The Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America) is pleased to announce a series of Webinars focusing on how climate change can affect surface transportation.

• 
  “What Does Climate Change Legislation Mean for Surface Transportation?”  – Wednesday, July 8,  from 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• “How is California Addressing Surface Transportation Issues?” – Wednesday, July 15, from 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• “What is Detroit Doing to Alleviate Environmental Concerns in Surface Transportation?” –  Wednesday, July 22 from 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

The registration fee for members of ITS America is $45 per Webinar (or $105 for the series) and $90 per Webinar for nonmembers or ($240 for the series).

To register, download the registration form here.

(Source:  Minnesota Public Radio, The Hill, The Trucker, Detroit Free Press, Transportation for America)

Image Courtesy:USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood's Blog - Fast Lane

Legislative Journey Begins:

Congressman Jim Oberstar’s transportation bill starts its legislative journey today with a draft session scheduled in a House of Representatives subcommittee.

It’s the one of the first steps toward a vote for the bill, which would nearly double current spending. The Obama administration has proposed postponing reform, but Oberstar says waiting dooms the country to years of delay on transportation projects.

Oberstar’s Surface Transportation Authorization Act would provide $337 billion in funding for highway construction, $100 billion for public transit and $50 billion to build a nationwide high-speed rail system–a grand total of nearly $500 billion over six years.

Funding for the bill remains sketchy, though Oberstar promises details as it progresses. There’s been no talk of increasing the federal gasoline tax which hasn’t been raised for 16 years.

Oberstar rails against the Obama administration position, saying an 18-month delay, given how Congress does its work, translates into a four-year wait for federal money from a new federal transportation bill. Oberstar’s timeline for finishing work on a new federal transportation bill is ambitious. He wants a vote no later than just after Labor Day.

LaHood told a Senate Appropriations transportation panel last week that he wants to work in the 18-month extension for the kinds of program changes that lawmakers seek.

“Our number one priority is to fix the Highway Trust Fund, to pay for it, to find money, and along the way here if we can have the discussions about these other things, I think we should,” LaHood said.

But Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat and the committee’s chairman, said: “Conversations are great; passing legislation is hard.” She said she was “concerned about some of the lack of details … You’re offering a general framework for us, but we can’t wait very long for a proposal.”

Unlikely Ally – K Street:

Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) has a powerful ally in his battle with the White House over the highway bill: K Street.

Trade associations, unions and business coalitions are getting behind the House Transportation Committee chairman in his push to complete the $450 billion measure before the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30. The Obama administration has argued the transportation reauthorization bill is a bridge too far for an already jam-packed legislative agenda and wants to extend the current law at least 18 months before Capitol Hill can take on new reforms.

But lobbyists are arguing that the debate over how best to pay the increased transportation funding Oberstar is proposing — whether it is through raising the tax on gasoline or taxing vehicle mileage — cannot wait any longer.

But the administration has opposed lawmakers who wish to raise the gas tax to pay for the new transportation bill. LaHood and others argue the new tax hike would be overly burdensome on the pocketbooks of ordinary Americans during the recession.

Lobbyists believe the legislation, which will help fund repairs not only to highways but to transit systems and railroads, will provide a boost to the nation’s economy, much like the stimulus package was designed to do.

For his push to finish the bill before the end of the fiscal year, Oberstar can expect to find support among many of the trade associations that have been lobbying the transportation reauthorization this year. Like AAPA and LIUNA, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and the Associated General Contractors of America are also supportive of the Minnesota Democrat’s desire to complete the bill in 2009, according to statements they released last week.

Many praised several reforms that were included in Oberstar’s blueprint released last week, including creating a Transportation Department Office of Intermodalism to better organize the nation’s transportation system and a national infrastructure bank to fund transportation projects.

Strong provisions for monitoring drug and alcohol abuse by truckers

The draft of the new highway reauthorization bill authored primarily by Rep. James Oberstar, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee contains strong language requiring the Secretary of Transportation to establish a clearinghouse for records relating to alcohol and controlled substances testing of commercial motor vehicle operators.

It’s a clearinghouse long desired by federal officials and trucking executives and would be designed to keep repeat substance abuse offenders from jumping from company to company.

The clearinghouse would be a repository of records relating to violations of the testing program by individuals submitted to the DOT.

The bill requires the clearinghouse to be in operation not later than one year after the enactment of the new highway bill.

Under the present system, a CDL holder can fail a drug test and be fired from his or her present employer, but is not required to tell a prospective new employer about the failed test.

