top of page
Inspirations Blog: Headliner

My writing process is a mixture of general topic curiosity, subject matter knowledge, personal perspectives, and tons of research that all gets processed together into thoughts and sentences that eventually make sense and tell a story.


ree

My current writing mission involves writing an article for a transportation think tank about transportation in the early 1900s and the sitting U.S. President.


To give structure these are the three overarching big picture questions functioning as my north star:



  1. What did our transportation system look in the early 1900s?

  2. Who was William Taft?

  3. How did President Taft shape the transportation landscape?


Here are some of the questions that are steering my research curiosity:


  1. What were the primary Pre-WWI transportation modes?

  2. How did people travel between 1909 - 1913?

  3. What was happening in transportation innovation or travel in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and DC between 1909 - 1913?

  4. What was going on with the goods movement?

  5. How was the automobile evolution coming along?

  6. How did Taft travel?

  7. How did Hearst travel?

  8. Had the airplane been invented yet?

  9. What materials were used to make streets?

  10. What major bridges were being built during this time?

  11. What did leisure travel look like across socio-economic classes?

  12. Was this pre, during or post the Titanic sinking?

  13. What were the major immigration trends at the time?

  14. What was the major transportation technology of the time?

  15. Was there any major transportation innovations or policy during Taft's presidency?

  16. Which U.S. cities had subways, street cars, or metro systems?

  17. How long did it take to travel from DC to New York?

  18. Was it common or allowed for women to travel alone between cities?

  19. How many railroad companies existed and where did they travel to?

  20. What types of bicycles existed and who were the major bicycle makers?


Since 1970 many have wondered if the Clean Air Act has made a difference in reducing air pollution despite population growth. However, the answer isn't as simple as a "Yes" or "No.


Clean Air Act Pollution Reduction Study

On the one hand, some anti-environmental circles believe there is not an air pollution problem to fix (as they drive their Teslas to keep up with the Joneses) and are unsure why it was even a policy. Then there are others that think we already have too many environmental policies in place that are making things more expensive than they need to be.


On the other hand, some environmental circles believe the Clean Air Act has made a difference, and then others believe that it has only benefited some and has systemically exposed communities of color to more air pollution. In my opinion, it has made a difference, but the benefits have not been equal across the board especially for low income communities.


environmental justice

And while many have studied the data to try an prove their respective cases, the data in this field is a little extra tricky and skeptics abound. There are constant attempts to debunk the notion it has helped improve air quality and to undermine new supporting policies. However, a new study on hard to dilute data has come out this month.


A group of 9 social scientists, led by Yanelli Nunez, PhD from Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health analyzed various data sets covering a 40 year time span, going all the way back to the beginning of the Clean Air Act in 1970.


Their study, An environmental justice analysis of air pollution emissions in the United States from 1970 to 2010, was recently published in Nature Communications on January 17, 2024 and they evaluated air pollution changes in 6 core source generation sectors:


  1. Transportation: nitrogen oxides [NOx]

  2. Agriculture: ammonia [NH3]

  3. Residential: particulate organic carbon [POC]

  4. Commercial: nitrogen oxides [NOx]

  5. Industry: sulfide dioxide [SO2]

  6. Energy: nitrogen oxides [NOx] & sulfide dioxide [SO2]


Air Pollution Inequalities

Overall the study finds that the U.S. has seen reductions in air pollution emissions from various pollution sources since the Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970. The Clean Air Act has in fact helped to substantially improve air quality in the U.S., which is something to celebrate. The study's findings also validate environmental justice concerns that some communities bear a higher burden of air pollution, and more importantly, it provides hard to dispute evidence for environmental justice naysers.


Specifically the data reveals the following key findings:


  • Median family income was a driver in air pollution reductions in the major pollution sources.

  • Counties with median family incomes above $75,000 had larger declines in industry, energy, transportation, residential and commercial related emissions.

  • Racial and ethnic air pollution disparities exist, particularly in the industry and energy pollution generation sectors.

  • Mitigating traffic-related pollution in the most burdened areas will be key in reducing current racial, ethnic and economic disparities and preventing them from getting worse as a result of the current electric vehicle adoption trends among higher income households.


In an interview with Columbia Magazine, one of the researchers, Marianthi Kioumourtzoglou, notes that in the study they "provide information about potential racial/ethnic and socioeconomic inequalities in air pollution sources," which can inform future policy development and complement local-level analysis.


Air Pollution Policy Recommendations

Nunez also shares that "policies specifically targeting reductions in overburdened populations could support more just reductions in air pollution and reduce disparities in air pollution exposure." The lessons learned from the 53 years of the Clean Air Act should be used to address the fact that air quality has not improved for everyone, especially as we develop policies to transition to renewable energy resources, "which will have a collateral impact on air quality and, as a result, on public health.


  • Jan 13, 2024
  • 3 min read

I always have my ears perked up to learn something new, it's a habit I leaned into as I explored New York neighborhoods in college. Every corner offered something new. I learned not to underestimate the potential of learning something from wherever or whomever. The City has a way of teaching you things you never knew you wanted to know, but are good to know.


I recently stumbled across a bit of New York architecture and women's history noir while watching the HBO hit series, The Gilded Age that was not on my radar. In Season 2, episode 5, the young Larry Russell learns and lets the viewers in on the secret that the Chief Engineer of the Brooklyn Bridge is actually the wife of the commissioned Chief Engineer and not who the bridge's board thought was the person in charge.


Knowing that the series is a mixture of historical facts and fictional twists I was not sure if what I heard about the Brooklyn Bridge was actually true, or if it was just the writers retelling oral histories with partial truths that couldn't actually be verified with a few Google searches. So of course I went to Google to see if what they mentioned about the Brooklyn Bridge indeed happened or not. While I didn't want to get my hopes up, I was hoping it was true even though I was a little surprised it was new information about New York architecture and women's history that I didn't know already. It turns out it was TRUE.


Both the New-York Historical Society and Wikipedia acknowledge Emily Roebling as one of the Chief Engineers of the Brooklyn Bridge. Regrettably, New York City's Department of Transportation only mentions the designer of the bridge, her father-in-law. They make no mention of the chief engineer even though when it comes to bridges, engineers are kinda of a big deal. I'm not sure what to make of it, NYC is usually good about giving credit where credit is due, perhaps the updates are backlogged in some bureaucratic purgatory stalemate.


In my opinion what makes the +1.1 mile long bridge so special is it's ability to handle various transportation forms. More than 4,000 pedestrians, 3,100 bicyclists and 120,000 vehicles cross the Brooklyn Bridge every day.


The other thing that makes it extra special is that pedestrian access is a focal point of the design. After all its popularity among pedestrians has contributed to the Brooklyn Bridge's notoriety and put it in a class of its own. No other bridge in NYC has as many people visit it to simply walk across it and take pictures commemorating their visit to one of New York's crown jewels. And if you've ever walked across the Brooklyn Bridge, you know exactly what I'm talking about. It's grandeur is exhilarating and breathtaking, it has always one of my favorite places to visit.


Interestingly, according to the show, when the bridge was completed they didn't want to give credit to Emily because they feared people would think the bridge would not be safe to cross, yet 140 years later the bridge's engineering has stood the test of time and then some. In the show Larry calls it the 8th wonder of the world and today it has become a UNESCO World Heritage site. Historian David McCullough has even famously called it the "Eiffel Tower of America," and earlier this month, on January 11th, the City of New York unveiled a new LED light system to light up the bridge's iconic towers, and so its story continues.


If you've never walked across the Brooklyn Bridge, think about it, you'll see what what the hype is all about.

Inspirations Blog: Blog2
bottom of page