Monday, June 30th

Bloomberg's Address On Real Science and Political Science
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently gave an address to the World Science Festival on the unfortunate lag between "What We Know and What We Do," discussing the difference between real science and political science. It's a great read...

For years, politicians have hailed corn ethanol as the answer to climate change. It was all so simple. Instead of requiring fuel efficiency, or funding mass transit, we could have our cake, or in this case corn, and drive cars with it too, and, in the process, divert millions of tax dollars a year to farm states. The only problem was this policy wasn't based on science. For years, research has questioned the environmental benefits of corn ethanol, and now widespread production of corn ethanol has turned out to be an environmental and economic calamity. It not only imperils the world's climate by encouraging the widespread destruction of climate-crucial forests and wetlands, but also drives up the cost of one the world's most important cereal crops.

Link to the text

You may also want to watch Bloomberg's address on immigration to the University of Pennsylvania

Eric Miller (editor@newcolonist.com), on 06.30.08 @ 14:02PST

Sunday, June 29th

Can We Rebuild New York Somewhere Else?
I came across a January Q&A in the New York Observer from Yale economics professor Robert Shiller who made several comments on the high cost of real estate in the big apple and addressed the question of whether real estate prices can keep going up. I agree that they are not immune from going down, but I don't think New York, in any practical scenario, can be replaced. While I hear quite a few people in New York say the city has gotten boring or corporate and artists can't afford to live here anymore, I always heard that about San Francisco when I lived there. It may be just a case of "it's so crowded, no one goes there anymore."

Shiller said, "If it gets too expensive in New York, people will leave it, no matter what—they can’t afford to live there." Perhaps this is true, but the population of New York continues to grow and is expected to continue to grow for the foreseeable future. Schiller said "It would be a great thing for New York if prices came down, because more interesting people would move in." Also sounds good, but cheap isn't often the reason a city is a big draw. Sure, Haight-Ashbury in the 1960s was cheap and gave birth to a counterculture, but coastal cities in the U.S. haven't been cheap since.

"I just don’t think it’s reasonable to think it’s just going to keep getting more and more expensive." Again, I wonder how expensive it can get, yet New York is far less expensive than other cities like Tokyo and London. What's happening in the U.S. seems to be segregation by income along the coasts. If the well healed keep moving in, sure it can get more expensive for a while longer. What's lost on many is that there are relatively affordable parts of New York too, the train ride is just longer.

The next point Shiller makes, and the one that had me scratching my head the longest is "It’s too expensive in Manhattan, there’s no reason why we can’t have a brand-new one somewhere," Well, you can build smart, dense, livable communities elsewhere, but they will no more be Manhattan that New York, New York in Las Vegas. Manhattan isn't just buildings, its institutions--three or four hundred years of them. Further a new Manhattan couldn't have a fraction of the diversity of people and most importantly people of a variety of income levels, than old Manhattan. Lastly, and Shiller sites New Amsterdam, a new Manhattan would have to be accessible to the old Manhattan, so what can you do? Make a high-speed rail line to Scranton?

You'd be hard-pressed to find a Wall Street suit, let alone an artist ready to pack up and move.

Eric Miller (editor@newcolonist.com), on 06.29.08 @ 06:51PST

Monday, June 23rd

Noodlemaking in Brooklyn's Chinatown
I had heard Brooklyn had a Chinatown, the third largest in New York (after Canal Street and Flushing in Queens). Eight means prosperous in Chinese, so the Eighth Avenue stop on the N Train is where you'll find this thriving neighborhood. Here are a few photos click here and a video....

Eric Miller (editor@newcolonist.com), on 06.23.08 @ 17:07PST

Walt Whitman and the Brooklyn Bridge
In this forum I’ve previously compared Brooklyn with the Northside of Pittsburgh and also commented separately about the Northside being a place that lost its downtown. Today I came to realize in a way Brooklyn also lost its downtown. While it wasn’t bulldozed and replaced by an office mall, it was impacted by the construction of one of the country’s first engineering marvels, the building of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Before the bridge was built, the center had been near the pier where the “Brooklyn Ferry” carried passengers to Manhattan. When the Bridge opened, the span went over the location of the ferry terminal and into a completely new part of the city.

With a bit of thought, it may have seemed obvious, yet a good lecture like the one I attended at the Brooklyn Museum today helps to bring my new city into focus. Francis Morrone, historian, journalist, and author of six books discussed early Brooklyn architecture and what Brooklyn looked like in 1835, when Walt Whitman arrived.

Morrone talked a good deal about architecture and discussed Whitman’s changing tastes, eventually coming around to liking the examples of Grecian building going up around him.

Morrone discussed a number of Brooklyn locations Whitman knew including one that a local group is attempting to protect through historic designation. Also discussed was a home Whitman would have seen that was later the place where Truman Capote wrote both Breakfast at Tiffany’s and In Cold Blood. I looked up 70 Willow Street when I returned home only to learn it rents for $40,000 a month!

