Variable-Rate Financing and the Bubble

A recent article in the Chron mentioned that mortgage loan defaults are in the rise in the San Francisco Bay Area and California, home of the biggest real estate bubble on the West Coast (that is, if you believe that there is a bubble). There has been much speculation that variable-rate financing is partly to cause.

As one friend of mine put it, "Any book will tell you what a bad idea a adj. rate mortgage is in the short term. They all say keep it steady for as long as you intend to live in the house." This is from somebody who doesn't even own property. Obviously, shouldn't everybody know this?

From what I understand, there were two schools of thought (in addition to the one mentioned above) related to variable-interest rates:

1) "Savvy" investors during the low-interest boom years thought that they could save on monthly payments by buying variable-rate loans, then switching out of them once rates started to rise too high. This allowed them to get bigger loans for the same cash down.
2) Home buyers who wanted more house than they could really afford would go in for near-100% financing schemes, known as 80/20 splits. They would get a mortgage to cover 80% of the cost of the house at a fixed rate, then a second mortgage to cover the remaining (up to 20%) at a variable rate. When you're talking about a $500k property, 20% can be a cool 100k. That's a lot of loan to be variable, and you can see how easy it might be to get into trouble - -especially if the property fails to appreciate significantly in comparison to interest rates. For these buyers, however, it would have been difficult to purchase that property for that price without that particular finance mechanism.

So, the variable rate loan really allowed a lot of buyers to get into the market for properties at prices that they otherwise might not have been able to afford. In essence, variable rate financing allowed the bubble to expand faster and get bigger than it might have otherwise.

...and now, it does have the potential to allow it to pop faster, too...

source article on defaults:

The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/08/03/BUG8IKA1D81.DTL
------------------------------

---------------------------------------
Thursday, August 3, 2006 (SF Chronicle)
Mortgage defaults increase
David Tong, Chronicle Staff Writer


A growing number of homeowners in the Bay Area and throughout California
fell behind on their mortgage payments in the second quarter.
In the Bay Area, 2,910 homeowners received default notices from their
lenders for the April-to-June quarter, up 37.1 percent from 2,123 notices
in the same quarter a year ago, according to DataQuick, a La Jolla (San
Diego County) real estate research company. That increase is the highest
since the first quarter of 2001, when there was a 46.5 percent rise.
The swell was bigger statewide as 20,752 default notices were sent out --
up 67.2 percent from the same quarter in 2005 and the highest increase for
any quarter since DataQuick began tracking foreclosures 14 years ago.
The default notices, filed by lenders with county recorder offices, mark
the first step in the foreclosure process, which usually takes about nine
months to complete.
Defaults have risen as home sales slow. The steady decline in price
appreciation has left financially struggling homeowners insufficient
equity to either sell or refinance their homes to pay off their mortgages.
"We hear a lot of talk about rising payments on adjustable-rate loans
triggering borrower distress," said DataQuick President Marshall Prentice.
"While there's no doubt some of that is going on, as far as we can tell
the spike in defaults is mainly the result of slowing price appreciation.
It makes it harder for people behind on their mortgage to sell their homes
and pay off the lender."
DataQuick analyst Andrew LePage said the current foreclosure figures are
still below the historical norm. On average, lenders have filed 32,762
notices each quarter for the past 14 years, according to the research
firm.
Some of the highest increases in default notices in the past quarter were
in the Central Valley, where household incomes are lower and unemployment
higher, LePage said. Sutter County saw a 229 percent rise in default
notices, while notices in Placer County jumped 126 percent.

E-mail David Tong at dtong@sfchronicle.com. Home default notices on the rise

Second
quarter
County 2006 2005 Change
Alameda 649 458 41.7 %
Contra Costa 725 531 36.5
Marin 58 64 -9.4
Napa 47 27 74.1
San Francisco 127 89 42.7
San Mateo 222 147 51.0
Santa Clara 530 463 14.5
Solano 350 212 65.1
Sonoma 202 132 53.0
Bay Area 2,910 2,123 37.1
California 20,752 12,408 67.2

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2006 SF Chronicle

The cost of transportation construction is going up

In yesterday's Oregonian issue, there was an article on how the cost of transportation construction is going up, which will limit how far each transportation (and bond) dollar goes in terms of fixing bridges, building and re-building roads, etc.

