As the U.S. looks to improve passenger transportation, join us for a live Webinar where industry experts will share experiences, examine challenges and present various approaches of successful high-speed rail projects.

Panelists include:
•Rick Harnish, Executive Director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association
•Peter Gertler, Vice President of HNTB
•Chuck Pineda, Rail Division Manager – US for OHL
•Antonio Pérez, CEO of TALGO America
•Susana Mate, Assistant Director of Industry and Technology for the Trade Commission of Spain in Chicago

The panel will discuss the elements of a high-speed rail system, as well as the similarities and differences of projects in Spain, the U.S. and around the world; from how they are planned and engineered to how they are built and operated.

Hosted by the Trade Commission of Spain in Chicago, www.spaintechnology/rail.

Register at: www.masstransitmag.com/hi-speedrail

(Source: Wired; Bikeportland)

Image Courtesy: Hopworksfiets by Elly Blue @ Flickr

The Hopworksfiets party bike was built in, where else, bike- and beer-mad Portland, Oregon, by the bike builders Metrofiets. All you really need to know in order to fall in love with this bike is that it carries not one, but two beer kegs along with a pair of taps to serve the suds.

The mobile bar, a custom build for Portland-based Hopworks Urban Brewery, is a long-wheelbase cargo bike with the load bed up front, which we guess means that pedestrians can’t sneak a quick pint when you’re stopped at the lights. There’s a “sound pannier” at the back, containing an amp and a speaker, and the rear rack is just the right size to carry a stack of pizza boxes.

This party is entirely human-powered, with the help of nine gears — any more would allow a rider to go faster than would be entirely wise, explained Ross. Sturdy looking disc brakes and chunky tires with full fenders adorn both wheels.

Image Courtesy: Hopworksfeit @ Flickr

When fully loaded with pizza, beer, and ice, the bike should just about meet Metrofiets’ 400lb weight limit. Still, Ross is recommending that the bike be transported with pony kegs, and refilled with full-sized kegs on the scene.

The bike is a group effort. Ross and Nichols designed and built the bike. Damon Eckhoff inspired the sound system and did much of the wiring. Metropolis Cycles (2249 N Williams) built the wheels and provided general bike shop support. Michael Moscarelli of local brewing supply company F.H. Steinbarts did the beer plumbing; local high school biology teacher, homebrewer, and woodworker Gregg Heppner created the bar top and sound system shell. The bike’s components (including the tap handles) were donated by Chris King Components and Shimano.

Click here to read more and here to see the slideshow of the bike in action.

Glenn N. Havinoviski is Associate Vice President for Transportation Systems with Iteris, Inc. in Sterling.  He was President of ITS Virginia from 2006 to 2007 and has been a columnist for the ITSVA Journal since 2002.

————————————————————————————————————————-

Imagine, if you can…

Intelligent transportation systems are on their last legs in Virginia.  There is no political support for congestion reduction measures that require any kind of budgetary investment.  There is no popular desire for new measures to provide more travel choices, like express buses, rapid rail, or HOT lanes.  No one really cares to see travel time information along the road or any information about accidents or closures.  We’d rather spend more time in traffic so we can talk and text and Tweet on our cellphones, thus causing more accidents.

And hey, now they’ve got iPhone apps for traffic information, which give you nice green, orange and red lines over Google Maps!  COOL!  Who needs those electronic signs and cameras and service patrols and control centers that are run by the Marxists anyway?

Hey!  Let’s get rid of VDOT!   And how about that big Federal bureaucracy which doesn’t do anything!  We Virginians are resourceful.  The roads might crumble but we can all buy big American SUV’s again and go off-roading and impress each other at church on Sundays!  And they can tow boats too, for when all the bridges fall down. Look at all the American jobs this creates! We can take our kids to our private schools in the woods that don’t require state funding, which is fine since we also want to get rid of those so-called public schools anyway!  All kids need to learn is the Bible and the Constitution, except for those last 15 amendments!

