Nonetheless, Democracy (in this case, the torch’n'pitchfork “any bum but this one” variety) works its magic, and we’ll have a new mayor come next year — which is too bad, if you’re a fan of transportation and big infrastructure investments.  Warts and all, Nickels has been the Transportation Mayor, and I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s at least a little bit scared about What Comes Next.

So it falls to us, the electorate of Seattle, to figure out which brand of new will be less bad when it comes to transportation.  While the worst that could be said of Nickels might have been that he was a little too fond of mega-projects, both Joe Mallahan and Michael McGinn have serious flaws when it comes to their support for progressive transportation policy.

McGinn is notably anti-tunnel (I think he missed the point of Nickels’ support for a tunnel; namely, you HAVE to build the surface option to get to the tunnel, which you punt 15 to 20 years into the future … meaning it never gets built).  Heck, the man staked his entire campaign on it.  Beyond that, I’m not sure McGinn really has much grasp on transportation.  His campaign website makes some vague promises to “eliminate overcrowded buses”, but to me that’s kind of like Nickels promising that it’ll never snow again.

Mallahan, for his part, offers far more specifics.  You can read them here, but I’ll summarize: screw Paul Allen and other developers.   Mallahan sounds terrifyingly like the “Lesser Seattle” group that torpedoed every modern development in Seattle until they finally couldn’t deep six the light rail.   He’s anti-streetcar, anti-Mercer Project.  He’s pro-tunnel.  He’s pro-bike.

McGinn’s lack of specifics are troubling, but at least he seems to be pro-growth.  I say “seems to be”.  It’ll be interesting to see how the candidates do for themselves in the weeks ahead.

And, if nothing else, at least the City Council gets it.  Look forward to the era of the weak mayor, Seattle.

Gutter John actually wins a point for owning foreign vehicles, but loses 12 points for owning 13 damn cars in the first damn place. You’d think that someone whose wife asserts that the only reasonable way to get around Arizona the use of a private plane could get by with, say, 7 personal vehicles.

But then, I suppose that each house needs to have a car located there to keep the garages from feeling that sad, cold, emptiness.

They’re getting out of the leasing business because their gas guzzlers have such little resale value, they’re not worth taking back at the end of the lease. Auto makers have not yet begun to feel the full brunt of the change in consumer driving habits. One of the Big 3 will be toast before it’s all said and done.

Representative Anthony D. Weiner, Democrat of Brooklyn and Queens, drives a 2008 Chevrolet Impala, leased for $219 a month. Representative Michael R. McNulty, a Democrat from the Albany area, gets around in a 2007 Mercury Mariner hybrid, a sport utility vehicle, for $816 a month.

“It gets a little better than 25 miles a gallon,” Mr. McNulty said.

Charles B. Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is not so caught up in the question of gas mileage. He leases a 2004 Cadillac DeVille for $777.54 a month. The car is 17 feet long with a 300-horsepower engine and seats five comfortably.

“It’s one of the bigger Cadillacs,” Mr. Rangel, of Harlem, said cheerfully this week. “I’ve got a desk in it. It’s like an airplane.”

Modest or more luxurious, the cars are all paid for by taxpayers. The use of a car — gas included — is one of the benefits of being a member of the House of Representatives.

There are few restrictions on what kind of car the members can choose, and there is no limit on how much they can spend. But the benefit can be politically sensitive, given the growing concerns about automobile emissions and an economy that has left many people struggling to pay for the rapidly rising cost of gas, which was averaging $3.63 a gallon nationwide earlier this week.

Not only does the federal government pick up the cost of the lease and the gas, but also general maintenance, insurance, registration fees and excess mileage charges. The perk itself may draw heightened attention in the coming weeks as members of Congress consider proposals to address gas prices, including one to suspend temporarily the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon.

Congressional records show that about 125 members of the House make use of the benefit, which has been in place since at least the 1980s and is part of the allowance provided for their office operations. They include Representatives Charlie Melancon of Louisiana (2007 Chevy Tahoe), Bobby L. Rush of Illinois (2007 Lincoln Navigator) and Alcee L. Hastings of Florida (2006 Infiniti M45).

The Senate does not permit its members to lease cars with public money.

The WRX has a 15.9 gallon gas tank, and requires premium gasoline. With premium gas running $3.929 per gallon in the Seattle market, a full tank costs $62.47. Presume that Congress elects to implement the McCain/Clinton plan for a Gas Tax Holiday.

1) Assuming that the price of premium gasoline remains fixed at $3.929/gal., how much money in dollars does Apocalypse Tom save on his weekly trip to the pump if his weekly top-off requires purchase of 3/4 tank? What can Tom buy with the savings?

2) What is Apocalypse Tom’s percentage savings over the taxed price, again assuming a fixed price of $3.929/gal.? Round your answer to the nearest hundredth of a percent.

3) Because the Gas Tax Holiday is sure to be temporary, what is Apocalypse Tom’s total savings in dollars over a period of 20 weeks?

4) Assuming that he chooses to save the extra money calculated in Question 1 instead of spending it on junk food, how much whiskey can Apocalypse Tom purchase with the accumulated savings, in order to get him through a notional McCain inauguration?

