Vermont Requires GMO Labeling

A Celebration of Food

The Vermont legislature has passed a law that will require the labeling of genetically modified foods or GMOs. Governor Peter Shumlin is expected to sign the bill into law, which will make Vermont the first state to require this labeling. More than 60 countries worldwide require the labeling of GMOs. The food industry, particularly Monsanto, has fought hard against this bill, but the people of Vermont have prevailed. 

Why Should We Care?

Most of us eat GMO foods everyday without realizing it. Technically, a GMO is a food that has had its genetic code scientifically changed; but as of right now, we are not completely sure whether or not these foods are as safe as non-GMO foods. Many proponents of Vermont's law believe that consumers should be able to know what they are consuming. Right now you could hold up two apples, one GMO and one non-GMO and not be able to tell the difference. Vermont's law aims to empower consumers by requiring labels placed on GMO foods. Simple!

Will the Law Prevail?

Vermont is so certain that they will be sued for passing this law that they have already allocated over a million dollars to defend it in court. Many other states have considered passing such a law, but the threat of a lawsuit has kept many states at bay.

It is likely that the GMO labeling law will be challenged on the grounds of the First Amendment. The food industry will likely make an argument for commercial free speech. At the Supreme Court level, there is mixed precedent involving commercial speech, so nobody is quite sure exactly where the law will go. But, assuming that the law stands, it will certainly be a victory for consumers who know will know what they are eating, at least in Vermont. 

A New Way to Plan Commutes

Isoscope: Dynamic Traffic Mapping

Whenever we need to know how long it would take us to get from one location to another, we likely all use Google Maps. I have nothing but great things to say about Google Maps and I love all of the detail that it provides. But, a new map tool has just been released called Isoscope, which allows users to see a visual plot of travel distances in all directions at a given time. Rather than seeing how long it takes to get to someplace, you can see how far you can get anywhere in a given amount of time!

Here's a picture to show you what I mean.

The white dot is the starting location. The outlines show in this case how far you can get in six minutes on a Friday. There are different outlines that reflect traffic patterns at different times of day. This map quite easily reveals the difference between distance and speed! 

Here's another example. If you start on a highway, the map becomes quite skinny reflecting the difference in travel speed between interstates and backroads. 

Try selecting your house and see how long it takes you to get places. I bet the map will reveal some interesting things!

Should Cities Offer Free Public Transportation?

Tallin, Estonia Already Does! 

While it might seem crazy to think of the idea of riding around on a bus or subway for free, this concept could actually provide a tangible boost to urban economies. In January 2013, Tallin, the capital of Estonia, launched such a system; any resident of the city now has free access to public transportation. Tourists still need to pay. For many years the American cities of Portland and Seattle had similar systems, but perhaps it is time that we bring free transit to the forefront of public debate.

The Pros

One of the most immediate effects of public transportation becoming free would likely be a sharp drop in vehicle traffic. Since 2013 Tallin has reported a 15% drop in car traffic! Trips taken with public transportation would increase and carbon emissions would fall. Poor residents of cities would have a sudden increase in upward social mobility; if the cost of transit were no longer a barrier to mobility, it could be easier for the urban poor to find and maintain jobs. Land values around transit stops would likely rise and ultimately cities could become more efficient and fair to all residents.

The Cons

One possible problem could be a rise in the number of homeless people who use subways and buses as semi-permanent resting places. Transit ridership could increase so much that system could become overwhelmed and there is a possibility that costs could prohibit cities from funding such programs.

Is it Worth It?

I think it likely would be, particularly in large American cities. In dense cities like Boston, New York, and San Francisco, such programs would likely be expensive, but not prohibitively so. This is because in these cities transit systems are somewhat compact relative to the population size and as a result operational costs would be lower than a city such as say Los Angeles. Additionally, American transit systems receive only about 30% of funding from fares; the more funding comes from fares, the more a free system could cost a city. 

In a city like Tallin with about 450,000 residents, the system cost the city about $3 million per year, not a small sum, but certainly not an unmanageable amount. Boston has an estimated revenue of about $2.7 billion for FY 2015; it could likely find a way to fund a relatively meager $5 million dollar or so system. Not to mention that the boost in development and tourism that would likely result would pay for the costs of such a system over the long term. 