D.C. Metro Crash Spurs Transit Funding Debate

Public transit advocates seized on Monday’s commuter rail crash in Washington to make the case for overhauling the country’s transportation system.  Authorities were still searching the wreckage Tuesday when Transportation for America, a coalition of interest groups and local officials, cited the deadliest crash in the Metro’s 33-year history to make the case for advancing a new transit authorization bill on Capitol Hill this year.

“In the big picture, what we can say is that we have underinvested in taking care of our infrastructure, roads, bridges and public transportation,” said James Corless, director of Transportation for America.

Lawmakers from around the Washington area also spoke of the need to pay for rail projects in the wake of the crash, which killed nine people and injured 76, although some cautioned not to draw conclusions before investigators determine what led the two trains on the red line to collide.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) called for a congressional hearing Tuesday to help determine how the crash occurred.

Norton, after meeting with officials of the National Transportation Safety Board, expressed outrage that the older car in the crash wasn’t retired, as those officials had recommended years ago. She noted that Congress once heard safety officials testify for more funding to maintain the Metrorail system, and that appropriators have failed to fully fund their request.

“Congress had the ultimate wake-up call yesterday,” she said. “The only appropriate response is to begin to eliminate the crash-unworthy cars with this year’s appropriations.”

Advancing Traffic Signal Management Programs through Regional Collaboration

Description

This T3 webinar will explore Regional Traffic Signal Management Programs from an intuitional and organizational perspective. Over the last decade, Regional Traffic Signal Management Programs have developed in many metropolitan areas with the primary objective of improving traffic signal timing. How successful have these programs been at achieving and sustaining this objective? What types of organizational structures, funding, and technology facilitate the operation of the system? There are many approaches to starting, organizing, and sustaining regional programs; a cross section of these, will be explored from the perspective of State DOTs, Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Local Agencies. The activities, funding sources and champions that sustain regional programs are as diverse as the regions themselves; exploring and discussing these is an important step in improving and advancing traffic signal operations nationally.

The webinar will include brief presentations describing each regional traffic signal program followed by a Question & Answer discussion of questions submitted by webinar participants.

Audience

Politicians, managers and practitioners interested in improving traffic signal management, operations and maintenance practices to reduce the impacts of traffic signals on climate change, improve the quality of life of customers and advancing a world class transportation system that interoperates across multiple modes and facilities.

Learning Objectives

• Identify approaches to “sell” regional traffic signal programs as a viable strategy to improve traffic signal operations.
• Identify organizational structures and methods of overcoming institutional barriers to the formation of regional traffic signal management programs.
• List activities that promote regional collaboration among traffic signal operators.
• Identify how planning organizations and agencies that manage and operate traffic signals can work collaboratively to improve traffic signal operations.
• List the benefits of regional traffic signal operations.
• Identify emerging strategies for measuring performance and prioritizing regional objectives and projects.

Federal Host:

Eddie Curtis, FHWA Resource Center & Office of Operations

Eddie Curtis is a Traffic Management Specialist with the FHWA Resource Center and Headquarters Office of Operations. He manages the Arterial Management Program responsible for providing research, guidance and outreach to advance arterial operations and traffic signal management. Via the Resource center Mr. Curtis provides training and technical assistance on issues related to traffic signal management, operations and ACS-Lite. He has 14 years of experience in traffic signal operations and has held positions with the City of Los Angeles and PB Farradyne. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering from California State University Los Angeles and is a licensed P.E. in the states of California.

Presenters:

State Department of Transportation Perspective on Regional Traffic Signal Management

• North Carolina Department of Transportation

Greg Fuller, North Carolina DOT — ITS & State Signals Engineer

• Metropolitan Planning Organization Perspective

Jim Poston, Regional Transportation Commission (RTC)

Metropolitan Planning Organization Perspective

• Ron Achelpohl — Mid-America Regional Council — Operation Green Light Kansas City

Ronald Achelpohl is the Assistant Director of Transportation for the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC). He is responsible for a variety of initiatives related to the funding, operation and management of transportation systems in the Kansas City area including:

• • Project Manager for Operation Green Light; an initiative to enhance the coordination of traffic signals to improve traffic flow and air quality throughout the region;
  • Program Manager for the regional Congestion Management System to ensure that regional decision-makers have solid information about the impacts of congestion as they make major transportation investment decisions;
  • Oversight of regional transportation safety programs;
  • Oversight of the Regional Intelligent Systems Architecture;
  • Oversight of the regional Transportation Improvement Program;
  • Oversight of the regional RIDESHARE program; and
  • Other initiatives involving Intelligent Transportation Systems, Travel Demand Management, freight transportation, transportation finance and transportation policy.

Ronald has held previous positions in MARC and the Missouri Department of Transportation and has earned a Master of Science, Engineering Management from the University of Kansas and a Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering from the University of Missouri.

