, Canada, and the northwest and northeastern states that have followed their lead, about 40 percent of the North American new car market will soon be cleaner and, if all goes well, more fuel efficient to boot.  (There's a pretty good chronology of all the political action on the car standards here, if you scroll down through our blog posts.)

Growth Misconduct

The Washington Post reports today that the US poverty rate rose for the fourth consecutive year last year, to 12.7 percent.  That is, one out of eight Americans now lives in poverty. 

At the same time, median incomes stagnated in 2004, and the number of people nationwide who have no health insurance grew by 800,000.

Without any apparent irony, the Post reports that...

[t]he increase in poverty came despite strong economic growth

So what, exactly, does "strong economic growth" mean if poverty increases, middle-income folks see their incomes stagnate, and more people end the year uninsured.  Yes, I do know the answer to this -- GDP grew, the economy added jobs, and so forth.  But if the Census data are any indication, these trends did little or nothing for those at the bottom half of the economic ladder -- those who were most in need of economic boost.  It seems like these trends -- poverty, median incomes, and the like -- are far more important to people's lives than accounting conventions like GDP. 

Just by way of comparison, the poverty rate in Washington and Oregon has averaged 11.7 percent over the past 3 years; in Idaho it's been 10.5 percent; in Montana, 14.3 percent; and California, 13.2 percent.  We'll be looking more closely at Northwest trendlines as soon as updated data becomes available on the Census website.

Update: Some similar thoughts on the subject from The Washington Monthly weblog.

Chain of Evidence

From CNN, a story suggesting that Oregon's emphasis on pedestrian and bike-friendly cities has helped it keep obesity in check.

According to a study released Tuesday by the Washington, D.C.-based Trust for America's Health, the percentage of overweight Oregonians held steady at 21 percent last year, a sharp contrast to Alabama, where the rate of obesity increased 1.5 percentage points to 27.7 percent.

What makes Oregon different is its emphasis on urban design, which encourages outdoor activities like biking to work, the study's authors said.

Now, obviously, only a small share of Oregon residents walk or bike to work; and many people who do so have farily short commutes. But that's exactly the point:  when it comes to obesity, even a little bit of exercise can make a big difference.  On average, adults put on a pound or two a year -- but a pound of extra weight per year averages out to just 10 calories per day.  That's less than a teaspoon of sugar, or a daily stroll of about a tenth of a mile.  So even though Oregon cities' neighborhood design may have only a small effect on walking and biking, that effect could very well have been enough to keep Oregonians from putting on as much weight as Alabamans.  And by curtailing the growth of obesity, Oregon may have helped keep its citizens healthy, while stemming health care costs--which now account for about one out of every eight dollars Oregonians earn.  Which is one way of responding to people who question whether sidewalks and bike lanes are really worth the cost.

Pillaging National Parks

If you're feeling insufficiently dismayed about conservation politics, consider reading today's editorial in the New York Times, headlined "Destroying the National Parks." It details a draft revision of the National Park Service's governing documents. These revisions, crafted by Paul Hoffman, an Interior Department official with no Park Service experience, had been kept secret but recently came to light.

The NY Times editorial board alleges that:

Mr. Hoffman's rewrite would open up nearly every park in the nation to off-road vehicles, snowmobiles and Jet Skis. According to his revision, the use of such vehicles would become one of the parks' purposes.

Further, according to the editorial:

He does everything possible to strip away a scientific basis for park management. His rules would essentially require park superintendents to subordinate the management of their parks to local and state agendas. He also envisions a much wider range of commercial activity within the parks.

Katrina and the Waves

As a side-note to all the excitement in New Orleans today, Hurricane Katrina has been making waves in the energy markets.  Oil hit $70 per barrel in overnight trading last night.  Gasoline futures topped $2 per gallon.  Natural gas prices spiked as well; at about this time last year, they were at about $5.50 per million BTU, but today they're over twice that high.

Prices may well decline in the aftermath of the storm, as the damage is assessed.  But pump prices throughout the US may well be affected going into Labor Day weekend -- especially if Gulf Coast refineries sustain any damage.

It seems I never get tired of saying this:  the Northwest's dependence on fossil fuels -- particularly oil and natural gas -- shackles our economy to forces over which we have absolutely no control.  The Pacific Northwest's oil comes mostly from Alaska; much of it is refined in Washington and BC.  Still, we're part of a global energy market, and price jumps anywhere else have ripple effects here.  Which means that a single hurricane, political shock, or terrorist incident in any major energy producing or refining part of the world now has the potential to siphon millions of dollars out of the region's economy.  It's high time we recognize that fact -- and long past time for us to do something about reducing our economy's vulnerability to, say, freak storms in the Gulf of Mexico.

Update: This Seattle P-I article says much the same thing.

Get On Our Bike And Ride

Via Wired Magazine, a nifty idea from Lyon, France: a rent-a-bike program that lets subscribers borrow a bike for just over a dollar an hour.  The first half hour is free -- which makes the service ideal for people who want to make short jaunts downtown, but don't want to lug their bicycles with them wherever they go. Impressively, the service attracted 15,000 subscribers within the first 3 months.

As the article notes, the service was costly to set up, largely because the billing system and anti-theft provisions are pretty high-tech.  But those things were important.  Free bike sharing programs (including ones in Amsterdam and Portland, Oregon) had run into problems -- not enough money, or too many "free riders" abusing the system by hoarding the nice bikes.  The French system seems to have safeguards in place to prevent those problems; if you don't return your borrowed bike within 24 hours, the service keeps your $180 deposit.

The Northwest already has car-sharing programs (such as FlexCar in Seattle and Portland, and the Cooperative Auto Network in BC) that work on the same basic principle.  But it seems that there are only a handful of neighborhoods in the Pacific Northwest in which a commercial bike sharing service makes much sense; since much of our urbanized area consists of fairly low-density sprawl with minimal bike-friendly infrastructure, demand is probably too low to justify the startup costs.  Still, it's worth keeping in mind, for two reasons.   First, it may work well in particular neighborhoods in or around our major cities, particularly as they attract new residents.   And second, it's a nifty example of how new technology can turn a previously unworkable idea into a practical one -- a lesson that applies well to other kinds of innovations (did someone say "congestion pricing"?)