You know, I've seen this same sort of story repeated across the country. The reasons why transportation construction costs are going up are mainly related to two things:

1) The cost of oil is going up, and oil is used to make asphalt, which is used to make most roads, and

2) The cost of steel is going up (due in large part to a massive construction boom -- skyscrapers, roads, bridges, dams -- in China), and steel is used for rebar, bridges, etc.

...and here's my proposed solution:

While bike lanes are still a bargain (unless, of course, you want that lane re-paved when it gets striped), there should be a fundamental re-examination of the economics of transportation construction.

Perhaps we rely too much on low-grade asphalt roads? Many of our asphalt roads are designed with only a 10-20 year lifespan per paving cycle. The Romans built some roads which are still going, 2000 years later, with the original pavement, and heavy traffic! Perhaps asphalt is just not the most sustainable solution for every street or other pavement need?

Some of Portland's original cement/concrete streets have never been re-paved... and are still mostly useable 100 years later. I think it's quite possible that, given modern engineering and materials science advances, we can come up with a concrete, fly-ash, cement or other stone-based solution for paving that will last much, much longer than asphalt, without the need for continual re-paving. We might even be able to figure out how to make it semi-permeable, as with the latest asphalt/rubber hybrid surfaces that allow the rain to soak through rather than puddle up on top!

Finally, there should be a bigger focus on maintaining existing roads (and maintaining them to a higher standard, that is, putting slightly more effort into each re-paving with the goal of extending the time between paving cycles to... let's shoot big ... a century), rather than constructing new ones. Further, the state really lacks a statewide passenger rail system... wouldn't building one to tie together a statewide bicycle network be a much more sustainable use of state funds?

The Decline of Friendship in America

Is friendship in decline in America? New reports indicate that the answer is yes. As more Americans drive more cars more often to more homes in the suburbs, to relax in front of more big-screen televisions in more supersized living rooms, or drive to more suburban shopping centers where the chances of real social interaction are reduced more and more... they're finding that they have less of one thing: friends. More materialism, it appears, produces fewer valuable social interactions, fewer true friends, certainly fewer soulmates. You can be materially rich while spiritually, morally, and socially poor.

I can definitely trace the connections here: Fewer friends, more republicans. Friends don't let friends vote Republican -- but what about those people who don't have any friends? Yup, hard to stop them from going to the dark side. More computers, more computer programmers, more 16-hour days -- fewer social opportunities, fewer relationships, fewer friends. More republicans.

How to reverse this decline? I could think of a thousand ways, and most of them are nothing new. Stop building isolating suburbs that construct a friend-free antiseptic, antisocial environment. Stop building communities for cars. Start building communities for people. Start investing more in transit, in transit-oriented development, in tree plantings, in pubs, in coffee houses, in plazas, in squares, in parks... in concerts, concert halls and band practice areas. Stop the war on culture, and start the rennaissance of community.

Is beer the answer? Do people make friends when they walk to their neighborhood pub a couple of times a week and drink a locally-brewed ale or lager? Sure, beer is a social lubricant -- but can it also assist with creating more meaningful, lasting friendships, rather than just aid in finding drinking buddies? Perhaps yes. Or, perhaps it just creates the environment, the setting, where friends can meet to maintain their friendship, which is certainly more important, and really gets down to what we're talking about here. Americans probably already know plenty of people who should be their friends, but they just haven't talked to them in years. If they would just ask them to meet at the pub for a pint a little more often, perhaps the situation could be remedied... especially if it's within walking distance of home!!!

See below for the full original story from the SacBee. Note that, while carpooling may make you happy, I think it's just a neat little band-aid solution, and I fully stand by what I say above as the more effective long-term remedy!! So, move to a walkable neighborhood, buy a building in a nice, accessible location where other people nearby can also walk to it, and start up a microbrewpub. It could help us save America from ourselves!

cheers,
~Garlynn

***
begin newspaper article:

Sebastian Mallaby: The decline of friendship

Story appeared in Web section, The Sacramento Bee

WASHINGTON — The question about loneliness is: Why do people do this to themselves? Why do Americans, who reported an average of nearly three close friends in 1985, now report an average of just over two? And why does one in four have nobody with whom to discuss personal issues?