Ronald is a Registered Professional Engineer in Missouri and a member of the American Public Works Association, the Institute of Traffic Engineers, and ITS America, Heartland Chapter.

Professional Organization Perspective

• Institute of Transportation Engineers, Douglas Noble, P.E., PTOE

Douglas Noble is the Senior Director — Management and Operations at the Institute of Transportation Engineers. He is responsible for the integration of transportation management and operations issues into ITE programs and publications. Doug has more than 20 years of experience in project development, financial management and administration in the transportation engineering field with an emphasis in project management, organizational development and change management, traffic engineering, transportation operations, neighborhood traffic management and planned special events.

Doug’s professional background spans both the public and private sectors: He has been the Chief Traffic Engineer for Washington, DC and prior to that a principal transportation engineer for the consulting engineering firm Parsons Transportation Group in its Washington office. He received his bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Purdue University, and an M.S.E. in transportation systems from the University of Texas at Austin. In addition to being registered as a Professional Engineer, Doug has received certification as a Professional Traffic Operations Engineer™ and is a Fellow of the Institute.

Where is the “IT” in ITS?

Description

IT and ITS have a common technical framework and similar technical challenges. As such, practitioners in both fields have much to gain by partnering together. The Oregon and New Hampshire State Departments of Transportation will present their experiences in bringing these different organizational groups together to promote efficient and successful ITS project deployment based on systems engineering principles. Each agency will share their successes, challenges, and lessons learned with the organizational and technical issues these new partnerships engender. Representatives from both agencies will discuss the ways that IT and ITS staff in program offices collaborate to support ITS deployments, making this an informative and interesting session and providing the audience with practical steps for initiating and maintaining collaborative, cross-departmental work partnerships.

This webinar is part of a webinar series on Systems Engineering for ITS projects. Many agencies use their Information Technology group as a source for systems engineering and information technology skills and as a way to build competency across different agency departments.

Audience

• Individuals involved in planning, deploying, and operating ITS
• ITS and IT staff and managers
• Human Resource and workforce development professionals

Learning Outcomes

• Understanding of the positive impact on ITS project outcomes derived from collaboration between the agency’s IT department and the ITS program office
• Steps that can be implemented to initiate cross-departmental (IT and ITS) collaboration
• Benefits of using systems engineering in the development and management of ITS projects
• Best practices for maintaining cross-departmental collaboration through the project lifecycle

Federal Host:

Mac Lister

Mac is the Manager of the ITS Professional Capacity Building Program at the U.S. Department of Transportation’s ITS Joint Program Office (ITS JPO). He has over 35 years of experience in the field of information systems. Before joining the ITS JPO, Mac was an ITS Specialist at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Resource Center. Before that, Mac worked as an IT manager for 25 years, the last 12 of which were for a public transit agency. His ITS areas of expertise are 511 technology/overall operations, the National ITS Architecture, ITS professional capacity building and workforce development, and systems engineering.

Mac has provided training, outreach and technical support for the National ITS Architecture and Systems Engineering programs. He has also the team leader for the FHWA‘s National Field Support team; the field co-chair for the FHWA Operations Council’s architecture and systems engineering working groups; and a member of the 511 Deployment Coalition Working Group.

Mac is a certified instructor and a master trainer for NHI. He has taught courses in ITS Software Acquisition, Systems Engineering and National ITS Architecture. He has also been an independent consultant to ITS America.

Do you know that over 90% of the world’s fatalities on the roads occur in low-income and middle-income countries, which have only 48% of the world’s registered vehicles?

Image Courtesy: World Health Organization

Approximately 1.3 million people die each year on the world’s roads, and between 20 and 50 million sustain non-fatal injuries. In most regions of the world this epidemic of road traffic injuries is still increasing. In the past five years most countries have endorsed the recommendations of the World report on road traffic injury prevention which give guidance on how countries can implement a comprehensive approach to improving road safety and reducing the death toll on their roads.

To date, however, there has been no global assessment of road safety that indicates the extent to which this approach is being implemented. This Global status report on road safety is  the first broad assessment of the status of road safety in 178 countries, using data drawn from a standardized survey conducted in 2008.

The results show that road traffic injuries remain an important public health problem, particularly for low-income and middle-income countries. Pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists make up almost half of those killed on the roads, highlighting the need for these road users to be given more attention in road safety programmes.

Image Courtesy: Apture

The results also suggest that in many countries road safety laws need to be made more comprehensive while enforcement should be strengthened. TheGlobal status report on road safety results clearly show that significantly more action is needed to make the world’s roads safer.