True Crime Stores

Is it possible that I'm taking time out of a busy day to praise, of all things, today's USAToday cover story on child sex offense trends? 

Ok, this is sort of off topic for this blog.  But I think the USAToday story raises a crucial point -- that, despite the increasing level of media attention that gets paid to a few high-profile child sex offense cases, the actual trends are going quite dramatically in the right direction. According to the article, child sexual assault rates fell by 79% from 1993 through 2003.  (This may be cherry-picking the years, but the long-term trends seem perfectly legit, and agree with other crime trends.)

Of course, you wouldn't be able to tell discern this trend from most of the media coverage on the topic -- including from USAToday itself.  If you just watched the headlines, you might be convinced that sex offenses against children were soaring.   So in some ways, this story represents a rare admission from the press that you really can't gauge what's really happening in the world based on trends in media coverage.  In the end, actual data is far more important than a string of anecdotes, no matter how compelling they may be.

Now, obviously, the fact that sex offenses are on the decline overall doesn't take away from the horror experienced by victims and their families, and doesn't mean we should slacken our efforts to stop this sort of crime from happening.  And the media attention on a few high profile child sex offender cases may actually have been helpful in raising public awareness, and political action, around the issue.

But still, I think the story is a useful admission that newspaper headlines can mislead just as much as they can illuminate.

Patriotic Pedaling

ESPN, that unlikeliest of sustainabilty sources, posted a terrific article recently. Author Jim Caple points out that progressives should stop poking fun at President Bush's rather obsessive bicycling--a habit that recently included a ride with Lance Armstrong. Instead, we should hope he goes "much, much further."

After all, the Texas duo--Bush and Armstrong--should be poster children for a national call to bicycling as alternative to driving and a sensible way to conserve oil.

Caple breaks it down this way:

Think about it this way. The average American drives 12,000 or so miles per year. If we rode our bikes just 10 miles per week... that would cut use by 500 miles, or around 4 percent. Because cars and SUVs account for 40 percent of U.S. oil use, that could reduce the country's oil consumption by 1.6 percent. That doesn't sound like much, but it's roughly the equivalent to 100 million barrels. That's not going to end our reliance on foreign oil but at least it would be a start in that direction.

Now, if only Bush would seize the opportunity to publicly ask, as Caple puts it,

What's a better show of real patriotism -- cutting foreign oil consumption by occasionally riding a bike or slapping a flag sticker on your SUV that gets 11 miles to the gallon?

Flame On!

Dumb headline (unless you're a Fantastic Four fan), but a serious subject.  A new chemical analysis, being released today by California EPA scientists at an international scientific conference in Toronto, shows that 30 percent of Northwest moms tested in NEW's 2004 toxics study had higher levels of the toxic flame retardants PBDEs in their bodies than of well-known chemical threats PCBs.  This study is a follow-up to the PBDE study of Northwest women that we did last year.

The study provides pretty unambiguous evidence that PBDEs have emerged as a major toxic menace.  And it suggests that, if recent trends continue, PBDEs could soon overtake PCBs as the most dominant "organohalogen" pollutant in people's bodies.

And an interesting -- and probably significant -- side note to the study was that there was no correlation between PCB and PBDE levels.  This suggests that they may get into people's bodies through different pathways.  At this point, the principle source of PCB contamination in people is food, particularly fish.  For PBDEs, nobody is sure; but a recent exposure modeling study from Canada suggests that ordinary housedust, containing minute quantities of PBDEs sloughed off from furniture and the like, may be the principle route of exposure in people. (More here.)

Some context is in order.  PBDEs are fire retardants that are added to furniture foams, industrial fabrics, consumer electronics, and a number of other products.  They're pretty good at preventing fires. But in recent years, scientists have noticed an alarming rise in the concentration of PBDEs in peoples bodies -- in their blood, in fatty tissues, and in breast milk alike.  Concentrations of the compounds appeared to be doubling every two to five years.  Ecologists have found similar rises in marine sediments and wildlife.  As it turns out, PBDEs didn't stay put in consumer products; minute quantities would leach out into the environment and ultimately wind up sequestered in living things, including people.

At the same time that this rapid rise was detected, new evidence was uncovered that PBDEs may have similar health effects as their close chemical cousins, the PCBs.  Tests on laboratory animals showed that a dose of PBDEs during a critical phase of early development could cause memory deficitis and behavioral aberrations -- effects very similar to those caused by PCBs.  The two chemicals may actually work together, either additively or synergistically, to cause harm.

Last year, Northwest Environment Watch commissioned an analysis of 40 breastmilk samples from Northwest moms, 10 each from Washington, Oregon, BC, and Montana.  The study found that the moms had among the highest median PBDE levels on record.  (Yoiks!) 

The problem isn't breastmilk per se; we tested breastmilk just because it was the most convenient way to get a biological sample that's high in fat, since PBDEs adhere to fat.  As far as I know, every epidemiological study that has looked at the issue has concluded that, except in extremely rare cases of PCB poisoning, breastfeeding is by far the best and healthiest choice for infants.  The major risk of PCBs appears to be during fetal development; and the benefits of breastfeeding may actually mitigate the potential harms caused by PCB or PBDE exposure in utero.  So, seriously, if you're a nursing mom, keep breastfeeding.  Please.  Really.

The bottom line of this study is that, even though PCB levels are still higher than PBDE levels, we may soon be approaching a point at which PBDEs are more of a concern than PCBs.  And from this I draw 3 lessons.  First, we should be paying close attention to PBDE levels in the coming years, to see whether PBDE levels continue to rise in people.  Second, we should be looking at ways of removing PBDE-laden products from people's homes. 

And third, we need to learn our lesson about the risks posed by untested chemicals.  In retrospect, it should have been obvious that PBDEs posed some risk -- their chemical structure is very similar to that of PCBs, dioxin and DDT.  So that alone should have triggered some elementary testing requirements before the compounds were used widely commerce.  But it didn't.  At some point, we've got to learn the lesson, and take steps to make sure this sort of chemical fiasco -- releasing potentially harzardous compounds without adequate testing -- doesn't keep happening again and again and again.

Oops, We Logged It Again

Hot off the presses: the controversial Biscuit Fire salvage logging in the Siskiyou Mountains of Southern Oregon has yielded a rather atrocious mistake. US Forest Service officials mis-marked the logging boundaries and accidentally approved 17 acres of cutting (apparently clearcutting) inside the 350-acre Babyfoot Lake Botanical Area, which is supposed to protect--you guessed it--a rare tree and other rare plants.