Do We Need to Abandon the Coast?

Coaxing People to Move

In recent years hurricanes have been a hot topic, that is, at least while they are happening. They wreak billions of dollars of damage to coastal properties, cause injuries and deaths and ruin livelihoods, but it seems that once hurricanes pass, people rebuild houses on the coast. This seems a bit illogical to me. Homes and entire towns that are built in hurricane prone areas are bound to be damaged, it is only ever a matter of time. So how can we protect people and properties? There are really two options that I see. One is convincing people to leave the coast, and the other is rebuilding coastlines around people. This is what inevitably happens to coastal homes during storms.

Option1: Convincing People to Leave

Personally I think that this might be the most cost effective option. For years insurance rates for people living in high flood risk homes have been out of whack. The National Flood Insurance Program has been charging people much lower premiums than what would actually be necessary to cover the risk associated with building coastal homes. Ironically, part of the reason for the discounted rates was to encourage coastal home building. These rates should be, and are in the process of being, adjusted to match the real risk class. This will inevitably move some people away.

My second idea to get people off the coast is to do a reverse coastal subsidy for coastal residents. First the government should mandate some sort of "buyers warning" policy for coastal real estate transactions that warns people about impending hurricanes. Secondly, those living on the coast should be provided with financial incentives to move. They should receive some government subsidy off of the market price of inland homes to reflect the fact that they are moving to safety. If this was successful, even with the subsidy the government would likely save money because it would stop having to pay for the effects of hurricanes.

Option 2: Rebuild the Coast

There is a lot, a lot, of hurricane prone coastline in the United States. But perhaps we can't get everyone to leave. Maybe there are some areas that we could rebuild in a different way. There is currently a proposal for Long Beach New York that proposes the construction of levees through the island. During nice weather, these levees essentially serve as public parks and bike trails, but they provide organized spaces for flooding during storms. Proposals like this could help to actually protect the coast. Or we could build huge multi-billion dollar storm walls everywhere.

Either way, we have to do something. It's up to our policymakers to decide what. 

MyStuckMovingLife: One Year Later

Still Stuck, But Hopefully Moving Soon

For those of you who routinely read my blog, you've probably noticed that I tend to cover a wide variety of topics and I rarely post anything about my own personal life. My aim is always to generate discussions that focus on the core of our human experience, and often I feel that talking about progressive trends in cities is a great way to do this. I've been at this now for about a year and people ask me often what motivates me to continue and to be fully honest I'm never really sure, but I find it quite calming. I want to take the time to give an update not about the world that we live in, but rather about myself as a part of it.

When I first started blogging I chose the name MyStuckMovingLife and I always hoped that nobody would ask me why, because I did not really know the answer. But now I do. I realized that through most, perhaps all, of my life I've felt limited in one way or another, but I've always had a pervasive sense of optimism about the world. I've felt confined and held back, unable to push forward, but I've always hoped that one day things might be different. But now for the first time, it's really all about to be different.

Stuck

Most of you probably don't know much about me or about my life, because very few people do and you are probably not exactly sure what I mean when I say in a very vague sense that my whole world is soon to change. But here it is in a nutshell. I've spent the last three years at a college that was not in any way a good fit for me. For the entirety of my time I've felt drained, frustrated and held back from achieving everything that I want to. That's not to say that I haven't been successful; I'm graduating a year early with excellent grades. Simply put, I've been unhappy and unfulfilled. But I have 7 days left of classes and then it's all over. 

Moving

In one week I will reach the end of my 15 year formal academic career; the goal that I've been working towards for 75% of my life will be achieved. The next week I graduate and then only days later I fly to Europe for the vacation I've always dreamed of. I'll be reunited with one of my best friends who I haven't seen in a year, and she and I will travel to Prague, Rome, Florence and Paris together (which I'm sure will provide me with some great material for future posts). And then I will return and start full-time work and enter a new phase of my life, one that I hope to be rich and full of meaning. 

