How much do I need to hold up my reputation as a bicycle tourist?

Nice autumn rains are back. I was thinking of doing a several day bike tour, but the long range forecast turned wetter. That trip could have been just to uphold my image as a bike tourist. A rainy forecast is another excuse to cancel that plan. Instead, I did my day trip to Birch Bay as the weather was sunny on Monday.

People keep asking "Do you have any long trips planned this year?"

I keep saying that there are so many social things to do in Bellingham, not to mention all the stuff I want to do online, that holding up my reputation as a bicycle tourist gets more difficult. It's like juggling a lot of things, motel reservations, weather, routes with less traffic and so forth. I still plan to do some long distance trips in beyond my 71st birthday, but doing it just to prove myself isn't that appealing anymore.

It could be old age, but my legs and my lungs are still fine. I am getting tired of riding alongside all that traffic. These days, I plan routes carefully with bike trails and lightly traveled, or better shouldered, roads. I take transit with the easy to use bike racks on buses. This can skip me over less desirable areas. In years past, there were no County Connector buses. We have them in this area now, but they are very rare in areas like Eastern Washington.

In past years, I wanted to prove myself by pedaling the entire way, such as when I took 2 1/2 months off and ended up in Massachusetts. Even with my ability to take a bus, with my bike, to Mount Vernon for just 1 dollar (senior citizen rate, $2 general), I still prefer to bike most of my distances, mostly because I take so many pictures. My trip to Birch Bay was all from pedaling my bicycle and I got over 100 photos. I used to pride myself riding all the way to Seattle, but now I take buses at least as far as Everett. Most roads, in North Snohomish County, are pretty bad.

In the past, there was less traffic, but I also got through North Snohomish County by riding on the wide shoulder of I-5. I could still do that, I guess, but traffic is flying by at over 70 mph. I still remember the days of the 55 mph speed limit due to the 1970-80s energy crisis. Snohomish Centennial Trail is wonderful, but getting to its north trailhead is a bit challenging. I might as well take buses to Everett, in south Snohomish County, and then ride in the more friendly urban areas around Seattle. Those urban areas have bike paths and quiet residential streets galore.

Long trips and leave of absence was great while I was working. My night shift job as a custodian was a bit mundane and the trips were a good excuse to take time off work.

That job was a good job, however. Nice people, low stress and a good cause. I was on the custodial crew of the YMCA.

My avocations of bike travel, writing, and the gay community life were more interesting than just the job, itself. Now that I am retired, I still seem to have a life filled up with gratifying things to do.

I'm glad I did those ambitious trips during my younger, working years. Many people wait till retirement to follow their dreams. I may have been living in my dreamworld all my life.

I may have been in a dreamworld, but I did work. I wasn't in a high end position. Rents were quite affordable back then. Now I am in subsidized housing, but I still pay (I think) around 2/3 market rate for my little studio apartment. My subsidized rent calculated based on my income.

Meanwhile, I'm enjoying life in Bellingham.

In the quest for a more affordable city, does Zohran Mamdani have a needed perspective?

Since I have opinions about so many things, I can try venturing into New York City politics as well. Zohran Mamdani is making news a winner of the city's democratic primary. A fresh new face and energy. I look forward to learning more.

One reservation is some old ideas, I think he has for things like rent control. One problem is that rent control might just be pushing around the problem of expensive housing due to lack of supply. Some will say that "build, build, build" works better, but I see the need for deep thinking versus some of these simplistic discussions.

Rent control may mean less housing construction due to economics.

Here is yet another factor. Maybe the central city is already pretty dense so building a lot more could harm it's breathing room, however. How about densifying the suburbs? I tend to think that there may be a comfort limit to how dense San Francisco, itself can get. I know, I'm now talking about a different city. The city does work due to transit and so forth. To make things more affordable why can't we build out the suburbs more and connect things with less automobile based transit beyond just the central cities themselves? What I am advocating is happening, to some extent, but I think we need political slogans that look at the big picture. I know it may be hard to put the big picture into a slogan.

