Even if Hyperloop fails, public transport will win

The tech shown off at the Hyperloop Pod Challenge can be applied to other transportation methods.

One hundred and fifty teams from around the world entered the third SpaceX Hyperloop Pod Competition. Of those, 25 made it to the company’s weeklong event in Hawthorne, California. And like the prior years’ events under the Southern California sun, after days of testing and dry runs, only a select few were chosen to do a proper vacuum-sealed run down the 1.25 kilometer track.

It’s been four years since SpaceX, Tesla and Boring Company CEO Elon Musk dropped his white paper about the Hyperloop: a vacuum-sealed tube-based transportation system that would get passengers from San Francisco to Los Angeles in a mind-boggling 30 minutes. Since then, a few companies have taken up the mantle to make Musk’s idea a reality. Perhaps more intriguing than entrepreneurs tackling the Hyperloop are the student teams that SpaceX has gathered together to solve the pod problem.

This year at the rocket-building company’s pod-building competition, the name of the game was speed. Whichever team was able to propel its pod down the track the quickest would walk away with a trophy signed by Musk and bragging rights.

The rules for the event were simple. The fastest pod on the 1.25 kilometer vacuum-sealed track wins. But not all 25 teams made it that far. The SpaceX engineers and judges ran a battery of tests for technology and safety on the vehicles to determine if they were worthy of time in the tube. Only three teams made it to the finals.

The winning team was the Warr team, from the Technical University of Munich, who pulled an impressive run reaching just over 200 miles per hour. But the team did it without fancy maglevs or air bearings. Instead, the small pod was powered by a 50-kW motor and held steady on the track by high-speed bearings and aluminum wheels. It was essentially a bullet-train-shaped electric car. “We focused on a lightweight design that accelerates really quick in the tube,” Manfred Schwarz told Engadget ahead their run at the event.

Schwartz still believes that the future of Hyperloop involves maglev, though. But for a student trying to win a competition and catch the eye of potential sponsors (building pods is expensive), it really comes down to creating a pod that works best for the given situation.

In stark contrast to the small missile built by Warr was the entry built by the Paradigm team. It used the opportunity to try out its air bearings (which the team says reduces the force necessary to propel its pod by 80 percent) and lateral movement technology. The 1,800-pound (yeah, it was huge) pod posted a very respectable speed of about 60 miles per hour during a run that involved using a vehicle provided by SpaceX called a “pusher” to get it up to speed.

Meanwhile, the Swissloop team used a jet-propulsion system to get its pod going with a great whoosh. Its entry got up to about 25 miles per hour after they were initially unable to connect to the pod after it was placed on the track. They pulled the vehicle out of the tube, swapped batteries and resumed their test.

The thing is, currently there’s no “right way” to get the hyperloop going. Hyperloop One, a commercial endeavor, conducted tests in July where its XP-1 pod hit 190 miles per hour with a maglev system. That’s the accepted future of the transportation system. Even Schwarz thinks that’s the long-term goal. Unfortunately, building a maglev system is expensive. Add that to the already Herculean task of building a series of vacuum-sealed tubes between destinations and the economics of the Hyperloop become the system’s largest obstacle.

Which brings us back to the pod competition at the SpaceX headquarters. Here students are figuring how to build systems on limited budgets and making tough decisions as to what they’ll focus on for each competition. Musk put out the idea and companies like Hyperloop One jumped on it focusing on the SpaceX CEO’s vision, but these teams, they’re looking at it from thousands of different directions.

Understandably, sometimes an initial idea needs some tweaking before it’s truly ready to take on the world. That’s where the Hyperloop Pod Competition shines. No two pods are the same and that’s exactly what this emerging technology needs. It needs teams of very smart people trying out insane ideas. Not every concept will yield something worthy, but at the very least it’s one more thing to tick off the “that doesn’t work” list.

While the original idea was for Musk to put his Hyperloop concept out there and let the world figure it out, the CEO’s latest grand scheme — the Boring Company — might need the Hyperloop or something similar to become a reality. Those sleds with cars on them need propulsion and braking systems, and that’s what the college teams are focusing on. So it’s unsurprising that another Hyperloop Pod Competition is slated for next year.

Maybe the Hyperloop will live up to the hype and passengers will be whisked from Los Angeles to San Francisco in 30 minutes via maglev pods in a few decades. But even if we never erect tubes up and down the countryside, what’s happening at these events could be applied to other transportation systems and that’s more important than any one man’s idea.



Projjal Dutta – Director, Sustainability Initiatives, NY Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Projjal Dutta

Director, Sustainability Initiatives

NY Metropolitan Transportation Authority

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/projjal-dutta-13891012/

Twitter: @projjal

Website: http://www.mtahq.info/sustainability

Company Twitter: @MTA

Please tell us your job responsibilities and day-to-day activities.

