(Source: Government Accountability Office)

Why GAO Did This Study

The New Starts program is an important source of new capital investment in mass transportation. To be eligible for federal funding, a project must advance through the different project development phases of the New Starts program, including alternatives analysis, preliminary engineering, and final design. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) evaluates projects as a condition for advancement into each project development phase of the program. FTA has acted recently to streamline the process. This report discusses:

1. The time it has generally taken for projects to move through the New Starts process and what Congress and FTA have done to expedite the process and
2. Options that exist to expedite the process.

In response to a legislative mandate, GAO reviewed statutes, FTA guidance and regulations, and project data. GAO also interviewed Department of Transportation (DOT) officials, projects sponsors, and industry stakeholders.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOT consider options to expedite project development and continue to improve its data collection efforts. DOT agreed with the first recommendation but not the second, which GAO revised to better reflect FTA’s efforts to date and the ongoing need for complete and reliable data to help strengthen the program.

What GAO Found

Insufficient data are available to describe the time it has taken for all projects to move through the New Starts process. Nevertheless, 9 of 40 projects that have received full funding grant agreements since 1997, and had complete data available, had milestone dates that ranged from about 4 to 14 years to complete the project development phases. However, the data from these 9 projects are not generalizeable to the 40 New Starts projects.

FTA has not historically retained all milestone data for every project, such as the dates that project sponsors apply to enter preliminary engineering and FTA’s subsequent approval. Although not required by its records retention policy, FTA has retained milestone data from some projects longer than 2 years. However, GAO was unable to obtain complete and reliable project milestone data from FTA.

FTA officials acknowledged that, while not historically perfect, the agency has retained sufficient milestone data to help manage the New Starts program. Nevertheless, recognizing the importance of having complete milestone data, FTA has taken several steps in recent years to more consistently collect and retain such data. In addition, GAO found that project sponsors do not consistently retain milestone data for projects that have completed the New Starts process.

Congress and FTA have taken action to expedite projects through the New Starts process. For example, legislative action created the Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program (Penta-P) to study the benefits of using public-private partnerships for certain new fixed-guideway capital projects, such as accelerating project delivery. In addition, FTA has implemented administrative changes to expedite the New Starts process. For example, FTA has developed and offered training workshops for project sponsors and has introduced project delivery tools. These tools include checklists for project sponsors to improve their understanding of the requirements of each phase of the New Starts process.

Project sponsors and industry stakeholders GAO interviewed identified options to help expedite project development within the New Starts program. These options include tailoring the New Starts evaluation process to risks posed by the projects, using letters of intent more frequently, and applying policy and guidance changes only to future projects. Each option has advantages and disadvantages to consider.

In addition, FTA must also strike the appropriate balance between expediting project delivery and maintaining the accountability of the program. For example, by signaling early federal support of projects, letters of intent could help project sponsors use potentially less costly and time-consuming alternative project delivery methods, such as design-build. However, such early support poses some risk.

It is possible that with more frequent use of letters of intent, FTA’s commitment authority could be depleted earlier than expected, which could affect the anticipated funding stream for future projects. Furthermore, some options, like combining one or more statutorily required project development phases, would require legislative action.

Click here to download/read the entire report (in PDF).

(Source: The Infrastructurist)

The author make a convincing case for upping transit investments and transit-oriented development to make our systems efficient and suggests some drastic measures, which are considered often “basic” in the pro-transit world.  The summary goes like tihs: “The move toward a world where we need more alternatives to single-person auto travel is going to happen regardless of  US politicians. It would be better if we tried to get ahead of that curve. Lazrus is probably right to be gloomy about that–but wrong to be gloomy about the long-term prospects of transit and rail.”  If you are a transit nut, this is definitely worth a read.  Enjoy!

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

Yesterday’s dispatch from LA Times business writer David Lazarus has a great lede: “It’s hard to appreciate how truly pitiful our public transportation system is until you spend some time with a system that works.” Many of us know that feeling.

Then he gushes about the consistently reliable, affordable and convenient transit systems in Japan. “I rode just about every form of public transit imaginable — bullet trains, express trains, commuter trains, subways, street cars, monorails and buses.” All fabulous, of course.

Then there’s that age old question of replicating it here in this place we call America. Lazarus argues that even if you build great transit and high speed rail networks people won’t use them in sufficient numbers unless you also strongly penalize car travel. Carrot and stick. But how to discourage auto use? Like this:

• Make driving more expensive with higher gas taxes and road fees
• Make parking much pricier and less convenient all over the country
• Redevelop our cities and suburbs to make them denser and more conducive to transit and rail travel

Pretty basic stuff, though Lazarus chooses to characterize this broader process as “making our cities less comfortable” and says he “simply can’t imagine political leaders at the local, state or federal level telling voters that they support a big increase in gas taxes, sky-high parking fees and high-density neighborhoods.”

