IEEE VNC 2009 is a new conference established with the merger of IEEE V2VCOM and IEEE AutoNet Workshops under IEEE ITS Society and IEEE ComSoc.

• 2009.07.27
  Submissions deadline extended to August 10. This is a final extension.
• 2009.07.06
  Submissions are now being accepted on the PaperCept site.

(Source: Bernie Wagenblast’s Transportation Communications Newsletter)

(Source: Washington Post & AASHTO)

Supporters garnered the necessary two-thirds support to push through the stop-gap measure intended to keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent through September 30, the end of the fiscal year. The vote was 363 to 68.

The government estimates the account could run dry within several weeks without an emergency infusion of cash. The fund provides states with about $40 billion per year in transportation construction funding.

Trust fund disbursements are separate from the billions in economic stimulus money dedicated to states for transportation projects.

The Senate is expected to act on the temporary trust fund measure before the end of next week, and lawmakers plan to address a longer-term remedy after their August recess.

During the 40 minutes of House floor debate this afternoon, supporters argued the Highway Trust Fund needs additional funding immediately to prevent the payment slowdown to states, which could cause states to then curtail their road construction activity. Opponents contended the transfer is not paid for by any new revenue source and that Congress needs to stop bailing out the Highway Trust Fund. Congress sent the fund an additional $8 billion last September when a similar funding crisis developed due to lower revenue in the trust fund than had been projected as a result of Americans driving less during the economic recession and thus paying less in gasoline and diesel taxes as well as in heavy-truck taxes.

The House bill approved today contains no extension of authority for federal surface transportation programs, which is scheduled to lapse Sept. 30 at the end of this fiscal year. While House leaders have been pushing a full six-year authorization measure, the Obama administration and the Senate have favored a temporary extension of current authority for 18 months. Today’s House vote means Congress will have to face the authorization question in September after returning from the summer recess.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar, D-MN, said during today’s floor debate that he regrets Congress must take action to shore up the Highway Trust Fund. But the drop in vehicle miles traveled experienced over the past year and a half has left the trust fund short of its revenue projections, necessitating an infusion, he said. Oberstar’s six-year, $500 billion authorization measure has been approved by subcommittee but not been brought up before the full T&I Committee yet because there is no agreement with the House Ways and Means Committee on how to raise the extra revenue needed to pay for it.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: USAToday & The Hindu)

The much-awaited Nano hit the roads on Friday with Mumbai resident Ashok Raghunath Vichare becoming the first owner of the world’s cheapest car from the stable of the Tatas.

“I hope that the Tata Nano will bring motoring pleasure to those who will be buying their first car as also those who currently own a car but want a modern, contemporary and emission-friendly city car,” Tata Motors Chairman Ratan Tata said after handing over the key of the first Nano to Mr. Vichare here. Tata, a Cornell University-trained architect, decided to develop Nano when he saw an entire Indian family riding on a scooter. Bloomberg says almost seven motorcycles are sold for every car in India, a nation of 1.1 billion people. Car sales in India may triple to 3 million units annually by 2015, according to a government forecast.

Mr. Vichare has bought a Tata Nano LX (lunar silver), the top-end model.

With Tata handing over the top-end model to Mr. Vichare, the delivery process of the first one lakh cars have started, which would be completed by March next year.

Vichare went for the more upscale LX version. It is his first car.The cheapest Nano retails for 123,360 rupees — or $2,531. Splurgers can spend up to $3,536 to pack the car with such luxury as cupholders and air conditioning, Bloomberg News reports.

Nano is expected to come to the U.S. in a couple years, owner Tata Motors has indicated. Don’t expect to see one on the freeway: at 624 cubic centimeters, the engine is smaller than those found on many motorcycles. Safety in crash? Not as bad as you’d expect, if early crash test results in Europe hold up. Tata already has a huge backlog of orders for Nano:

Tata, which owns Jaguar and Land Rover after buying them from Ford, has 206,703 orders. That’s more than double its initial sales plan. The company chose the first 100,000 customers through a lottery. It will take a year of production to catch up to the backlog.

Nano was commercially launched on March 23 this year. It has received 2.06 lakh bookings. Tata Motors has already selected over 1.55 lakh customers for delivering the car, of which the first one lakh cars are price-protected.

The company would roll out the Nanos from its Pantnagar facility, which has an annual capacity of 50,000 units. The car would also be produced from the company’s Sanand unit in Gujarat once its goes on stream.

Click here to read the entire article.

Join ITS America and AAAE at the Intersection of Intelligent Transportation Systems and Aviation!