And who needs to worry about oil?  We’ll just drill here, drill now, on the shores of the Potomac!  Heck, let’s drill off Virginia Beach!  We all go to the Outer Banks and Hilton Head anyway!  We can deport all the immigrants, and suddenly it won’t  be so crowded on the roads!  No more smelly buses either! Let the French have their trains! We won’t need any more Statist engineers and planners to tell us what to do! Problems solved!  “Carry me back to old Virgininny….”

Scary, huh? What about this scenario instead?

(Approved Press Release) The USDOT Office of Public Benefit, as directed by the President upon his signature of the Omnibus Reauthorization Welcoming Enhanced Life and Liberty in 2010 (ORWELL 2010),  has suspended all transportation projects funded in part or entirely by private sector entities, except for those providing rail-based transit services to corridors of population density less than 50 persons per square mile. In all cases, maximum fares and rate of return for shall be unilaterally set by the President’s Private Sector Compensation Czar.

Under the provisions of ORWELL 2010, all road tolling in the United States shall be ceased as of March 12, 2011, at which time all state departments of transportation and public, semi-public and private transportation authorities and their assets will become subject to USDOT jurisdiction.

All traffic signals, cameras, sensors and other electronic infrastructure commonly associated with so-called “Intelligent Transportation Systems” that are not powered by recyclable farm organisms shall be removed from public right-of-way by January 1, 2011.

ORWELL 2010 has decreed that all limited-access highways which have not otherwise bio-degraded or collapsed onto themselves shall be redesignated as Advanced Non-Individual Managed Access Lanes (ANIMAL) facilities.  An ANIMAL shall not permit access to individually-driven vehicles, via tolls or otherwise,  but will permit properly-licensed buses, bicycles, solar powered vehicles, Harley-Davidsons, and Toyota Priuses.

Henceforth, on all non-ANIMAL facilities, all travel containing less than four passengers in (or on) a motorized vehicle will be permitted between the hours of 10 pm and 5 am Monday through Friday, and for six non-contiguous hours on Saturday and Sunday to be individually approved by someone in USDOT.

ORWELL 2010 has mandated that all residents of a State, US territory, or possession, shall reside in an urban center of 50,000 population or more unless they can demonstrate they are excluded or protected entities including organic dairy farmers, custodians of wind farms, Native Americans, Members of Congress, or mammals.

All fuel taxes will be increased to a nominal rate of $25 per gallon also effective January 1, 2011, the proceeds of which will be used to build passenger rail lines on urban streets and also to demolish any housing more than 10 miles from an urban center of more than 50,000.  All families will be given 6 months to acquire dwellings within government-designated smart-growth areas,  with dwelling sizes not to exceed 150 square feet per human, or 250 square feet per dog, up to a maximum of 826 square feet.

All cats shall be permitted to roam freely within the smart growth zone (please refer to ORWELL 2010’s companion legislation, “Pelosi-McCain Feline Freedom Act”).

All broadcast, satellite and cable television and radio stations along with electronic and material mailings which present viewpoints which are contrary to the regulations and mandates stipulated in ORWELL 2010 shall be reported within 4 hours to the Office of Public Benefit, under penalty of prosecution.

“Kumbaya….”

How far are we from either of these?  Really!

After all, we are in a battle for hearts and minds,  not to mention money.  ITS and congestion management seems to be lost in the shuffle here.  Take a look at what is really happening.

For example, Arlington County has recently sued the Feds and the Commonwealth over the proposed project on I-95/395 to expanding and convert the existing HOV lanes to High-Occupancy Toll lanes, demanding the overturning of the project’s environmental Categorical Exclusion and suspending the project until their objections (notably not enough emphasis on transit, potential harm to air quality, concern about congested interchanges and local roads as a result of the project) were satisfied.

And, although years ago families saw that Arlington had run out of room and housing stock and had no choice but to move farther out, the County said “the project actually encourages additional sprawl, further exacerbating traffic congestion and harmful air emissions.”  Chickens or eggs first?