The results provide a benchmark that countries can use to assess their road safety position relative to other countries, while internationally the data presented can collectively be considered as a global “baseline” against which progress over time can be measured.  Here is a quick summary of key findings from WHO’s Director-General, Dr. Margaret Chan’s  statement during the June 15, 2009 release of the report in New York City:

• Over 90% of these deaths occur in low-income and middle-income countries, which have less than half of the world’s registered vehicles.
• Second, the report highlights that nearly half of those dying on the world’s roads are pedestrians, cyclists or motorcyclists. These people, who lack the protective shell of a car, are particularly vulnerable to severe and fatal injuries following a crash.  In some low-income and middle-income countries, this proportion is even higher, with up to 80% of road traffic deaths among these vulnerable groups. Clearly we are not giving enough attention to the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists, many of whom end up in clinics and emergency rooms, overloading already stretched health-care systems.
• Third, the report shows that, in many countries, the laws needed to protect people are either not in place or too limited in their scope. Indeed, only 15% of countries have comprehensive laws on all the risk factors we measured. And even when legislation is adequate, most countries report that enforcement is low.  The development and effective enforcement of legislation are key ways to reduce drink-driving and excessive speed, and to increase the use of helmets, seat-belts and child restraints.
• Finally, the report demonstrates that in many countries information about road traffic injuries is scarce. To set priorities and target and evaluate their actions, countries need to know the size of the problem, and additional information such as which groups are most affected.

Click here to access the PDF report.

(Source: New York Times, Washington Post & CNN.com)

Image Courtesy: The Associated Press - Picture from Accident Scene

At least nine people were killed (as of local reporting time 11:35PM) and roughly 20 injured when one Metro subway train slammed into another on the outskirts of the city during the afternoon rush hour on Monday, emergency officials said.  At the scene, one subway car sat fully on top of a car from the other train. The car on top had part of its floor sheared off, and the wreckage was a jumble of twisted metal. Seats from the smashed cars had spilled onto the tracks.

The crash occurred around 5 p.m. on a heavily traveled Metro route, known as the Red Line, that shuttles thousands of commuters every day from the suburbs into the city. It occurred between the Takoma Park and Fort Totten stations, where there is a long stretch of track, meaning trains often reach high speeds.

Several passengers were carried off on stretchers, and rescue crews used ladders and heavy equipment to cut into the wreckage and get to passengers stuck inside. Helicopters buzzed overhead. The police scrambled to coordinate traffic, onlookers and the rescue workers.

Emergency medical personnel set up a triage site at the nearby Jarboe Printing Company. Mr. Catoe said there were about 75 passengers on the two trains. Six people were seriously injured, 14 had non-life-threatening injuries and about 50 appeared to be unharmed.  Passengers said about 15 minutes passed before officials showed up or any announcements were made.

Details and Possible Causation Analysis

Investigators will probably focus on a failure of Metro’s computerized signal system, which is designed to prevent trains from coming close enough to collide, as well as operator error, according to former Metro officials.

The system relies on electronic relays — about the size of a hardcover book — aboard trains and buried beside the tracks along each line. When a train gets too close to another train, the system is designed to automatically stop the approaching train. It should work regardless of whether trains are being operated manually or by computer.

Metro has had trouble with its signal system in recent years, and replaced all 20,000 trackside relays in 2000 after discovering that a small portion were failing.

But even if the signal system failed to stop the train, the operator should have intervened and applied emergency brakes, safety experts familiar with Metro’s operations say. The position of the second train after the crash — the fact that its first car came to rest atop the other train — indicates that the second train was traveling at high speed. In the section of track where the accident occurred, the maximum speed is supposed to be 58 mph. Metro officials would not say how fast the trains were going because of the ongoing NTSB investigation.

Stories of crash victims

A survivor, Jodie Wickett, described feeling a bump on the track, and then being flung forward when the train suddenly halted a few seconds later. She said she hit her head, but managed to get out and go to where the collision occurred a few cars up, where one subway car lay atop another.

“It was a huge impact,” said Maya Maroto, 31, of Burtonsville, Md., who was in the third car of the moving train as she headed into the city to see a movie. “Our first inclination was that we hit another train or car.”  An elderly woman sitting near them flew out of her seat and landed sprawled on the floor.  Ms. Maroto said she did not realize the seriousness of the accident until she looked out the door and saw the front of her train wedged on top of the other one. Minutes later she looked again and saw a body on the tracks.

Jasmine Gars, who also was on the moving train, told CNN’s “Larry King Live” that the collision “was like nothing I’ve ever felt before.” “It was like we hit a concrete wall,” Gars said. “Almost immediately I fell off my seat. Another person — I don’t know who — flew off their seat. And the lights went off and smoke started filling the train car.”