Projjal K. Dutta, is the NY Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s first-ever director of sustainability. Projjal has pioneered “Transit Avoided Carbon” – a verifiably- measurable reduction in regional greenhouse gas emissions attributable to transit. This commodity, potentially worth billions of dollars in an emissions marketplace, can
completely re-contour the carbon landscape. The value of avoided emissions, from MTA service alone, may be as high as $500 million annually. Currently conversation
is at an advanced stage to transact the first-ever sale of such avoided-emissions, in the voluntary market.

Other than quantifying the environmental benefits of transit and seeking a market for them, Projjal has led several initiatives to reduce transit’s own environmental footprintchiefly through energy-consumption and greenhouse gas emission reduction initiatives. Emissions per passenger-mile have reduced by 16% in the previous five years, although it is not possible to accurately attribute overall reductions to individual initiatives in an organization as vast and complex as the MTA. Projjal has also led climate-resilience efforts at the agency; these have gained added urgency with Hurricane Sandy’s onslaught.

Tell us your biggest environmental/sustainability challenge in 2017 and how you are addressing it.

Making the MTA resilient to climate change is our biggest challenge. For the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), climate change is not only an urgent reality, it is a reality to which all six MTA agencies are already devoting extensive financial, planning, and engineering resources. There is no responsible alternative. The science of climate change is well established. The damages to New York’s transportation assets by Superstorm Sandy in 2012 gave the MTA no feasible option but to rebuild the system in anticipation of rising sea levels and increasingly volatile weather events. A disaster recovery budget of $10.5 billion was approved in 2013. This rebuilding effort is well underway. Some of the most badly damaged parts of the MTA network—such as MTA New York City Transit’s (NYCT’s) Montague Tube under the East River—were repaired, fortified, and returned to full revenue service with speed and efficiency.

Is there a specific recent project or implementation you worked on at your company that you can share? Any tips you can share that would help colleagues at other companies who are contemplating similar projects?

The opening to public the first phase of Second Avenue Subway, a brand new line under Manhattan, the first such line in over 70 years, was a headline project for the MTA. I was a proud member of the team when it first went on the preliminary design board, about 16 years ago, and as a consultant. Since then I have moved on board the MTA itself, and continued to be associated with the project. The first ride on the subway, therefore, was a goosebump providing moment.

Please tell us what you see in the market in the next few years. What will be the biggest challenges the industry will face?

The Federal Government, the withdrawing of the United States from the Paris Climate Accord, and a general return to the days of fossil-fuel friendly policies signify the biggest challenge to sustainability and professionals who work toward making the world more sustainable. Much of the action, consequently, will happen at some, not all, state, regional, and local levels. Hopefully, unhindered by Federal policy.

Tell us about a favorite hobby, passion, or book you’ve read recently that has had an impact on you.

I like reading and traveling. Most recently I was a part of an official New York delegation to Berlin, Germany, to study how since 1992 Germany has moved to embrace green technologies and renewables, such that today almost 40% of all its energy is sourced from renewables, primarily wind and solar power. Although the naysayers had predicted that renewables as a fraction of the overall grid would never pass 5%, they are almost at 40%! On late evenings when there is not a lot of demand, as much as 80% of the grid can be powered by renewables. And Germany is not a small country or economy. This is inspiring.

Environmental leader.com

by Jennifer Hermes

New York’s Subway System Could Be a Force for Equity and Sustainability

A crisis besets America’s largest city. It threatens to derail the entire economy, but it most cruelly punishes working people, especially low-income residents, folks in the outer boroughs, the old and the young. It’s not a stretch to say it poses a threat to public safety, as the risk of serious accidents increases. Add to the human toll an environmental one, because one potential consequence of the crisis is that thousands of New Yorkers will take steps to increase their individual carbon footprints. Beneath it all is a fundamental test about the ability of government to solve problems, coming at a time when faith in the public sector is thinner than ever.

Leaders tend to look to moments of crisis to show their mettle. But in the case of the crisis that has gripped New York City’s transit system this summer, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo have struggled to get beyond their bitter feud.

Both men recognize the system is in trouble and both acknowledge that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) needs more money to repair a system plagued by antiquated technology, and that government needs to come up with a new way to fund that work. But after debating whose problem it is and then who should pay to fix it, they’re now at loggerheads over what the new funding approach should be. De Blasio wants to impose a new tax on millionaires. Cuomo supports imposing congestion pricing, which would charge drivers to enter central Manhattan. De Blasio disses Cuomo’s idea as inequitable. Cuomo scoffs that de Blasio’s tax is dead on arrival.

The fact is, neither man has impeccable credentials when it comes to public transportation, though de Blasio’s résumé is stronger. The governor is a “car guy” who likes to ride motorcycles with Billy Joel, tinker with muscle cars, and reminisce about his job driving a tow truck when he was young. His transportation record has been more focused on suburban commuters than on city residents whose rides to work begin on a bus or subway.