(I can’t help but think back to that California Air Resources Board study in the 1990’s which effectively said that congestion was good because fewer cars can use the road and people travel slower.  Guess we can’t win now.)

On the other hand, several freedom fighters from the “additional sprawl” in Prince William County have complained that HOT Lanes would endanger their sluglines, as people who picked up riders for their trips to the Pentagon would now selfishly pay tolls and drive by themselves, while the jilted slugs had to make do with taking the lowly bus instead.

Never mind all this counterpunching flies in the face of the HOT lane successes (from both a revenue and a congestion reduction perspective) in California, Utah, Colorado, Texas, Washington and Minnesota,  a coalition of red and blue states if I’ve ever seen one.  And the I-495 HOT lanes construction, which has a much larger impact on the surrounding communities than 95/395 would, is surging forward.

But then again, we shouldn’t worry.  After all, we all know that ITS and congestion management are a significant means of reducing greenhouse gases and improving our environment, right?  It must be true, because we’ve been saying so for years.

Well, witness the big brouhaha over the “Moving Cooler” study for Urban Land Institute with support from USDOT, the Environmental Defense Fund, EPA, ITS America, and others, which was to provide some ammunition on projected benefits of various transportation and land use strategies in curbing greenhouse gases.  The study,  to many, has left more questions than answers.

The estimates for ITS, and operations benefits were said to be a cumulative 0.3 to 0.6% reduction over 50 years for all such systems deployed together, which angered many experts, including AASHTO.  But the other individual benefits for road pricing,  transit  and land use changes did not exceed 4.4% each, and for the most part averaged 1 to 2%.

So how, when the four areas are combined, was there a cumulative 18% to 24% reduction in GHG?  And how much will individual activities cost, especially when cumulative investment would be $50 to $80 billion per year for 40 years?!  The benefits, including “reduced travel and reduced fuel consumption” did not get contrasted with any opportunity costs (e.g., relocations, additional percentage of income devoted to taxes, job shifts or losses, etc) associated with redefining our life styles. So the actual personal costs may add to the already substantial investment, either by or mandated from government.

Considering Virginia legislators haven’t been willing to make the investment in even a rudimentary transportation improvement program in the state,  this would mean we’re headed toward a giant Federal involvement in our society with all the attendant issues that brings, like constitutionality.

I attended the “Moving Cooler” media and political event in Washington in late July, presided over by several legislators (notably Rep. Oberstar-MN, Rep. Blumenauer-OR, and Sen. Menendez-NJ).  I was also surrounded by many people in small bow ties and luminescent plastic bicycle medallions on their lapels, so we do know that land use, bicycles and transit were a big deal, and we were repeatedly told that the Dutch and the Danes do over 30% of travel by bicycle, and that the Spanish and Chinese had exemplary national rail investment programs.  And we all need to be just like Portland, Oregon,  OK.

So do we only have a choice between “spend no money, everyone on their own, God Bless America”  and  “shame on you, greedy and slothful suburbanite, come live in our dense community, ride your bikes and take the trolley powered by electricity produced by some coal plant far enough away it doesn’t impact us”?    In reality,  we are faced with both situations happening, depending on what state or community you live in.  There may be a choice between these two.  But if we are not careful, there may not be any choices in between.

This combination of willful abandonment of a public sector role in our infrastructure (right wing) and direct control of our private lives and wealth (left wing) are a scary combination, and one we have to address with reasonableness, pragmatism, and the best that technology can offer.  As always, we need to push some simple facts about ITS and clear-headed transportation management strategies, which I think more than other can provide tools that keep us from descending into an abyss we cannot control.  In other words, Virginia (and other states) must step up, or get stepped on.

The key words we must use are CHOICES,  QUALITY, SAFETY and MOBILITY.   ITS enables all of these things.

ITS provides the information so travelers can make choices on when, where and how to travel, and can achieve them through alternatives that are priced based on relative convenience and utility.