Salvage logging in the region has been enormously contentious. Interestingly, one element of the controversy centered on who should mark the boundaries of timber sales. In fact, a conservation group won a court judgment to force the Forest Service to mark public timber sales rather than letting loggers do it.

One can only imagine the mistakes the timber industry might make if it were in charge of drawing the boundaries. The Babyfoot Lake mistake was only discovered through the vigilance of the Siskiyou Project, a local environmental group that's watch-dogging the salvage logging.

Among the scars left from the accidental logging in the protected area: a new logging road bulldozed in and 290 stumps, including one from a tree that was 234 years old. Read the full Seattle Times account here.

Obesity Grows

Obesity rates are growing in every state but Oregon, according to a new report by Trust for America's Health based on data from the CDC. (Read the Seattle Times article here.) While Oregonians can be proud of their accomplishment last year, they are not the trimmest state in the country, nor in the Northwest.

Interestingly, every Northwest state has lower rates of obesity than the national average. Montana residents are least likely to be obese; Alaskans are most likely. As Jessica pointed out recently, it's worth paying attention to obesity trends, not only because of their health consequences, but because it can absorb a lot of money.

Here's the skinny on obesity in the Northwest states...

Percent of state residents who are obese, 2004

	Percent of residents who are obese, 2004
Alaska	23.5
California	21.5
Idaho	20.9
Montana	19.1
Oregon	21.0
Washington	21.7
United States	24.5

Smog Cops vs. Social Justice

And in other news from the remote sensing front, there was an interesting article in the LA Times last week about the South Coast Air Quality Management District's testing of an automated device that measures tailpipe emissions (free subscription required). The article explains that testing has begun for a remote sensing device that measures tailpipe emissions and photographs an offender's license plate for ticketing.

The technology has been around for some years now. And it's about time for deployment.

But it's also worrisome from a social justice perspective. The article fails to mention if the SCAQMD [we used to say "squawk mud"] program will ensure that the poor's only mode of transport is not eliminated if they cannot afford the full cost of retrofit. Sure, there are freeloaders that dilute their actions throughout society. But many of the polluting vehicles are the only cars the poor can afford in a transit-unfriendly town -- the under- or less-well employed often cannot rely on transit to get to work.

I know when I lived in Sacramento, another transit-unfriendly town, I could only take transit to a narrow range of choices. (Riding my bike 14 miles to work took, literally, one-third the time of transit, and I'm fit.) The same is true in LA. Not having a car in LA is not an option if you wish to feed your family.

There is not just one solution to reducing outstanding polluters. As Mark Hertsgaard found in Earth Odyssey, most people on the planet wish to decrease their pollution. They just can't afford to. They're too busy just trying to get by.

This new emissions device cannot be used as a blunt instrument: We must ensure it's used properly when it comes to our comparatively transit-friendly region.

Sensors and Sensibility

This blog has been a bit obsessed both about the benefits of dynamic highway tolling to control congestion, and about economic distortions caused by "free" parking.  Apparently, our two pet obsessions have cross-bred, producing this San Fransisco Weekly article on dynamically-adjusted parking fees. 

Here's the basic idea:  new, inexpensive remote sensing technology is coming online that could...

...precisely monitor activity in a city's parking spaces, so a computer might figure out how much parking meters should charge so 15 percent of the spaces remain empty -- the optimum amount, research has shown, for making it convenient to shop by car.

In other words, if parking in a given neighborhood is looking tight, sensors would note the fact.  Then, the parking meters would know to raise their prices a bit, until about 15% of the available spaces freed up.  If there are lots of free spaces, then prices would come down a bit, letting people park for longer without racking up big fees.  Ideally, the prices would self-adjust so that they're "just right" -- not so expensive that there are too many free spaces, and not so cheap that parking is difficult to find.

One jurisdiction is already committed to trying out the system:

[T]he idea of closely monitoring empty and full parking spaces and subtly adjusting meter prices ... was a principle untried anywhere in America -- until last month, when Redwood City approved a plan, developed by the city's downtown development director, Dan Zack, to do just that.

The article also notes that local shopkeepers--who tend to object to proposals to meter parking--often drop their opposition if the parking revenues are used locally to clean streets, improve sidewalks and lighting, and the like.  That way, the money raised by parking fees never strays too far from the meter.

It could be easy enough to paint this sort of proposal as "anti-car."  But it's really not.  Yes, it would probably make parking more expensive; but it also could make parking more convenient and less time-consuming.  That's a tradeoff that in many cases would make sense -- both for people who own cars, and for cities that are trying to control runaway congestion.

Crude Opinions

Are you wondering when--or if--the price of gasoline is going to ease back from its recent highs?  You're not alone; that seems to be the question of the hour.  But the truth is that there is absolutely no firm consensus on when, if, or how a substantial drop in crude prices might come about.

Yesterday's edition of The New York Times had an fascinating summary of the international oil situation, focusing on Saudi Arabia.  The article discusses the competing estimates of various experts who, based on roughly the same set of evidence, have dramatically different views about how much oil the country can produce, and on what timetable.

Of course, virtually none of the Northwest's petroleum comes from the Middle East; most of it comes from Alaska and Alberta.  But oil is what they call a "fungible commodity"--which means that it doesn't really matter where our oil actually comes from, since there's really just one big global oil market.  At this point, the price of Alaskan crude moves bascially in lock-step with international trends, so in terms of the price we pay for oil, political turbulence in far-flung parts of the globe might as well be in our own backyard.  That's the price we pay, apparently, for shackling our economy to a commodity of which we produce not a single drop.

Bicentennial of Lewis & Clark in the Northwest

200 years ago today, the Lewis and Clark expedition reached Cascadia, when they crossed the Continental Divide. It was Lewis' 31st birthday and he adopted a melancholy tone in his journal when he wrote, “I had as yet done but little, very little indeed.”

Here's a pithy timeline of the expedition's highlights -- it's fun to follow along.

(Though Lewis and Clark's Corps of Discovery were the first American citizens to reach the Pacific Northwest, Americans tend to forget that theirs was not the first transcontinental journey north of Mexico to reach the Pacific. That distinction belongs to Alexander Mackenzie, a Canadian, who reached the Pacific in 1793, a dozen years ahead of Lewis and Clark.)