Meanwhile, the mayor eschews the subway for an NYPD-chauffeured SUV as he moves about the city, giving him little sense of daily life underground. While de Blasio has undertaken some interesting transportation policies over the years—greatly expanding the ferry system, implementing a Vision Zero initiative to reduce traffic fatalities, and proposing a controversial streetcar linking the Queens and Brooklyn waterfronts—he had said little about the buses and subways that provide 7.7 million rides a day.

This summer both men were forced by the deteriorating situation on the subways to grapple fully with the mass-transit challenge facing the city—which serves a growing ridership with inadequate funding and a lot of aging infrastructure. First de Blasio and Cuomo squabbled over who actually controlled and was accountable for the system (Hint: It’s the governor). Then the governor demanded the city pay for half of an $800 million rescue plan. Polls started to show both men were getting blame for the crisis, but Cuomo received a bigger share of the flak.

Now the fight is whether to stick rich people or drivers with the bill. The fact is, neither approach would be easy to get approved. When then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg brought a congestion-pricing plan to Albany in 2008, there was so little legislative support that the Democrat-controlled Assembly didn’t even bother to vote. And when de Blasio sought to make good on his 2013 election promise and use a millionaires’ tax to pay for his universal pre-kindergarten program, the governor thwarted him. The mayor got his pre-K, but not his tax.

The legislative prospects are part of the picture, but electoral considerations are also at play. De Blasio is up for election this fall, while Cuomo and state legislators face the voters next year. Both men are rumored to have designs on the presidency, though the more centrist Cuomo is the more likely national candidate. Both men deny such ambitions.

Whether they seek national office or not, the transit situation is not just a math problem for the mayor or governor to solve. The question is not just how to pay to make the current system more reliable. The moment also demands a vision for the progressive force mass transit can be.

New York City does not simply depend on its transit system. It is its transit system. About three in five New York City workers commute via subway or bus, more than twice the number who get to work via cars—a far higher percentage than in any other US city. For most New Yorkers, the hyper-simplified subway map forms their mental picture of the city’s geography, which is fitting because the subway is where the city’s politics, culture, future, and past are all packed together like a rush-hour crowd. The subway is where poverty is impossible to ignore, where street music lives, where the races and cultures meet, where urban crime took on its most sinister aura and where it began to recede. The subway lines are effectively the thread that binds the city together, without which the connections among the boroughs would be merely a formality.

On an average day, the city’s transit system carries more than twice the combined daily ridership of the next 14 largest US transit systems. It is vast: 662 miles of track used by 6,400 cars on 24 lines serving 469 stations in the subway, and 4,400 buses on 233 routes, all operated by nearly 48,000 employees.

Given what it’s asked to do every day, the MTA still provides an incredibly valuable service, and most New Yorkers will admit that, compared with how it was in the early 1980s, the system today is cleaner, safer, and more reliable, thanks largely to a major infusion of capital during the administration of Governor Hugh Carey.

But the state pulled back on its financial commitment in the later ’80s and in the ’90s—during the administrations of Democratic Governor Mario Cuomo, Andrew’s father, and his Republican successor George Pataki—and that prevented the system from replacing aging infrastructure, like its antiquated signal system. As other cities innovated, New York lagged behind: It was a big deal in 2006 when New York City finally started to introduce “countdown clocks” in subway stations to tell riders how long until the next train arrives. Other cities had such technology decades earlier. Several New York lines still don’t have it.

The federal government also withdrew, in New York and everywhere. According to the American Public Transit Association, federal support for operating expenses is half the share it was in 1980, and the federal share of capital funding for transit—65 percent in 1988—had dropped to 43 percent by 2014. One effect of the reduced capital support to the MTA from all sources was that it had to borrow more to do necessary repairs and replacement, and that made debt service a bigger part of its operating budget, cutting into what it could spend on other work.

“The debt burden eats up all their available cash,” says veteran transit advocate Gene Russianoff. “That burden is going to be there forever.”

Ironically, as the system aged in place it also got a lot more popular: Subway ridership is nearly 2 million people heavier each day now than it was in the 1990s. Improvements in service, decreases in subway crime, and the leap in New York City’s popularity as a place to live or visit were all positive story lines, but they did mean more labor for a system starting to show its age (some infrastructure dates to the 1930s). A bond act passed in 2005 allowed the MTA to move ahead with expansions, like finally building the Second Avenue Subway.

But there were concerns about how to maintain what the MTA already had, and to reach parts of the city that are poorly served by the current system. Bloomberg’s congestion-pricing scheme was a response to those shortfalls and shortcomings. But City Hall botched the sales job, and outer-borough pols like de Blasio—then a City Council member from Brooklyn—opposed the plan as unfair to outer-borough drivers. Now, as mayor, de Blasio has dismissed MoveNY, a proposal to equalize tolls on all city bridges (several are now free), and use the proceeds to fund transit improvements, as politically impossible.

Under enormous pressure to answer the state’s call for more financing from the city, the mayor in early August proposed his millionaire’s tax, which would raise the city’s income tax rate on individuals with incomes over $500,000 and couples who earn more than $1 million.