ITS improves the quality of transportation services by providing timely information about their operational status, as well as actively managing the operation of the freeway, the arterial (including the bike lane or bike path) or transit service through messaging, signals, vehicle monitoring, dynamic road pricing, etc. to reduce delays.

ITS improves safety by improving information by advising of the otherwise unexpected (incidents, delays,  speed reductions needed because of weather/pavement/operational conditions, and if IntelliDrive becomes reality, various warnings of conflicts at intersections).

And finally,  all of this facilitates the ability for individuals to travel when and where they want or need to, enhancing personal mobility. It also enhances interstate commerce, which is an integral purpose of our Federal government.  It says so in our Constitution.

To me, mobility is an essential part of freedom, whether you are red or blue.

Some places may choose to barely maintain their overworked, underfed transportation networks and not invest. Some others may be willing to make enormous investments which may impact the public significantly, and force them to make lifestyle changes which may or may not be in their own self-interest.  Either way, we have to balance self-interest and the common good.  And ITS should be a part of the overall solution.

————————————————————————————————————————————

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the author.  TransportGooru is proud to invite anyone and everyone who wishes to use this platform to engage the community in a social dialogue, there by creating a healthy debate on some of the pressing transportation issues that affect our quality of life.   Please register your comments below for the author so that he can hear the community’s voice on the issues he has addressed in the above paragraphs.

(Source: GAO)

Why GAO Did this Study

The federal government has increasingly focused on linking affordable housing to transit oriented developments—compact, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods located near transit—through the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) housing programs and the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) transit programs. GAO was asked to review (1) what is known about how transit-oriented developments affect the availability of affordable housing; (2) how local, state, and federal agencies have worked to ensure that affordable housing is available in transit-oriented developments; and (3) the extent to which HUD and FTA have worked together to ensure that transportation and affordable housing objectives are integrated in transit-oriented developments. To address these issues, GAO reviewed relevant literature, conducted site visits, and interviewed agency officials.

What GAO Found

Characteristics of transit-oriented developments can increase nearby land and housing values, however determining transit-oriented development’s effects on the availability of affordable housing in these developments are complicated by a lack of direct research and data. Specifically, the presence of transit stations, retail, and other desirable amenities such as schools and parks generally increases land and housing values nearby. However, the extent to which land and housing values increase—or in the rare case, decrease—near a transit station depends on a number of characteristics, some of which are commonly found in transit-oriented developments. According to transit and housing stakeholders GAO spoke with, higher land and housing values have the potential to limit the availability of affordable housing near transit, but other factors—such as transit routing decisions and local commitment to affordable housing—can also affect availability.

Few local, state, and federal programs are targeted to assisting local housing and transit providers develop affordable housing in transit-oriented developments. The few targeted programs that exist primarily focus on financial incentives that state and local agencies provide to developers if affordable housing is included in residential developments in transit-oriented developments. However, GAO found that housing developers who develop affordable housing in transit-oriented developments generally rely on local and state programs and policies that have incentives for developing affordable housing in any location. HUD and FTA programs allow local and state agencies to promote affordable housing near transit, but rarely provide direct incentives to target affordable housing in transit-oriented developments.

Since 2005, HUD and FTA, and more recently DOT, have collaborated on three interagency efforts to promote affordable housing in transit-oriented developments including (1) an interagency agreement, (2) a HUD-FTA action plan, and (3) a new DOT-HUD partnership. While these interagency efforts have produced numerous strategies, local housing and transit officials told GAO that these strategies had little impact, in part, because they have yet to be implemented. However, the agencies have not yet developed a comprehensive, integrated plan to implement all efforts, and without such a plan, the agencies risk losing momentum. GAO has previously identified key practices that could enhance and sustain collaboration among federal agencies; when compared to these practices, GAO found that HUD, FTA, and DOT have taken some actions consistent with some of these practices—such as defining a common outcome. However, weaknesses in agency housing data and analytical transportation planning methods will limit these agencies’ ability to effectively monitor, evaluate, and report results—another key collaboration practice. GAO found that other collaboration practices, such as establishing compatible policies and procedures, could be taken to strengthen collaboration. Finally, without a more formalized approach to collaboration, including establishment of memorandum of agreements, these agencies may not effectively leverage their unique strengths.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that DOT and HUD develop a plan for implementing interagency efforts to promote affordable housing in transit-oriented developments, ensure they collect sufficient data to assess the results of these efforts, and formalize key collaboration practices. DOT and HUD agreed to consider the report’s recommendations.