Tom Baker, 47, a District resident, was in the first car of the second train, which rear-ended the first one and landed on top of it. There were eight to 10 passengers in his car. As they pulled out of Takoma on the way to Fort Totten, the female operator said the train was holding because there was a train in front of them. Shortly thereafter, the train started moving again, but within a minute, there was an “enormous crashing jolt,” he said.

“You could hear all this crashing and glass breaking,” Baker said. “I didn’t hear any brakes at all.” He said he couldn’t gauge how fast the train was moving but said it was traveling at moderate speed. He saw the train lift into the air, he said. “When the dust settled, the entire front of the train was gone,” and riders could see down to the train below them.

Great Safety Record Now Tarnished

Image Courtesy: Washington Post - Staff reports, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. (Please note the death toll has now been revised to 9; it was 6 at the time this graphic was published)

The accident was the second involving passenger fatalities in the history of the system. In 1982, three people died after a train derailed between the Federal Triangle and Smithsonian stations. In 2004, two Metro trains collided at the Woodley Park-Zoo/Adams Morgan station, resulting in minor injuries.

This is the third serious Metrorail crash since 1996. The last fatal train crash was in 1996, when a Red Line train overshot the Shady Grove platform on an icy night and plowed into another train. The operator died. In November 2004, a Red Line train rolled backwards down a steep stretch of track and smashed into another train at the Woodley Park station. Twenty people were injured but there were no fatalities.

The deadliest accident in the system’s history occurred in 1982, when a six-car Orange Line train bound for New Carrollton derailed near the Smithsonian Station when an improperly aligned switch caused it to enter the wrong track. Three passengers were killed.

Tom Baker, 47, a District resident, was in the first car of the second train, which rear-ended the first one and landed on top of it. There were eight to 10 passengers in his car. As they pulled out of Takoma on the way to Fort Totten, the female operator said the train was holding because there was a train in front of them. Shortly thereafter, the train started moving again, but within a minute, there was an “enormous crashing jolt,” he said.

“You could hear all this crashing and glass breaking,” Baker said. “I didn’t hear any brakes at all.” He said he couldn’t gauge how fast the train was moving but said it was traveling at moderate speed. He saw the train lift into the air, he said. “When the dust settled, the entire front of the train was gone,” and riders could see down to the train below them.

Officials React

“It looks to be the worst Metro accident in D.C. history,” said MayorAdrian M. Fenty. “We’re going to investigate this and find out what happened.”

The general manager of the Metro system, John B. Catoe Jr., said one train had stopped near a platform and was waiting for permission to proceed when it was hit from behind by the second train.

Mr. Catoe did not speculate on whether safety devices intended to prevent such crashes had failed, saying the authorities were still focused on rescuing passengers.

President Obama issued a statement saying he and his wife Michelle were “saddened by the terrible accident,” and thanking the first responders to the scene “who arrived immediately to save lives.”

Click here to view videos related to the story.  Click here to read the latest updates from the scene.

Breaking News Update: One of the local news channels (Channel 9) reported a few minutes ago that the death toll has now jumped to 9 and a few people continue to be listed as “critical.”

(Source: The Hindu, Times of India)

Bengaluru International Airport records 8.7 million passengers as against 13 million projected for first year

Image Courtesy: Apture

The High Speed Rail Link (HSRL) to Bengaluru International Airport, which was on the drawing board for nearly two years, is set to see some action. The Centre has given the go-ahead to the project, along with committing some funds, and has asked the implementing authorities to hasten it.  The new airport is 35 km away from the centre of this city and was conceived to handle the commercial airline traffic that is now handled by the 50-year-old HAL airport, which was bursting at its seams, handling 320 flights a day and 35,000-40,000 passengers daily or about 10 million passengers annually.

After several bureaucratic hitches, the Rs 5,767-crore project has gathered steam. The 34-km high-speed rail link will start from MG Road, run along the right side of National Highway up to BIA. The elevated train will go underground at BIA, below the airport lounge, which is 100 metres from check-in counters. It will take the underground route soon after the trumpet changeover for about 12 metres.   The rail project requires 162-acre land on the highway. With the market bust, the compensation amount has been estimated at Rs 532 crore. The HSRL will start from BRV Grounds and have two stops — at Hebbal and Yelahanka.

The HSRL project went for a review in May, and the Centre gave its nod and agreed to take care of the Viability Gap Funding. The VGF pattern has been worked out on three parameters, in which the land acquisition cost is not taken into account.  The project, which has already attracted 27 bidders for the Request For Qualification — will open the bids in August last week. The next step is technical bids.