Another thing to think about. Cities tend to be more liberal than the countryside. A political divide. One way to address that is to provide more autonomy to cities as they tend to think different than more rural areas. Saying that, I realize, however that I am suggesting making the suburbs more like the cities. The suburbs at least.

Are Washington State's carbon limits actually reducing the state's carbon footprint?

Some Republicans in Washington State Legislature want quicker access to results for lower carbon emissions from the state to measure if things like Cap and Trade are actually working.

Personally, I have a different measure. What do we get in return from the money collected? It could be bringing us less traffic, expanded bus service, more trains to Spokane, than only one train that arrives after midnight, and so forth. Worth it.

As for emissions from this state, I think it's working, somewhat. Not always an easy measure, due to other factors clouding the results; such as state population, continued car addiction and economic growth. In spite of these other factors, clouding the measurement of results, are carbon emissions, from our state, actually going, down?

Cascadia High-Speed Rail project may not be the best way to improve rail service in Washington State.

Money being spent to study high speed rail in Western Washington.

The most difficult part of the project would be procuring the right of way through Western Washington's built up environment. High property values, multiple road crossings, lots of neighborhood and environmentalist objections are likely to be deal breakers.

Maybe speed isn't as important as most of mainstream society thinks. When I travel, I enjoy the scenery along the way as well as conversation with other passengers on the train. The trip itself is as much part of the experience as the destination.

I think money would be better spent extending passenger rail service to underserved areas of the state; such as the Yakima Valley. There could be more convenient service to Spokane besides the only train arriving late at night.

Some of those areas already have underutilized right of way for rail such as the double track rail line that carries only an occasional freight train over Stampede Pass from Seattle area to the Ellensburg and Yakima areas. This could connect Yakima Valley to the Tri Cities thus connecting with existing Spokane to Portland passenger route. Money might be better spent to improve service east of the Cascade Mountains.

Double track rail line crossing near Snoqualmie Pass between Seattle and Ellensburg.

There is already a double track rail line over Stampede Pass just south of Snoqualmie Pass. I took this picture during a bike trip along yet another rail right of way crossing Snoqualmie Pass; the old Milwaukie Line now a bicycle trail. Trains can still use the Stampede rail route while bicycles use the old Milwaukie line; now called Cascades to Palouse Trail. No need to take out a bike path.

Around 2004, this below cartoon appeared related to a Highway 9 Transportation Corridor Study. Yes, improvements could help alternative transportation, but I guess residents of the Acme area worry that it comes with more mainstream development and traffic.

On a personal note, someone drew this cartoon for the front page of this little newspaper, while my letter to the editor, holding out hope for improvements along Highway 9, was inside. The Sun is no longer published, but I keep it as a fun keepsake. I like to chuckle thinking about these planning meetings. That Transportation Corridor Study is basically now collecting dust, as far as I know.

Today, much of highway 9 is still a dangerous road with no shoulder along many stretches with increasing volume of truck and car traffic. I now refuse to ride on most of Highway 9 for my own safety.

Rightwing backlash against efforts to address climate change.

Attempts to maintain status quo in our car dependent, sprawling neighborhoods fuels rightwing pushback against government's attempts to lower the carbon footprint. Increased costs for things like gasoline often do fall harder on low income people.

Being willing to accept change, in our lifestyles and neighborhood designs, could bring realization that using public transit is less expensive than expecting people to own cars.

We do need to make deeper cultural changes than just having governments pass rules to try and meet lower carbon emission goals. I still plan, however, to vote against Initiative 2117 to repeal Washington's Cap and Trade system. Maybe cap and trade wasn't the best design, but it's something to address climate change. Looking at it another way, it does fund lots of things that benefit our state, such as salmon recovery, public transit and road safety improvements.

Yes, I realize that public transit is not available in all areas or convenient enough for some people. I think it is more convenient than most people realize, however.