(Sources contributing to this hybrid report: Boston.com, ULTraPRT.com & ABC7)

The city of San Jose is planning to build a PRT system that will run between the airport and a Bay Area Rapid Transit station as well as a nearby light rail station. They say it will include up to five stations, but this and other details are still being worked out.

Back in 2008, the city has issued a request for proposals and allotted $4 million to conduct an economic and technical evaluation, and then to work with a vendor. When San Jose compared PRT with an automated people mover, the kind of large, driverless shuttle that is common at airports, officials decided that PRT would be cheaper and more convenient for passengers. The government has not sworn off other options during this exploratory phase, but officials say they will most likely proceed with a PRT system.

Image Courtesy: ULTra PRT - Click the image for more details

One of the vendors, ULTra PRT whose first deployment is scheduled for London Heathrow Airport in Spring 2010, expected to serve Heathrow’s new Terminal 5, has published more details on this project.  The website notes ULTra PRT is an electric, 200-mpg-equivalent, elevated transit system with many 5-person vehicles.  Working as circulator transit for office parks, airports, universities, and other major activity centers, PRT is faster than a car. In these applications, PRT makes carpooling and transit more effective, by solving the “last mile problem.”

Laura Stuchinksy is a sustainability officer for San Jose’s Department of Transportation. She and other city officials are considering the idea of having such a public pod system link the Mineta San Jose International Airport with area businesses, hotels and other nearby transit options, like Caltrain, BART and the VTA Light Rail.

PRT also enables longer bike commutes and shopping trips.  The only existing, functioning example in the world is an eight-mile network built in the 1970s to move people around the West Virginia University campuses (which also happens to be TransportGooru’s Alma Mater; enjoyed riding this system while studying there back in the 90s).

San Jose is anticipating population growth of a half million people over the next 30 years, so an automated pod transit system could certainly improve quality of life in the city – plus generate thousands more clean-tech jobs. Here is a video  coverage of this story (courtesy of ABC 7).

(Source: AP via Yahoo & DC-ist)

Image Courtesy: www.EdwardBurtynsky.com - Click the image to see more pictures

“Edward Burtynsky: Oil,” opens at the privately funded museum as Congress is struggling with a climate bill that could include a “cap and trade” system to reduce greenhouse gases. Critics say it could drive up energy costs.

“We hoped that there would be something going on around oil,” curator Paul Roth said of the museum’s plans for the exhibit beginning two years ago. “At a certain point, we realized, no, it’s Washington and it’s oil. There will be something going on.”

Burtynsky spent 12 years exploring the subject, following past projects on mines, quarries and farming. The images are divided thematically to show how oil is extracted from the earth and how it drives transportation and development. It ends with a frightening thought — the end of oil.  Some of the most striking images depict the abandoned, rusting oil fields of Azerbaijan in 2006, where the earth has been tapped dry.

Burtynsky’s large-scale, sweeping landscape photographs deftly allow us to “see” oil, both in each powerful individual scene, and together in a longer narrative, which is how the Corcoran has set up his exhibit. In the first gallery, oil fields in California and Houston and refineries in New Brunswick set the scene. In mostly aerial shots, oil rigs dot an otherwise barren landscape fading all the way into remarkable horizons, marking the beginning of the “lifecycle.”  The refineries are highly organized labyrinths of green and silver pipes that look like fine jewelry.