Answers After the Jump. Seriously, try to work it out, and let Tom know if you think he’s insane.

1) Trick question. Apocalypse Tom saves a consistent 18.4 cents per gallon during the Gas-Tax holiday regardless of changes in the price of gas. Overall, Tom saves $2.19 on 3/4 of a tank of gas if the tax is eliminated. With $2.19, Tom can purchase one 16 oz. bottle of water and one “Big Grab” bag of Doritos for the drive.

2) Apocalypse Tom saves 4.68% on his gas.

3) Tom saves $43.80 over 20 weeks.

4) God, not nearly enough.

The bad news, is that Alaska is grounding some flights. The good news is that Alaska apparently ony has 9 — that’s right, nine — MD-80s left in their fleet. I hate the MD-80, and love the cushy new 737s Alaska’s been rolling out, so this is good news for me.

Also, while scouring the archives for my previous rants on the MD-80, I uncovered this post, where I noted that American is rushing to get more 737s in the air, because they consume 25% less fuel than the MD-80.

I found myself watching Who Killed the Electric Car? last night, and it’s quite an interesting little movie.

One thing that’s hinted at in the film, but not really fleshed out, is the idea that electric cars are a really, really disruptive technology. Like any disruptive technology, they create a whole new class of winners and losers. And, just like health care reform, land use reform, or just about any large-scale government intervention, the existing winners will fight like hell to preserve the status quo (Iraq, anyone?).

Moving to electric cars would have several ramifications. Most obviously, electric utilities would replace oil companies as our primary transportation energy provider. Electric utilities tend to be heavily-regulated quasi-public entities, much more so than oil companies. On the minus side, electricity in the U.S. tends to come from coal. On the plus side, though, upgrading a single power plant to cleaner technology — hydro, nuclear, wind, etc. — will instantly make the whole transportation grid more carbon-friendly (instead of, say, increasing CAFE standards and waiting 10 years for people to buy new cars).

Also, the film makes the point that electric cars are simpler and much easier to maintain. This is great for consumers, but terrible for auto dealers, who make much more money from their service departments than they do from their sales floors. Add in the cost of re-training and re-certifying service techs, and you can see why auto dealers would prefer the status quo.

Finally, the auto companies, understandably, hated the idea that the government would pick be picking the winning technology, as the state of California seemed to be doing with the electrics, so they fought it like hell. Governments should never be in the business of picking technological winners and losers. Instead it should create the rules of the market (i.e. “vehicles must emit fewer than X particulates of CO2″) and let the technology follow from that.

The subject of the film, the GM EV1, was introduced in the late 90s when gas was still $1.40 or so per gallon and rechargable batteries were of the lead-acid variety that long-time laptop owners will remember as providing a stunning 30 minutes of battery life. With gas hitting $4/gallon, and Litium-ion batteries — such as thosed used in the Prius* — providing the power, it might be time to look at EVs again.

So how would you do it in a way that prevents the oil companies and car companies from killing it? Well, I think the EV1 provides some interesting lessons. First, as I said above, government has to set up the market correctly, which means pricing gasoline appropriately, facilitating charging stations, and generally not doing things that get in the way. Next, customers need to be educated about the idea that they could have different cars for different purposes. The EV1 is not a good car for the family vacation, but it’s fine for commuting, getting groceries, etc.

GM is prepping a new electric car, the Chevy Volt, for a possible 2010 launch. Right now it’s vaporware, but assuming they get it right, it could be a game-changer. CEO Rick Waggoner said that killing the EV1 was the biggest mistake he made, which is reassuring.

Critically speaking, the film is not a great documentary. There are gaping holes in the logic (such as the use of street interviews and anecdotes to “prove” that there was massive demand for the EV1), and the tone is uneven. But it’s an interesting story, one worth hearing.

* Update 3/25/08: The Prius uses NiMH batteries, but Toyota is experimenting with Li-Ion batteries for use down the road.

Photo by Flickr user Corvair Owner, used under a Creative Commons license.

Ricardo Caraballo was having a familiar American experience at the filling station the other day, groaning as the pump clicked up, up, up. By the time he finished it read $505, and his tank was only half full.

A few years ago, “$500 would have kept me rolling for two weeks,” he said. “Now, I’ll be lucky to make it three days.”

Mr. Caraballo is a trucker, and instead of gasoline he was buying 143 gallons of diesel. While the price of gasoline may be on the verge of setting another record, diesel is already there.

According to AAA, the motor club, the average nationwide diesel price has set records on 18 of the past 19 days, including Monday, when it hit $3.83 a gallon.

In the nation’s tool and die plants, in the driver’s seats of farm tractors and in the cabs of the long-haul semis that ply America’s highways, people are feeling the pain.

“It’s killing us,” said Chad Beachler, co-owner of Beachler Trucking, which operates nine trucks in Loudonville, Ohio. “Every day, I come in here and wonder if I have enough money to buy fuel.”

. . .

When Tony Jarachovic bought his white Kenworth semi in 1998, diesel cost 88 cents a gallon. Today the truck’s odometer reads 1.1 million miles. It needs new front tires, which together cost $900, and a major overhaul, which will cost $8,500.