This is the age of Oprah and MySpace, of public emoting on television and the Web. Apparently people watch "Friends" but don't actually have many.

When the new loneliness numbers appeared Friday in the American Sociological Review, some experts cautioned that the problem can be overstated. Americans say they feel close to an average of 15 others, according to Barry Wellman and Jeffrey Boase of the University of Toronto.

But there's a difference between extensive networks and deep ones.

If you get sick, stressed or just plain sad, you are going to want the sort of friend you can rely on. Maybe you'll be able to convert an acquaintance into a soul mate when you discover you need one.

But this just-in-time approach to emotional crises isn't always going to work. Look at the way the slow decline of friendship has been mirrored by the rise of emotional problems. Over the past half-century, the prevalence of unipolar depression in affluent countries has jumped tenfold.

People's myopia on friendship is like their myopia on saving. They know that jobs are insecure, that a health problem can cause bankruptcy, that retirement is fabulously expensive; but the household savings rate has fallen below zero.

Equally, people know that spouses aren't immortal and that divorce is common. But nearly one in 10 — a much higher share than in 1985 — reports that their husband or wife is the only person they confide in.

People are taking these financial and emotional risks even as they neurotically avoid other risks. Today's consumers buy bike helmets and ski helmets and antibacterial soap; they fret about partially hydrogenated fats and consume less tobacco than their parents. But by some reckonings social isolation is as big a risk factor for premature death as smoking.

You can see how this American isolationism sets in. Modern society creates the tools that allow you not to save — if you have to pay for the kids' college, you can refinance your home — while doing little to change the basic need to save for old age and misfortune. In the same way, modern society creates tools that extend your casual networks — e-mail, instant messaging, social-networking Web sites — while doing nothing to remove the basic need for soul mates.

Meanwhile, people work more hours. They commute longer because they've moved to the exurbs in search of larger homes; they've got spacious entertainment rooms but no mental space for entertaining.

And then there's the subtle effect of the culture. "Family time" is endlessly extolled, and lovers emit poetry and song about every facet of their relationships. But when was the last time a rock singer or a new man waxed lyrical about friendship?

Yet the biggest reason for American loneliness, and perhaps the clue to some kind of cure, lies in path dependency. People know that tending to friendship is important, but their behavior follows the path created by countless other decisions — and friendship is neglected. Social science experiments reveal lots of behavior of this kind. People who agree with their doctors that they need hip replacements seldom get around to having the procedure. There are ways to beat path dependency, however. Another experiment has shown how undergraduates who agree to get a tetanus shot seldom actually do so, but if you make them an appointment and hand them a map to the clinic, the odds that they'll comply leap tenfold. Savings habits are equally sensitive to slight tweaks in incentives. Invite workers to sign up for 401(k) pensions and many will procrastinate. Tell workers they are part of the program unless they opt out and the participation rate rockets.

Can Americans be prodded to invest more in friendships? It's hard to imagine American companies organizing regular Japanese-style drinking sessions for the staff; it's hard to believe that a French-style cap on working hours would do more than encourage yet more lonely Web surfing. Twenty years ago, remarks Princeton's Eldar Shafir, a concerned European might have prescribed an emergency program of cafe construction: a reverse Marshall Plan for cappuccinos.

But now Starbucks has run that experiment for us. American caffeine addicts demand lattes to go — or to sip as they enjoy the company of Wi-Fi-enabled laptops.

But there's one antidote to loneliness that is at least intriguing. In an experiment in Austin, Princeton's Daniel Kahneman found that commuting — generally alone, and generally by car — is rated the least enjoyable daily activity, but commuting by car pool is reasonably pleasant. Measures that promote car pooling could make Americans less isolated and healthier.

So here's my slogan for 2008: Gas taxes make you happy.

** end of newspaper article ***

endnote from Garlynn:

OK, I can go with that slogan, but we'd better use those gas taxes to build transit, build transit oriented communities, and encourage more pubs and microbrews in this country! More small businesses and more town centers, fewer chain stores, less driving and fewer "suburbs" that lack a sense of place. That's how we're all get our friends back. And it could cut down on the sheer numbers of those pesky republicans, too!!!

