(Source: AutoBlog, New York Times, Jalopnik)

 REPORT: Bill Ford, Jr. “shocked” at Wagoner’s ousting…Some say GM taking government loans (as opposed to private sector loans) changed the rules, and the government needed to protect its investment; others say it was government interference. Regardless, the way things are going, we would be surprised if that were the last “shocking” development in the car industry saga.[Source: The Detroit Free Pre…

(Source: Washington Post; USA Today & Airsafe.com)

 The people should have access to this kind of information

Department of Transportation is preparing to reject a proposal by the Federal Aviation Administration that would keep secret data about where and when birds strike airplanes.   Among the high-profile boosters of releasing the information is Transportation Secretary  Ray LaHood, whose agency oversees the FAA.  He said the comments ran “99.9 percent” in favor of making such information accessible.  

“I think all of this information ought to be made public, and I think that you’ll soon be reading about the fact that we’re going to, you know, make this information as public as anybody wants it,” LaHood said in an interview for The Washington Post’s “New Voices of Power” series. “The people should have access to this kind of information.

“The whole thing about the bird strike issue is it doesn’t really comport with the president’s idea of transparency,” the secretary said. “I mean, here they just released all of these CIA files regarding interrogation, and . . . the optic of us trying to tell people they can’t have information about birds flying around airports, I don’t think that really quite comports with the policies of the administration. . . . It’s something that somebody wanted to put out there to get a reaction. We got the reaction, and now we’re going to bring it to conclusion.”

Here is the Secretary’s interview to Washington Post’s Lois Romano on this issue:

 The FAA last month quietly posted a proposal in the federal register, requesting public comment, that would bar the release of its records on bird collisions. The proposal followed a prominent incident in January when a flock of geese brought down a commercial flight, forcing the pilot to make an emergency landing on the Hudson River. The agency immediately came under fire because the recommendation runs counter President’s Obama vows of government transparency.

For those interested in reading the FAA’ proposal on Federal register, here it is:

 Note: TransportGooru appreciates the Sec. of Transportation’s stand against this move by FAA.  Public have the right to know and it is not nice that FAA can withhold  sharing this data, even after the overhwleming public response.

Transportation for America’s webinar on Transportation and Housing took place last week.  This is the third one in a series of webinars that explore the deep impacts of our transportation system on our housing and job markets, public health, energy needs, climate, economic competitiveness, and nearly every other pressing issue facing our country today.   This particular webinar on Transportation and Housing/Development had almost 300 people in attendance, who heard from development experts on the connections between transportation policy, real estate development, and affordable housing.  The following links will take you to the products (policy briefs and A/V recordings) from the session.

• Policy Brief: Transportation and Housing (pdf)
• Policy Brief: Transportation and Development (pdf)
• Audio and video recording of the entire webinar
• Podcast audio file (.mp3)
  
• Podcast video file (.mp4)

With economic crisis putting jobs in jeopardy, homes in foreclosure and entire communities in peril, Americans are facing extraordinary challenges in finding affordable and accessible housing options. Now more than ever, we need federal leadership to help make the critical link between our housing and transportation policies and creating revitalized communities where people can find good places to live and convenient ways to get around.

Shelley Poticha, President and CEO of Reconnecting America and the Center for Transit Oriented Development moderated the discussion and provided an overview of the Transportation for America Campaign.

Christopher Leinberger, Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution and Partner of Arcadia Land Company; discussed the benefits of walkable urbanism and the linkages between land value and transportation systems. Ann Norton, Senior Staff Attorney at the Housing Preservation Project, provided a snapshot of Blueprint planning from the Minneapolis / St. Paul Metropolitan Area that links up transportation and land-use planning. Finally, John McIlwain, Senior Resident Fellow at the Urban Land Institute discussed policy options for locating housing around transportation nodes and creating compact, mixed use, mixed income neighborhoods.

