The Perfect Storm: Mass Transit Infrastructure
On Tuesday August 24th, New York area commuters woke up to a rude surprise, a double fisted punch into the gut of the metropolitan morning rush. AMTRAK, NJ Transit and Long Island Railroad trains were massively delayed, affecting millions of commuters and demonstrating the caustically antiquated infrastructure of the country’s largest mass transit systems. The two unrelated equipment failures, both east and west of Manhattan, while not fatal to the transit system, demonstrated an urgent need to rapidly modernize the mass transit systems of the United States.
On Long Island a piece of ancient machinery, a contraption of levers and pulleys designed in 1913, critical to the successful operation of the LIRR caught on fire for about an hour the evening before. This module controls the 155 track switches at a crucial choke point, Jamaica Station, where 10 of the railroad’s 11 branches must travel through to get in and out of New York City.
On AMTRAK a power outage at 7:40 am Tuesday, intensified morning agony farther south along the Mid-Atlantic seaboard, suspending AMTRAK regional train service between New York City and Philadelphia because of low voltage problems, cascading into cancelled trains between Baltimore and Washington as well. Further up into New England, Acela trains running the Boston-NY-DC route were delayed, but regional train services were fortunately spared from any impact.
What caused this mess? The simple answer and most brief answer is: a control box from 1913, and low voltage in the power lines. However, the more accurate answer is an overloaded mass transit system with very little capacity to expand. Expand we should. Major advancements in this country’s mass transportation infrastructure would be one of the most effective means to stay competitive in the global market. They would also increase socioeconomic leverage of the regions they connect. The cost associated with these projects are immense but the payoffs are long term investments.
For instance, a major construction project to add a second set of train tunnels under the Husdon River connecting NYC and NJ is predicted to increase home values in northern NJ and suburban NYC by $18 billion. A recent study funded in part by the Port Authority of NYNJ finds that homes in New Jersey and New York near train stations on the NJ TRANSIT system and Metro North’s Port Jervis and Pascack Valley lines will increase in value by $19,000 on average if they are within two miles of train stations and by $29,000 for homes within walking distance. Cumulatively, this increase in home value will be an asto
nishing $18 billion, creating a higher tax base and relieving pressure to increase tax rates in communities across New Jersey and New York.
New York City did land the top spot in the 2010 Global Cities Index, a report done in collaboration by Foreign Policy magazine, the management consulting firm A.T. Kearney, and The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. However, the place at the top is always temporary. Unless our mass transit system keeps up with the rest of the world, New York’s downfall, and the positions of America’s other two cities in the top ten will be increasingly in jeopardy to an Asian metropolis or a “new world” urban center. See the Report and view the full list.
Mass transit is green, creates jobs and challenges engineers, communities and public authorities to solve difficult problems. It encourages international trade, reduces our reliance on foreign oil exporting countries and improves quality of life. Last point, the one good thing about today’s mess was that it didn’t happen on the day before Thanksgiving.
World Cup Preview: Heather Martino w/ Jonathan Ledgard, Eastern Africa Correspondent for The Economist
South Africa’s place on the world stage, terrorism and the games
By: Heather Martino
______________________________________________
Brand new stadium in Cape Town, South Africa. Table Mountain, Cape Town's most prominent landmark in distance.
As the 2010 World Cup approaches, all eyes will be on South Africa, prompting many to take a larger look at the country. On his recent trip to the United States, I spoke with Jonathan Ledgard, Eastern Africa Correspondent for The Economist, and discussed South Africa and the upcoming World Cup, as well as several of today’s most pressing issues facing the continent.
With The Economist boasting articles with titles such as “South Africans can be proud about hosting the World Cup. Less so about the state of their nation,” I expected Ledgard to be less than optimistic about the country’s progress in preparation for the upcoming games. On the contrary, when asked about the state of the country, Ledgard spoke about the beautiful landscape, comparing it to California, with a mix of the south side of Philadelphia. He said that South Africa has “invested a lot in branding, or rebranding the country, and not just from a tourist potential.” The country has made progress in terms of infrastructure, and is reaching out to England, China, and India for investment. When asked about the United States, Ledgard stated that the U.S. is a smaller market for South Africa, and that they were concentrating their efforts on the aforementioned countries. “In all fairness,” said Ledgard, “FIFA is very tough, but they are pretty happy with South Africa’s corporations.”