While commencing commercial operations on May 24, 2008, promoters of Bengaluru International Airport Ltd. (BIAL) had forecast that it would handle 13 million passengers in the first year. Only 8.7 million passengers used the airport till May 23, 2009. The slump has been attributed to the economic slowdown.

A study conducted by BIAL has indicated that air passenger traffic will approximately touch nine million this year. The figure is likely to touch 14 million only by 2013-14. With the existing infrastructure, the airport can easily handle the passenger traffic for the next couple of years. BIA’s next expansion, expected to begin in early 2010, will include extending the apron from 42 aircraft parking stands to 62. Additionally, the existing terminal building will be expanded to accommodate the expected increase in passenger traffic.  Seven new international airlines have commenced operations.

It is stated that BIAL would continue to realise its master plan and expand to accommodate increased traffic in terms of aircraft movement and passengers.

The new airport started its second year Sunday without any fanfare. Yet to be officially inaugurated or christened, the airport has got mixed reviews from passengers during the first year of its operations.

“The new airport is very far from the city. It takes a lot of time to commute because of heavy traffic. We lose precious time and that is not good for us,” Ved Pathak, a software professional, said.  He was reflecting views expressed earlier by Biocon Chairperson Kiran Mazumdar Shaw and Infosys Director Mohandas Pai who had campaigned for retention of the old government-run Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd airport located within the city.

“The toilets at the new airport are cramped and not well maintained. We expect better facilities in an international airport,” remarked K. Vishwanathan, a marketing executive.  But Sushmita, a student of business management, said: “It is definitely better compared to the old airport. The place is swanky with lots of eatouts. I quite like it.”

The airport made a wobbly takeoff May 24 last year, amid protests, legal battles and criticism over poor road connectivity. Today, it is a beehive of activity, with 280 aircraft landing or taking off per day and thousands of passengers arriving or departing.  Though the $625-million (Rs.29,687-crore) greenfield airport took a decade to materialise, the first phase was completed in a record 36 months after construction began in mid-2005.

“After trials and tribulations of the first few months, we hope to see a change in our fortunes in the second year as we have accomplished a lot against heavy odds,” said a beaming Marcel Hungerbuehler, chief executive of Bangalore International Airport Ltd (BIAL), the consortium operating the airport.

However, the airport is yet to be officially inaugurated. While Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was to unveil the airport in March last year, the Karnataka assembly elections two months later May posed an obstacle, as the model code of conduct came into force.

About 30 airlines, including 20 international carriers, operate passenger and cargo services.  Spread across 4,000 acres, the domestic terminal boasts of 53 check-in and 18 self check-in counters, three rapid exits and a taxiway system, 42 aircraft stands, eight passenger boarding bridges and two warehouses.

Built on the public-private partnership model, the airport’s consortium consists of Unique Zurich Airport, Siemens Projects Ventures and Larsen and Toubro (L&T) with a combined equity stake of 74%.

State government agencies and the country’s apex national airports operator, Airports Authority of India (AAI), hold the remaining 26%.

(Source: Grist.org via T4America)

Image Courtesy: Photo illustration by Tom Twigg/Grist

You’ve heard all the reasons before: We drive too much. We eat too much meat and processed food. We spend too much time with plugged-in devices—computers, TVs, air conditioners.

But what problem are we talking about—climate change, or the worldwide rise in obesity?

Both, according to Globesity: A Planet Out of Control?, a book by four public-health researchers who show how climate change and obesity draw from a shared web of roots. Both problems worsen as car culture spreads, desk jobs replace manual jobs, and carbon-intensive foods (including meat) become available to more and more eaters, according to the book, published first in French and this spring in English.

The two issues spread across the planet in similar ways. Those paying attention to climate change know the planet can’t afford for the developing world to emit carbon dioxide at the same levels as the industrialized world. Public-health workers, too, foresee enormous trouble if developing countries adopt the worst dietary and lifestyle habits of rich countries. That shift is well underway, according to Michelle Holdsworth, Globesity’s lead author and a nutritionist with the World Health Organization (WHO) in Montpellier, France.

Rates of obesity—defined by the WHO as a body mass index of 30 or higher—are now higher in Germany, Finland, and the Czech Republic than in the U.S., according to data from the International Obesity Task Force (IOTF). The same is true in some Mediterranean countries famed for their healthy diets: Greece, Egypt, and Cyprus. Traditional olive oil-centric diets have become too high in fat for populations that are less active than they used to be, said Holdsworth. And traditional diets are losing ground.

(Source:  New York Times – Wheels Blog)

There has been a lot of talk this year about American cars. Bailout money has gone to companies with the goal of preserving the jobs of Americans who make American cars. Legislators have debated cash-for-clunker bills that would provide incentives for buying new American cars. Foreign investments have been scrutinized to see whether they would further the goal of producing more American cars.