Transition to greener technologies tends to take time. Solar energy's rollout, for instance could end up being slower than the goals set by government mandates.

Laws that ratchet up costs, such as cap and trade's increasing limits on carbon emission credits as the years go by, are likely to keep ratcheting up the cost of fossil fuels. This will likely happen faster than our ability to make the changes we need so it's not surprising that there is pushback; from lower income people especially.

Still, it does look like the polls are in favor of keeping the cap and trade, for now, in Washington State; a fairly liberal state. Conservatism, partially driven by the wish to hang onto "status quo economic life" seems more pronounced in other parts of USA. The red states, for instance.

In the long run, we do need to accept change, at a deeper personal and cultural level, than just imposing it by government mandate. Government mandates, that inconvenience people, tend to bring rightwing pushback, however I still do vote for them, usually. They are better than nothing, but they often do get tossed out, given the mood of the nation, at the ballot box.

Instead of waiting 30 more years for high speed rail, lets improve regular speed rail and bus service.

I've read a sponsored link from Microsoft and Seattle Times advocating high speed rail between Vancouver, BC and Portland, OR. It says trains could be running by 2050; possibly too late to benefit me in this lifetime; maybe if there's reincarnation.

Meanwhile, if speed wasn't such a prerequisite, we can already go to Mount Vernon, from Bellingham for $2 on the County Connector bus that runs quite frequently. We can go on to Everett, via County Connector and then connect to many destinations in Seattle area.

We could use more frequent train service, besides only one per day, going from Seattle to Spokane that gets into Spokane around 2 am. More train service to Spokane could be provided within the next few years as rail lines already exist.

Train service could be brought back from Seattle to Yakima and Tri Cities on already existing rails.

We could use more frequent rail service between Bellingham and Seattle, but much of that route is only single track and right of way is congested. Meanwhile Amtrak is running electric buses, on I-5, for more service between Bellingham and Seattle, so I hear. The lower carbon future could be closer than we think.

Maybe we could even do both, but the high speed rail would need new right of way and so forth. Stuff that could take decades to finance and do.

Below: A double track line over Stampede Pass near I-90, east of Seattle, that's not super busy. Could do more to link Seattle to points east.

If batteries for electric cars are a problem, we need less cars. More electric trolleys run from the overhead wire with no need for the battery.

Some people say that electric cars are just as bad, if not worse, than fossil fuel cars due to things like chemicals, mining and manufacturing. If that's the case, I would say we have to reduce the use of private cars altogether. Go to more walking, bicycling and public transit.

On the other hand, I think that electric cars are much better than fossil fuel cars. I wonder what motivates so much pushback against electric cars? Is it conservatives who just want to play the devil's advocate? As much of society is pushing toward electrification, there will be naysayers.

On the other hand, I do think there are big problems with a society so dependent on automobiles. Electrification does present some logistical challenges. Some of the worry about chemicals and batteries may have merit even though there are ways to address these issues.

People often say that reducing automobile dependency is impractical. I think we need to make changes on many fronts. Electrification and reducing automobile dependency.

If we listen to the naysayers, I guess there is nothing we can do.

If the battery is a big problem, we already have a solution. The trolley buses, in Seattle and other cities run directly from the power grid through overhead wires; no need for the onboard battery.

It's another argument for denser development to make transit lines more viable, plus smaller residences would cut down on heating and air conditioning demand as well as material consumption; no place to store too much junk at home.

Private cars might even be able to run on a system of trolley wires, or even getting their electricity from the road itself. If the battery is even that big of a problem, there are solutions, but we do need big changes in the way we plan our living arrangements.

Electric trolley style mass transit gets around the battery chemicals problem

There is some worry, not just from right wing pundits, but from others that a green energy revolution may be difficult. One big concern is the chemicals needed in batteries for cars and utility power storage; the mining and so forth.

I still think we should migrate more to public transit which can function without batteries. Seattle's trolley bus system, for instance. Electricity fed direct from overhead lines.