Spending $1,500 a week on fuel has depleted his maintenance budget, however. Now he avoids driving from his home base in Lodi, Ohio, into Pennsylvania because the hills strain his motor. Mr. Jarachovic used to buy Krispy Kreme doughnuts at truck stops, and treat his family to dinner at Applebee’s every Sunday. Now his wife cooks extra spaghetti so he can eat leftovers on the road.

“I have no expenses left to cut,” Mr. Jarachovic said.

Trucking companies are looking for efficiencies, as well. O & S Trucking of Springfield, Mo., recently installed electronic devices in each of its 350 trucks to kill the engines automatically after they idle for two minutes, said Jim Frieze, the equipment director. And all the company’s trucks have devices that limit roadway speeds; Mr. Frieze has dialed those down from 70 miles an hour to 65 to conserve fuel. He audits every truck’s computer every week, searching for wasteful habits.

“If a driver’s gear shifts take him over 1,800 r.p.m., he’s just blowing fuel out the stack,” Mr. Frieze said. “I take him aside and counsel him to shift faster.”

The service between Baghdad and Basra resumed with little fanfare in December after a hiatus of 18 months. Few dared use it at first, but word has spread of a safe and cheap journey, and railway officials are scrambling for funds for more carriages.

“There’s been a great acceptance of the service … People do not feel anxious. They’re coming with their families,” said Abdul-Ameen Mahmoud, the railway company’s head of passenger transport.

The Iraqi General Railways Company halted the service in 2006 after killings, bombings and kidnappings intensified in the infamous “Triangle of Death”, an area south of the capital through which the line passes.

Built by imperial German and British engineers in the first two decades of the 20th century in a race between Berlin and London to control the region, Iraq’s railways were once a vital link between Europe and the Middle East.

There was a great video — I think on YouTube — that I saw once of a time-lapse journey along the rail line, but I can’t find it now.

On the other hand, Flexcar’s logo looked like someone who had been run over, which seems like a mixed message.

Well, this article in today’s NYT says the bridge died of a design flaw, not neglect:

The conventional wisdom is that the Interstate 35W bridge, aged and due for major maintenance, collapsed because of neglect. Surely inspectors had missed something, or their higher-ups had delayed needed repairs until the 40-year-old span plunged into the Mississippi, the popular belief goes.

State officials and engineering executives all over the country have joined in the chorus, arguing that the collapse, in which 13 people died and more than 100 were injured, demonstrates a need for expanded maintenance budgets. On Tuesday, the treasurer of Massachusetts said his state should spend $600 million on bridges to “avoid a future Minnesota incident.”

But the safety board, in issuing interim recommendations related to the collapse, said on Jan. 15 that the problem had not been age or money. The design of the bridge that failed was no good from the day the span opened, the board said: an engineer in the mid-1960s had specified gusset plates, the big sheets of steel that tie girders together, of half-inch thickness when they should have been an inch thick.

Of course, Herbert’s larger point still holds. Seattle alone has two big bridges that are toast in the next earthquake. We need to fix this stuff.

We appear to have forgotten the lessons of history. Time and again an economic boom has followed periods of sustained infrastructure improvement. It’s impossible to calculate all of the benefits from (to mention just a few) the Erie Canal, which connected the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean and helped make New York America’s premier city; the rural electrification program and other capital improvements of the New Deal; the interstate highway program of the Eisenhower administration.

The tremendous costs and vast reach of today’s infrastructure requirements means that the federal government has to take a leadership role. It’s inevitable. The only question is when.

The Dodd-Hagel infrastructure bank is a solid proposal. More of that, please.

An interesting snippet:

Alternatively, if Wrich * F < C then some rich people will take public transportation. In this case, a four ring city can be one outcome. In the inner ring, the rich take public transportation. In the next ring, the poor take public transportation. In the third ring, the rich drive and there may be a fourth ring where the poor drive.

Wrich here is a rich person’s opportunity cost of time, F is public transportation’s fixed time cost, and C is driving’s fixed time cost, for those of you who enjoy formulae. In all, not a bad description of some familiar metropolitan areas, is it?

Interesting that you can get a theory of urban econo-geography from Wrich * F < C.  And it’s seductive, maybe even informative.  But …

Wrich = Wrich, and that’s the same regardless of the mode of transit … unless you’re saying that you need to assign some additional intrinsic value to using a car, or to the value of wealthy persons’ time in a car, or both.

Anyway, my point is that the equation should actually be Wrich * F < Wrich * C, and the Wrich cancels itself out. The only real points made are:

1) That commuting costs are different for people in different income brackets, depending mainly on their opportunity cost of time, and

2) That the fixed monetary cost of a vehicle is inconsequential to the decision making of the rich … it’s all about commute time.

So, this is basically a formal statement of what Bruno and I have been talking about on the podcast recently: that urban cores will continue to increase in popularity and property value, largely because they minimize the risks associated with commuting costs – living in the urban center is a Pareto optimal answer relative to a person’s housing possibilities.

[Thanks to Bruno for sending me the link.]