So what’s an American car?

In today’s economy, propped up by global investments and free-trade zones, it isn’t so easy to tell. As Cheryl Jensen points out in her introduction to ournew interactive resource detailing where cars and trucks are made in North America, “Which is the more American product, a Honda Accord built by Ohioans for a company with its headquarters in Japan, or a Ford Fusion built in Mexico for a corporation that is based in Michigan?”

Indeed, under the North American Free Trade Agreement, vehicles built in Canada and Mexico can be considered “domestic.” So don’t tell your flag-waving super-patriot neighbor that his Chevy Impala, the one with the “Buy American” bumper sticker, came from Ontario.

To help cut through some of this confusion, we’ve put together an interactive map that lists every model built in the United States (with separate lists for Canada and Mexico). If you click the model name, you’ll see where it was assembled, whether that plant is unionized and whether the engines and transmissions are from the U.S. as well.

This information, gathered by Ms. Jensen, is up to date as of this weekend, but will of course be changing as automakers like G.M. close more plants, eliminate some models and shift production around. The Times will work to keep this resource up to date in the coming months.

If you’ve ever wondered where that car came from, now you can know.

Click here to read the entire article.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recently reported that motorcyclists who ride racing style motorcycles known as "supersports" have driver death rates "nearly 4 times higher than motorcyclists who ride all other types of bikes." Capable of extreme acceleration and speed, supersports are particularly popular with young riders.

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration today released “Motorcycle Trends in the United States”, a special report on the current and emerging trends involving street-legal motorcycles.  During the last decade there has been a significant increase in the number of motorcycle sales and registrations in the United States.  At the same time there has been a shift in the demographics of motorcycle users and increased focus on motorcycle safety issues. This report focuses on the current and emerging trends of vehicles, vehicle registrations, owner demographics, training and safetyinvolving street-legal (on-road and dual-purpose) motorcycles. Seen below is an extract of the report’s sections.

Vehicles

In the United States, although no universal or official definition exists, a motorcycle is a two- or three-wheel powered vehicle designed for on-road, off-road, or dual-purpose (on and off-road) use. On-road and dual-purpose motorcycles must meet federal and state certification standards and be licensed (registered) for use on public roadways, although light powered two-wheel vehicles with engines smaller than 50cc, known as mopeds or light scooters, as well as motorized bicycles, are typically allowed to operate on public roadways without registration. Motorcycle designs, technologies, and gear are expanding and evolving rapidly. While there is no universal standard, street-legal motorcycles in the United States are often grouped as shown in Box A. Laws regulating motorcycle equipment requirements for on-highway (street-legal) or off-highway operation, and insurance, age, licensing, and training requirements, vary across the U.S. ¹

Vehicle Registrations and Sales

Because the majority of motorcycles in use must be registered for operations on public highways, registrations provide some indication of the number of motorcycles in use on public roadways each year. Motorcycle registrations in the United States have grown each of the past 10 years, from 3,826,373 in 1997 to 6,678,958 in 2006—a 75 percent increase overall.² Sales of new street-legal motorcycles grew even more sharply over the same period, from 260,000 in 1997 to 892,000 in 2006 (a 243 percent increase), but declined slightly to 885,000 in 2007 (table 1).^{3 , 4}

Motorcycle engine sizes and motorcycle weights are increasing in the United States. While new sales of motorcycles with engines of 750cc or more increased 54.0 percent in 2003 compared to 1998, and those with midsized engines of 450-749cc increased 16.6 percent, sales of motorcycles with smaller engine sizes decreased during the same period, especially in the midsized 350-449cc category, which declined 60.1 percent (table 2).

Between 2005 and 2007, sales of sport bikes (including supersport bikes) increased from 16 to 19 percent of all motorcycle sales (including off-road bikes, which are not distinguished from on-road motorcycles in the available total sales data); sales of touring bikes increased from 13 to 15 percent; sales of dual-purpose bikes increased from 3 to 4 percent, while sales of off-highway bikes decreased from 27 to 22 percent of total motorcycle sales (table 3).

