A few weeks ago I mentioned Seattle City Councilmember Peter Steinbrueck's call for tearing down the Viaduct in order to promote "trip reduction". i.e. force people to reduce their automobile trips by making it harder to move through the city. This led me to wonder how committed Steinbrueck and the Councilmembers really are to reducing automobile trips or if it's merely a goal they seek to impose on other people. So I queried all of the Councilmembers on their own use of automobiles for commuting to work and for official business. The full responses are in the extended entry below.

The highlights: Nearly all of the Councilmembers drive to work. When they travel around the city on official business they usually take cars, although some occasionally travel by bus or bicycle or walk to nearby appointments. To his credit, Councilmember Richard Conlin practices what he preaches and reports the lowest overall auto usage among his colleagues and that he usually takes the bus, walks or bikes to work. Some of the other members to their credit, at least don't charge the city taxpayers for their automobile use. And the most prolific automobilist on the Council? It appears to be Peter "trip reduction" Steinbrueck himself. He lives the farthest from City Hall (9 miles), rents a monthly parking space at a city garage at or near City Hall, reports no use of public transportation for commuting or city business, and spent far more city money last year on automobile expenses than any other Councilmember --

If Peter Steinbrueck's personal goal is "trip reduction", he can reduce his own trips -- move closer to work and eventually buy one of the high-tax downtown highrise condos with limited parking that he thinks other people should live in. In the meantime, he can ride the bus.

But as is often the case when a politician is exposed as a hypocrite, the fact that Steinbrueck's actual personal behavior contrasts so sharply with his ideological statements suggests that the flaw is with the ideology and not with the behavior. If Steinbrueck and most of his colleagues prefer cars, surely it's for the same reasons of comfort, efficiency and convenience that most of the rest of us usually prefer cars. Rather than let the anti-car ideologues drive their agenda, the Council should acknowledge that their constituents, like themselves, have very good reasons for driving. Their policy goal should be to make it easier, not harder, for automobiles to get around town. Developing sensible alternatives to automobiles is part of the discussion too. But simply tearing down a major thoroughfare like the Viaduct without having an alternative in place is as irresponsible as it is contemptuous of the public. The fact that Steinbrueck and many of the Councilmember are hypocrites on automobile "trip reduction" only further undermines their credibility on transportation policy.

I got the following responses from the City Council: E-mail from Richard Conlin, March 29th, Letter from the Council staff, April 5, E-mail from Council staff, April 14, Letter from Council staff, April 14. Expense reports on automobile use. I summarize the responses in this table. A '-' field indicates no response.

The City Motor Pool charges $5/hour and $.17/per mile for the use of any city car. A rule of thumb is that a trip to a meeting, say, in Lake City, is probably 3 hours and 20 miles, or about $18. Thus, for example, my January usage of $58 probably reflects about 3 occasions, at about 3 hours and 20 miles each.

When a Councilmember or staff member uses a vehicle, this is billed to that Councilmember's office budget, which is a sum that is set aside for office supplies, transportation, subscriptions, copying, phone, etc. I think this was $5500 per Councilmember for the year in 2005. Our budget is pretty lean.