“There really is no world comparison to South Africa,” said Ledgard, and the media does not always do a good job of presenting an accurate portrayal of the country. Maybe “awakening” is too strong of a word, Ledgard agreed, but there is the position held by many that “if it’s African, it must be rubbish and not work, and it’s a little unfair.” Ledgard spoke with awe about the vast construction of tremendous stadiums, new underground railroad systems, and airports. “I feel that sometimes there is such negativity about South Africa, that whatever happens is held up to the highest account,” said Ledgard, as he compared it to Greece. “When Greece was running the Olympics they were far more in shambles, [but] people were not getting on Greece’s case the way they are on South Africa’s,” adding that being chosen to host the 2010 World Cup is a “real success for South Africa and a chance to reboot its image.”
While the new and refurbished stadiums in ten cities throughout South Africa look beautiful, there has been some concern over their use beyond the World Cup. I asked Ledgard about the cost of these stadiums, especially given that some schools were bulldozed to make room for a 46,000 seat stadium in Nelspruit. Far greater than the cost of building this stadium, which is estimated to be $137 million dollars, is the cost of sending youngsters to hot and airless classrooms to make room for their construction. When asked about this, Ledgard said that this is a “big problem for South Africa,” because they are “damned if they do and damned if they don’t.” By this, Ledgard meant that “if they don’t build world class stadiums- people will criticize them,” especially given that the World Cup is the largest sporting event next to the Olympics. However, while soccer, or football, is popular throughout the world, Ledgard pointed out that it is not the number one sport in South Africa. “Maybe [soccer] is a large event spectator wise, but rugby brings in the most money for South Africa”, said Ledgard.
Touching on the issue of whether or not the new stadiums will be used after the World Cup, Ledgard talked of how “a lot of stadiums are trying to get rugby clubs to move in there” but this is almost like “trying to get the Red Sox to move to a new stadium,” adding that it is highly unlikely that the stadiums will be used in the long run. However, Ledgard reassured me of the necessity of their construction, saying that the key issue is “turning South Africa to global volumes,” to make the economy “more like Australia or something like that.” He added “If the price is a few empty stadiums, I’m sure people will accept that.”
South Africa's fans are ready to watch the games, but will they be safe?
While the first match, set to take place in Johannesburg between South Africa and Mexico, is just a day away, I asked Ledgard about the safety and security of the fans. Given the stampede at a friendly preliminary match between Nigeria and North Korea last Sunday, that left at least eleven people injured, I asked if this was any indication of the police forces’ lack of control. To this, Ledgard said that “the government invested a huge amount of money in overhauling the police force, to make sure they are prepared.” While assuring that the police force is up to par to handle the crowd, Ledgard expressed some concern for South African Intelligence, which is likely ill-equipped to handle the threat of terrorists, especially given the large faction of Somalia al-Qaeda operatives in the region. “If it [a suicide bombing] happens during the World Cup, it will not be surprising to me,” said Ledgard, adding “I know from experience there’s nothing good enough to protect against that- anywhere in the world, and it is definitely a worry for South African intelligence to handle this threat.”
Building on this topic of safety and security, I asked Ledgard about the condition of hospitals in the event that some catastrophic event might occur. Ledgard assured me that the “hospital issue won’t be a problem,” as they are held to a really high standard. He stated that the hospitals- especially in Cape Town and Johannesburg- are very sophisticated, pointing out that “South Africa was the first country in the world to do heart transplants.”
Ledgard added that, when looking at South Africa, it is necessary to put it in some kind of context with the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa. “Other African countries, like Nigeria and the Congo, will be looking on their television screens, and thinking my lord they [South Africa] have a real police force, electricity, sewer systems, and etc.” Despite all of the positive initiatives the chance to host the 2010 World Cup has brought for South Africa, Ledgard felt the biggest problem facing the country today is the issue of crime and HIV/AIDS. “Crime is appalling, and right behind it is HIV” said Ledgard, adding that these “two issues dominate the country and really need to be addressed.” However, Ledgard is optimistic of the positive effects of the World Cup, saying that it is a “step in the right direction for the country.” It will show that South Africa is “not a country that is collapsing, but a country that is very positive and trying to move toward a globalized economy and state its place in the world.” On a final note, Ledgard said that he is “much more positive that this is South Africa’s chance to shine, and I hope everything airs well.”
Only time will tell if the World Cup will help jump start South Africa’s economy, allowing for it to become a globalized nation. However, if hotel and ticket sales are any indication, the World Cup is promoting tourism and investment in the country. We can only hope that Ledgard’s fears regarding a terrorist attack will not materialize, and that South Africa’s hosting of the World Cup will be a bright light and a beaming example for the rest of the African continent.