During the first three quarters of 2008, total new on-highway (i.e., street-legal) motorcycle sales (excluding dual purpose motorcycles and scooters) declined 2.1 percent from the corresponding period in 2007, with reported sales of 548,747 in 2008 compared to 560,529 in 2007. Dual purpose motorcycle sales increased 29.4 percent, with sales of 39,805 units during the first three quarters of 2008 compared to 30,759 units during the same period of 2007. Concurrent with record fuel prices in 2008, scooter sales increased 50.6 percent. There were 69,227 units sold in the first three quarters of 2008 compared to 45,975 units sold in the first three quarters of 2007. Combining data for on highway motorcycles, dual motorcycles, and scooters gives total sales of 657,779 during the first three quarters of 2008 as compared to 637,263 during the same period of 2007, a modest 3.22 percent increase in units sold.⁵

Motorcycle Owner Demographics

Survey data from the Motorcycle Industry Council on motorcycle owner demographics for the 1985 to 2003 period reveals a shift towards older owners. The median age of owners increased from 27.1 years in 1985 to 41.0 years in 2003. From 1985 to 2003, the percentage of owners 40–49 years old increased from 13.2 to 27.9 percent, and the percentage of owners 50+ years old increased from 8.1 to 25.1 percent (table 4). Also, survey results for 2003 indicated that 90 percent of owners were male, while survey results for 1998 indicated that 92 percent of owners were male, a slight—but probably not statistically significant—trend consistent with growing female ownership.

Training

The Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF) offers motorcycle rider education and training programs and courses, and supports governmental programs by participating in research and public awareness campaigns and providing technical assistance to state training and licensing programs. ⁶ The MSF reports that about 4.5 million riders have graduated from their rider training courses since 1974. The Motorcycle Industry Council cites MSF data showing that the number of students trained in MSF courses has increased steadily from about 130,000 in 1996 to about 370,000 in 2006. During the same period, there has been an increase in MSF course training sites from about 875 to about 2,125. In 2006, there were just over 9,000 MSF certified RiderCoaches (experienced motorcyclists who complete an intensive preparation course to become trainers) compared to only 3,500 in 1996.

Most recently, the National Traffic Safety Division (NTSD) of the Transportation Safety Institute (http://www.tsi.dot.gov/), Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation developed a course on motorcycle safety program coordination (MSPC) to train motorcycle safety program managers at the state and federal level on the best practices, program fundamentals, and latest strategies for effective motorcycle program management. The MSPC course is sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and intended to provide training to State Highway Safety Office program personnel and NHTSA Regional Program Managers to enable them to better facilitate and support a comprehensive motorcycle safety program in their state or region. The second of two pilot courses was completed in September 2008, with final course revisions based on experience with the pilots to be completed after that.

Safety

The growth in motorcycle sales and registrations in the United States has been accompanied by an increase in accidents, property losses, injuries, and fatalities involving motorcycles. As shown in table 5, from 1997 to 2007, the annual number of motorcyclist fatalities increased from 2,116 to 5,154 (a 144 percent increase), and the estimated number of motorcyclist injuries increased from 53,000 to 103,000 (a 94 percent increase).⁷

Although motorcycle registrations and vehicle-miles traveled both increased substantially from 1997 to 2006 (the last year for which registration data are currently available), these exposure measures do not account for all the growth in motorcyclist fatalities, because during that period, motorcyclist fatalities increased proportionately more than registrations and vehicle-miles traveled. From 1997 to 2006, annual motorcyclist fatalities increased from 2,116 to 4,837 (a 128.6 percent increase), while fatalities per 100,000 registered motorcycles increased from 55.3 to 72.3 (a 30.7 percent increase), and fatalities per million motorcycle miles of travel increased from 21 to 39 (an 85.7 percent increase).

Also, during that same period, estimated annual motorcyclist injuries increased from 53,000 to 88,000 (a 66 percent increase), while estimated injuries per 100,000 registered motorcycles declined from 1,374 to 1,311 (a 4.8 percent decrease), and estimated injuries per million motorcycle miles of travel increased from 522 to 707 (a 35.4 percent increase).

Analysis of factors accounting for increasing motorcyclist fatality rates is beyond the scope of this brief overview of motorcycle trends, but one trend of concern to public health and safety experts is the relaxation of motorcycle helmet laws (See Box B).^{8 , 9}

Another emerging trend of concern to public health and safety experts is the growing popularity of racing-style motorcycles known as supersports, which have high power-to-weight ratios and are capable of extreme acceleration and speed (160+ mph). Although designed for the racetrack, supersport motorcycles are marketed and sold to the general public and have become especially popular among young riders. On September 11, 2007, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) released a report showing that “motorcyclists who ride supersports have driver death rates per 10,000 registered motorcycles nearly 4 times higher than motorcyclists who ride all other types of bikes.”¹⁰ The IIHS report also noted that among fatally injured motorcycle drivers, those riding supersports are the youngest, with an average age of 27. For both 2000 and 2005, the death rate for riders of supersport bikes is twice that of sport bike riders and four times that for riders of other motorcycle types (See table 6).

PDF version of the full report, complete with Tables referenced above, can be found at:

http://www.bts.gov/publications/bts_special_report/2009_05_14/index.html