The Big Box debate in Chicago continued to play out last week, as the City Council was unable to override Mayor Daley’s veto of a proposed minimum wage ordinance for big box retailers. Daley persuaded a few aldermen to change their votes with promises of new big box retail in their neighborhoods. The Chicago Tribune, which lauded Daley’s move on its editorial pages, however, offered this analysis of Wal-Mart’s plight. As I suggested last week, it seems Wal-Mart needs cities like Chicago more than Chicago needs Wal-Mart. This issue will continue to surface throughout the country over the new few years, and I hope other big city mayors show more courage and creativity than Daley in negotiating with large retailers like Wal-Mart. People who live in large cities deserve modern retail options without having their neighborhood streets clogged with traffic.

Yesterday, the Oregonian wrote about the “extreme commuter” phenomenon in the Portland area. “Extreme commuters” are people who travel 90 minutes each way to work. What may not be apparent to outsiders reading this article is that, unlike the extreme commuters profiled by the Chicago Tribune a few weeks back, the Portland metro area is not that large, so all of the people profiled are living in rural or resort communities. Affordable and livable communities exist throughout the Portland metro area that are half the distance to downtown. These are examples of true selfishness: a total disregard for the impact your personal choice has on congestion, the environment and the quality of life of all of the communities along your commute. A few years ago, the Oregonian wrote an article about a guy who took a canoe to work three times a week. I wouldn’t mind a few more stories about people like this guy, instead of articles glorifying the selfish commuters who want to have their cake and eat it too.

Seattle is another city where transportation issues get a lot of attention. One current debate is over the fate of Alaskan Way Viaduct. The Viaduct is an elevated highway that runs along the waterfront next to downtown. Most people agree that the viaduct is an eyesore that detracts from the skyline and serves as a barrier between downtown and the waterfront. The Viaduct is in desperate need of repairs and the city is considering replacing it with either a new elevated structure or a tunnel. The Washington Department of Transportation has produced two animated videos depicting what each option would look like. The total bill for either option will be at least $2 billion, and could cost $4 billion if a tunnel is built.

Lost in the whole debate is the possibility that the city could do without the viaduct entirely. Removing the viaduct is not a trivial act: the viaduct is estimated to handle 110,000 trips each day and has become a vital connector for commercial traffic moving across downtown. My view is that traffic is like water: it will eventually find the most efficient route and will use up whatever capacity is allocated to it. Without the viaduct, cars and trucks will find another route, and some may even abandon the route altogether. Viaduct advocates claim that people didn’t care about views of the waterfront 50 years ago and shouldn’t be able to redraw the map now that people want to live in a downtown without unsightly views. In my view, cities not only have the right but the responsibility to reclaim the public property that is most valued by its residents and most critical to livability. Cars and trucks don’t own rights in perpetuity to current traffic routes. Seattle needs to correct this 58 year old mistake and spend the transportation dollars on more sensible traffic solutions.