Pedestrian Scrambles and Signal Timing

Over at www.portlandtransport.com, we've been having a discussion about the relative merits of adding a flashing yellow cycle to left-turn signals. The yellow cycle would allow cars to make a left turn fromt he left-turn lane to the extent permitted by oncoming traffic; if traffic was too heavy, they would still get the normal left-turn-green arrow. Frank Dufay raised the issue, however, that the blinking yellow arrow, while it might be good for drivers, could raise the issue of additional pedestrian/vehicle conflicts in the crosswalk that vehicles turning on the blinking yellow would cross.

I didn't want to to muddy the issue too much, but I did want to ask how the pedestrian scramble (all-pedestrian light cycle period) might fit into the blinking-left-turn scenario.

For a while now, I've been of the belief that downtown Portland should re-time all of their traffic signals. I see two options:

One: Green lights would be for cars only, to allow for faster clearing of intersections and turn traffic. However, the green period would be shortened slightly, and a pedestrian scramble cycle inserted, during which no automobile movement would be allowed, but pedestrians could cross any direction they pleased.

Two: half of every green light period would give the OK to pedestrians. The other half would give a RED hand to pedestrians, to allow for turning movements of cars. There would then be an additional cycle, the pedestrian scramble, during which no automobile movement would be allowed, but pedestrians could cross any direction they pleased.

Perhaps downtown might not be the best first place to try this, (Broadway/Weidler or another basically stand-alone couplet might be more appropriate), but the reasons that I suggest it are these:

1. Pedestrian scrambles would seem to be the safest way to get pedestrians across the street. There are no turns on red allowed during the scramble cycle, so there is no potential for ped/vehicle conflict as long as everybody plays by the rules.
2. Initiating the scramble cycle at every intersection in a grid would allow for the entire grid to be re-timed at once. This would mean that, as you were driving along, you would still get greens as you progressed from one intersection to the next (assuming, of course, that you drove at the proper speed and congestion was not an issue). However, following behind the green cycle for cars would be an all-red cycle for cars -- the scramble cycle, when pedestrians would go for it.

I think there are two potential variations on this theme:

a) The lights cycle green for cars heading north/south, green for cars heading east/west, then the pedestrian scramble cycle.

b) The lights cycle green for cars heading north/south, then pedestrian scramble, then green for cars heading east west, then a second pedestrian scramble cycle!!

I've only ever seen the first option used in the real world. I'd love to see the second option tested in a high-pedestrian-volume area like downtown Portland!

Finally... bicycles. As I see it, bikes could go on either the appropriate green cycle for cars, or, if they were careful and slowed down, they could also traverse the intersection during the pedestrian cycle, if they did so at pedestrian speeds.

If pedestrian scrambles became the norm at every signalized intersection, then I think the blinking yellow light left-turning issue would become a moot pedestrian safety consideration. I think it's a great idea to reduce motorist dwell time and reduce congestion at left-turn signals.

Barring the pedestrian scramble, however, Frank does raise a good point about the added potential for ped/vehicle conflict.

The Dangers of Fluoride in Toothpaste?

OK, so let me just get one thing straight: The reason that I'm writing this article is that I've been confused by the proliferation of non-fluoride toothpastes on my natural supermarket shelves lately. I thought that fluoride prevented cavities and was good for the teeth?

...and then my favorite flavor of Tom's toothpaste, which used to come in both fluoride and non-fluoride versions, now only comes in a non-fluoride version.

That was the last straw. I could no longer keep myself in the dark about fluoride. I had to have answers. I vaguely understood that fluoridated water was a BAD THING, but the dentists have been waxing poetic about the wonders of fluoride for my whole life, so surely I should keep seeking out fluoride toothpaste in order to keep my dentists happy (or, paradoxically, at least keep my dental bills down)?

So, I decided to try and figure out why people dislike fluoride and say you shouldn't use it in toothpaste.