“We need a millionaire’s tax so that New Yorkers who typically travel in first class pay their fair share so the rest of us can get around, so the rest of us can get to work, so the rest of us can live our lives here in this city,” de Blasio said on August 7. “It’s a matter of fairness.” He predicted the tax would raise upwards of $700 million a year. Half a billion of that would go to capital work on the system. Up to $250 million would fund reduced transit fares for low-income people.

Later that week, Cuomo told The New York Times that “Congestion pricing is an idea whose time has come.” While the governor has yet to release a plan, congestion pricing could involve tolling all the bridges or erecting tolls around some core part of Manhattan. Those tolls could be varied by day and hour to encourage traffic patterns that ease congestion.

Cuomo has argued that his plan will be more politically viable. “I think that’s just been declared dead on arrival,” he has said of the mayor’s tax proposal. “Congestion pricing is difficult, but I think is feasible.” De Blasio has reserved final judgment until Cuomo issues a specific congestion-pricing plan, but says, “there are big equity issues that need to be considered.” The mayor referred specifically to the inequities a charge would create for outer-borough residents compared with Manhattanites. Congestion pricing also could be unfair to low-income drivers, because the flat fee will hurt them more than wealthier drivers—although, overall, most congestion-pricing schemes would benefit low-income people, because poor people are more likely to use transit than drive.

“As a good progressive, I have no problem with asking the wealthiest among us to pay a little more in income taxes to help ensure the city they live in is inhabitable and affordable for all citizens, not just the well-to-do,” Alex Mathiessen, one of the organizers behind the MoveNY plan, told The Nation. “That said, I think that revenue from a so-called millionaires’ tax would be better spent on needs that don’t have built-in but untapped revenue sources like the transportation sector does–things like homelessness, public housing, and education. Moreover, given that Albany has already declared it dead on arrival, I think New Yorkers would be better served if elected officials get behind the governor in pushing for congestion pricing, and specifically for a plan akin to the Move NY Fair Plan.”

If the discussion is just about how to pay to fix things, the outcome in New York might disappoint supporters of either financing approach. For one thing, the transit crisis will likely fade from the headlines, making the task of merely fixing what we’ve got seem less pressing. And with the city projected to add another 500,000 people by 2030, what we’ve got might not be enough for a functioning system. Instead, someone has to articulate not just how to make the numbers work, but how to make transit a galvanizing issue for the public.

At its most basic, a great public-transit system provides a safe way for people to move around and reduces vehicular traffic. But the impact of transit is, or could be, far more than that. Transit can connect economically isolated areas to work, and can provide blue-collar jobs and contracting opportunities to those same communities. It gives government a highly visible, everyday role in people’s lives. It provides a commons, a means to inform and engage the public, a place for public art. It offers multiple ways to reduce a city’s carbon footprint and to improve human health.

Other cities have shown the potential for transformative transit ideas. Brazil has established world-standard bus rapid-transit systems in cities large and small. Bremen ties its buses and streetcars together with an extensive car- and bike-sharing system allowing riders to seamlessly shift from one mode to the other. Dresden has a streetcar for delivering freight that gets trucks off the road. Nor is all the good stuff happening overseas: Denver has been expanding its system ambitiously through the multibillion-dollar FasTracks Program: 122 miles of new rail, 18 miles of bus rapid transit, and parking areas so folks will ditch their cars and take the train.

Not all those plans would make sense in New York, which already has a pretty elaborate system. But the MoveNY plan includes some ideas that clearly would make New York a better place to ride: a new subway line to connect Queens to Brooklyn to the Bronx, expanded bus rapid-transit offerings, bike and pedestrian access across the Verrazano Bridge (the only bridge connecting Staten Island to the city’s other boroughs).

Mass transit is an issue on which the nation’s largest cities are politically isolated. Roughly three-quarters of all public-transit trips take place in 10 metropolitan areas. Many of those areas are, like New York, experiencing systemic problems. Getting heftier federal support to improve those systems would require making the case to smaller cities to also use more transit, and convincing suburbs and outlying areas that those investments benefit them, so as to expand the pool of transit constituents. But getting that buy-in would require that cities that already have large transit systems demonstrate the transformative potential they have.

“It’s time to do something that will really break the mold here,” de Blasio said when he unveiled his plan.

Amen to that.


Hyperloop Breaks 1955 Rail Record

The further things progress with Hyperloop, the more surreal it all becomes.

Take, for instance, today’s feature in Wired entitled “How Students Built the World’s Fastest Hyperloop.” Basically, it’s about a student competition to launch a cart down a tube, with some of the air sucked out to reduce resistance. The cart hit just over 200 mph.

KQED, in it’s latest story on Hyperloop, describes things this way:

Hyperloop is Musk’s answer to what he called “outdated technology” in plans for high-speed rail in California. Musk proposed a completely new form of transportation — a fifth mode of transportation, along with cars, trains, boats and planes — and then challenged academics to make it.