There are still more webinars on tap.  Sign up for more sessions on the webinars page. The next session is April 30  (2-3:30PM) on Transportation, Public Health and Safety.  Here is a brief description of the upcoming session:  Transportation influences the health and safety of communities by affecting physical activity levels, traffic speeds, and air pollution. This session will investigate the needs of paratransit and transit-dependent populations, the success of Complete Streets and non-motorized transportation programs, and the connections between transportation and active living.

(Source: Transportation for America)

(Source: Los Angeles Times)

As the state moves to reduce the carbon footprint of fuel, an engineer hopes to build a plant in Lancaster that will convert garbage into an alcohol-based mixture.

California’s proposal “is the first time anyone has attempted, for environmental purposes, to change the content of what goes into cars and trucks,” says Mary D. Nichols, state Air Resources Board chairwoman. “It would revolutionize transportation fuel.”
 
President Obama has also called for a low-carbon standard for the nation’s $400-billion transportation fuel market. A version similar to California’s is incorporated in climate legislation pending before Congress.

But by measuring the “cradle-to-grave” effect of various fuels, the new rule would favor ethanol such as Klann’s, made from non-food sources. Even “low-carbon” corn ethanol — such as the kind produced in California using gas-fired electricity and efficient machinery — has a far higher carbon footprint than so-called cellulosic fuel from landfill waste, trees, switchgrass or sugar cane.

“This is fantastic for us,” said Klann, who uses recycled sulfuric acid to transform paper, construction debris and grass clippings into ethanol. “The paradigm is changing from oil to sustainable fuels. The ones with the lowest carbon footprint will be the winners.”

By 2020, the air board estimates, new-technology fuels along with electricity to power hybrid and electric cars would replace a quarter of the gasoline supply. And that is a critical element of the state’s sweeping plan to reduce its global warming emissions. 

Battered corn ethanol investors have mounted an intense lobbying effort against California’s proposal. Several, including Pacific Ethanol, California’s biggest, had planned to diversify from corn into cellulosic ethanol. They argue that by diminishing the value of their existing plants, the new rule also would cripple their advanced biofuel efforts. 

At issue is the Air Resources Board’s complex modeling, which would calculate each fuel’s carbon footprint not only by its “direct” emissions from drilling or planting to refining to burning, but also “indirect” emissions caused by clearing forests or fields to compensate for food crops such as corn or soy that are diverted to fuel. Opponents say the science behind the indirect modeling is inaccurate. 

Among entrepreneurs like Klann, the mood has never been more hopeful. In an Anaheim lab, the 57-year-old electrical engineer guides a visitor through a maze of pipes, filters, heat exchangers, fermentation tanks and vats of acid like a small boy showing off a chemistry set. “We’re in the forefront of this industry,” he said of his patented “concentrated acid hydrolysis” process. “We expect to have the first plant to produce cellulosic ethanol on a commercial scale.”  

Financing for his Lancaster plant, which recently obtained its final permits, has been delayed by the credit crunch. But if it comes through, the facility will process 170 tons of garbage a day to produce 3.7 million gallons of ethanol a year. Estimated cost per gallon: about $2, Klann says.  

He already has plans for 20 more facilities across the country. Next on the block: a plant outside Palm Springs, partly funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, that would produce 19 million gallons annually. 

Click here to read th entire article.  For interested readers, here is a TransportGooru article on California’s ambitious new fuel regulation standards. 

Tightening the “Green” Screw! California regulators consider instituting first-in-the nation low-carbon fuel standards

(Source: The Brookings Institute)

As Vice President Biden’s Earth Day speech at a Washington area subway station makes clear, the connections between transportation and climate change are undeniable. Therefore, exactly how our metropolitan areas grow—and what type of transportation people use to get from place to place—will have a great impact not only on the economy, but also on global environmental sustainability.

Brookings fellow, Robert Puentes, argues in a new report that we need to change, in a systemic way, how we think about, design and implement transportation policies. Beyond more fuel efficient and alternatively powered vehicles, we need to act to reduce demand for driving by linking housing, land use, and economic development.