Yes folks, there are only so many parallels between Brooklyn and Pittsburgh’s Northside I can draw. Sure, the Northside does have connections to authors including Gertrude Stein and Mary Roberts Reinhardt, but you’d be hard pressed to find any home there renting for $40,000 a month.

Eric Miller (editor@newcolonist.com), on 06.23.08 @ 02:24PST

Sunday, June 22nd

When Is a Park Not a Park?
Yesterday, my friend Scott had arranged a small group ride to the Griffith Observatory to view the Solstice sunset...eight of us met at Heliotrope and Melrose, the self-named "bicycle District" in LA, and after ice cream from the Marvelous Scoops, off we rode, up the hill through Ferndell and to the world-renowned Observatory.

The climb was sweet; despite being in the middle of the city, we were surrounded by trees and valleys in the lower reaches, and steep canyons fragrant with chaparral as we climbed higher. We were also repeatedly passed by SUV limos bearing loads of suits and bimbos for some movie company party to take place at said Observatory

Lo and behold, when we got there, Disney had rented the whole place for an opening day party for that film, "Wall-E." Their radios began crackling as we quietly rode around the catering crew looking for a place to observe the Solstice. Eventually a park ranger came up and gave us an obviously scritped lecture saying in effect that we had to skedaddle.

This park, the largest city park in the US, was deeded to Los Angeles by Griffith J. Griffith, its last owner, in 1896, as "...a place of recreation and rest for the masses, a resort for the rank and file...."

I guess Mr. Griffith didn't foresee that the nascent (in his day) movie industry would develope into a new aristocracy that could arrogate public lands for its own personal use and profit (the marketing value of this party, which celebrates a movie about an animated spacecraft, is undeniable).

The ranger-cum-goon tried to tell us that the Observatory land, and hence the closure, extended all the way down the mountain a couple of miles to the top of Ferndell Canyon.

Well, I gave him a bit of a hard time, and then found us a nice spot on a hillside where we could have our little celebration, but man, everyone on the ride promptly declared they weren't going to go see that particular movie. (I wouldn't have anyway....)

I wonder if we could apply that distortion of the "takings" principle so beloved of the rich and arrogant and sue Disney for depriving the public (me and my friends, and whoever else they chased off) of their rightful use of this park, just because some movie industry shitheads bribed some bureaucrat with a permit fee....

Richard Risemberg (rrisemberg@newcolonist.com), on 06.22.08 @ 14:09PST

Saturday, June 21st

Finally, Congress Spends on Amtrak
It might not be a good first impression for transit riders in places like Pittsburgh where a surge in ridership is met with a cash-strapped system. The city is also in a stage of revolt from the county which recently instituted a drink tax to create a stream of financing to keep the buses running.

On the federal level, years after President Reagan tried to eliminate Amtrak completely (it's not likely to be more affordable today to buy railway passengers a plane ticket), Congress appears interested in providing travelers with an alternative to high gas prices and the rising cost of plane travel.

A bill recently passing the House would authorize funding for the national passenger railroad over the next five years with some helping the states expand service.

According to the Associated Press, besides the $14.9 billion provided for Amtrak and intercity rail, an amendment to the bill would authorize $1.5 billion for Washington's Metro transit system over the next 10 years.

Help for Amtrak comes at a time when air service to many smaller, regional airports is being curtailed or even eliminated.

For me a trip from Pittsburgh to my hometown of Altoona was costing some $15 each way on Amtrak ($17 and $2 AAA discount). From New York it costs $118 round trip. The $15 price to Altoona is likely less than the cost of driving. The $118 round trip is likewise comparable to the cost of driving, and might even represent a savings given the various bridge tolls, turnpike fees and if it includes parking in New York, Amtrak is the superior alternative. Right now round trip tickets at the most affordable range are in the $270 range on an airplane. Add parking, taxi's to and from the airport and simple aggravation to that and you'll be joining the crowds at the Amtrak Station.

The other way to travel is by bus. High fuel prices are also helping a number of bus lines, and I think I am right in saying there is more competition in the inter-city bus industry than there has been for some time. My friend recently faced a sold out bus at the Pittsburgh station. A number of new bus lines from Greyhound, Megabus and the Chinatown bus lines are giving passengers options and driving down prices. A company called Megabus even offers $1 fares. Fares between New York and Pittsburgh are in the $45-$60 range. Greyhound allows passengers to pay an extra $5 to board first and choose a seat.

Eric Miller (editor@newcolonist.com), on 06.21.08 @ 02:12PST

Sunday, June 8th

Get the Most out of The New Colonist
Don't miss a great opportunity to network with other readers. Join our LinkedIn group at LinkedIn.com or our reader forum at email group

Eric Miller (editor@newcolonist.com), on 06.08.08 @ 14:54PST

Oil and the Future
Today marked the first time the average price of gasoline in the United States hit $4 per gallon. There are two competing theories to explain the escalation of prices.

First, spending on the Iraq war and federal spending in general has lead to inflation, driving down the price of the dollar. With that, oil-rich nations prefer not to exchange oil for dollars, therefore limiting supply for now until the time at which inflation comes under control.