Airport land side management has increasingly become a focus for airport managers and transportation management center mangers alike.  More and more, airport managers are turning to Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) to provide solutions to the challenges they face, such as managing parking, commercial vehicle movement, incident management, security and much more.  This conference is co-sponsored by the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) and the Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America) and will showcase the top industry leaders in the Intelligent Transport System (ITS) industry who are currently providing solutions for airport landside management.  The conference will also feature airport personnel sharing real-world results, lessons learned, success stories bad reasons why they have chosen ITS products and services as their airport land side management solution.

Details of Sessions:

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Keynote Address: Michael Huerta, President, MPH Consulting “Transportation Challenges Presented by the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, UT” – confirmed

Session 1:

“ITS Options in Airport Ground Traffic Management and Revenue Generation”

Moderator: Gary Duncan, Chief Technology Officer for Econolite (EGI) – confirmed

Panelists:

1. Dave Kinnecom, Utah DOT – confirmed

2. FAA –confirmed participation, speaker TBD

3. Stan Doepke, Eagle Integrated – confirmed

This session will focus on the challenges that airport landside managers face in effectively managing and tracking traffic flow in and out of the airport environment.  Discussion topics will include freeway and arterial signage, real time travel information, and other traffic management tools.  In addition to managing the traffic flow, airport managers have significant fiscal responsibility and this session will address those responsibilities and provide real examples of using dwell times, trip charges and airport usage fees from taxis and shuttles to provide a revenue stream for airport operations.

Session 2:

“ITS Options in Airport Ground Incident Management”

Moderator: Irv Rosenblum, Telegra – confirmed

Panelists:

1. Dan Lukasik, Delcan – confirmed

2.Dave Korzep, Salt Lake City Department of Airports –confirmed

3. Ron Sherwood, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport – confirmed

This session will focus on the use of technologies to help airports managers address security issues related to curbside management of transportation taxis, limousines and buses. Additionally, panelists will address management of vehicle accidents on airport property, management of pedestrian flow, park and wait lots, and other security challenges.

Session 3:

“ITS Solutions to Airport Parking Conundrums”

Moderator: Mike Drow, Standard Parking – confirmed

Panelists:

1. Rick Warner, President of ParkingCarma – confirmed

2. Michael Howarth, Intelligent Devices – confirmed

3. Neal Heaton, BWI – confirmed

4. Jon Tarleton, Quixote – confirmed

Passenger parking is the largest source of revenue for most airports and proper management is of increasing importance.  The session will focus on ITS products and services and how they relate to “Parking Guidance Systems,” “Parking Reservation Systems,” and “Vehicle Locator Systems.”  Intelligent Transportation System technologies are now being used in some locations to take the guess work out of finding open parking lots and spaces, pick up points and drop off points for specific airlines. Discover some of the leading edge technology implementations that are working at airports today.

Session 4:

“Importance of ITS Standards in ITS Implementation at Airports”

Moderator: Casey Crabtree, Daktronics – confirmed

Panelists:

1. Rod MacKenzie, ITS America – confirmed

2. Bob Rausch, TransCore –confirmed

3. Marshall Elizer, Gresham Smith & Partners – confirmed

4. Tom Wunk, Sheidt & Bachmann – confirmed

ITS standards define an architecture of interrelated systems that work together to deliver advanced transportation technology and services across different agencies, modes and users. Most standards arevoluntary, consensus-based, and open, meaning that their use is not mandated by law,  they are consensus-based (meaning that a published standard has attained general agreement through cooperation and compromise in a process that is inclusive of all interested parties), and they are not proprietary and are available for anyone to use. The use of standards for airport ITS encourages growth of these services by minimizing development costs, increasing compatibility and interoperability, and increasing buyer and seller confidence in products. A standards-based approach to airport ITS integration helps to facilitate the exchange of transportation data as well as more easily accommodate future equipment replacements, systems upgrades, and system expansions. This session will explore standards available to ITS applications in the airport environment and how they are being used in airport ITS systems development today.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Session 5:

“Airport Management Roundtable”

Moderator: Mark Ozenick, Thomas Group – confirmed

Panelists:

1. Ron Sherwood, Atlanta – confirmed

2. Dave Korzep, SLC – confirmed

3. William Flowers, DFW – confirmed

4. Neal Heaton, BWI – confirmed

This exciting round table discussion will feature key airport executives discussing topics from the previous day as well as other important issues facing them and their thoughts about how technology has or might help them address these issues.  Real world examples from those who have been there!