Report Excerpts:

Transportation is the single largest contributor to the nation’s carbon footprint, causing more damage than industry, homes or commercial buildings. More than four-fifths of transportation emissions come from the tailpipes of our cars, trucks and buses.  

Three factors affect the amount of carbon released into the air from transportation: the type of fuel we use, the fuel efficiency of the automobiles we drive and the amount of driving we do. Some improvements are being made on the first two legs of this stool with the push for hybrid/electric vehicles and tighter fuel economy standards.

Progress is much slower on the third leg: curbing the demand to drive. Though driving is down now because of our economic malaise, studies show that even small increases will spew out so much carbon that they will wipe out the benefits of fuel-efficient cars and the expansion of clean-fuel alternatives.  Take the Washington metropolitan area. This region is projected to grow from 7.6 million people in 2000 to 10.6 million in 2030. Employment could grow from 4.4 million to 6.4 million workers, and non-residential development from 3.6 billion square feet to 5.2 billion. That means about 60 percent of the buildings that will be here in 2030 will have been built after 2000.

How we accommodate this growing population and economy – whether we break the pattern of “sprawl as usual” – will significantly influence whether we secure our energy independence and forge solutions to global warming and climate change.

Click here to read the entire report.

(Source: San Jose Mercury news & Calif. ARB)

SACRAMENTO—California air regulators are taking another step to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, considering first-in-the nation standards to require the use of so-called low-carbon fuels.

The California Air Resources Board, which will debate the standards Thursday, considers the regulation a framework for a potential national policy advocated by President Barack Obama on the campaign trail last year. Democrats have included a goal for low-carbon fuels in the latest climate bill they have introduced in Congress.

“We see this as a model for the rest of the country and the world to follow,” said Air Resources Board member Dan Sperling, a transportation expert and professor at the University of California, Davis.

 The proposed regulation calls for reducing the carbon content in California’s transportation fuels 10 percent by 2020, but representatives of the petroleum and ethanol industries are objecting to how the state proposes to achieve that.

California oil producers and refiners are skeptical that cleaner fuels and vehicles powered by hydrogen and natural gas will be available in time to meet the new standards. They are asking the Air Resources Board to delay a decision until next year.

“This is the most transforming fuel regulation we’ve ever done,” said Kathy Rehis-Boyd, executive vice president of the Western States Petroleum Association. “We think there’s still more homework to do on this. There’s a lot of uncertainty.”

“We have a long history of what I call ‘fuel du jour’ approaches,” Sperling said. “What we need is a broad policy framework that doesn’t pick winners.”

The Air Resources Board is not just targeting the emissions of the fuel once it is burned in a vehicle. It also wants to account for all carbon emissions related to the production of the fuel.

For example, refineries could choose to stop buying a heavy crude oil extracted from Canadian oil sands, which takes more energy to convert into gasoline. But accounting for emissions during the entire production cycle of a fuel also would discourage certain fuels from being used in California.

Corn-based ethanol, for example, burns cleanly in a car engine. But making it can take a heavy toll on the environment: Massive tracts of land must be cleared, which requires fuel-powered tractors, then coal- or natural gas-fired plants convert the corn into fuel and petroleum is used to transport the end product to distant markets.

(Source: Washington Post)

“Police could not reasonably have believed either that Gant could have accessed his car at the time of the search or that evidence of the offense for which he was arrested might have been found therein,” Stevens wrote.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the four dissenters, said the court’s insistence that its precedents had been misinterpreted was simply a cover for getting rid of a decision with which it disagreed.

 (Source: Virgin America & Tree Hugger)

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images via WSJ

Bullet Train Changes Nation — and Fast

CIUDAD REAL, Spain — To sell his vision of a high-speed train network to the American public, President Barack Obama this week cited Spain, a country most people don’t associate with futuristic bullet trains.

Yet the country is on track to bypass France and Japan to have the world’s biggest network of ultrafast trains by the end of next year, figures from the International Union of Railways and the Spanish government show.

The growth of the Alta Velocidad Española, or AVE, high-speed rail network is having a profound effect on life in Spain. Many Spaniards are fiercely attached to their home regions and studies show they are unusually reluctant to live or even travel elsewhere.