That fact essentially seals the fate of transit and passenger rail, he argues.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument he’s right that politicians will never act to make driving meaningfully more expensive. Should we abandon hope for transit and passenger rail that doesn’t suck?

No. Potentially for two reasons, in fact.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Economic Policy Institute)

Not even the most optimisitic American could have envisioned this soaring  popularity of “Car Allowance Rebate System” (CARS) — better known as “cash for clunkers.” CARS has proven to be very popular, and the $1 billion originally slated for credits appears to have been all but exhausted less than a week after the program went into effect. and is now awaiting another $2B lifeline, which is expected to come through after the Senate vote.

The program has already prompted thousands of Americans to upgrade older, less fuel efficient cars and is generating much-needed sales for troubled automobile manufacturers and related industries while decreasing gasoline consumption and improving environmental outcomes. But has there been an attempt to quantify these  impacts on fuel efficiency and environment? Yes.  The Economic Policy Insititute analyzes the fuel efficiency improvements & emissions reductions and made it easy for us to understand.  Here is a quick peek at the study & the awesome graphic that explains the cost savings in fueling a clunker vs. a new car.  The study methodology involves the following elements:

• Study authors assumed that the average credit is $4,000 and that all of the $1 billion is spent on credits, thus producing 250,000 trade-ins.
• The average miles driven per year — 14,450 — is the per vehicle estimate from the US Department of Transportation for 2006, the latest available data.
• Used forecasted annual gas price of $2.36/gallon from the Department of Energy.
• Derive CO2 emissions from the EPA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who assume that 1 gallon of automobile gasoline is equivalent to 19.4 pounds of CO2.
• 58% of all crude oil is from foreign sources and that 44% of all crude oil goes to gasoline production (both estimates from the Department of Energy for 2008).

Based on these assumptions, the study team has determined that the fuel economy improvements will save an estimated $821 per traded vehicle annually (see chart above).  How? Reduced gas consumption means less dependence on foreign oil, and more money in the pockets of consumers that could be used for domestic consumption. According to the Department of Transportation, the average fuel efficiency of old cars traded in via the program is 15.8 miles per gallon, while new cars had an average MPG of 25.4.

On average, total gas consumption will drop by 87 million gallons per year, and American consumers will use 22.2 million fewer barrels of foreign crude oil. The environmental impact of reduced gas consumption is considerable as well. We estimate that the program will result in about 850,000 fewer tons of CO2 emissions per year (3.4 tons per vehicle annually). This reduction equals more than two-thirds of the annual CO2 emissions linked to household electricity, heating, and waste.

Click here to read the entire article. (Hat tip @NPR)

(Source: DOE & Tree Hugger)

President Obama was in Indiana yesterday to announce how $2.4 billion dollars from the Recovery Act will be divided up between 48 different battery and electric vehicle projects.”If we want to reduce our dependence on oil, put Americans back to work and reassert our manufacturing sector as one of the greatest in the world, we must produce the advanced, efficient vehicles of the future,” said President Obama. “With these investments, we’re planting the seeds of progress for our country and good-paying, private-sector jobs for the American people,” he said.

“For our nation and our economy to recover, we must have a vision for what can be built here in the future – and then we need to invest in that vision,” said Vice President Biden. “That’s what we’re doing today and that’s what this Recovery Act is about.”

“These are incredibly effective investments that will come back to us many times over – by creating jobs, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, cleaning up the air we breathe, and combating climate change,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu. “They will help achieve the President’s goal of putting one million plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road by 2015. And, most importantly, they will launch an advanced battery industry in America and make our auto industry cleaner and more competitive.”

The announcement marks the single largest investment in advanced battery technology for hybrid and electric-drive vehicles ever made. Industry officials expect that this $2.4 billion investment, coupled with another $2.4 billion in cost share from the award winners, will result directly in the creation tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. battery and auto industries.

So Where’s All That Money Going?

The money is going to three main categories of projects:

• $1.5 billion in grants to U.S. based manufacturers to produce batteries and their components and to expand battery recycling capacity;
• $500 million in grants to U.S. based manufacturers to produce electric drive components for vehicles, including electric motors, power electronics, and other drive train components; and
• $400 million in grants to purchase thousands of plug-in hybrid and all-electric vehicles for test demonstrations in several dozen locations; to deploy them and evaluate their performance; to install electric charging infrastructure; and to provide education and workforce training to support the transition to advanced electric transportation systems.