Technical Tour of Utah Department of Transportation Traffic Management Center “ITS Implementation”

Registration

• ITS America / AAAE Members: $525
• Non-members: $575

(Source: CNN)

A man died after his car plunged 600 feet off the edge of the Grand Canyon’s South Rim, authorities said Tuesday. The incident occurred near the El Tovar hotel in a village on the canyon’s South Rim, park spokeswoman Shannan Marcak said.

Authorities have not ruled the death a suicide, she said. “It has not been ruled anything at this time.”

The Arizona park’s regional communications center received several reports of a car driving off the edge about 6 a.m. Monday, according to a written statement.

“Upon arriving at the scene, investigators found tire tracks leading to the edge behind the Thunderbird Lodge and received reports of a single occupant in a blue passenger car driving over the edge,” the statement said.

Rescue personnel descended on ropes and found the vehicle about 600 feet into the canyon. The man’s body was recovered shortly afterward, the statement said.

Marcak said that within the past five years, she knows of only one other time a car was driven off the edge of the canyon.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: GAO)

What GAO found:

Click here to download the entire PDF report.

(Source: Wired)

Image via Apture

The electrification of the automobile has been called the auto industry’s “moon shot,” an analogy that works because of both the technology involved and the cost to develop it. Automakers are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the effort with no promise that it will lead to affordable battery-powered vehicles anytime soon — or any guarantee people will buy them once they’re available.

All of the major automakers are racing to put EVs in showrooms as early as next year, and they’re spending money like sailors on shore leave to do it. General Motors has spent about $1 billion developing the Chevrolet Volt. Chrysler wants to invest $448 million in its electric vehicle program to build cars like the Circuit, pictured above at the Los Angeles Auto Show. Elon Musk’s personal investment in Tesla Motors tops $75 million.

The Apollo program cost more than $100 billion in today’s dollars, and as Ron Cogan, founder and editor of Green Car Journal and greencar.com notes, there was no imperative to produce a reasonably priced consumer product. Not so with electric vehicles – the whole point is to sell cars. The Obama Administration is betting heavily on the technology, having recently approved almost $8 billion to help automakers retoolfactories to produce EVs and other fuel-efficient vehicles. Another $16 billion will be doled out next year.

“What people overlook is that accomplishing ‘big picture’ programs like Apollo require accepting the concept of unlimited spending to achieve the mission,” Cogan says. “Current levels of unprecedented federal spending notwithstanding, electric cars are not an exclusive answer to future transportation challenges and consumers will not be willing to buy them at all costs.”

Early adopters and hardcore EV advocates will gladly pay that much, but will the rest of us pay $15,000 to $25,000 more for a car that runs on electricity? Cogan doesn’t think so and says EVs should be considered mid- to long-term solutions until automakers — and the battery makers they rely upon — can bring costs down to a level competitive with vehicles propelled by internal combustion.

Until then, he says, more efficient gasoline cars, clean diesel vehicles and hybrids will comprise the majority of cars sold even as EVs become an increasingly common sight in showrooms.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Examiner & Autobloggreen)

In the name of “clean energy,” Washington is subsidizing a switch from gasoline-powered cars to cars powered mostly by coal. In pursuit of “energy independence,” the feds may foster addiction to a fuel concentrated in a socialist-run South American country.

Image Courtesy: Apture - Hybrid electric vehicles at Argonne

Lobbying by automakers, chemical companies and coal-dependent power producers has yielded a slew of subsidies and mandates for electric cars. However promising a gasoline-free automobile may sound, anyone who followed the government’s mad rush to ethanol fuel in recent years has to worry about the clean promise of the electric car yielding dirty results.

Ethanol — an alcohol fuel made from corn or other plants — has been pushed relentlessly on the American people by a Congress under the influence of a powerful ethanol lobby. Touted as a clean fuel, the government-created ethanol boom has contributed to water pollution, soil erosion, deforestation and even air pollution.

Lithium could be the new ethanol, thanks to the government push for electric cars. Lithium is an element found in nature, and lithium-ion batteries are at the heart of the next generation of electric cars. Compared with lead acid (the standard car battery) and nickel metal hydride (the batteries in today’s hybrids), lithium-ion batteries are less toxic, more powerful and longer lasting.

But what would happen if electric cars and these batteries gain wide use?

Before we even get to the batteries, recall that although all-electric, plug-in cars emit nothing, somebody needs to burn something for the car to move. Here, the burning happens at the power plant instead of under your hood.

The Department Energy estimates that coal provides half our electricity. A recent Government Accountability Office study reported that a plug-in compact car, if it is recharged at an outlet drawing its juice from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4 to 5 percent. A plug-in sport utility vehicle provides a CO2 savings of 19 to 23 percent.