The second gallery, “Transportation and Motor Culture,” is perhaps the highlight of the exhibit. Here, the work alternates between earnest, plain-spoken statements – the obscene, gigantic landfill of black rubber tires – and his “culture” shots that tap into a bit of dark humor. Images of Talladega Speedway, a Volkswagon parking lot, the motorcycle section at a KISS concert, and a Trucker’s Jamboree are all incredible and amusing scenes, dedicated to cultures where the engine sits on the altar. In a way, the images are a tribute to the innovations that began with oil: the extraordinary vehicles in the Bonneville Land Speed-Trials, the intricate architecture of the Nanpu Bridge Interchange in Shanghai. In another way, they’re shameful and embarrassing even to look at: airplane and helicopter graveyards; a Pennsylvania interchange packed with gas station on top of gas station, where no actual people live for miles and miles. It’s a culture not just of extraordinary innovation but of gross excess, and where that line is drawn is not for Burtynsky to say, it’s for each of us to decide and embrace.

The third gallery is a forecast of our future, if we can’t ever find that line. While the first two galleries contain images taken almost solely in the U.S. and Canada (Burtynsky is Canadian), this gallery is mostly Bangladesh, where massive oil tankers go to die. Men and even very young boys earn wages by breaking down the ships in incredibly dangerous and ugly work. In an image called Recycling #2, three young men stand in black sludge up to their ankles, an almost sickly laughable twist on what most Americans consider the clean and pure act of “recycling.”

Image Courtesy: www.EdwardBurtynsky.com - Click the image to see more pictures

Click here to explore more about  Mr. Burtynsky and his impeccable work.

(Sources: Green Car Congress, Red Orbit, & Reuters)

Jean-Louis Borloo, France’s Minister for Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and the Sea, presented a national 14-point plan designed to accelerate the development and subsequent commercialization of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids in France.

France will invest 2.5 billion euros ($3.6 billion) over 10 years in research, subsidies and infrastructure development for electric cars as automakers race to get the vehicles on the road, its energy minister said.  Speaking at a presentation of the government’s plans for electric vehicles on Thursday, minister Borloo said the investment would be split between pilot projects, battery production and bonuses for carmakers building green cars.

The investment would also cover the biggest cost, namely adapting the electricity grid to allow for the creation of a million charging points by 2015 and over 4 million by 2020.  Borloo said around half the charging points would be in private homes, with almost as many in offices, as well as 75,000 “back-up” charging points in streets and car parks.

The 14 elements of the plan are:

1. ADEME (the French Environment and Energy Management Agency) will launch in early 2010 a new call for projects on infrastructure costs, to support plug-in demonstrators and trials combining infrastructure, applications and target territories, and to validate the functioning of the ecosystem of rechargeable vehicles. Budget: €70 million (US$102 million).
2. ADEME will establish early in 2010 a roadmap for specific new mobility solutions, dealing with developments in transportation of people or goods, based both on technology (new vehicles, dissemination of renewable energy, electric traction, etc.) and service (Vélib, Carsharing, Carpool, etc.) ADEME will then launch a new call for projects, with a budget of €25 million (US$36 million).
3. Renault will establish a Li-ion battery factory in Flins, in partnership with CEA (France’s Atomic Energy Commission), at an investment of €625 million. This site may produce more than 100,000 batteries per year. Bolloré, Dassault and Saft are also conducting parallel projects.
4. A group of large companies and associations of local and state officials are committing to purchase electric vehicles with a range of at least 150 km. The public tenders and private joint purchasing will target a market fleet of 100,000 vehicles by 2015. The first 50,000 are already identified. Led by La Poste, the group includes EPA, Air France, Areva, Bouygues, Darty, EDF, Eiffage, France Telecom, GDF SUEZ, SNCF, SPIE, UGAP, Veolia, Vinci, associations and communities represented by Association of Urban Communities of France and the Association of Regions of France.
5. A €5,000 grant for the purchase of vehicles with CO₂ emissions less than or equal to 60 g/km until 2012. Hybrids with CO₂ emissions are less than or equal to 135 g may receive a bonus of €2,000, as will LPG or natural gas vehicles.
6. Availability of a standard outlet to charge the cars outside of the home. Specifically, no charge should be needed at home.
7. By 2012 the construction of buildings (offices and homes) with compulsory integration of charging systems.
8. Supporting the installation of charging systems in condominiums.
9. Compulsory charge points in parking for office buildings by 2015.
10. Agreement on common European charging standards.
11. Municipalities to receive support to deploy the public recharging infrastructure.
12. Organize the operational deployment of the network. €1.5 billion for public infrastructure.
13. Maximize the use of low-carbon or renewable electricity for recharging vehicles.
14. Giving batteries and battery materials a second life after their vehicular applications, either through reuse (in grid storage, for example), or recycling.