The second situation creates more of a permanent situation. We’re on the downside of the peak oil slope and from this point forward we’ll have a diminishing supply. Combine that with increasing reliance of emerging nations on oil, and prices will continue to rise.

Of course, we’re not out of oil as much as we are out of cheap oil. Even if we are on the down side of peak oil, at some point when prices meet the point where more of the expensive oil can be extracted profitably, we may see a plateau in prices. With higher prices, there’s also some lessened demand. These factors will combine with increased consumption in China, India and other places to determine how fast prices rise.

It does seem certain that in the long-run, prices will continue to rise, and this has the power to change the world.

Changing the Means of Travel

Already we have seen a decline in driving and an increase in transit-use in the United States. For the bulk of the country, however, there is no choice but to drive. There simply isn’t an alternative in place.

In the short-term, car-pooling, hybrids and even bicycles may take up some of the slack, but when oil gets to $8-$10 a gallon or more, new transit systems will be needed.

In the air, many routes and planes are already becoming obsolete and the costs of flying are likely to increase. This will make the most efficient form of moving people and goods, rail, more advantageous. Securing the necessary funding for Amtrak or instigating additional private rail service is the key to a smoother transition.

Rebuilding the Suburbs

With new transit systems, suburbs will be abandoned or rebuilt. While the short-term pain is real, in the long-term the necessity for rebuilding could be a positive thing for the economy, just as rebuilding everything to accommodate automobiles was from the 1950s to 1990s.

Not having a system in place, however may be an advantage. When completed, our system of public transit could be the cleanest and most-efficient in the world. It would also allow us to export the technologies developed during the course of building anew.

Moving Production

Higher fuel prices of course don’t just impact the way we get around and the way our neighborhoods look, but they impact everything that’s moved, from raw materials, to computers and food.

High shipping prices may bring manufacturing back home. With that to some level will come pollution (we haven’t eliminated our polluting factories as much as moved them to China), yet this also creates opportunities to build anew cleaner and better.

Changes in Lifestyle

The changes upon us could have as much impact, or not more than the advent of the automobile. Combined with impacts from global warming and our world in the next fifty years may record the most rapid amount of change since the dawn of the industrial revolution, or ever.

We’ll be forced to live closer to work, to walk or use bicycles and to buy locally. Once presented with these options, I suspect we’ll come to like the changes. With them comes more time to read, to enjoy life and well, more time to work if that’s what we choose to do.

In economic terms, today we look at the change sin terms of costs, but if we could just take a portion of the time we spend in traffic and put it into learning, buying or building, our economy will be all the better for the transition.

Eric Miller (editor@newcolonist.com), on 06.08.08 @ 10:37PST

Wednesday, June 4th

High Gas Prices Lead to Surge in Mass Transit
Rail systems from Boston to Los Angeles are begging passengers to shift their travel to non-peak hours. And some seats have been removed from San Francisco's subway cars to allow more people to cram in.

Among the cities registering big increases in the first quarter were Baltimore, where light rail ridership was up 17 percent from the same period a year ago; Seattle, which saw a 28 percent jump in commuter rail passengers; Boston, where subway ridership rose 9 percent; and San Antonio, where the number of bus riders climbed 11 percent.

Link to AP article

MORE:

Impact of Rising Fuel Costs on Transit Services -- Survey Results

Almost 85 Million More Trips Taken Than In The First Quarter of 2007

Eric Miller (editor@newcolonist.com), on 06.04.08 @ 02:41PST

Monday, June 2nd

Tales of Brooklyn
I've been in Brooklyn just a little more than a month now. I recall investigating New York neighborhoods to live in and naively asked someone what they thought of Brooklyn. The response contained something about Brooklyn being the size of Philadelphia. For the record, Brooklyn has 2.5 million residents, more than Manhattan. Philadelphia has only 1,517,550.

If it were anywhere except beside Manhattan, it would be much better known. There's so much in Brooklyn that I feel should be much more widely known than it is. Prospect Park, Olmsted's crowning achievement, Grand Army Plaza, the Brooklyn Heights Promenade, Brooklyn Bridge Park, just to name a few are well deserving of being a destination in their own right. The Brooklyn Museum and Botanical Garden are also world-class institutions.

I also see many paralells between Brooklyn and "Allegheny," the part of Pittsburgh I came here from. Both were once their own city. Both still retain a seperate identity, but unlike Allegheny, Brooklyn retains its name. Allegheny is now called "North Side."

Like the North Side, lots of people who aren't familiar with Brooklyn think of it as dangerous. That may be true sometimes in some places, and yes, parts of Brooklyn are filled with "pushers," but not the kind you may think. These pushers walk, or jog, behind baby carriages.

Which brings me to a few more observations. Brooklyn seems to have more baby's per capita, more organic stores per capita, worse coffee than many places, better pizza, and while there's no smoking, I'd guess there are more smokers.

Watch these pages for a continuation and updates.

Eric Miller (editor@newcolonist.com), on 06.02.08 @ 18:19PST