Most of the grant winners are familiar names, with Detroit firms getting a substantial share. But who’s the biggest winner? Here are some of the winners:

• Johnson Controls: $299.2 million for the production of nickel-cobalt-metal battery cells and packs, as well as production of battery separators (by partner Entek) for hybrid and electric vehicles.
• A123 Systems: $249.1 million for the manufacturing of nano-iron phosphate cathode powder and electrode coatings; fabrication of battery cells and modules; and assembly of complete battery pack systems for hybrid and electric vehicles.
• General Motors: $105.9 million for the production of high-volume battery packs for the GM Volt (the cells will be from LG Chem, Ltd. and other cell providers to be named), plus another $105 million for the construction of U.S. manufacturing capabilities to produce the second-generation GM global rear-wheel electric drive system. That’s not all. There’s also another $30.5 million to develop, analyze, and demonstrate hundreds of Chevrolet Volt Extended Range Electric Vehicles (EREVs) –125 Volt PHEVs for electric utilities and 500 Volt PHEVs to consumers. (for a total of $241.4 million)

The complete list of the 48 grants can be found here (pdf).

(Source: Tree Hugger)

During last week, many of us watched Nissan unveil its electric car, Leaf.  Those who where in Yokohoma, Japan for the unveiling had a chance to test drive the vehicle and get a demonstration of the technology behind the vehicle.  Our friends from Tree Hugger were kind enough to bring us a little more than what the rest of mdeia has offered thus far.   In an exclusive article, Tree hugger explains Nissan’s technology demonstration that utilizes the internet technology to interface with its electric vehicles. Check out the exclusive video (via You Tube) and a collection of pictures here.

As you can see in this quick demo, the car sends info to an Apple iPhone via a dedicated global data center. The software tells the user about the car’s state of charge, the cost to charge at a given hour of the day, and sends alerts when it’s fully juiced up.

Nissan also expects this is how drivers may program what times of day they want to charge up. Since tiered electricity billing is becoming more common (especially with the spread of smart meters), customers will want to charge their cars when it’s cheapest.

This smartphone interface also lets the user activate or pre-program the car’s climate control. This is important because heating and air conditioning draw a considerable amount of power, so it’s better to draw from the grid when plugged in, rather than once the car is on the road and running on its battery.

Although this interface isn’t likely to appear on the first-generation Leaf when it comes out in late 2010, Nissan has assured us that this is not just eye candy, and that smartphone connectivity is a feature that will make it to market.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Green Car Congress)

This post is sponsored by LemonFree.com

Buoyed by the US government’s CARS (“Cash for Clunkers”) program, US auto sales slowed their decline in the US in July, dropping on 12.1% to 997,824 units, accordingto summary figures from AutoData. Passenger car sales dropped 10.6% to 554, 527 units, while light truck sales dropped 14.1% to 443, 297 units. All comparisons are by volume. As a result, the SAAR for July surged to 11.24 million units; US SAAR had been below 10 million since January.

Hybrids had an especially good month, with reported sales jumping 31.8% year-on-year to 35,429 units, representing a 3.55% new vehicle sales market share for the month—the highest monthly share yet. Hybrid gains were largely due to an increase in Prius sales (up 29.7% to 19,173 units) and Ford hybrids (up 323% to 5,353 units).

According to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, CARS sales reflected demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles:

• Ford reported a 9 mpg increase from trade-in vehicle to new vehicle purchase;
• GM reported a 54% increase in small car sales since the CARS program was launched;
• 57% of Mazdas sold so far under the program were fuel-efficient Mazda 3’s;
• 78% of Toyota’s CARS sales volume consists of Corolla, Prius, Camry, RAV 4 and Tacoma, which average a combined 30 mpg;
• Volkswagen reports more than 60% of its CARS sales are clean diesel Jetta TDIs which get an EPA combined 34 mpg.

Here is a quick snapshot of sales volume by manufacturer (in the hybrid category):

• GM delivered a total of 1,487 hybrid vehicles were delivered in the month, up 36.3% year-on-year.
• Ford’s fuel-efficient vehicles pace July sales results. Ford had an exceptionally strong month with hybrid sales, up 323% year-on-year to 5,353 units.
• Toyota Motor Sales (TMS) posted July sales of 24,295 hybrid vehicles, up 19.3% from the same period last year.
• Total sales of the fuel-efficient Honda Civic increased 3.1% to 30,037. Sales of the Civic Hybrid, however, plunged 71.8% to 969 units year-on-year. The new Honda Insight hybrid posted 2,295 units.
• Nissan sold 1,030 units of the Altima hybrid, up 44.1% year-on year.