More compact city planning, more transit, walking and bicycling is needed.

Electrification is better than fossil fuels, but the transition may not be as easy as some folks think. Heat pumps can save lots of energy for buildings. They are better than regular electric heating, but smaller homes are a virtue as well.

We need to think beyond just sitting back and expecting that battery technology will do it all for us in just the next two decades or so. That's a tall order.

How about a lane just for transit and tractor trailers?

I've seen a proposal to allow big trucks to have their own lane on multi lane freeways of 3, or more lanes in each direction. Might be a good idea because I've always thought there should be a "bus only" lane for transit. Maybe buses and big trucks could team up to get this through, politically, plus getting through the constant clog of traffic.

Today's HOV lanes, through Seattle area, don't seem to work as they allow vehicles with only 2 occupants. There are so many 2 occupant vehicles that traffic seems just as clogged, in the HOV lanes, as in the regular lanes.

If transit could get through without being held up in traffic, maybe there would be less traffic as there would be more incentive for folks would use transit instead of private cars.

The only times I've recently been on that section of freeway, between Marysville and Seattle, I've been on a bus stuck in traffic in the HOV lane.

Last summer, when I was on Greyhound through that area, the bus took Highway 99 from Marysville to Everett and then went around by way of I-405 and I-90 to Seattle. This route hoping they could get around the traffic on I-5; HOV lanes and all.

We should be promoting alternative transit rather than just relying on electric cars.

This society has placed it's hope on the conversion to electric cars. That can be a step forward, but it's drawbacks are often pointed out.

Electric is much better than fossil fuel cars, but if electric cars aren't the saving grace, society has just been following another distraction. We really really need to do more to reduce automobile dependency altogether.

That means more public transit, walking, bicycling and changes in the way we plan the landscape.

Transformative change might be easier to make in China, versus USA in gridlock, but I still would prefer USA.

In some ways, it's easier for an authoritarian system, like in Mainland China, to make transformative changes to deal with climate change. For instance China has an easier time building high speed rail.

Here in USA, trying to respect the rights of all the interest groups brings us to gridlock. Still, I prefer the US system for it's freedom of speech. Better innovations happen when people are allowed to think outside the box.

Maybe we have gone too far in that freedom, to the point of gridlock. If we could figure out how to maintain our rights to speak out, to have transparency and to think outside the box, while reducing the gridlock we face, it could be the key to a better future.

Light rail is so expensive. Maybe Bus Rapid Transit is the way to go.

For decades, the freeway traffic in Seattle has been so congested that commutes are a crawl. One would think after all these years they would figure out a better way to go.

If they could have a transit only lane on all freeways through Seattle metro that had at least 3 lanes of traffic (6 lanes both ways), there could be something called "bus rapid transit." Seattle metro has lots of freeways with at least 3 lanes in both directions.

Bus rapid transit could use existing infrastructure. It would be less expensive than trying to build light rail; something that takes years to develop. They did just finish Sound Transit Light Rail as far north as the old Northgate area and it's under construction farther north into Lynwood and east across Lake Washington. This takes years and billions of dollars to build.

On the freeways, they do have HOV lanes, but populism allows too many cars into the HOV lanes so the traffic is just as gridlocked in the HOV lanes as in the regular lanes. Everything gets stuck in traffic.

If they had bus only lanes, at least the buses could get through. Then there would be more incentive to take the bus thus reducing the congestion of cars in all the lanes.

I remember, a few years ago, the HOV lanes worked kind of well as one had to have at least 3 people in a vehicle to be in the HOV lane. Eventually this limit was lowered to two people so the HOV lane is almost as congested as all the other lanes with single passenger cars.

Everyone is still stuck in traffic after all these many decades.

My vision of a low consumption, high technology future. Goes back to my college days.

I would like to see a world that, for the most part, embraces the abundance provided by technology. Smartphones, for instance.