The Paralysis of Copenhagen and the Potential of Cochabamba
An Opportunity to Stop Burning Coal
Op-Ed Contributor:
Jim Gonzalez Founder and Chair of the Renewable Energy Accountability Project
In a bold move that could recoup the momentum that was lost at the disappointing Copenhagen Climate Conference, Bolivian President Evo Morales has challenged governments “who want to work with their people” to come to Cochabamba on April 20-22, 2010 to work on meaningful climate change reform. President Morales is inviting indigenous peoples, social movements, scientists and environmentalists from throughout the world to attend.
Here is why I will attend.
The Copenhagen Climate Conference was meant to unify the world in bold action to save the planet. Instead, inaction and indifference prevailed in a lemming march to the global warming tipping point — led in large part by the rich nations of the developed world.
Those who will suffer most as a result of climate change are often ignored in a rich world debate about cap and trade. The threat of climate change on the lifestyles of the richest countries is highlighted at the expense of the life and death struggles of the subsistence poor. In truth, the rich may be able to shift their buying power to avoid the impact of climate change, but it is the poor who will die in the wake of rising sea levels and hemispheric droughts.
The data and scientific evidence are compelling. Scientists from the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently announced that global carbon dioxide levels in 2008 were a staggering 40% higher than in 1990. This means that sea levels may rise as much as one meter by 2100, nearly twice as much as was projected just two years ago by the IPCC. To abate a global climate disaster by keeping global warming under two degrees Celsius, per capita carbon emissions will have to decrease by at least 80% below the 1990 per capita emissions from developed nations.
This is a tall order that can be accomplished only through facing the truth about the greatest source of global warming pollution – burning dirty coal to generate electricity.
The one statistic big utilities and corporate polluters hope the public never focuses on is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) estimate that over 40% of man-made carbon emissions in the United States are attributable to the burning of fossil fuels (primarily coal) to generate electricity.
(Ironically, in the United States the coal industry cheerily advertises that over half of our electricity comes from coal; and Congress debates the infusion of billions of dollars on carbon capture and sequestration, aka “clean coal”, in an attempt to extend the life of over 600 U.S. coal fired plants.)
Amidst the disappointments of Copenhagen and the new opportunity of Cochabamba are the horrific coal burning statistics which are at the very core of the global warming crisis. These statistics — if ever honestly dealt with — would provide the single most effective solution to human caused global warming.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, from 2002 to 2007, China doubled its use of coal – 3 billion tons of coal, more than three times that of the United States. The impact of coal burning on the environment and its relationship to greenhouse gas pollution and global warming is incontrovertible. And yet, these statistics are brushed aside as the popular debate turns to speculative engineering adventures, “freakonomics” geo-engineering, carbon “capture and sequestration,” or to the creation of yet another Wall Street derivative market through the cap and trade gamble.
If we are to be truthful about the crisis we are in, and if we are to examine scientific data – and yes, statistics – with cold realism, we are led inevitably to one undeniable conclusion: we must end coal burning to generate electricity- and if we do we will halt, and possibly reverse, human caused global warming.
Although scientific evidence and data has been essential in understanding and confronting the climate crisis, too often the profit motive has trumped sound national and international policy. In this case, the facts clearly indicate that coal burning is way too profitable for Big Utility cheerleaders to be inspired to do the right thing.
Owning a coal plant – particularly an older coal plant — is, in effect, like owning a diamond, or gold mine; or an unlimited license to print money. A lot of mega-polluters are dependent on coal profits at the expense of the environment: the mountain top removal mining companies, the railroads which transport coal and the big utilities (both private and public) which burn coal.
So, in the wake of the paralysis of Copenhagen and the potential of Cochabamba, it is time to start focusing on the coal electricity monopolies that are the chief culprits of the climate crisis. Retiring coal plants in the United States and China is the most efficient and effective way to solve the global warming crisis; and to usher in the worldwide green economy. Since world leaders stumbled at Copenhagen, hopefully now the people will lead the march to save Mother Earth in Cochabamba.
Jim Gonzalez is the founder and chair of the Renewable Energy Accountability Project, a grass roots campaign to hold utilities and policy makers accountable to their commitments to a clean energy future. Jim Gonzalez is a former member of the elected Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, California. www.reapinfo.org
US Healthcare Bill’s $871 Billion Question.