Our friends at Jalopnik yesterday published a revised list of ten most purchased vehicles under the Cash for Clunkers program:

1. Ford Focus

2. Toyota Corolla

3. Honda Civic

4. Toyota Prius

5. Toyota Camry

6. Ford Escape FWD

7. Hyundai Elantra

8. Dodge Caliber

9. Honda Fit

10. Chevrolet Cobalt

Click here to read the entire report.

(Source: AP Via Yahoo & Time)

“Cash for clunkers” could have the same effect on global warming pollution as shutting down the entire country — every automobile, every factory, every power plant — for an hour per year. That could rise to three hours if the program is extended by Congress and remains as popular as it is now.

Climate experts aren’t impressed.

Compared to overall carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, the pollution savings from cash for clunkers do not noticeably move the fuel gauge. Environmental experts say the program — conceived primarily to stimulate the economy and jump-start the auto industry — is not an effective way to attack climate change.

“As a carbon dioxide policy, this is a terribly wasteful thing to do,” said Henry Jacoby, a professor of management and co-director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT. “The amount of carbon you are saving per federal expenditure is very, very small.”

Officials expect a quarter-million gas guzzlers will be junked under the original $1 billion set aside by Congress — money that is now all but exhausted.

Calculations by The Associated Press, using Department of Transportation figures, show that replacing those fuel hogs will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by just under 700,000 tons a year. While that may sound impressive, it’s nothing compared to what the U.S. spewed last year: nearly 6.4 billion tons (and that was down from previous years).

That means on average, every hour, America emits 728,000 tons of carbon dioxide. The total savings per year from cash for clunkers translates to about 57 minutes of America’s output of the chief greenhouse gas.

Likewise, America will be using nearly 72 million fewer gallons of gasoline a year because of the program, based on the first quarter-million vehicles replaced. U.S. drivers go through that amount of gas every 4 1/2 hours, according to the Department of Energy.

Time Magazine reports that initial data released by Department of Transportation, however, shows that so far cash for clunkers has been a green success. The clunkers averaged 15.8 m.p.g., compared with 25.4 m.p.g. for the new vehicles purchased, for an average fuel-economy increase of 61%. On the whole, American drivers are trading in inefficient trucks and SUVs for much more efficient passenger cars. Car manufacturers like Nissan are already retooling some models to improve their fuel economy so they can qualify for the credits. The early numbers were enough to convince California Senator Dianne Feinstein to go from criticizing cash for clunkers as too lax to supporting additional funding for the bill in the Senate. “This program has done much better than we ever thought it would for the environment,” she told reporters on Aug. 4.

It’s called the efficiency paradox: as we get more efficient at using energy — through less wasteful cars and appliances — the overall cost of energy goes down, but we respond by using more of it. In the case of cars, that means driving more. Ultimately our gas bill stays the same, but we spend more time on the road and pump the same amount of greenhouse-gas emissions into the atmosphere. The earth isn’t any better off.

To address the emissions problem directly, we need to look at fuel, not Fords: institute carbon taxes that raise the price of gas. We already know that higher gas prices discourage driving and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions — total vehicle miles traveled in the U.S. declined 3.6% in 2008 compared with the previous year, thanks largely to the sky-high price of gas for much of 2008. (The recession didn’t help, but sharp declines in driving began well before the bottom dropped out of the economy.) As gas prices have fallen in 2009, however, driving has begun to tick back up.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Flight Global & FAA Press  Release)

The FAA today finalised amended certification standards that will require makers of transport category aircraft to either have icing protection systems that automatically activate or provide a method to alert pilots that the system should be turned on.

The final rule follows more than a decade of research by the FAA, NASA and others initiated by the fatal crash of an American Eagle ATR 72 near Roselawn, Indiana, in 1994 due to ice build-up on the wings.

Under the new rule new aircraft and those undergoing “significant changes” that impact icing safety must either have an ice detection system that automatically activates or alerts pilots to turn on the system; a definition of visual signs that indicate ice build-up along with an advisory system; or a method of identifying temperature and moisture conditions conducive to airframe icing, alerting pilots of the need to turn on the protection system.

Regardless of the activation method, ice protection systems must then operate continuously, automatically turn on or turn off, or alert the pilots that the system must be cycled again after the initial activation.

“We’re adding another level of safety to prevent situations where pilots are either completely unaware of ice accumulation or don’t think it’s significant enough to warrant turning on their ice protection equipment,” said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt.

The FAA has previously addressed activation of pneumatic deicing boots on many aircraft models by requiring activation of boots at the first sign of ice accumulation. This new certification standard further increases safety by not relying on the pilot alone to observe whether the airplane is accumulating ice. Also this certification standard applies to all types of ice protection systems, not just pneumatic deicing boots.

The full text of the final rule is available at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-18483.htm

Click here to read the entire article.