Life

It's almost surreal when I think about it, but this is really me. This is my life. I've spent the last 20 years preparing for "the real world" and now it's about to be right here for me to touch. But in some ways the role of the student, at least in my experience, is quite sad. You are told over and over for years on end that you have to prepare for the future and for what you want to do with your life. But all the while you are in fact alive; you are somehow "preparing" for your life while also living your life. It seems like a contradiction to me. I could tell myself that I won't start living until the day that I receive my diploma, but I simply can't accept that any longer.

I am and always have been an active participant in my own life, but it seems that I've only just come to accept it. I've spent preparing for this time, and I'm more ready than ever before to move forward. 

How Restaurants Trick Us

The Psychology of Food and Dieting

Most of us want to eat healthy. We wake up in the morning and think "today I will only make healthy choices, and I will avoid sweets." Somehow that never seems to work. Part of the reason for this is that some people have no self-control and will eat anything that is put in front of them (ME), but there are ways that the food industry itself can influence us and encourage us to make unhealthy choices with foods. One of the worst offenders happens to be one of my favorites: The Cheesecake Factory, pictured below. 

Subtle Restaurant Tricks

There are really a wide range of ways that we as consumers can misperceive food. Many of these tricks are found in restaurants, but it is important to be aware of them in almost any food environment.

Menus

Some restaurants have begun placing calorie counts next to foods, which is actually very helpful for consumers. However, there is a problem with this and it is that just because a food is low-calorie does not mean that it is healthy at all. But simply seeing the calorie counts of foods on a menu gently encourages people to make lower-calorie choices. 

Unless a restaurant segments foods within the menu into "regular" and "healthy" sections. When all "healthy" options are listed together in the same section, consumers are happy because they are aware of this section and know that they have it as an option, but they then are more likely to consume from the regular menu. To actually influence choices in a positive way, menus should not separate healthy from unhealthy options because the separation allows people to consider them separately.

Ambience

This is one of the more subtle ways that we are influenced by our surroundings. I've always had theories as to why restaurants operate in certain ways, but now I have an explanation.

Have you ever noticed that restaurants are often quite cold? I always thought that it was to make you uncomfortable and leave faster, but the reality is that because food and alcohol create a warming sensation, cold temperatures actually encourage us to eat more!

Lights have an equally large effect. Dim and warm lights tend to help relax us, which encourages us to think less and eat more and more slowly. Bright lights have the opposite effect.

I am always annoyed with TVs in restaurants, but they too serve a purpose. TVs distract us and slow us down, which makes us spend more time sitting. This in turn causes us to actually spend more time (and money) eating. 

Food

There are two ways that food itself can be the thing that tricks us. The first is that the texture of food influences whether or not we think that it is healthy. We assume that crunchier more texturized foods are healthier than soft and chewy foods. The reason is that we believe that crunchier things are less processed and closer to nature. The perfect example of this is Clif bars. I always thought that Clif bars were healthy and I would eat them often while exercising; part of what attracted me to the bars was their rough texture. But it turns out that eating a Clif bar is almost as bad as eating a Snickers! On the other hand, soft and chewy Lara bars are actually better for you! 

The other food related trick is that fast food restaurants that include "healthy" options actually influence us to make unhealthier choices. For example, when McDonalds began offering salads in the mid-2000s, people actually ate more Big Macs. The reason for this is that when we think about the difference between healthy and unhealthy foods, we expend energy considering doing something good for us. This makes us actually feel more health-conscious, which makes us more likely to reward ourselves with a Big Mac! 

The Problem With Urban Advertising

When Corporate Ads Rule Our Cities

In America, we pride ourselves on choice. We are offered a wide array of goods and services and we have seemingly endless ways to spend our money. Because of all of this choice, companies fight hard with one another for our dollars partly through the use of advertisements. While I will be the first to admit that some advertisements can be funny or useful, most are just a nuisance. Sometimes, ads become so prolific that they seem to reinforce the commercialism that represents America, and I believe that this is a problem. I take particular offense to the number of advertisements that appear in cities, whether on highways, streets or buildings. 

What's Wrong with Urban Advertising?