At the same time, voluntary simplicity in terms of space used and resources consumed.

There are recent trends in electronic technology that use less energy and space. Microchips versus vacuum tubes, heat pumps versus woodstoves.

I would like to see less cultural pressure to work long hours and consume. Having more free time and work life balance would be good.

I would like to see less use of the private automobile due to the space and resources it consumes. Also the safety / accident problem. My ideal world would see more use of public transit and bicycles. Bicycles for health and the beauty of what can be seen at a slower pace.

High tech transit, like the Skytrain in Vancouver, BC. (actually started in 1986!) is good, but the simple city bus works also. We already have, at hand, much of what my future world would use.

Life could generally be at a slower and at a less stressful pace, but technology would be available and used wisely.

Most people would live in urban settings for transit, walking, bicycling and to protect farmlands from sprawl. Some folks would live in rural settings; especially if engaged in resource production such as farming, forestry and tourism.

Biden talks about the successful Northeast Amtrak corridor. I compare it to California.

Biden's speech for the 50th anniversary of Amtrak said some amazing things about the Northeast rail corridor.

Interesting part of the speech, for me, starts at 16 minutes in and goes to about 19 minutes. Just 3 minutes of amazing numbers. Between New York and Washington, DC, Amtrak carries 4 times as many passengers as all the airlines along the east coast. Amazing.

One wonders if these numbers stand up to fact checking, but, so far, I haven't heard it disputed.

If those Amtrak passengers had to go by car, 7 new lanes would have to be added to I-95.

Yes, rail works in the Northeast Corridor. It goes pretty fast, but isn't considered "high speed rail" by certain international standards. Still, it's pretty good.

Biden said that there are only 3 curves, along that route, which could be removed to bring this already existing line closer to high speed.

I got to thinking they already have a good right of way through a densely populated corridor. That's why rail works so good there. The dream of fast trains, in California, is more the brunt of jokes.

High speed going through California's Central Valley, between San Francisco and Los Angeles is too already built up with sprawl for a new dedicated corridor. Too many crossings and so forth. Prime farmland. Sprawling cities, like Fresno. That's a problem with California's proposed high speed line between San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Another fast train idea might work better for California, however.

Los Angeles to Las Vegas, Nevada. That is now being talked about for high speed rail. Much of that corridor is sparsely populated desert with the two large passenger generation points at both ends. Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

I think the dream of a nationwide high speed network is beyond our means, but we can benefit from rail improvements.

When I use Amtrak, I'm on vacation so speed isn't the only criteria.

The police do make some mistakes, but they get too much blame for society's problems.

I'll admit I may be writing from a position of white privilege, but I do feel that so much media focus on deadly mistakes made by police usually leaves out some deeper issues. These mistakes are bound to happen in tense situations.

Conservatives will say that the violent crime rate is higher in black neighborhoods. Maybe better to say in poor neighborhoods. Discussing underlying causes of these problems is valuable.

I only have my own opinions, but I think about things like restrictive "single family" zoning and it's contribution to the high cost of housing.

Segregation is often an unintended consequence of things, in society, that are designed to protect people's wealth and peace of mind. In the past, there was a history of more overt racism behind lots of urban planning decisions, but now many traditions, rooted in the past, continue without the overt stated racism.

I've seen some articles about this. The racial roots of some zoning rules that have been cleansed of their original, 1950s, language, but still are enforce.

I would think that over dependence on the automobile contributes to problems. The way freeways have carved up cities.

There is the problem of traffic stops in the first place. A fear of what's lurking inside vehicles. Who's behind the tinted glass? Do they have a gun? Were they reckless drivers? Are they on drugs? Automobiles, in the hands of the general public, can be very dangerous. I think about the problem of "stranger danger." How wary ordinary people are of folks they don't know. A lot of people fear using public transit for that reason, but is public transit really as dangerous, or unpleasant, as folks perceive?

I think maybe we should all be more accepting of strangers.