Caribou in Court

The Selkirk caribou herd--one component of NEW's wildlife index--just became the center of a legal battle. A coalition of conservation groups are suing to ban snowmobiles from the caribou's winter range in the United States, arguing that snowmobiles are stressing and displacing the animals whose numbers are already perilously low. Read all about the lawsuit in a Seattle Times article.

The Selkirk herd's range dips from British Columbia into northern Idaho and northeastern Washington, making them the last herd of woodland caribou to visit the lower 48 states. The Selkirk caribou are often classified as "mountain caribou" an ecotype of woodland caribou, whose numbers are imperiled throughout much of its range, even in British Columbia's comparatively remote mountains. Much more about the species here.

Whales Say: Take the Bus

I'm a day late on this, but... new findings from Washington's Department of Ecology: cars, not industry, are becoming the biggest polluters of Puget Sound. That could mean that the future of iconic creatures like orcas, already highly contaminated, will depend on growth management that reduces driving.

A big city concerned with protecting ecosystems might want to seriously consider transportation alternatives as opposed to big ticket highway spending and re-building. Hint, hint, Seattle.

Medical Cost of Obesity

The US national rate of obesity has doubled since 1990, so that in 2004, nearly one-quarter of Americans (23.1 percent) were classified as obese. Medical studies have established clear links from obesity to a variety of medical conditions, including type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, and others. Obesity is also costly: the increasing prevalence of obesity and costs of treating obesity-related diseases has helped to fuel the recent rise in medical spending. By one estimate, 27% of the cost increase from 1987 to 2001 was due to obesity.

The latest studies estimate that obesity alone costs the US around $75 billion annually, while while the added costs of treating conditions brought on by simply being overweight bring that share up to 9.1% of total US medical expenditures. On a regional level, obesity alone costs the Northwest over $2.3 billion dollars a year. That’s around 0.5% of our gross state product (see table below).

	1990 Obesity Rate	2004 Obesity Rate	Annual medical spending on obesity 2003 dollars (% of all med. spending)
US	11.6%	23.1%	$75,000 million (5.3%)
WA	9.4%	22.1%	$1330 million (5.4%)
OR	10.9%	21.2%	$781 million (5.7%)
ID	11.9%	20.8%	$227 million (5.3%)

On an individual level, obesity increases annual medical spending per person by 37.4%, or around $730 a year. And overweight increases spending per person by 14.5%, or $247 per year.

The medical cost of obesity is a meaningful drain on our economy, and the costs listed here are only the direct medical expenditures. Not included are the indirect costs of lost productivity, lower quality of life, or years of life lost due to obesity-related illnesses.

While obesity is caused by many factors, studies indicate that the built environment is one influence. Sprawling neighborhoods designed for driving everywhere--with few sidewalks, nearby desirable destinations, or a direct route to destinations--can discourage residents from walking or bicycling. One way to fight obesity (while improving our quality of life) could be to redesign the places we live.

Sprawling Alone

In Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam argues that the decline of social capital in the United States can be attributed partly to urban form. In other words, according to Putnam, sprawl is at least partly to blame for the present derth of bowling leagues. But is it really?

Putnam's arguments (summarized at the end of Chapter 12) are threefold.

1. "Sprawl takes time" and results in more time spent alone in a car and therefore less for civic engagement.
2. "Sprawl is associated with increasing social segregation" and that segregation has led to less community participation.
3. "Sprawl disrupts community 'boundedness'" and that physical fragmentation reduces societal involvement.

Although Putnam's claim--that sprawl erodes social capital--is widely referenced, my survey of the evidence makes me suspicious. My objections are threefold.

First, sprawl does not absorb more commuting time than does urbanization. Data from the National Household Transportation Survey shows astonishingly similar travel times across residential densities. Actually, residents of high densities spend the most time traveling. (Caveat: the NHTS is for "travel time" not specifically "commuting time," which Putnam is interested in, though commuting only accounts for about 1/4 of all personal trips.)

In fairness, high density households spend about 1/3 less time driving and proportionately more time walking, busing, or biking. So it's possible that urbanites use that extra 20 minutes per day to form social networks on public transit, but it seems equally possible that suburbanites form social networks while carpooling. In any case, no matter what the residential density, households sink roughly the same large chunk of time into commuting (74 to 79 minutes/day, most of which, even at high densities, is driving).

Putnam asserts a rough formula for measuring the effects of commuting: "each additional 10 minutes in daily commuting time cuts involvement in community affairs by 10 percent." Still, I can't see why sprawl is the culprit here. Instead, the culprit seems to be something like congestion, or perhaps the sheer physical size of cities (admittedly, related to sprawl), or perhaps even the population size of cities, which necessitates physical breadth. If sprawl is irrelevant here, it may help explain a point that Putnam apparently takes to be puzzling: that both surban and urban residents in big metro regions have less social capital than their small town counterparts.

Second, sprawl may be associated with social segregation, but the evidence that this erodes social capital is not conclusive, at least as far as I'm aware. Putnam does cite a couple of interesting studies here, but there are many more he bypasses. In a more comprehensive survey of the evidence, "The Effects of Sprawl on Neighborhood Social Ties," Lance Freeman finds that "the existing evidence is not conclusive" and that moreover very high densities may actually be corrosive of social capital.

Freeman's study goes on to find that residential density is unrelated to neighborhood social ties, but is strongly related to automobile dependence. As car dependence is generally a feature of sprawl, it may be that Freeman's study supports Putnam's conclusions. Still, both Freeman's survey of the literature and his data analysis should serve as a cautionary tale for imputing too much explanatory power to low residential density, which is often treated as the defining characteristic of sprawl.

Third, the importance of community "boundedness" is, as far as I can tell, based on only one study that's now more than 30 years old. Admittedly, it was something of a classic, but it's rather hard to imagine that the same cultural and geographic forces in play in 1972 are the same ones that now impede social capital. For just one example, city center populations have been growing again, rather than hollowing out as they were in the 1970s.

I'd like to see more evidence on this subject. It could be that Putnam is basically right and I'm just nitpicking, but for the time being I'm suspending judgment on the social effects of sprawl.