Apparently, fluoride is slightly more toxic than lead. It's a by-product of the aluminum manufacturing process, and is produced in rather large quantities. The attempt to market it as a health-improving product began in the 1930s/40s. In larger doses, it can actually produce tooth and bone decay, as it is non-biodegradable, and in excess can produce a condition called fluorosis, which is basically the reaction of the body to the toxin. Most experts agree that drinking fluoride in water is a very bad idea, and that fluoridated water should *not* be consumed. Living in cities (like Portland, OR) that do not fluoridate their water is, then, a GOOD THING.

However, the evidence as to whether the amount of fluoride contained in toothpaste is enough to be harmful seems to be inconclusive, as long as you don't swallow your toothpaste. Most web sites, when addressing that particular question, quickly change the topic to talk about the dangers of water fluoridation. Fluoride in toothpaste (very small amounts) can cause the teeth to better resist the acidity of the mouth, prolonging their resistance to tooth decay.

Fluorine is a gas, and in nature it will be found bonded with other substances, forming compounds such as calcium fluoride. Fluoride is a compound (a salt) that occurs when fluorine ion bonds with another agent. Calcium fluoride is the most-common naturally-occurring form of fluoride, and in small amounts it is not toxic. To the extent that calcium fluoride is the compound used in toothpaste, then, that toothpaste is probably not harmful if not swallowed.

Howers, the salts used in the fluoridation of water supplies, and potentially in some commercial toothpastes, include sodium fluoride and fluorosalicic acid. These are industrial by-products from manufacturing operations, and until the dental benefits of fluoride were popularized in the mid-20th century, their primary uses were in rat poision and insecticides.

OK, so here's where it gets interesting. I would expect Tom's of Maine to use Calcium Fluoride in their toothpaste, since it is the aknowledged least-toxic variety of the stuff.

However, when I look on the back of my Tom's Gingermint toothpaste, I see that it actually contains Sodium monofluorophosphate, 0.15% w/v fluoride ion.

That sounds a lot more like sodium fluoride combined with phosphate (soap) than it does calcium fluoride.

Hmm... so, perhaps there is something to this fluoridated-toothpaste-is-bad nonsense after all.

The remaining question is, what alternatives to fluoride exist that can successfully counter the effects of plaque acids on the teeth?

One potential answer is the amino acid arginine. In conjunction with calcium carbonate and bicarbonate, it is being marketed as CaviStat, an anti-cavity alternative to fluoride.

Another is... get ready for this one... the ionic activity produced by the reaction of two differing metals in combination with the saliva in the mouth. A toothbrush impregnated with two separate discs of magnesium and copper will generate an electrical current in the mouth between the two nodes.

"The magnesium copper metal combination generates a voltage of 0.8 – 1.8 and an electric current of 2 – 1200 mA in water, in addition to H 3 O 2 - negative ions. Bacteria in the mouth may be sterilized by voltage over 1.3, which creates an electric sterilization effect. This electron activity helps remove dental plaque from areas where conventional toothbrushes cannot reach.

"Stains and discoloring can be reduced by the Hydroxyl (H 3 O 2 ) negative ion’s surface-active effect."

(From http://www.protontoothbrush.com/)

The sweetener Xylitol can apparently also be used to reduce plaque and fight cavities. It is a sweetener, not a toxin. However, due to its unusual chemical structure, it attracts micro-organisms with its "sweetnesss," and then actually starves them, allowing the mouth to remineralize damaged teeth with less interruption (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylitol).

The bottom line is that fluoride is a poison that helps to kill off all the bacteria in your mouth when you brush your teeth, both the beneficial bacteria and the harmful ones that promote tooth decay. To the extent that a small amount of poision may be good for promoting dental health (and to the extent that it already occurs naturally), this may be OK.

However, there's no good reason to ever ingest fluoride, as its only benefits are when it is applied topically. Allowing it to pass the throat/mouth barrier is just inviting your kidneys to be over-worked by processing this toxin.

As to which toothpaste to purchase? That's your own decision. I don't see any easy answers, but at least we may know which questions to ask, and at least at this point, the marketplace is providing many non-fluoride toothpaste and dental health options for us. Our job is to pick the one that is best suited to keeping our dental bills low, without harmful side effects.

cheers,
~Garlynn

Save The Internet!!