The Department Energy estimates that coal provides half our electricity. A recent Government Accountability Office study reported that a plug-in compact car, if it is recharged at an outlet drawing its juice from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4 to 5 percent. A plug-in sport utility vehicle provides a CO2 savings of 19 to 23 percent.

If the cleaner and cheaper fuel of a plug-in causes someone to drive even a bit more, it’s a break-even on CO2. GAO co-author Mark Gaffigan raised the question to CNSNews.com; “If you are using coal-fired power plants and half the country’s electricity comes from coal-powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?”

And of course, there’s the lithium lobby. FMC Corp. is the largest lithium producer in the United States. The company employs a dozen lobbying firms and operates its own political action committee. FMC has leaned on Congress and the Energy Department for electric car subsidies.

If the electric car lobby succeeds, brace for another harsh lesson in unintended consequences.

Click here to read the entire Examiner article. Our friends at Autobloggreen were kind enough to point Tim Carney, the author of this Examiner article, the following: While Carney is right that the GAO did warn against all of the coal that could be used to power the EVs of the future, he forgot to mention the GAO’s finding that “Research we reviewed indicated that plug-ins could shift air pollutant emissions away from population centers even if there was no change in the fuel used to generate electricity.”

TransportGooru Musings: Though I agree with some aspects of the author’s argument, I disagree with the notion that  Electric Vehicle investment boom is akin to that of the Ethanol-boom of the years past.   There are many differences between what’s happening now and what happened in the past.  Apart from ridiculing the Government’s strategy, the author, Tim Carney, is not offering any credible solutions and simply terrorizes the readers with an insane argument — Your tax dollars are getting wasted and the lithium lobbies are winning.

Let us see, Mr. Carney! We have two clear choices  — either we continue to tread the same path, guzzling billions of gallons of oil a day (and polluting the environment with gay abandon), all the while facilitating the transfer of your dollars to some petro-dictatorship in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia) or South America (Venezuela).  Or try and invest in something like Electric Vehicles which can help us and our children breathe easy in the years to come.   The latter option may not be very appealing to many folks like you who are grounded in a myopic view of the world.

Though majority of the electric power produced in the US comes from coal,  we can to a large degree control the emissions from these coal plants with current technology.  It may require some more arm twisting on the Government’s part to make these coal-fired electric plants to adhere to the stringent emissions standards but this is a lot more easy to manage.  Also, with more government investment in other forms of generating electricity and a great deal of consumer interest in purchasing clear power, we have  golden an opportunity for investing in other forms of electricity production (Nuclear,  Wind, solar. etc – FYI, Government data indicate there have been 17 licence applications to build 26 new nuclear reactors since mid 2007, following several regulatory initiatives preparing the way for new orders and the Government envisions producing significant share of the power from Nuclear by 2020).

In this option, the Fed & State Governments can regulate and control these domestic sources of power generation and to a large degree keep the investments within the American borders.  If you are advocating to continue the same path as we have done in the past decades, Petro-dictators on the other parts of the globe  (Saudi, Venezuela, Russia, etc) are going to grow richer and they do not listen to what you or your government wants.  They do what they want and run a cartel (OPEC) that is very unrestrained and at times acts like a bunch of thugs.  In this option, your price at the pump is not dictated by your Government but some hukka-smoking, arms-dealing perto-aggresor, who is trying to make the best of the situation and extract as much as he can from your wallet.

The Ethanol buzz dissipated quickly because the Detroit lobby was too damn powerful and them automakers were not listening well to what the customers wanted.   When the economy tanked (and the markets wreacked havock on their stock values) and the customers started showing love for foreign manufactured cars like Prius & Insight,  Detroit had a sudden realization that they need to change their strategy and started moving away from making those huge SUVs and Trucks. Now they are talking about newer cars that are small, functional, economic and environmentally viable products.

It is hard to disagree that there was a flood of investment in the Ethanol technology, but the underlying concept remained the same (burning fuel using the conventional combustion engine) and there was nothing ground-shaking about the way it was promoted.  It is just that we were simply trying to change the amount of emissions coming out of our tailpipes.  But now with Electric-vehicles, we are changing the game completely.

Though it may take a few more years to develop the “Perfect” technology, full electrification of vehicles will eliminate the very concept of a tailpipe in a vehicle.  Tesla and numerous other manufacturers are trying to do this and I consider this to be a step in the right direction.  One thing we have to bear in mind is that during the Ethanol era, the U.S. was the major proponent (because we have way to much areable land and corn growing farmers around) and the rest of the world was just playing along with mild interest because of various reason.  But this time around the  scenario looks very different.  Worldwide there is a coordinated push for heavy investments in alternative energy technologies, and almost every industrialized nation jumped into this EV bandwagon pushing research funds towards development of green cars when the oil prices sky rocketed.  No one is interested in paying $140+ dollars/barrel for oil.