Seawall, See Wail

From today's Seattle P-I, here's yet another concrete way that global warming may affect the Northwest: rising sea levels may force the city of Seattle to reengineer its downtown seawall. 

Without a seawall, the businesses and roads along the Seattle waterfront simply wash away into Elliot bay. (Bummer.) The existing seawall is structurally unsound--it's partially made of wood, which is being eaten by marine invertebrates known as "gribbles"--and the city has already done a fair bit of the design work for rebuilding it. 

But a University of Washington climate science group now say that the proposed design, which assumes a .9 foot rise in sea levels over 75 years, may be too conservative.  The group predicts that sea levels may rise somewhere in the range of 1 to 2.8 feet.

To me, this story underscores two points that are worth keeping in mind.  First, there's a huge range of uncertainty in climate predictions; nobody, not even the most well-respected scientists, really knows what's going to happen.  And that makes planning really tough, and probably more expensive than you might otherwise think, or hope.  And second, there are lots of little ways in which rising global temperatures could affect our lives and our pocketbooks. Doomsday scenarios range from the unlikely to the comical (think "The Day After Tomorrow"), but that doesn't mean that the costs and consequences of global warming aren't very real.

Milestones on Mount Rainier

Even though it's August, and supposedly summer, I can't see Mount Rainier today because of the clouds. Still, it's worth remembering the mountain today because of two anniversaries--today and a week from today--in the history of Rainier: the first known successful climb and the first known climb by a woman.

115 years ago today, at 4:30 in the afternoon, Fay Fuller became the first woman to reach Columbia Crest, the summit of Mount Rainier. (Here's a short account of her climb, kept by the Tacoma Public Library, that makes a great read.) Unfortunately for Fuller, not only did she live in an era before gender equality, she climbed in an before the invention of synthetic fabrics, sunscreen, and the flashy ultra-light gear that is the hallmark of modern mountaineering.

According to the story:

Fay blackened her face with charcoal and wore goggles to modify the sun's glare. Her climbing outfit included heavy flannel underwear, a thick blue flannel bloomer suit, woolen hose, heavy calfskin boy's shoes with caulks, and a small straw hat. She later commented that her costume was assembled "at the time when bloomers were unknown and it was considered quite immodest."

A member of the group said that Fay refused assistance at some difficult spots. She is quoted as saying if she could not achieve the goal without their help she would not deserve to reach it.

Fuller's party reached the summit so late in the day that they were forced to spend the night on the summit in a cave hollowed out by sulphrous steam vents. Partly as a result of the prolonged exposure, they suffered terrible sun- and wind-burn and, in fact, spent five days recovering once they were back at Paradise.

According to Fay's account, despite the use of charcoal blackening "our lips, noses and almost all our faces were swollen out of proportion...for several days the pain was intense."

Rainier had first been climbed 20 years earlier (135 years ago on August 17) by Hazard Stevens and Philemon Van Trump, and the men fared no better than Fuller.

(Here's a short account by the Stevens-Van Trump climb by National Park Service.) There's actually some debate about whether Stevens and Van Trump were the first to summit Rainier. In Mountain Fever, Aubrey Haines claims that the first ascent happened as early as 1852. But Van Trump and Stevens have the first recorded summit and my understanding is that most knowledgeable people believe that they were the first to the top.

Stevens and Van Trump were guided by a local Yakama Indian named Sluiskin, who tried to prevent them from climbing the mountain because he believed it was suicidal.

According to another account, Sluiskin warned them:

"Your plan to climb Takhoma is all foolishness. At first the way is easy...[but] if you reach the great snowy dome, then a bitterly cold and furious tempest will sweep you off into space like a withered leaf."

Sluiskin was nearly right. Stevens and Van Trump were stranded on the summit toward evening with an approaching storm. Exhausted and unable to move, they huddled in a steam vent for the night,  probably saving them from death by exposure. The next day while returning to their camp near the top of the Paradise glacier Van Trump apparently suffered a "serious" injury (though I've never been able to figure out what it was). Nevertheless, both men survived the climb and became local celebrities as a result. 

Sluiskin's fear of the mountain may have been based partly on an old Indian legend. In an 1866 book, The Canoe and the Saddle, (strangely, sometimes called Saddle and Canoe) early Northwest visitor Theodore Winthrop recounts a legend told to him by Nisqually Indians. According to the story, local Indians believed that the summit of Rainier was home to a treasure trove of wealth. Driven by avarice and bravery, so the legend goes, one Indian managed to reach the summit, where he discovered riches beyond his imagination. But on the descent, the mountain unleashed a fury of storms so severe that he was eventually forced to abandon his treasure in order to save his life. He returned home a chastened man.

Unfortunately for enterprising mountaineers today, there is no treasure on the summit of Rainier. But then again, climbers today don't have to work nearly as hard to get there. Though the most popular route, from Paradise via Camp Muir, still demands 9,000 feet of elevation gain, glacier travel, and potentially dangerous weather, the climb can now be accomplished in a long weekend from the city.

In recent years, park service stats show that roughly 10,000 climbers attempt to reach the top, with about half making it. Despite the comparative luxury that climbers enjoy today--stoves, down sleeping bags, waterproof clothing, satellite-navigation systems, and emergency rescue--deaths and injuries are not uncommon. I suspect that the whiff of danger, together with the physical demands of the climb, are part of the allure that draws people to the Northwest's tallest mountain.

The view from the top is outstanding too. Or so I've heard. When I reached the summit in August, it was a day much like today, and all I saw were clouds blanketing the Northwest in every direction. 

For Clean Air, Work Downtown

In our ongoing quest to discover how land use and urban form links to human health effects, I recently stumbled across something odd. It's a 2000 study of vehicle emissions per household in Puget Sound, authored by Larry Frank. I wanted to find out if there is a connection between air pollution and urban density. According to this study, there is, but in a way I didn't expect.

It turns out that the strongest land-use correlate to low household emissions is not residential density, but job-site employment density. That is, from a statistical standpoint, it matters less whether you live on Capital Hill or the Sammamish Plateau than whether you work in downtown Seattle or Bothell. The difference, I suppose, is that downtown Seattle and other places with high employment density are well-served by transit and are generally easier to get to with lower vehicle emissions than more far-flung workplaces.