Comparing it to California high-speed rail is noteworthy, since the French and Japanese spent decades perfecting the technology. The French, in fact, first achieved 200 mph in an experiment with a conventional steel-wheel-on-steel-rail train back in 1955. And, unlike the latest Hyperloop breakthrough, it was with a full-sized train.

(It was actually a French SNCF “C-Motor” that sits retired at the rail museum in Breil Sur Roya, France. A neat little train ride from Nice France.)

The students did surpass Los Angeles-based Hyperloop One’s run of a larger test vehicle in the Nevada desert. “That design, which the company is hoping to commercialize one day, uses magnetic levitation, like a bullet train,” wrote Jack Stewart, in his his story for Wired. Except bullet trains, referring to the iconic high-speed rail network in Japan, don’t use magnetic levitation at all–they use true-and-tried conventional steel-wheels-on-steel rails and have hit 275 mph.

In other words, Hyperloop remains much slower than those pesky “dinosaur” trains that use good-old fashioned tracks and wheels.

Magnetic Levitation technology, which floats the train a few inches above a guideway (no wheels required), also isn’t original to Hyperloop. That’s used commercially in China on the Shanghai Maglev train that runs to that city’s airport. That train, which started carrying passengers in 2004, uses German Maglev technology that was in development for decades. It tops out at 268 mph. The Japanese, meanwhile are building a Maglev between Tokyo and Nagoya, which should be operational by 2027. The Japanese MagLev currently holds the train speed record, at 375 mph.

The current conventional steel-wheel-on-steel-rail speed record, by the way, was achieved by the French in 2007, at 357 mph.

Again, the Hyperloop miniature test train achieved a “record” speed of just over 200 mph.

Street Blogs San Francisco

Hurricane Harvey resource fact sheet

This resource includes customer updates from logistics companies and transportation providers, and ways people can contribute to charitable organizations to help those affected by the storm and flooding. This page will be updated whenever JOC learns of new resources.


BNSF Railway reports on service disruptions: http://domino.bnsf.com/website/updates.nsf/updates?ReadForm&service

Cosco Container Lines North America reports its North American Customer Service Center is operating with up to 60 percent staffing: http://www.cosco-usa.com/docs/Harvey%20Customer%20Update%20August%2028.pdf

Dunavant Logistics reported Monday that “as of now, we have a few associates and contractors impacted by flooding or power loss, and thankfully no one has been hurt. … Our operating facilities in warehousing and transportation remain dry and have not been impacted by water or wind damage.”

FedEx said customers should expect delays and disruptions to service in parts of Texas and Louisiana: http://www.fedex.com/us/servicealerts/

Hapag-Lloyd omits a Houston call on Gulf Caribbean service, will drop cargo at Altamira: https://www.hapag-lloyd.com/en/news-insights/news/2017/08/gcs-service-_-frisia-lissabon–v–1730-nb-1735-sb—-houston-omi.html

Kansas City Southern Railway advisory on service suspensions, shipment embargo, and force majeure declaration: http://www.kcsouthern.com/customer-resources/service-status-updates/hurricane-harvey-update

Maersk Line customer advisory on Houston service: http://view.mktg.maerskline.com/?qs=dd89531f465220a36bfbaa5b84c27f81eea2f90923a6682c54a541b3722fc281f9d713fa165432c2a6879a5abd8d72b23cca61a386c5b5ba10a821194369ce479f5ffb83129c721d

SalSon Logistics reports its Houston staff is safe and working from their homes as the drayage company continues to monitor conditions.

Seaboard Marine is monitoring conditions that have closed Jacintoport, where its ships call in Houston: https://www.seaboardmarine.com/seaboard-marine-monitoring-hurricane-harvey/

Sealand advisory on Houston services: http://view.email.sealand.com/?qs=8b13988fa8b4a66c561c3582e5f11c33b14aa89c495945c52a20856d8d32626b517b89b31ef311f5a6d6f36c7ddfb089e49bafe316af3c77d26f822e3438a52e

Texas Department of Transportation map of flooded highways: https://drivetexas.org/#/6/32.553/-98.852?future=false

Union Pacific Railroad service advisory on storm impacts: https://www.up.com/customers/announcements/customernews/generalannouncements/CN2017-63.html

UPS said its service was affected in 728 zip codes in Texas and four Louisiana zip codes. A searchable list of areas affected is available here: https://www.ups.com/us/en/service-alerts.page

US Coast Guard update on port closures: https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSCG/bulletins/1b3d57a


Gulf Winds International‘s charitable arm, the More Than The Move Foundation, sends donations directly to employee and owner-operators’ families in need, with no overhead: https://morethanthemove.com/?page_id=1009

International Longshoremen’s Association relief fund to help ILA members affected by storm: http://www.ilaunion.org/ila-afl-cio-launches-fundraising-drive-to-aide-tx-ila-members-recover-from-hurricane-harvey/

Project 44, a transportation software company, is offering its less-than-truckload and truckload visibility products free for the next 30 days https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hurricane-harvey-supporting-houston-our-networks-tommy-barnes

Union Pacific Railroad donates $250,000 to hurricane relief, will match contributions up to $100,000: https://www.up.com/media/releases/170828-harvey-relief.htm

Meteoric Growth Of New York City’s Mobile Food Vending Industry Sparks Legislative Action

Mobile food vending is now a billion dollar industry. The hospitality subset has experienced a major boom since the economic downturn of 2008. Food trucks nationwide are expected to bring in $2.7 billion in revenue this year alone according to Priceonomics. This meteoric growth is attributable to a confluence of changing consumer demands and a relatively easy start-up process.