There is a lot of suspicion, out there, created by a climate of fear. Media can enhance fear as it often highlights the one in a million type fluke events and crimes when the overall statistics might say that common activities; like driving a car, are more dangerous. More dangerous than, say riding a bus with unknown passengers.

Scared to ride the bus? Picture of haunted Whatcom Transit bus, Halloween 2010.

When people get to know each other, fear usually diminishes. Problem is that in most situations, there isn't time to develop a rapport with people we encounter.

A group of menacing looking teenagers might be fine, if one gets to know them more. Even just some brief conversation. Most situations don't allow that, however. People will walk across the street instead. I'll admit I'd walk across the street also.

I'm a bit shy on first contact with people, but, if the opportunity is there, I am pretty open to meeting new people. I don't worry too much about privacy or being out there in public. Still, I avoid things out of fear as well.

Some folks are very insular and stay in their small world of friends. That's a common part of human nature. Other folks are more open to mingling with the public, with the diversity that the public mix brings.

Maybe we do need to be more tolerant and not allow as many things to annoy us. Sometimes, though, people can be annoying and even outright dangerous. There are times when one has to call a spade a spade. I would think that the police aren't usually going out there arresting people without cause.

The police have to deal with things all the time. People and situations that other folks, including myself, tend to avoid. Part of the problem is the way our society tends to isolate people from one another. It's kind of a natural cliquishness. I think a lot of the problems, related to the police, are more the symptoms of human tendencies. Things that would cause everyone to have to rethink their own tendencies.

As for stranger danger, here is a funny thought I often have walking on the sidewalk. When I see some young people heading my direction on skateboards, my first thought is often, "they are cute." My second thought is to jump out of the way.

Fortunately, I am still quite agile so jumping out of the way works. Also, even if I didn't jump, they can almost always swerve around me anyway. They are kind of fun to watch.

My point being to try and have a different mindset than fear, or anger is often a good strategy.

Imagine the United States with a population of 1 billion people. A thought experiment.

An interesting thought experiment. What if the US had one billion people? This video says it could be beneficial, due to a larger economy. Bigger markets, more workers, more skills, economic growth.

But what about the environment? Toward the end of this video, the environment was not ignored. Some of the problems and potential solutions were discussed in figuring out how to accommodate 1 billion Americans.

One thing that wasn't mentioned, though, is over population worldwide. At over 7 billion, can the planet survive? 11 billion?

Maybe the US could survive if 1 billion, out of that 7 billion+ people, were to relocate here. The US might be able to hold a larger share of the world's people, but I'd say there is a limit to how many people can comfortably live on earth.

My first thought is that 1 billion Americans would create total gridlock in many aspects of life; especially traffic. If Americans insisted on living, the way Americans do today. Would you be able to find a parking spot?

For 1 billion people to live in USA, big changes would need to be made in the way folks live. More people would have to use alternative transit. There would have to be planning for higher density where most would be living.

As birthrates in the US have dropped, most of this population increase would come from immigration.

According to the video, immigration can fuel economic growth as it has done for decades, but video points out hypocrisy among Republicans who oppose immigration. Republicans seem to want economic growth, but not the growing number of people that fuel the bigger markets.

Republicans say they just oppose illegal immigration which is a valid point, but the author of this video points out that recent Republican policies have strived to reduce legal immigration as well.

Due to China's large market, China is gaining clout and will soon surpass USA.

This video says that Hollywood is now having to kowtow, more and more, to the wishes of the Chinese market. He cited films where mention of Tibetan independence is being removed by Hollywood film makers so the film can sell in China.

I think that this happens, unless there can be custom versions of the film for different markets.

When I was a child, I thought that China's big population was more of a drag; like a millstone around the neck, than a benefit. Too many people for the land and resources.

During my childhood, natural resources, such as minerals, were thought of as wealth. How much copper, iron, timber and food products can you produce? Today, intellectual creativity is more thought of as wealth. In some cases, the more people, the more wealth. Copper and iron can be either recycled or imported.