Congress is currently under huge pressure to change the way the Internet is regulated. Large corporations would like to be able to pay/charge to have higher-priority access to their data, thereby regulating free internet access to a second tier of service quality.

There is a large resistance movement to this effort, devoted to the cause of "Saving Internet Neutrality." However, it is proving difficult to get the word out about this effort, as shown in this video starring Moby (also available here), which lobbies ordinary citizens to Call Congress Today and Tell Them to Save the Internet.

Congress, of course, can be reached at 202-224-3121 and saying your zip code to get your representative.

Steps towards a Renewable Energy Future

Open Letter to the Oregon Renewable Energy Working Group

There are many things that we can do to increase our use of clean energy and cut global warming pollution in Oregon.

We need to work to take recent technological improvements developed at OSU and other places that allow for biodiesel micro-reactors to convert organic farm waste into biodiesel fuel, and deploy these devices across the state, to be used any place where organic waste matter is produced.

We need to encourage the development of more hybrid diesel-electric vehicles to run on this fuel, so that it is consumed in the most efficient manner possible. These vehicles should all be plug-in electric hybrids, so that they can be charged off the grid for short trips, and run off biodiesel for longer ones. Additionally, solar technology can be built into the skin of the vehicle to allow for additional charging during daylight hours.

Small wind micro-plants (conical wind turbines) could be installed on the roofs of many buildings, along with more solar technology, so that each building could have the capacity to manufacture a significant portion of the electricity that it uses, if not produce a surplus for sale back to the grid.

We need to construct a comprehensive statewide electrified rail passenger and freight transportation system, built both as an expansion of and in addition to our existing rail system. This will allow us to rely less on inefficient automobile and truck transportation, and will also have the side effect of making more destinations in the state accessible to more people, including tourists and bicycle tourists.

As much of Oregon's energy as possible should come from wind and solar by 2025, in addition to tidal, fish-friendly hydro and waste-based biofuels, to power both stationary sources and the transportation system.

Oregon should become a leader in using solar power, small-scale local renewable energy like micro-wind turbines, community wind farms, biodiesel micro-reactors, small community tidal power plants, and other technologies as they are developed and tested for environmental friendliness.

This can be achieved by expanding incentives for residents and businesses to use clean energy sources, as well as encouraging research at the state research institutions, and establishing government policies mandating compliance by government agencies and setting standards for the free market.

Walking and Transit Oriented Development

I'm going to tie together two threads on separate blogs in this post:

The first, on Portland Transport, is this: How Far Will You Walk to Transit?

The second, on Blue Oregon, is this: What would it look like if, instead of paying unwarranted “compensation” to landowners who want to perpetuate the unsustainable post-World War II suburban sprawl model, we revised the land use laws to encourage more light rail oriented development so more people have the choice of living that way in the rapidly emerging era of high priced petroleum?

The first question has always intrigued me. It seems to have different anwers depending on how you ask it.

Is the question, how far away can you build really transit-dependent development? That is, buildings with no on-site parking requirements, where presumably the lions share of their occupants take transit, walk or bike to and fro? This might seem to be a third-of-a-mile radius.

Is the question, how far away can you build developments that are transit-oriented, but not perhaps 100% transit-dependent? This would seem to be more like a half-mile walking radius.

Is the question, how far might somebody conceivably walk from their house to transit, without beginning to think seriously of another alternative? If the scenery is interesting along the way, this would seem to be more of an average one-mile walking radius.

...but some people just like to walk. So, there are probably larger distances that will be reported, too.

As for the second question, there's two main tools that can be used to get at this issue.

1) The first is to supply the transit. There are only a few light rail lines so far in Oregon. Back in the 1920s, there used to be many more, as well as electric interurban lines and other commuter and passenger rail lines, but right now they're all in Portland. First off, right away, more need to be built, opened and operated. Central Oregon could use some service (in the Bend/Madras/etc. area). Southern Oregon could use a line or two or three (in the Grants Pass/Central Point/Medford/Ashland/Eagle Point/etc. area). Eugene is building a BRT (bus rapid transit, buses running in dedicated Right Of Way) system to connect it with Springfield, but I'd suggest that it could use more. As could Corvallis/Albany/Salem.