Interestingly--this is only interesting if you're a geek; otherwise skip to the next paragraph--the drop in household emissions does not observe a linear relationship with employment density. For the lowest three quartiles of employment density household emissions are about the same (they're a little higher in the lowest density quartile), but then they drop off sharply at the beginning of the highest density quartile. This suggests that there's a threshold of employment density--perhaps the density at which transit, carpooling, etc become viable--after which emissions drop quickly.

It's also interesting, I think, that in this study residential density is less strongly correlated with lower household emissions. There is still a correlation--higher residential densities meant less vehicle emissions--but the difference, while significant, was relatively minor.

One reason perhaps emerges in another set of correlations. This study found that households located in census tracts with high employment density, greater mixes of land-use, and greater street network density--in other words, places with many characteristics of city living--actually generate more vehicle trips and more vehicle trips with a cold engine (which produces a disproportionate share of tailpipe emissions). Probably, this is because there are more services and amenities nearby and there's less incentive to "chain" trips together as a typical suburban commuter might on the way to or from work. Even so, the higher density households produce fewer emissions simply because the trips are not as long as for households in lower densities.

There's a lesson here, maybe, for those of us interested in urban form as well as everyone who's interested in improving air quality. From a public health perspective, it may make more sense to concentrate jobs in dense nodes with good transit access than to worry about other land-use features. Maybe the best reform to reduce vehicle emissions is more office space downtown.

About the study: The study uses an exhaustive (heh, heh) methodology that calculates three types of emissions (NOx, CO, and VOC) that accounts not only for driving distance, but also for speed, travel time, and emissions from starting the car (adjusted for estimated engine temperature at start). Its findings are based on data from the Puget Sound Transportation Panel Travel Survey, which records travel for 1,700 households over a two-day period by giving each member of the household over 15 a diary for recording trips and their characteristics.

UPDATE 8/10/05: Here's a link to an abstract of the study. As far as I know, the full version is not online.

Sins of Emissions

Some news bits from the Oregon legislative session, which just ended:

As the Oregonian reports, the auto industry has been trying to head off an Oregon effort to adopt "clean-car" emissions standards by including language in the budget that would effectively prohibit DEQ from implementing the standards. (Clean-car standards, which Washington state just adopted, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by some 30 percent and help drive the industry toward cleaner, more efficient design.) Governor Kulongoski has promised to counteract the move by using his veto power.

Meanwhile, the industry succeeded in effectively defeating a biofuels bill, which would have provided incentives for in-state production and use of renewable fuels such as ethanol  and biodiesel.

Automakers aren't exactly winning points for innovative thinking. From the Oregonian editorial:

The House Republicans who let this happen ought to have to spend the next election explaining why they would trade off Oregon jobs, Oregon agriculture and Oregon innovation all in a futile effort to extend a pollution tax credit and enable the auto industry to keep churning out cars that are less fuel efficient than those they made 20 years ago....

The auto industry has fought every advance -- seat belts, catalytic converters, air bags -- with this same argument about unacceptable costs. Every time its claims have been shown to be wildly inflated and wrong.

And in good news (mostly), the state did win a partial ban on toxic flame retardants known as PBDEs. Our study of PBDEs in Northwest women showed that the chemicals were found in relatively high levels in Oregonians; and a recent study of PBDEs in house dust found that Oregon samples had the highest levels of PBDEs.

More Urban Development Lessons from the North

As Parke's post mentioned, the Seattle P-I had another interesting article on the lessons Vancouver has to offer on urban development--making the city both an exciting and a family-friendly place to live. Tips include requiring developers to:

• create multi-bedroom apartments designed for families
• provide community centers, playgrounds, neighborhood schools, landscaping, and other public amenities
• design buildings that create a pedestrian-friendly and visually appealing streetscape--not just a barren street canyon. (Buildings on some streets are kept short to make them feel more homey.)

Seattle's mayor is in the midst of unveiling plans to create vibrant, dense urban centers by raising building heights, charging developers one fee of $1-2 per square foot to pay for parks and open space and another fee of $10 primarily to build low-income housing.

Because of differences in the nature of public planning and the current landscape of the two cities, Seattle probably won't ever become Vancouver, nor should it attempt to. But it has plenty to learn from its neighbor to the north.

Here are several other posts on the same topic.

Driving Towards Insurance Discounts

USA Today gives a nod to the concept of pay-as-you-drive (PAYD) car insurance in an article about how technology is changing insurance pricing. The article reviews pilot projects in Minnesota (Progressive’s Tripsense) and the U.K. (Norwich Union’s PAYD program).

Both programs are using GPS and wireless technology to track aspects of participants' driving--including distance, time of day, and where the vehicle is driven—that affect safety but aren't usually calculated into insurance premiums. Premiums are then priced accordingly. Not surprisingly, motorists are becoming more aware of the consequences of their driving behavior. And awareness, of course, is the first step toward change.

Here's an interesting twist: The monitoring seems to be getting people to drive more safely — not because they're afraid of repercussions, but because they're motivated to get bigger discounts. So instead of red light cams and state troopers with radar guns, maybe the way to get people to obey the rules of the road is to pay them to do it.

Research also indicates that the incentive of discounts will get people to drive less--up to 15 percent. But will drivers be willing to trade a little privacy for more cash? The USA Today writer thinks so.

It seems unlikely that any U.S. lawmaker would ever dare force car monitoring on us, but a decade from now, we might find ourselves buying into it, one person at a time.

Then, like those grocery cards, suddenly car monitors could seem as common and acceptable as house keys.

See a summary of PAYD programs here.

Vancouver, BC, in the News

Stanley Park in Vancouver, BC, has been named one of the world's ten best public spaces by the Project for Public Spaces. They write:

Within walking distance from downtown in a high-rise residential neighborhood with a population density similar to Manhattan, [Stanley Park] is easily accessible by foot, bike and car. Once there, you can take in some of the most spectacular natural settings of any public park in North America.

Vancouver also got a plug in today's P-I as a model for Seattle's plan to encourage greater urban density. NEW board member and former Vancouver City Councillor Gordon Price, quoted in the article, has done a fabulous job recording, both in prose and stunning photographs, the development of Vancouver as a "great place" in his electronic journal Price Tags. We have learned a lot from Gordon about how to build great urban neighborhoods.