In New York City, home to an estimated 12,000 mobile food vendors, legislators are struggling to find balance between regulation and sustained growth. The issues are many and range from permitting to parking to health and safety concerns. Here’s a closer look.

For that estimated 12,000 mobile food vendors, there are only 5,100 valid food vendor permits currently allotted by the city’s Department of Health. That number has not increased since the 1980s. The lack of permits has created a black market whereby permit owners can attain as much as $20,000 per permit as reported in the New York Times.

In addition, more vendors equates to more competition for brick and mortar restaurants. Having a large number of vendors operating illegally has restaurant proponents fuming about unfair competition, lost profits, and inadequate regulation.

Further, unpermitted vendors may put consumers’ health at risk. City health inspectors cannot inspect nor regulate what they do not know exists.

Proposed Legislative Solutions

The New York City council has proposed the Street Vending Modernization Act (“SVMA”) to expand the number of available permits to 8,000 by the year 2023. Proponents of the SVMA see mobile food vending as a legitimate industry and want the city to cultivate an environment where these businesses can flourish. In addition to increasing the number of permits, the SVMA intends to improve mobile food vendor compliance with local regulations and create an independent office of street vendor enforcement.

Despite the apparent benefits, the SVMA has been met with opposition from brick and mortar restaurant proponents. Restaurateurs are concerned with the effect an increased number of permits will have on their businesses, and concerned consumers detest the idea of further congesting already overcrowded New York City streets and sidewalks with more food trucks and carts. The SVMA has yet to pass.

On another front, mobile food vendors may face increased regulations regarding where they can conduct business. Today, New York City has fairly lax regulations addressing where a mobile food vendor may park. Vendors are only banned from occupying areas in and around crosswalks, fire hydrants, bus stops, building entrances, and the like. The New York City council has received pressure from local restaurant owners to further restrict the location of food trucks to address what they see as unfair competition. As an example of the conflict, some point to the area around the Second Avenue subway station. When the station was under construction, several restaurants in the vicinity suffered a decline in sales. Now that the subway has opened, mobile food vendors are setting up directly outside the subway entrance and in front of brick and mortar restaurants. Currently there is no pending legislation that restricts the proximity to which a mobile food vendor may park from a brick and mortar restaurant.

New York legislators have also struggled with the regulation of health and safety for mobile food vendors. Until just recently, there was no requirement for displaying food inspection grades for mobile food vendors. In May 2017, Mayor de Blasio signed into law a bill that requires mobile food vendors to display health inspection grades. A similar bill is currently active in the New York State Senate which would require inspection grades to be displayed and also require vendors to submit their routes to the health commission for tracking purposes. This bill is viewed as a win-win for both brick and mortar restaurants and mobile food vendors. The bill holds mobile food vendors to the same health and sanitation standards as brick and mortar restaurants, while those vendors displaying satisfactory food grades can attract more business by assuring consumers of a sanitary product.

Given that the mobile food vending industry now accounts for close to 18,000 jobs in New York City and it has become a part of the city’s fabric, we do not expect to see city or state legislators significantly curtail such business. However, with increased pressure from consumers, food vendors and brick and mortar restaurants, we do believe that legislators will act on the issues discussed above.

JD Supra

Elon Musk shares epic video of Hyperloop competition winners’ pod flying at over 200 mph

It’s a feat deserving of the ultimate bragging rights — to impress Elon Musk. A bunch of students from around the world did just that on Sunday with their engineering innovation for his ultra-high-speed travel Hyperloop initiative.

The billionaire Tesla and SpaceX founder and CEO wants to make ultra-high speed travel possible via a Hyperloop, which he proposed in a white paper released in 2013. In such a Hyperloop, transportation pods would shoot through vacuum tubes, theoretically making travel at speeds in excess of 700 miles per hour possible.

Sunday, Musk held the Hyperloop Pod competition II at SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, Calif. More than 20 student groups from Austin to Zurich to Warsaw designed pods for the competition. The participants who designed one that could reach the highest possible speed on the 0.8 mile test track won. The pod also had to be able to come to a complete stop without crashing.

A team of 30 German students won with a pod that reached more than 200 miles per hour. The group, called the WARR Hyperloop, was made up of students from the Technical University of Munich.