2) The second is to supply the land for development. How? Zoning. Most zoning laws are artificial restrictions on the maximum level of development and use allowable on any given parcel of land. Single-family neighborhoods are not built simply because it is "what the market demands." Rather, they are built because that is what the local governments zone the land for. So, if you want higher-density development near transit, oriented towards transit so that its occupants use transit, then you zone the land for such and include a design review overlay that has specifications pertaining to the provision of walking, bicycling and community amenities that allow for a transit-oriented development.

It's not rocket science. Most of the older towns and cities in Oregon were built according to these principles, from about the 1870s through the 1920s. It made sense then and it makes sense now. And not just in Oregon. Throughout the West Coast, throughout America, throughout the world.

Eco-Friendly Hybrid Ferries

The new Alcatraz to SF ferry operator is proposing to use some really futuristic hybrid ferry boats, featuring wind, solar, sail and electric power to move the boats, plus the ability to plug in and charge up at the dock, as well as a backup low-emission diesel generator to provide additional power.

How long before ferries like these can start replacing ferries on other runs across the bay?

How can technologies like these be used more broadly to reduce our reliance on foreign oil?

~g

***

News Story:
New S.F.-Alcatraz ferry operator plans to use hybrids
Bay City News Service

With the signing of a new 10-year contract between the National Park Service and Hornblower Cruises and Events, two hybrid-electric ferries will eventually be crossing to the famed former penitentiary Alcatraz Island from San Francisco, according to the environmental advocacy organization Bluewater Network.

Alcatraz Cruises, a division of Hornblower Cruises and Events, will take over the route, now handled by Blue and Gold Fleet, on Sept. 25, the National Park Service announced today.

The new boats will comply with emission requirements set by the Environmental Protection Agency. Hornblower Cruises and Events has agreed to build the first ferry within two years and the second vessel within five years.

The 600-passenger boats are modeled on ferries designed by the Australian company Solar Sailor and operate at between 12 and 15 knots.

Both ferries will harness solar and wind energy and each will be fitted with a sail that can be used in windy conditions but also retracted in extreme weather, according to Bluewater Network.

The boats will be fitted with large batteries that will power the vessels' electric motors and which can be recharged onshore.

When necessary, the ferries will use diesel generators that are designed to reduce emissions to between 70 and 90 percent of the emissions released by conventional diesel-powered boats, Bluewater Network reported.

The ferries could also serve as transbay shuttles in the event of emergencies such as earthquakes because they are able to run at low speeds on wind and electricity alone, according to the organization.

Copyright © 2006 by Bay City News, Inc. -- republication, re-transmission or reuse without the express written consent of Bay City News, Inc. is prohibited.

New Progressive Vision for America

List of topics:

1: Build a nationwide high-speed rail network. Make this the focus for federal transportation spending, just as building the original nationwide freeway network beginning in the 1950s was the focus during that period of time (and from then until the 1990s, when the focus shifted with ISTEA). Use federal incentives to encourage concentration much of the continued urban growth in the country around the nodes on the high speed rail network. Make the network triple-tracked everywhere to allow for a mix of uses, i.e. passengers as well as freight. Begin construction as soon as possible, using American engineering, labor and materials so as to provide the maximum boost to the domestic economy. Consider raising the gas tax to fund it, but also consider cost recovery from uses fees on built-out system, i.e. passenger fares and freight charges.

2: Raise federal gas mileage standards to 40mpg fleetwide. Encourage biofuel production. Legalize industrial hemp for biofuel input.

3: Look for alternative sources of electricity. California's "Million Solar Roofs" initiative provides one model, of distributing electrical production to, potentially, ever consumer of electricity. Household wind turbines, rooftop solar cells, and biofuel processors/fuel cells could contribute to this. New larger plants could include offshore wave/tidal plants, onshore wind/solar plants, geothermal plants, etc.

4: Continue/expand programs such as HOPE VI that direct federal funding into turning failed public housing projects into mixed-income livable communities.

5: Health care: Let John Kitzhaber's Archimedes Movement lead the way in finding solutions, using Oregon as a testbed. Nationwide, let this be an 2008 issue, aknowledge it as an issue in 2006 but don't start throwing out too many ideas just yet.