In our parallel blog on the fundamentals of sustainability, we suggest that one of the key principles ought to be to Build Great Places. Vancouver, with Gordon's help, has clearly taken this idea to heart.

What do you think? Is urban design a mere luxury, or does it go to the core of how we function as a society? Does it determine how cohesive our communities are, or how lightly we tread on the environment?

And, if so, how should we build our great places? What does this mean for the choices we make today and the way we plan for tomorrow?

Please comment on this principle here.

Smart Grid: Energy Everyone Can Love

An excellent report from the researchers at Climate Solutions arguing for speedier implemention of Smart Grid technology in the Northwest's electric transmission system. Smart Grid refers to a host of technological updating that the current electrical system sorely needs. By integrating more advanced computers and digital processing, the electricity transmission can improve its efficiency and resilience.

In the event of disruption, such as a storm or even a terrorist attack, the Smart Grid would be capable of "healing itself" by redistributing power to where it's most needed. It will also allow operators to pinpoint interruptions more quickly so that they can fix the problem manually. Even better, by creating a more efficient system that wastes less and responds faster to changing conditions, the Smart Grid reduces the need for expensive new power plants and infrastructure. (In one case in Utah, a utility was able to save $4.3 million using new technology and was able to avoid building a new plant and transmission lines in environmentally sensitive areas.) And if that's not enough, a Smart Grid would allow true interface between distributed forms of eletricity generation like small-scale wind, solar, and fuel cell generators.

But enough blathering from me. The researchers at Climate Solutions have the low down: go read about it for yourself.

Postscript: In our latest book, NEW also argued for Smart Grid technology. It's an exciting reform for both environmental and security reasons and even more exciting because the Smart Grid is already on its way. Still, as the Climate Solutions report details, there are plenty of ways that the Northwest's leaders can hasten its arrival.

Energy-Efficient Mortgages?

A recent article highlights yet another benefit of energy-efficient homes: they could qualify you for an energy-efficient mortgage (EEM).  Since an energy-efficient house costs less to operate, Fannie Mae, the government-established private company that backs mortgages for low- to moderate-income homebuyers, recognizes that the money saved can be spent on housing costs. Thus, it adds the projected savings to the borrower’s income, raising that income and qualifying them for a larger mortgage.  Built Green has a nice example how this can work on paper.

While the EEM has been around since 1979, it was little used until Fannie Mae reduced the complex paperwork a few years ago.  To qualify these days, a borrower must buy a new energy-efficient home--or commit to upgrading an existing home--and pass a Home Energy Rating System inspection.  The borrower then gets a one-page report to show to lenders when applying for a Fannie Mae-backed loan.

In light of my previous post about the trend towards bigger houses, I'll add the caveat that the efficiency ratings used to qualify for an EEM appear to look at the individual feature of the house--nsulation, efficient heating and cooling systems, etc.--but not necessarily the total energy use of the house. 

Ironically, then, by qualifying buyers for a larger loan, the EEM may encourage the purchase of bigger houses that could use as much total energy as a smaller, less-efficient house.  While this may help Fannie Mae customers buy as much house as they can afford, the EEM may not actually save any energy.  This issue bears considering if energy-efficient mortgages become popular offerings on the rest of the lending market.

As a side note, EEMs aren't the only green options Fannie Mae offers.  Fannie Mae is also piloting the Smart Commute Initiative for borrowers buying a home near public transit.  Similar to the EEM, this option, often called a location-efficient mortgage, recognizes the savings from living in a transit-friendly community.  Seattle is one of the pilot cities for Fannie Mae’s location efficient mortgages, although it looks like a couple lenders may offer them to all customers.  The city of Seattle even has a map showing the most efficient locations.

It's About Time

Feeling overworked? Join the Take Back Your Time movement at the national conference in Seattle this week. The people at Take Back Your Time want to challenge the notion that success should be primarily measured in economic terms and bring work and life back into balance. (Good thing, because research in the growing field of happiness economics suggests that the link between money and happiness is weak.)

As it is, Americans are putting in about nine weeks more per year than our European counterparts, and more than the citizens of any other industrial country. With all the hours we put in working (and hours--or make that days--spent commuting to work), there isn’t much time for other pursuits such as connecting with friends, spending time with family, and just kicking back.

The conference examines ways to reclaim time, and supports policies such as guaranteed paid childbirth leave, three weeks vacation, and capping overtime.

Financing A Forest

Oregon appears set to lead the way in an innovative approach to protecting forestlands. A new state law allows local governments to form "forest authorities," which can purchase forests using government bonds. The authority retires the bond with the revenue generated by sustainable-yield timber cutting and perhaps even recreation fees. The upshot is that local governments can preserve both timber jobs and forests, rather than losing them to sprawling development. It's not surprising that the first forest authority will be near Bend, where population is booming and development is rampant.

Conservationists in Washington tried the same tactic a few years back when the Evergreen Forest Trust attempted to purchase 100,000 acres of Weyerhauser forest in King County. The attempt ultimately sputtered out because Congress dragged its feet on approving tax-exempt bonds (which are more attractive to investors) for conservation measures. But Oregon's Republican Senator Gordon Smith is going to try again.

The Eugene Register-Guard has the full story.

The Big Bad... Elk

More evidence of ecological restoration via the wolf, this time in Canada's Banff National Park. Researchers there found that when wolves disappeared from areas with heavy human presence, elk populations spiked and the ecosystem changed:

Willow trees, river-loving birds called willow warblers and American redstarts, and beaver dams once were common in Bow Valley and surrounding areas. But in the areas where wolves remained scarce and elk populations mushroomed, these plants and animals were less common.

Researchers in Yellowstone National Park, have found much the same thing. The return of the wolf in the mid-1990s meant a return to more natural conditions.

And in an ironic twist on the mythology of the wolf as a dangerous maneater, it turns out that elk in the park are actually more dangerous to humans than wolves. According to the lead scientist, in Banff National Park alone:

"Seven people are sent to hospitals every year on average by getting into a fight with an elk. They are 250 kg (550 pounds) on average so you don't want to get into a fight with one."

Human injuries or death from wild wolves are exceedingly uncommon. In fact, in the entire 20th century not a single person in North America was killed by a wolf.

UPDATE 8/5/05: A great article in today's Globe and Mail on the wolves of Banff National Park and their ripple effect.

