<Guardian: What the...? (or, Hugo Chavez and His Extra Heavy Reserves...)The Oil DrumBarack Obama: "Why are you so stubborn?">
<Daylight Savings - A drop in the Oil Drum?The Oil Drum: LocalChevy Tahoe, Trump Create Open Source Fun>

68 comments on NYC: Best Place for $100 oil? Maybe...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jeffvail on April 3, 2006 - 12:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
Is NYC better outfitted with dense, multi-use zoning and a decent public transportation network?  Sure.  Does that mean that they are well positioned to survive $100 oil?  Not so much...

Argument #1:  New York sits as the peak of the pyramid atop our hierarchal economic system.  It sucks off surpluses by directing activity on a large scale.  As such, as economic activity is forced to decentralized, the negative economic impact, especially in the international trade and finance areas, will be disproportionately felt in NYC.  Macroeconomic decline will be amplified in the control centers of the macroeconomy.

Argument #2:  New York is an amazing concentration of people in a small area.  As a result, it must draw its basic resources, such as food, from a larger area than must other population centers that are not so amazingly huge and concentrated.  Drawing resources, such as food, from further distance requires more energy, and will result in a disproportionate cost increase for places such as NYC that must draw from, on average, a greater distance.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Glenn on April 3, 2006 - 12:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Thanks Jeff - that's exactly my fear. I still think that if the city makes some good infrastructure improvements it can regain the advantages that made it a world-class city before the automobile - a central point for goods to be traded, labor and capital to be applied to raw materials, etc. But you are right that it probably

I would argue about the distance issue you set-up in Arg #2. It's not just the distance, it's the mode of transport. In terms of energy efficiency Ships are the best, Rail is next and then Trucks. In fact you can use wind power for ships! NYC has a world class harbor, connected to the Hudson River / Erie canal connection to Great Lakes and some good rail connections (although most of those are used for moving people now). That will be it's greatest advantage in the future.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Glenn on April 3, 2006 - 1:22pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
sorry, I realize I didn't finish that first paragraph: "But you are right that it probably...will face a major disruption as the "paper trading" businesses need to be replaced by real value added services that are more tangible.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
nemo on April 3, 2006 - 4:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I think you´re right. A good harbor is critical. While rail is efficient for freight, water is superior (especially if you´re not in a hurry). The last hurrah of sail freight in my part of the world were steel hulled, steel masted square rigged tall ships. In the early 1900´s they supplied northern Europe with grain from Australia and guano from Chile. The more modern ships used steam power not for propulsion but rather for weighing anchor, hoisting sail, loading/unloading etc. This allowed a very small crew (<30) to move 100 meters of boat carrying 4 kilotons of cargo at almost 6 knots average. If this was not only possible but also profitable 100 years ago, surely there must be a bright future for sailing.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
igrebnev on April 3, 2006 - 1:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
This is exactly the point - how $100 oil affects economy of particular city.
I will provide personal simple example:
I work in Microsoft (in Redmond) and the distance from home to office is 5 minutes walk. I take children to school ( 1.5 miles ) and I can do it by foot. My wife does not work.
I need car to go to supermarket. Currely out gasoline consumption is is about 40 gallons a month, but it can be made 20.
Climate in Redmond is mild, we do not need air conditioning in summer and winter is relative warm, all heating is by electricity.  
So looks like personally we are not much dependent on fossil fuels.
But the problem is - what happens with Microsoft once ( I do  not say if ) oil goes to $100 a barrel. I am 100% dependent on my employment and that creates major dependency on oil economy. Microsoft products are not essential, if one does not have bread he does not by OS.

The same problem for NYC. Wall street depends on Microsoft and other stocks.

Igor.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The Interloafer on April 3, 2006 - 2:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
That's not bad at all for a resident of the United States. I think the Sustainlane survey was drawing attention to the huge extent that New Yorkers shun oil usage on a family/individual level.

By way of another personal example, I live in Manhattan. My office is 175 paces away. The 24-hour supermarket is 125 paces away, and the 16-hour supermarket about the same distance away in a different direction. My bank is 200 paces away, and within that distance are a dozen restaurants and delis, two bars, a dry cleaners, an optometrist and a hardware store. My monthly gasoline consumption is 0 gallons.

Many New Yorkers like me consume an order of magnitude less oil than car dependent suburban and exurban dwellers. Getting food to the supermarkets is probably the weak link in the cain, but as long as it is there, the urban walkable lifestyle looks a lot more sustainable to me than the car dependent/suburban motoring existence prevalent in most places. New York is subject to other problems, but personal transportation is not one of them.

Walkable city and car-dependent suburb are equally dependent on trucked-in food, but the city has the advantage of cheaper distribution once it's dropped off at the store.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on April 3, 2006 - 11:58pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I could argue that teh most energy efficient urban form is 3 story buildings (high rises are quite energy, mainly electrical, inefficient) on narrow one way streets with parking (one or both sides).  Minimal, below grade off street parking.

Overall, Brooklyn, Queens & Staten Island can be quite energy efficient. Manhatten less so.

BTW, I used 6 gallons/month pre-Katrina in New Orleans (Lower Garden District and as beautiful as the name implies).

New Orleans has superb ocean and barge connections, superb rail connections (6 of the 7 major North American railroads), superb pipeline access as well.  Sugar cane nearby (good EROEI), as well as a variety of local foods (the local cuisine is based on local foods and food that floated downstream).

And good food and good music and good friends are ALWAYS a good way to deal with the stress of high oil prices, and we excel there !

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jeffvail on April 3, 2006 - 1:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
That makes sense--the mode of transport (where NYC has an advantage) will help to moderate the extra distances required.  I don't know which one will win out, NYC is also in the center of the densely populated North East, and so will be facing much more competition for the product of the immediate surrounds.  A city like Atlanta--bane of our existence though it may be--may actually fare decently *on this particular point of analysis* because there is a lot of lighly populated land surrounding it.  Furthermore, in a really extreme scenario, the sparse population of standard suburbia may actually prove an advanage as the mere act of converting lawns to potato fields would be a huge (though theoretical) start...

On that note, I would re-evaluate the list in the article.  Based PURELY on this food/distance/transportation issue, I would list my top four as 1. Portland, 2. San Francisco, 3. Seattle, 4. Oakland.  These cities each have agriculturally productive and sparsely populated hinterlands in the very near vicinity.  On a full-spectrum analysis of the cities on that list, I personally think that Portland will fare far, far better than NYC...

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
unplanner on April 3, 2006 - 2:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I agree.  THanks to Oregon's restrictive land use laws, the transition between agricultural areas and Metro portland is pretty abrupt.  You dont have to go too far from downtown to reach ag lands or potentially cultivated lands.  Although M37 has loosened restrictions, it has come late in the business cycle so comparatively few projects have or will likely be completed before the economy tanks.  The downside is while suburban portland is denser, it is still suburban for the most part.  Serious retrofitting will be needed for a number of these suburbs.  Metro portland may survive $100 oil better than Dallas, LA or NY.  It needs serious work to survive without it altogether however.  
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.