When you turn on your TV, browse the Internet or walk into a store, you are offering permission to be shown ads; you could easily avoid advertisements by not participating in these activities. Now of course, everyone needs to enter the commercial world from time to time, but in this context advertising makes sense. 

However, when you choose to drive to work, walk down the street or relax in a park, you are not participating in a commercial activity and have not given permission to be shown ads. When advertisements, such as the McDonalds fries pictured above, dominate the urban landscape, cities transform from whatever you want them to be into an extension of our commercial culture. City street and airspace are public goods and for the most part, you can not and should not alter your use of these areas in order to avoid ads. Advertisements simply should stay away and companies should be forced to respect public space.

My main reason for rejecting urban advertising is that it is simply unpleasant. Imagine yourself strolling the tree lined streets of Paris, marveling at the beautiful architecture your see. Now imagine the same streetscape where half of the street was devoted to Coke ads and the other half was plastered in Pepsi. You would suddenly be missing out on the beauty of the city itself, as the street converts itself into a product. 

Build Your Own Subway

New Subway Game for Urban Planners

I recently found a new game that is great for anyone interested in urban planning. The name of the game is Mini Metro and it requires the user to build a subway system that gets increasingly complex as a city grows. I have included a link to the game here. I have to say that the game seems really easy at first, but gets very very challenging. The opening shot of the game looks something like this.

Simple right? At this stage you only have three stations and are operating only one subway line. The game picks up speed and you must add additional lines and complexities to keep up with increased demand. And after a few minutes of gameplay, the screen might look something more like this. 

Extra stops get added and the number of riders to transport increases rapidly. At this stage the game is still pretty manageable. But after about 5 or 10 minutes, it quickly becomes almost impossible. One of my more advanced screens looks like this.

Eventually, you lose when you cannot meet the needs of an expanding city. I personally think this game is fascinating for anyone that is really interested in transportation and urban planning. My highest score of all time is 625 riders. I challenge you to try and outscore me!

Worcester CitySquare Is Moving Forward

CitySquare and a Hopeful Outlook for 2014

For anyone that is interested in the fate of CitySquare in Worcester, it can sometimes be challenging to find any news on the subject and so I am writing my own update about the progress. Despite the numerous delays that have plagued CitySquare so far, it seems as though 2014 could be the beginning of a more vibrant time for the city.

CitySquare

While Worcester has yet to create a downtown district that is shown in the above picture, CitySquare is definitely on the move. I noticed the other day that the old mall, the Worcester Galleria / Worcester Common Outlets, is finally being demolished in it's entirety. For years the mall has languished in a state of partial demolition, but the last bits are finally being torn down. 

2013 brought a few new key features to CitySquare, but it seemed for a time as though the progress may stop there. Last year, Unum opened it's brand new building downtown, and St. Vincent opened a new cancer treatment center as well. Front Street and Mercantile Street were both opened to the public and Union Station saw the creation of a new WRTA bus terminal. And then everything seemed to stop.

Now that the snow has melted, 2014 projects can begin. Quinsigamond Community College is renovating a building a 20 Franklin Street and moving more than a thousand students downtown. Two hotel deals have been approved, one at the site of the old mall and another at Gateway Park near WPI. There is even talk of a new 350 unit apartment complex being developed downtown. While far from complete, the project is definitely amping up this year!

Other Development

Aside from CitySquare, Worcester is seeing tons of new business development!

Restaurants

A major source of excitement in the city is the proliferation of new restaurants. Over the past year or so Worcester has seen the following new restaurants (as well as others that I probably haven't noticed):

• Volturno
• Sweet 
• 7 Nana
• Shabu
• Crust Artisan Bakeshop

This year promises even more restaurants. So far I know of a burger restaurant opening on Shrewsbury Street in the former Mezcal location and the addition of Wormtown Brewery to Shrewsbury Street. 

Blackstone River Bikeway

The city also seems to be getting serious about developing the Blackstone River Bikeway, intended to link Worcester with Providence. A new visitor center has been designed and there is talk of revitalizing the Canal District of the city as well!