Will this risky experiment be deemed brilliant political gamesmanship or obsession bordering on folly?
By: Freedom-Kai Phillips
They say what does not kill you, makes you stronger. The Democrats are sure hoping that to be true of their recent initiative, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R.3590). Amid widespread scepticism a myriad of potential roadblocks have been strategically overcome, and the Senate has come to a historical point in its pursuit of comprehensive healthcare reform. Yet, optimism aside, judgement must remain reserved until the practical costs – both economic and social – of this monumental piece of legislation are fully considered.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., may have inspired LBJ like comparisons for his Senate mastery, but will the healthcare bill deliver real results? (AP Photo/APTN)
With the potential societal impact being so broad, this bill will prove to be a defining moment for not just the ambitious Obama administration, but the country as a whole. However, observers will not chronicle this event with the rosy undertones offered at press conferences, or the financial models put forward on the Senate floor. Nor, should one be deceived simply by the alluring proposition of increased public access to the American healthcare infrastructure. Rather, attention must be concentrated on the ramifications stemming from the fragile alliance forged to pass the bill; and herein lays the conundrum. As the requisite super-majority needed for overcoming the Republican filibuster was assembled by Senate Democrats, a delicate balance was struck to ensure the essential support of two key Senators, Ben Nelson (D-Neb), and Joe Lieberman (Ind-Ct). However, the resulting compromised bill now conflicts with the previously passed House version on the crucial issue of a “public option.” As many pundits are in agreement that the final amalgamated version will leave healthcare covered entirely by private insurers, the $871 billion question is: will this risky experiment be deemed brilliant political gamesmanship or obsession bordering on folly? Continue Reading…
Top 5 Diplomatic and Power Moves in 2009
It was a unique and troubling year in international affairs and global diplomacy. I am fully aware and admit that this list will not be complete, conclusive or correct in everyone’s opinion. I may even be lucky to agree with you on only 1, or perhaps, 2 events. Nevertheless, the intention is to invite your own lists, and suggestions for mine.
2010, or twently-ten, is going to be a rapid and complex period in international history. Twenty-ten does have a nice ring to it.
5) Seeing nuclear power developing in Iran, the rest of the Middle East’s/Persian Gulf’s powers aim for nuclear programs as well. The Middle East states say they only want atomic power. Some probably do. But United States government and private analysts say they believe that the rush of activity is also intended to counter the threat of a nuclear Iran.
4) US continues to grow UAV attacks in Pakistan, hunt and kill Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud. Issue becomes a major public outrage during Secretary Clinton’s visit to Pakistan in October. Reliance on robotic remote-control vehicles grew quickly in US armed forces.
3) Israel launched major offensive into Gaza. before declaring a unilateral ceasefire before the Obama inauguration. Israel said that it was discontinuing its 22-day-old assault on Hamas, saying the objective of disabling Hamas’s military capabilities had been achieved. Peace plan made no, if not backward progress in 2009.
2) Beijing and New Delhi get Nuclear Hotline. 
The leaders of India and China agreed to set one up between New Delhi and Beijing, highlighting concerns that a worsening border dispute could quickly become the first major conflict of the multipolar era.
1) Kim Jong Il says “skrew you, I’ll do whatever I want, bitches,” to the United States. In January 2009, Pyongyang refused to accept terms proposed by the US and decided to wait out the Bush administration, which foolishly took North Korea off its list of state sponsors of terrorism. In April North Korea test-fired a ballistic missile despite widespread international opposition, testing the young Obama Presidency. When the UN Security Council tightened sanctions Kim Jong Il expelled international nuclear inspectors.
On May 25, 2009, North Korea announced that it had successfully conducted its second nuclear test, again the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution to tighten sanctions.
In August 2009, former President Bill Clinton paid a dramatic 20-hour visit to North Korea, in which he won the freedom of two captured American journalists, opened a diplomatic channel to North Korea’s reclusive government and dined with the North’s ailing leader, Kim Jong-il. The North Korean government, had sentenced the Current TV journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, to 12 years of hard labor for illegally entering North Korean territory. Mr. Clinton apologized to Mr. Kim for their actions, according to the North Korean state media. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton denied that Mr. Clinton had apologized.
Finally, North Korea keeps up its arms trade business. A shipment of arms and apparently sophisticated missiles from North Korea was seized in Thailand, on a tip from American intelligence agencies, as officials try to determine whether the cargo was headed to South Asia or the Middle East.