Rhapsody in Blueberry

One of my supreme August pleasures is eating juicy blueberries by the handful. It’s those local blueberries, and the latest installment of The Tyee’s series on "The 100-mile diet," that are inspiring me to cook an all-local-food dinner party next week.

As we noted here, a British Columbia couple is reporting on their experience eating only food produced within 100 miles of their home for a year. Their summer report doesn’t make it sound too rough: salmon with organic sage butter, fresh fava beans, and sweet gypsy peppers anyone?

The series is a good reminder that eating locally produced food not only reduces greenhouse gas emissions, but puts the eater more in touch with how food is produced. As one of the writers--J.B. MacKinnon--puts it: “It is easier to make ethical decisions about sustainability and animal husbandry when you can walk onto the farm and see for yourself. Distance is the enemy of awareness.”

Eating locally also supports the economy of local producers that are using organic and sustainable practices.

Since August in the Northwest is the time for enjoying hiking and eating blueberries, MacKinnon uses part three of the series to sing the praises of the flavors, variety, and cuisine within miles of his home. And he suggests (with recipes!) we all try our hand, even if just for one evening, at the 100-mile diet.

Unhappy Trails

For many northwesterners, summer means an all-too-brief window to capitalize on the region's natural heritage. For a few months city-dwellers like myself become schizophrenics--living in an apartment during the week and waking up in a sleeping bag on the weekends. Northwesterners have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to trails and wilderness within a short drive of our cities. In the wild country of the Northwest's mountains, it is still possible to find solitude on high country trails, in alpine lake basins that look like Shangri La, and in ancient dark forests.

But our ability to experience those places is facing a very real threat because many of the best trails to those refuges are going extinct. In some cases, the loss of trails is an especially bitter pill to swallow because there is comparatively ample funding for the roads that lead to those vanishing trails.

In the US Northwest, the vast majority of our precious natural beauty is not managed by northwesterners, but by two federal agencies, the US Forest Service, which operates national forests, and the National Park Service. Both agencies are badly under-funded and short-handed.

In fact,the Forest Service is already beginning to sell off assets. Many national forests lack the resources necessary even to maintain their crumbling infrastructures of campgrounds, forest roads, boat launches, and trails. National forests are increasingly dependent on volunteers and private funding to make up for the severe shortfall of federal dollars.

Here's a case study that hits very close to home for an estimated 5 million northwesterners: the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest--the huge swath of federal land that blankets the west side of the Cascade Mountains from the Canadian border to Mount Rainier National Park. Right now, the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie's website says:

While it appears that repairs to roads are largely funded and most will eventually be made, the same can not yet be said for the trail system.

Here's why.

In October 2003, an autumn deluge of unheard of proportions swept away large chunks of well-known routes like the Pacific Crest Trail, the Stehekin Valley trails, and many others. In fact, the flood did about $4.5 million in damage just to trails in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, not counting additional havoc in Olympic and North Cascades National Parks. (For more on this, read my article that appeared in the Seattle Weekly in May 2004 linking the trail damage to climate change.) 

Even now, in 2005, the National Forest has only about one-tenth of the necessary funding to make the repairs. Groups like Washington Trails Association and The Mountaineers have made heroic efforts to help the National Forest win funding and have volunteered countless hours to help repair the damage. But the fundamental problem is too great to be overcome by volunteers: the forest simply needs more money for trails and the federal government isn't about to supply anywhere near the money required.

But there is plenty of money available for repairing the many forest roads that were damaged by the October floods. (The floods did a number on the roads too, most notoriously the popular Mountain Loop Highway that no longer makes a loop because of washouts near Barlow Pass. Still, road repair is pretty much a sure thing.) The Federal Highway Administration operates a program called the Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO, for short) and the National Forest was able to qualify for ERFO funding to repair most of the flood damage.

The problem, of course, is that hikers and other recreationists may be left with roads that lead to trailheads, but no actual trails. This is not just a bizarre hypothetical. The White Chuck River Road is slated for repairs soon, but to my knowledge there are not enough resources to repair the White Chuck Trail that leads to Kennedy Hot Springs, the Pacific Crest Trail, and the shortest route of the several long routes up Glacier Peak, a popular mountaineering destination.

Don't blame local Forest Service officials--they're making the best of incredibly scarce resources. Instead, you can blame federal funding scarcity--and restrictions on existing funding--that hamstrings forests like the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie.

Without trails, recreation in national forests becomes based on either internal combustion or on the strength, skill, and time to navigate large stretches of difficult trail-less country. The latter is a more authentic wilderness experience, I suppose, but certainly not something the whole family can enjoy.

One possible solution is to convert some of the roads, or portions of them, to trails. Olympic National Forest has experimented with this solution with the damaged Dossewallips River Road that once led to trails to Lake Constance and Mount Constance, near Hood Canal. It's controversial to say the least. One the up side: the forest gains a few additional miles of trail and the area's natural resources are arguably better preserved. On the downside: some of the best  destinations in the forest are put out of reach of day hikers and families. (The same thing effectively happened years ago on the gated road to Monte Cristo that is now mainly the province of mountain bikes and hiking boots.)

Settling on the right mix of access roads, good trails, and deep (trail-less) wilderness is not easy. In any mix, however, it's galling to find that there is ample funding for cars, but very little for feet.

There ought to be a large natural constituency for the trails of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie. The forest is located within a 70-mile drive of over 3.6 million Washingtonians (and also nearby to 1.5 million British Columbians). No surprise, it's one of the most heavily visited national forests in the country and in recent years it has also become one of the most devoted to trail-based recreation.

It's something of a truism to urge people to contact their representatives in Congress, but that really is one of the best things you can do for trails in the Northwest. Congress controls the purse strings and has the power to fund trail restoration and maintenance. And then when you've done that, hook up with Washington Trails Association or the Mountaineers--they are vocal advocates for muscle-powered recreation on federal land and. They also put their muscles where their mouths are, donating thousands of hours of work to help repair trails.

The Mount Baker-Snoqualmie is a national gem. Just a short drive from downtown skyscrapers you can find your way into more than 1.3 million acres of designated wilderness and even today find plenty of places to be alone with jaw-dropping scenery. If we can't find money to protect our nearest and dearest natural places, is there any hope for the far-flung and less-visited wild places that make the Northwest special?