Still, I have to keep saying, Bigger is not necessarily better and how we live in the environment can make or break us.

Recent Goal Keeper's report says world prosperity now in reverse. I wonder if world has reached peak prosperity?

Something called the Goal Keepers Report, from the Gates Foundation, has recently come out with a report saying world poverty is increasing again. Poverty had been in decline for quite a few years. Prosperity and health was on the increase, but most recently, these trends may have reversed. Report cites the corona virus pandemic as the main cause.

My thinking goes beyond to wondering if the world has reached something that could be called "peak prosperity?" Beyond just the virus, global warming brings other threats to the global economy.

Unless there are major changes in our ways of living and doing business, the growth of prosperity could have stalled.

There have been big problems all along, but increasing global prosperity has brought a form of complacency. Dire predictions of global die offs and the ongoing extinction of species has been countered by an overall increase in world prosperity. How long can these contradictions last?

World population growth continues to be a big problem, tho it has been slowing down as much of the world's standard of living has improved. There may be a limit to how much prosperity we can create for how many people. A limit given the way most of the world has been functioning up until now. Continuing dependency on fossil fuels as a case in point.

This report focused on effects of the pandemic, but I'm thinking beyond and questioning whether prosperity, itself, may have stalled.

Some people are critical of Bill Gates for having much wealth, himself. Still, I would guess the foundation does have a lot of knowledge about worldwide trends. Many of the things the foundation is trying to do are beneficial, such as research on vaccines.

Sometimes I do think about the Microsoft fortune in relation to the concept of missed opportunity, however. Much of it's work has focused on improving global health and education. The world is a big place and it seems like just drops in the bucket tho I'm sure it has been beneficial to many lives. Not always visible from our North American vantage point.

Meanwhile, in Seattle Metropolitan area, where Microsoft and the Gates Foundation are headquartered, the area is becoming, in some ways, more dysfunctional. I think lost opportunity.

Investments could have been made for Seattle area to solve it's traffic gridlock problems, lack of affordable housing, carbon footprint, transit and so forth.

One can't necessarily blame Microsoft for all of this as the whole culture, in USA, isn't that conducive to sustainable living. Former Microsoft Billionare Paul Allen comes more to mind with his local investments in sports teams for Seattle and the Experience Music Project.

It would have been neat if Seattle could have been a world leader for making it's city more livable, investing in affordable housing, transit, bike paths and so forth. It has done some, but the problems of population growth and traditional visions of prosperity outpaces the greener visions. At least one thinks dysfunctional looking at the traffic and the cost of living. Remember the CHOP Zone and social unrest. Does that city no longer work?

One way forward, for the world, is to look at things in Europe, I guess. Cities like (from what I've heard) Copenhagen in Denmark as examples of city planning and greener living. Cities that are prosperous. The world ought to aspire to be like those places.

Seattle area isn't that great an example.

Urban areas with different values need to have more autonomy

I think this country would work better if urban areas had more autonomy. After the $30 car tab initiative passed, here in Washington State, this columnist, in the Seattle Times, suggests the more in "urban" King County, be allowed to tax itself. Tim Eyman's tax cutting transit crippling initiative didn't pass if the vote were just taken within King County.

There is a big split between rural and urban thinking when it comes to the need for things like public transit. Unfortunately, statewide rules put limits on what urban areas can tax within their jurisdictions; even if the people within the urban areas vote for the taxes.

According to the article, the denser populated areas of King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties voted for more expensive car tab taxes to support the Sound Transit light rail plans. Other more rural areas in those counties voted against those taxes along with most of the rest of the state.

I think, if the taxes could be levied and voted on by precinct, it would be best. Even county lines don't always fit. Big areas of those 3 counties are less urban. The less urban voters in Pierce and Snohomish Counties were able to carry those counties for the cheaper car tab measure. The Tim Eyman measure. King County, itself, did vote against Tim Eyman on that.