Above all, we are at a time when the Government needs to invest its tax-payer dollars back in the communities in a fruitful way. The addiction to oil has gotten way bad and the sky-high oil prices of 2008 were a good indicator that we can’t afford to continue treading in the same path as we did in the decade past. If the Government has to hold back from investing in clean energy technologies, it might invest in other areas that may look very appealing in the short run but potentially leaving a huge developmental hole in the transportation sector.  This is the RIGHT TIME for investing in Electric Vehicles.  Now the Government has a stake in two of the three Detroit Automakers, which offers the flexibility to steer the development of new technologies and  newer vehicle platforms running on clean fuels such as electric and hydrogen power.

Going by your argument that by switching enmass to Electric-vehicles, we are going to create a demand for Lithium, simply shifting our oil dependence to socialist-Bolivia’s Lithium reserves, so be it.  You want to know why? Any day, I’ll take the Democratically-elected Bolivian Government (headed by a Evo Morales)  over the petro-crazy OPEC members.  If it helps resuscitate a nation that is living in depths of poverty, why not do that.  We in the Western world helped the Saudi’s & other mid-east monarchs become rich and modern from their goat-sheperding Bedouin past with the invention of modern Automobiles.  If we can do the same to Bolivia with the introduction of a new technology (Lithium-ion batteries for running cars), why do you get so jittery about that.

The growing threat of environmental degradation and the fallout from the rising green house gas emissions fore-casted by our eminent scientists are too damn threatening to our world and hard to ignore. Be happy thinking that your Government is doing something to improve the status-quo (which is guzzling billions of gallons of oil) instead of  sitting around waiting for a miracle.   For all that matters Electric Vehicles may be just an evolution in the quest for a better form of transportation.  Who knows!  But by investing in these technologies, we may at least have a chance to live a better life in the future. If our Government is not doing any of the above, we may never have a future after all.  So, let’s stop being an obstacle along the way for everything the Government does just because it is run by people who have a diabolically different views and principles.

(Source:  Green Car Congress & Synovate)

Market research firm Synovate released new study findings showing that nearly six in ten people would choose to buy a green car over a dream car, even if money was no object. In March 2009, Synovate surveyed more than 13,500 people across 18 markets (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the United Kingdom and the United States of America) about “green” versus “dream” cars, vehicle ownership, intent to buy in the next year and attitudes towards cars, traffic, public transport and their need-for-speed.

The top answer across all 18 markets, if money was no object, was to buy a green car, with 37% of respondents saying this would be their preference. Thirty percent said they would buy their dream car and a further 22% claimed that &ldqou;my dream car is a green car”, meaning that 59%—or very nearly six in ten—showed the desire to go green.

This In:fact survey on cars was conducted in March 2009 across 18 markets - Australia (AU), Brazil (BR), Canada (CA), China (CN), Egypt (EGY), France (FR), Germany (DE), Greece (GR), India (IN), Japan (JP), Korea (KR), Malaysia (MY), South Africa (ZA), Thailand (TH), Turkey (TR), the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (US). It covered over 13,200 urban respondents

• The nation most likely to simply elect green car was Germany, with 58% choosing the environment over their dream cars.
• The 30% of people globally who would still choose their dream car, green-be-damned, comprised of 35% men and 27% women.
• The single biggest result for dream car came from South Africa where over half of all respondents (53%) would go for their fantasy vehicle over a green one.
• In the United States (US), 35% would buy a dream car, 23% chose green and 19% say their dream car is a green car. More American women than men say that their dream car is a green car (20% women versus 17% men).
• Overall, 15% of respondents across all 18 markets surveyed, including 9% in the US, say they will buy a new car in the next 12 months. The new car purchase intenders were topped by India at 38% and Egypt at 24%.
• 6% of survey respondents across the 18 markets say they will buy a used car in the next year, including 7% of Americans. 53% would be happy to pay more for a used car if it came with a manufacturer certification and warranty.
• South Africa (18%) as well as the US, Malaysia and Thailand (all 15%) were tops among the households globally in which more than two cars can be found.
• 14% of respondents across the 18 markets say they will use public transport more often in the coming year. The highest level of agreement was in China at 39%. The lowest level of agreement was in the US at 2%.
• 9% of people globally, including 5% of Americans, said they would be riding bikes or walking more often.

Click here to read the entire study.