Lincoln Street

Normally I find road projects to be pretty boring, but this one is worth mentioning. If you have ever needed to travel up or down Lincoln Street you know what a mess it is. The city is in the process of rebuilding the entire roadway to reduce traffic, level potholes and create rotaries to allow cars and pedestrians to coexist more easily than they do today. 

Most Sprawling Cities Are Also Most Republican

Sprawl and Conservative Politics

It has long been known that Democrats tend to cluster is large cities while Republicans often find themselves in rural areas. But now, a recent study indicates that there are differences even between urban areas. The densest cities are the most Democratic, while sprawling metros tend to be more Republican. In the 2012 presidential election, there was a correlation of .44 for sprawl and voting for Romney and a correlation of -.43 for sprawl and voting for Obama. 

The Tipping Point

At around 800 people per square mile, voting districts tend to shift from Republican to Democrat. At around this level of density people are no longer able to easily satisfy their needs privately; property and land sizes begin to fall off and green space becomes more concentrated in public areas such as parks. People who choose to sacrifice some personal space in exchange for public goods like parks tend to exhibit more liberal voting patterns. In these areas, conservatism becomes more challenging due to the necessity of shared resources.

Interestingly enough, sprawl and conservatism actually exert a causal relationship on one another in both directions. Sprawling areas tend to attract Republicans based on values of privacy, and at the same time Republicans tend to favor free market conditions, which tend to lead to piecemeal building patterns. On the other hand, Democrats tend to favor more centrally planned and dense construction.

Why Infrastructure Projects Cost Too Much

Government Construction Jobs Are Too Expensive

In general, I tend to be very pro-government. I usually think that government programs and ideas are useful; however, when it comes to infrastructure projects, the government needs a reality check. The building and maintaining of highways, roads and bridges is not particularly political, but perhaps it should be. In the United States, both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have been routinely supporting popular but nonsensical regulations regarding infrastructure projects. 

The Funding Gap Issue

Before considering the specific policies in place to raise infrastructure costs, it is important to understand exactly how these programs are supposed to be funded. In theory, the gas tax is meant to support infrastructure needs in America. In general, most people do not like the gas tax because they do not really understand it. As a result, it is politically unpopular to raise the tax to appropriate levels. The current federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon and has been at this level since 1993. In order to properly fund construction projects and road maintenance, this tax would need to be raised to 33.4 cents per gallon, nearly twice where it currently stands.

As a result of the underfunded system, the Highway Trust Fund, which funds the roads, is soon to run out of money. Funding is certainly an issue, but so are the actual policies that raise costs.

The Cost Issue

So sure, we don't fund our road system, but we at least promote cost effective policies right? Wrong! We actually have 4 specific provisions that prohibitively raise the cost of government road maintenance and construction way above market levels. 

1. Davis-Bacon Laws

This series of laws dating back to 1931 was intended to protect government contractors by paying them local prevailing wages. While this is a great idea in theory, the wage rate for these contractors is set not by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but by another agency. As a result, the average wage rate for government highway contractors is about 22% above the Bureau of Labor Statistics rate.

2. Project Labor Agreements

This one dates to an Executive Order from President Obama in 2009. This order was intended to mandate that costly contracts went to union workers. Again, this is a great idea in theory. But what has happened as a result is that is has removed some competition from the market, which has driven up costs by another 14%.

3. Buy-America Provision

Sorry politicians, I can't even say that this one is a good idea in theory. This provision encourages using American made materials in construction projects. Obama widened the scope of this provision in 2009 to include a variety of construction projects because it was politically popular. The problem here is obvious. American goods cost more because of the high cost of labor here. While this has provided a boost to expensive American manufacturing companies that are inevitably headed for a decline, it has raised construction materials costs by about 25%.

4. Toll Bans 

Tolls are generally not permitted on federal interstate highways, with a few exceptions in special cases. This is outright foolish. Right now the gas tax funds road maintenance and for the most part, tolls do not. This means that in general, everyone shares the cost for roads all throughout a state and throughout the country, regardless of which roads they drive on. Allowing tolls on highways would redistribute the costs of road maintenance so that roads were paid for by the drivers of the roads. This is much more efficient, but tends to be politically unpopular.