Musk shared a video taken from atop this weekend’s winning pod as it raced around the track.


Florida East Coast Railway recognized for service quality

Florida East Coast Railway outranked other rail-intermodal service providers for outstanding performance in Logistic Management’s annual Quest for Quality survey, the railroad announced earlier this month.

The Quest for Quality poll examines key criteria used when evaluating and using transportation and logistics service providers. The survey then ranks the providers based on evaluation and purchase criteria, according to a press release issued by the railroad.

The survey received more than 5,400 responses from top freight decision-makers.

“We believe that customers are the lifeblood of our business, so we are absolutely thrilled to have them recognize our efforts,” said Jim Hertwig, president and chief executive officer of Florida East Coast Railway.

The Quest for Quality recognition will be awarded Sept. 26 at the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals’ annual conference in Atlanta.

PR Rail News

ASU students creating hyperloop that would allow travel between Phoenix and Los Angeles

Imagine going from Phoenix to Los Angeles at 700 miles per hour for the cost of a single tank of gas.

That is the idea behind the Hyperloop, first brought up by Tesla owner Elon Musk in 2012.

It’s a greener form of transportation that works by putting people inside a tube on a pod that gets pushed by magnets at sonic speeds.

While engineers work to build a version in the US, AZ-Loop– an ASU-led team of students– is working on its own version that would link Phoenix to Los Angeles.

The team left Saturday for a competition at Space X headquarters in California.

Winning the competition could help with funding that would make the AZ-Loop a reality.

© 2017 KPNX-TV

Owen D. Young

In 1929, Owen D. Young was named Time Magazine’s Man of the Year, and it wasn’t because he was Chairman of the Board of the General Electric Co.

Unlike other leaders in the history of the company, Young’s life and career isn’t defined simply by his GE resume. Instead, it was his work as a diplomat that earned him the honor from Time, two years after Charles Lindbergh was the first recipient of the award in 1927, and a year before Mahatma Ghandi gained that distinction in 1930. Also separating Young from the 12 other men who have been at the helm of GE is his strong connection to the region. He is the only CEO, president or chairman who was born in upstate New York, having grown up and spent much of his life in the small hamlet of Van Hornesville in the Herkimer County town of Stark.

“He was a very warm person and was always interested in what people were doing,” said Grace Faith, Young’s granddaughter and a Van Hornesville native now living in New York’s Southern Tier. “I was one of 11 cousins, and he was always interested in what we had to say and what we were all doing. He would always open his home to all of us, and I have personal letters that he wrote to me, like he did all his grandchildren. I think that says something about who he was.”

Young’s ability to connect with people of all types put him on the worldwide stage in 1924 and again in 1929, both times as part of an international committee dealing with German reparations following World War I. On the second occasion he was named chairman of the committee, and the program that came out of the conference was called the Young Plan. During this same time period, Young, who had joined GE in 1913 as its chief counsel, had also created the Radio Corporation of America in 1919 as a subsidiary of GE, and was named GE’s president and chairman of the board in 1922.

“He was a national statesmen who created RCA and really helped GE and the nation through the Great Depression,” said Chris Hunter, senior archivist at MiSci in Schenectady. “There was talk of him running for the presidency. He was a very important individual who would never forget his hometown.”

And in Van Hornesville, the town of Stark and Herkimer County, they haven’t forgotten him.

“To come from such a small hometown and become such a world figure is an amazing story,” said Sue Perkins, director of the Herkimer County Historical Society, who just last week led a successful cemetery tour in Van Hornesville, where one of the more popular stops was Young’s gravesite. “He was a lawyer, an industrialist, a businessman and a diplomat. When I was doing all the research for the cemetery tour, I went to see where he was buried, and I was thinking it would be something large and elaborate. It wasn’t. It’s small and very unassuming.”

As for running for president, town of Stark Historian Ronald Smith says Young never seriously considered it.

“I guess he might have thought about it a little, but he didn’t want to get too involved in politics,” said Smith, who grew up on the farm across the road from Young’s. “He’d rather try to do things his own way. He was a very good man, and a very smart man. He was always helping people.”

As a young boy, Smith, who is 79, remembers Young going out of his way to be a friendly neighbor.

“He was always coming over to my father and asking him how the family was doing,” said Smith. “He loved people and the people loved him.”

Historians have referred to Young as an advisor for five presidents (Wilson, Hoover, Harding, Coolidge and Franklin Roosevelt), and he was particularly close to FDR, bringing the then-governor of New York to Van Hornesville to speak at the first graduation ceremony of the Van Hornesville School District in 1931. Young had been the individual most responsible for the school consolidation project in that area, and when he died in 1962 the school was renamed in his honor.

“He was always interested in people who lived in the valley here, and he usually kept an office right in the village,” said Smith. “If you had a problem, you could ask him and he would always try to help. He was that kind of guy. He was also always interested in dairy farming, although he didn’t really do that much farming work himself, and would hire three to five men to do all the haying. But if a farmer or somebody had a problem, he had the knowledge and the desire to make arrangements for them and make sure they got some help.”