This author is suggesting Sound Transit drop it's plans for expanding into Pierce and Snohomish Counties. Only do the build out within King County. There are a few Sound Transit services already in those counties, however, like the Sounder Train to Everet and the light rail in downtown Tacoma. He would suggest no more plans to expand light rail beyond King County.

I do tend to also see some merit in a comment, in the article, from Pierce County's executive who must not be a fan of rail. He says we would be better off with rapid bus transit. Bus transit rather than light rail. He could be right in that. Seems like America really can't do rail. In China, rail gets built whether property owners, in its path, want it or not. USA is different.

Buses might still be more practical, tho not as glamorous. The Pierce County executive suggests a dedicated "bus only" HOV lane between Seattle and Tacoma. This would get the buses out of the traffic snarl. Bus only HOV. Not an HOV lane that considers 2 passengers in a car to be mass transit. The current HOV lanes are clogged with traffic also.

Allowing urban areas more autonomy would be a great help. The needs and problems of rural and urban America are quite different.

High speed rail might be better as commuter rail than intercity rail in Pacific Northwest

There's some thought about doing building high speed rail from Portland, Oregon to Seattle and then to Vancouver, BC.

I just got to thinking that a better idea, given the state of our society, is to build the high speed rail from Seattle to Cle Elum, Washington. Make it a commuter rail, rather than an intercity rail.

I might be kind of a cynic, but this is what our society has come to. Housing is becoming so expensive, in Seattle area, that people often have to commute from way out. Cle Elum is on the east, sunny side of the Cascade Mountains. I hear that quite a few folks move there and still commute all the way to Seattle for at least the last years of their employment. They must be thinking of retiring in sunnier Cle Elum.

Could Cle Elum and Ellensburg become the new "East Side suburbs of Seattle? High speed rail could bring folks to Seattle in short order.

Meanwhile the idea of going from Seattle to Vancouver, BC or to Portland, for that matter, runs into the fear of existing property owners along the potential routes not wanting the rail line to bisect their neighborhoods. Going east, less people live in the Cascade Mountains. We would probably have to give up the Iron Horse Bicycle Trail, however. That would be the most likely route. The Iron Horse Trail is the old Milwaukee Road rail line. It even has it's own tunnel. I love the Iron Horse Trail, but I only get there once every few years.

Maybe the folks in Cle Elum / Ellensburg area wouldn't want to become a suburb of Seattle, however. It's kind of sick, in a way that it might come to that. Or maybe not. We, as humans, are sure capable of a lot of things. Cross the Cascades in less than 40 minutes? Earthworms can't do that. We have bigger brains to figure this stuff out.

As for speed, it does still look like the jet plane is still the preferred system for intercity long distance travel. High speed rail can't compete, so that's why I'm thinking commuter rail instead.

One advantage of rail, however, is getting around the increasing problem of airspace congestion at our airports. Seattle area may have pushed back that problem by opening up a new airport for commercial travel. Paine Field near Everett. Paine Field is now the an auxiliary airport for Seattle Metro. Bellingham is kind of an auxiliary airport for Vancouver, BC.

What about jet fuel and climate change, you ask? Maybe we need a carbon tax.

Meanwhile society keeps going sky high in more ways than one. Air travel and sky high property values around our major cities.

(1950) "Let's Go to Town - Solutions to City Traffic Congestion"

This video, from 1950, is a fascinating find. Talks about the problem of traffic congestion in big cities; especially downtown. The problem in 1950.

Seems like certain things don't change. The solution being proposed is to move people instead of cars. That idea is still being discussed today. The answer proposed is more public transit. Buses. Get people out of cars and onto buses. Much more efficient. Takes up less space.

Interesting who's proposing this solution. General Motors!

Yes, contrary to what some folks think today. The "big bad car company" is promoting public transit. It's the GM Bus division. This film is a promo for GM buses. Similar message to what I see in a lot of environmental planning videos of today.