A Tax Nightmare for Gay Couples

Tax Chaos For Same-Sex Couples

This year is the first time that gay couples have ever been able to file federal income taxes jointly in America. In many ways this is great and it represents a huge step forward in the move towards equality. This new ability to file came when the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act. While it is important to recognize the importance of this step, the new filing possibilities have created undue stress for many couples.

The reason for the complication is that many states still do not recognize same-sex marriage on the state level. This means that depending on the state, same-sex couples have to file state returns separately, but can file federal returns jointly. In many states this leads to undue work, confusion and difficulty for same-sex couples to receive the appropriate refunds. A few states even have the opposite problem: they do not recognize same-sex marriages but they do recognize same-sex tax filing. 

To sort out some of the confusion, here is a map that demonstrates what same-sex couples have to do to file in each state.

But this is not even the end of the murkiness. If couples live in one state but have assets in another state, they may have to file several returns for each state depending on the variety of recognition criteria in each state. And because same-sex marriage is now recognized at the federal level, employers need to rewrite benefits policies to include same-sex couples. 

The Supreme Court should just end this mess and legalize same-sex marriage nationally.

Despite Urbanization, Cities Lose Politically

The Imbalance Between Urban and Rural Politics

America has been undergoing a period of rather rapid urbanization for about 100 years, but politically it seems not to matter. Political power in America tends to favor less populous areas; this is true both on the federal level and at the state levels. For example, voters from Vermont see their votes technically weighted several times more than in Ohio because for a state of 620,000, they receive 3 seats in Congress, approximately 1 for every 200,000 citizens. Ohio on the other hand receives 18 seats for a population of 11,000,000, or about 1 for every 600,000 citizens. This happens because even the smallest states are still afforded two Senators and one Representative. Much the same is true inside states, and the consequences can prove interesting.

Unbalanced Power

Rural counties have been rapidly losing population to cities throughout the country, but they lose seats in state government much more slowly. Over time this means that the influence of cities in politics grows, but it grows much more slowly than the cities themselves. Interesting.

The problem becomes most pronounced in large states that are mostly rural but have one large city. New York and Nevada are the perfect examples. In both of these states, the major cities, New York City and Las Vegas, occupy the southern portion of the states and have vastly different concerns from their isolated northern neighbors. However, when it comes to state laws and resources, both of these cities struggle. New York City, with its nearly 16 million residents, finds itself reporting to Albany, a city with less than 100,000 residents. For those living in Upstate New York, this is great. It keeps the rural northland heard and gives them significant political power. But, more importantly, this is completely unfair to New York City. 

Urbanization is likely to continue throughout America, but we need to make some changes in our voting laws. Every citizen should have equal representation in every election, regardless of where they live. 

What's In A Generation?

The Blurred Lines of American Generations

There seems to be one thing that everyone can agree on when it comes to generations in America: Baby Boomers were born between 1946 - 1964. Everything else is rather unclear. If you were born before 1945, you may be labeled "The Greatest Generation," "The Silent Generation," "The Lucky Few," have some combination of these labels or none at all. Anyone born after 1965 could be "Generation X" or "Generation Y." What's with all of the confusion?

Let's examine a couple of charts, that should sort it out.

Notice that between these two charts, the only overlapping generation is again the Baby Boomers. There is widespread confusion about all of the other generations. In fact, the Baby Boomers are the only generation that are actually technically defined at all by the United States government. Everything else is conjured by someone else.

The reason that I find this so interesting is that there is so much intergenerational warfare in America. Gen Xers may call Millennials lazy and entitled while Millennials may call Gen Xers materialistic and selfish. But, if you happen to be born in 1983, it would appear that you are a member of both. We have so many stereotypes about the characteristics that define and describe certain generations, but I feel that most of this is a farce. Our characteristics are largely determined by our genetics and our upbringing; if decades worth of individuals all possessed the same qualities, we would live in a very simple world that lacked much of the diversity that surrounds us. 

In my opinion all generations other than Baby Boomers should be "unlabeled." Baby Boomers can keep their title because they are identified only by their birth rate, which has nothing to do with their individuality. For everyone else, I think that we should stop criticizing and stereotyping and learn to coexist with one another.