Born on October 27, 1874, Young went to St. Lawrence University at the age of 16, his parents paying for his education by mortgaging the farm. After graduating from St. Lawrence in 1894, he got his law degree from Boston University and joined a law firm in that city where he was noticed by Charles Coffin, the president of GE from its founding in 1892 to 1912. Coffin remained on as chairman until 1922, when Young took over. While Young remained chairman until 1945, his term as president ended within the first year with Gerard Swope taking over. An electrical engineer by trade, Swope’s time as president covered just about the same time span as Young’s as chairman. A native of St. Louis, Swope, according to GE historian George Wise, was another very civic-minded GE leader.

“Swope was Young’s partner; ‘Mr. Inside’ to Young’s ‘Mr. Outside,’ and he was at least as important and interesting as Young,” said Wise, a GE retiree who earlier this year produced an on-line book called “Edison’s Decision,” available at the Schenectady County Historical Society’s web site. “This is due to his major influence on national policies ranging from labor relations to social security. His ‘Swope’ Plan was a precursor to the first version of the New Deal, the National Recovery Act. Swope represented the view that a corporation should serve the balanced best interests of its shareholders, employees and customers, as opposed to the later view that a corporation’s only responsibility was to maximize shareholder value.”

While Young, as chairman of the board, oversaw Swope’s efforts as president, many of GE’s leaders in its 125-year history held both positions. They also used different paths to reach the top. Young did it as a lawyer and Swope as an engineer, although his scientific contributions to the company don’t nearly match his work in the financial and managerial realms. Most of the others, with the exception of Jack Welch, who had a Ph.D in chemical engineering, were either business or financial wonks. E.W. Rice, who succeeded Coffin and also had a strong connection to Schenectady having lived on Lenox Road for years, didn’t have a Ph.D or even a college education. He was, however, a brilliant scientist who became a very capable manager. And as for Coffin, he started out as a shoe salesman.

Jeff Immelt, Welch’s successor, and John Flannery, GE’s new CEO, both have business backgrounds, Immelt earning his MBA from Harvard and Flannery from Wharton.

One president who fails to get a mention on the company’s web site, ge.com, is Robert Paxton. Paxton was president in 1959 when Ralph Cordiner was chairman and CEO during the price-fixing scandal. GE admitted to some guilt and paid a heavy fine ($7,470,000) in 1962, but both Paxton and Cordiner were cleared of any legal wrongdoing and not indicted. While Cordiner retired in 1963, Paxton, much more complicit in the matter according to some historians, was immediately forced to resign and subsequently written out of the official line of succession.
General Electric executives over the years
Charles Coffin: Born Dec. 31, 1844 in Fairfield, Maine. Was GE president from its inception in 1892 through 1912, and chairman of the board from 1913-1922. Dies July 14, 1926.
Edwin W. Rice: Born May 6, 1862 in Lacrosse, Wisconsin. Was GE president from 1913-1922. Dies Nov. 25, 1935.
Owen D. Young: Born Oct. 27, 1874 in Van Hornesville, New York. Was GE chairman of the board from 1922-1939 and 1942-45. Also served as president of the company in 1922. Dies July 11, 1962.
Gerard Swope: Born Dec. 1, 1872 in St. Louis. Was GE president from 1922-1940 and from 1942-45. Dies Nov. 20, 1957.
Charles Wilson: Born Nov. 18, 1886 in New York City. Was GE president from 1940-41 and from 1945-50. Dies Jan. 3, 1972.
Philip D. Reed: Born Nov. 16, 1899 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Was chairman of the board from 1940-42 and 1945-1958. Dies March 10, 1989.
Ralph Cordiner: Born in 1900 in Walla Walla, Washington. Was GE president from 1950-58 and chairman of the board and CEO 1958-1963. Dies December 6,1973.
Gerald L. Phillippe: Born Sept. 27, 1909 in Ute, Iowa. Was GE president from 1961-63 and chairman of the board 1963-67. Dies Oct. 17, 1968.
Fred J. Borch: Born April 28, 1910 in Brooklyn. Was GE president and CEO from 1963-67 and chairman of the board and CEO 1967-1972. Dies March 1, 1995.
Reginald H. Jones: Born Julyl 11, 1917 in Stoke-on-Trent, England. Was GE chairman of the board and CEO from 1972-1981. Dies Dec. 30, 2003.
John F. Welch: Born Nov. 19, 1935 in Peabody, Massachusetts. Was GE chairman of the board and CEO from 1981-2001.
Jeff Immelt: Born Feb. 19, 1956 in Cincinnati, Ohio. Was GE chairman of the board and CEO from 2001-2017.
John L. Flannery: Born in 1962 in Alexandria, Virginia. Currently serving as chairman of the board and will become CEO on Jan. 1, 2018.

Froom St. Lawrence University Library