The unveiling of the so-called “battle of the electric cars” plan follows hard on the heels of another scheme announced just two weeks ago that the French government would invest some seven billion euros ($10 billion USD) in the development of a modern freight-transporting railway system in an effort to reduce congestion on the nation’s roads and highways.

French President Sarkozy also announced his plans for a new carbon tax on businesses and private households that is set to go into effect next year. All three interventions are critical elements of Sarkozy’s “green plan” with which he hopes to drive down France’s dependence on carbon-based fuel and lower its emission of greenhouse gases.

Borloo says that nearly two thirds of the 1.5 billion euros ($2.2 billion USD) needed to fund the program will be procured through state loans set be started next year.

Included in the electric car plan is the construction of roughly a million battery-charging facilities by 2015, some 90 percent of which will be in private homes, while the other ten percent will be installed in car parks and at roadside stations.

Additionally, beginning in 2012, all new apartment buildings with parking lots will come equipped with battery-charging stations. By 2020, the plan’s architects say they hope to have some four million charging points throughout the country—or nearly two per electric car.

The ecology ministry stated in the meeting that the emissions-free sector of the French automobile industry should be worth a whopping 15 billion euros ($21 billion USD) by the year 2030 and constitute an estimated 27 percent of the total market for vehicles.

Click here to read the entire article.

Note: A big heartfelt thanks to our friends at Green Car Congress who made a concerted effort to provide the readers with an English Translation of this 14 point plan.  For those who wonder, this plan and every other material on the Ministry’s website is only available in French.  What’s up with a Government website only published in French? What were these egalitarian and patriotic Frenchies thinking about non-French speakers when they made the decision that things will get published only in French?  Damn, these folks are very biased in that aspect compared to the Americans.  BTW, I wonder what would Glenn Beck say about the French plan if he found out that Sarkozy is spending more money than Obama on improving/modernizing his  country’s transportation infrastructure?

(Source: Ars Technica; CNET)

At Technology Review’s EmTech conference last week, MIT professor Joel Schindall told the audience at a panel on energy storage why ultracapacitors may have a significant role to play in our transportation future. The good properties of these devices—fast charge/discharge cycles and an essentially unlimited number of cycles—make them a compelling choice for powering an electric vehicle. Schindall also explained why their downside, a far lower charge density than batteries, might not be as much of a problem as it might appear at first glance.

Schindall, who had spent some time away from academics, explained that during his first stint at MIT, a capacitor that could hold 350 Farads would have filled the whole stage. Before he returned, someone working on fuel cells had accidentally produced the first ultracapacitor. Now, with refinements, he was able to walk on stage with a 350 Farad ultracapacitor that was about the size of a D battery. The current generation of devices use activated carbon to hold charges, as its highly complex topology creates a lot of surface area across which charge differences can build up.

Although the improvements have been dramatic, Schindall said that ultracapacitors still badly lag batteries in terms of the storage density, holding only about five percent of the charge per volume of lithium batteris. Which is unfortunate, because they have some properties that would make them excellent for a variety of applications, including very rapid charging and the ability to withstand many more charge cycles than a battery. Schindall claimed they could be recharged indefinitely, since “greater than a million times, to me, is indefinite.”

Schindall’s research group has focused on replacing the disordered structure of activated carbon with a more ordered one that can increase the packing: carbon nanotubes. His research group has developed a vapor deposition process that can grow densely packed, vertically oriented clusters of carbon nanotubes on conducting surfaces. Current industrial processes for the production of carbon nanotubes tend to produce a variety of diameters and lengths, but Schindall told Ars that the process his group has developed keeps everything very regular—he was actually surprised by how even the lengths were.

In the U.S., early-stage companies designing the materials and electrolytes for ultracapacitors include Graphene Energy,EnerG2, and Ioxus. Much hyped EEStor, backed by venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, has signed asupply deal with electric vehicle company Zenn, although its products are still not commercially available.

Compared to batteries, ultracapacitors can’t store a lot of energy, so they wouldn’t typically be used alone to run plug-in electric vehicles. On the other hand, ultracapacitors are “power dense,” which means that they can discharge the energy they do have quickly. Conversely, they can be recharged quickly–in seconds or minutes, and with almost no degradation in performance over time, say backers.

Schindall projects that ultracapacitors eventually will be able to store as much as 25 percent of the energy of batteries, a jump he said would be “disruptive.” Right now, nanostructures developed by MIT researchers can hold twice as much energy as activated carbon. In the coming months, his team expects to show it can hold five times the energy as activated carbon, he said.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Green Car Congress)

Click here for more details

Researchers from the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) are cooperating to develop and test a method for predicting the real-world fuel and electricity consumption of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) by adjusting dynamometer test results. After examining data on the only PHEV currently available in large numbers, the new adjustment method shows promise for reasonably predicting PHEV average fuel and electricity use, despite differences in design.

Current rules for conventional vehicles do not work for plug-in hybrids because the vehicles run on both electricity and gasoline; industry debate centers on the rules for estimating miles per gallon. This was highlighted by the reaction to GM’s announcement that the Chevy Volt would attain 230 mpg in the city cycle, given a single charge per day, along with combined cycle electricity consumption of 25 kWh/100 miles, based on a draft EPA methodology. (Earlier post.)

PHEV testing is further complicated by the fact that these vehicles operate in two different modes based on the distance they are driven (initially depleting energy from the large vehicle battery, and eventually sustaining the battery charge for longer distance driving). Consensus is building on techniques to handle these first two complications, but one question that remains is how to adjust raw certification cycle test results to best predict a PHEV’s average real-world energy use.

Click here to read the entire article.

Will a city need all the latest technology and they will solve the traffic problems? If not, then what are the correct choices.

Technology has been playing an important role in promoting vehicular safety, reducing driving stress, comfortable travel and increased  efficiency of the whole transport system. These technologies applied in a package are called “Intelligent Transport System (ITS)”. When carefully applied the ITS will create an efficient, safe and comfortable transport system.

Often, policy-makers are in a situation where they are not properly informed on the right technological choices. The GTZ Sourcebook module  on “Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)” focuses on the choices for a city and also informs the reader of the various viable ITS options, their function and advantage. (German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ) is a member of the Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP – ASIA).  The project is carried out in cooperation between German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ), the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), CITYNET, UNHABITAT and the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA). The office is based in Bangkok (Thailand).

The focus of this module on ITS is on ITS applications that support the concept of sustainable transport by encouraging the following desirable outcomes which can be expected to find general acceptance:

• Equitable access and improved mobility and including reduced demand for motorised private transport; and improve the modal split in favor of walking, transit, and cycling;
• Improved transport efficiency and productivity;
• Improved safety and security; and
• Reduced environmental impact and improved ‘liveability’, especially in congested city centres.

The module was written by Mr. Phil Sayeg and Prof. Phil Charles and updated by the authors. The authors also wrote ITS Australia’s Intelligent Transport Systems Hand- book that was published in 2003 and edit their quarterly Members’ Information Pack. They are currently contributing to the development of the first ITS Strategy for Bangkok, Thailand.

More information on the updated module (3.15 Mb) and download links are available from the Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP) website.