But those centuries-old habits are starting to change as Spain stitches its disparate regions together with a €100 billion ($130 billion) system of bullet trains designed to traverse the countryside at up to 218 miles an hour.

“We Spaniards didn’t used to move around much,” says José María Menéndez, who heads the civil engineering department at the University of Castilla-La Mancha. “Now I can’t make my students sit still for one second. The AVE has radically changed this generation’s attitude to travel.”

But the AVE-which means “bird” in Spanish- proved to be a popular and political success. Politicians now fight to secure stations in their districts. Political parties compete to offer ever-more ambitious expansion plans. Under the latest blueprint, nine out of ten Spaniards will live within 31 miles of a high speed rail station by 2020.

By last year, the sprawling network of lines that stretches out from the capital, Madrid, reached Málaga in the south, Valladolid to the north and Barcelona in the country’s northeast. Now, residents of Barcelona can be in Madrid in just over two-and-a-half hours-a journey that takes around six hours by car.

The University of Castilla-La Mancha’s campus here has grown sharply in size and importance. “The school is here because of the AVE,” says Mr. Menéndez, the department head. “Without it, it would be impossible to attract the high-level staff we need.”

Around a third of Mr. Menéndez’s students are from a different region of Spain — almost unheard of in a country where students mostly stay close to home.

(Source: Wired; Photo: Flickr/ Wouter Sonneveldt via Wired)

Boneheaded politician pushes for legislation aimed at banning in-flight cellular communications.  

“I think many Americans understand the potential for problems on aircraft if 100 or more people start talking on cell phones,” DeFazio said. “People are in very, very close quarters and this is a circumstance where you would have a cacophony of people on cell phones that would amount to a great potential for trouble.”

DeFazio introduced the bill in April, but so far nothing’s happened with it. Let’s hope it stays that way. Although we can think of nothing worse than being stuck next to some pinhead yammering away incessantly during a transcontinental flight, this isn’t an area the government needs to get involved in.

TG Musings # 1: This is very illogical and idiotic – TransportGooru wonders aloud if Rep. DeFazio has ever traveled across the country in GreyHound or Amtrak? If he did, probably he failed to recognize that there are no such rules about attending to a cellphone call while you are cruising on the highway or riding the rails at 60 mph.  What difference does it make if the mode of transportation? A phone call is a phone call and if it can be attended to during a train/bus travel why not it be made during the flight?  Interference with flight to ground communications can be somewhat acceptable (which in itself is a very questionable argument anyway due to the various studies conducted that totally disproved this theory) as a reason for prohibiting these phone calls.  But that’s not even in this picture painted by Rep. DeFazio.  Americans are decent people and they are much more courteous and well-behaved than you can think.If Rep. DeFazio’s logic is squarely based on his experience dealing with the people’s representatives around him in the Congress, no wonder he thinks there is a potential for problems if 100 or more people start talking at the same time – which is what politicans are prone to do, right?   With a country full of smart people,  it makes one wonder how come such people elect illogical politicians to be their intelligent voice on such societal issues? I hate to use the word Bonehead, but I think it is the only suitable word that can be applied to someone with this sorta logic (or lack thereof), Rep. DeFazio. 

TG Musings # 2:  Social Equity – This is a big issue, Rep. Defazio.  A big business owner flying First Class  can afford a $2/min phone call. He would go ahead and do it with the carrier operated, over-priced inflight phone system.  The average Joe Smith/Jane Doe on the street who is flying across the country (often on discounted fares) in the coach class does not have that kind of money.  Especially, in this poor economic climate!!! If anything he or she is already paying through his/her nose for a cellphone (that handles both personal and his small business needs) but still can’t use it, thanks to the existing FAA rule.  He/she would still hold a peice of technology in his pocket that is all well capable of making that phone call from 30K feet, but because of a logically-deficient politican he/she will never be able to make that call.  Let’s say for argument sake, if 10 businessmen in first class decide to make a phonecall at a given moment (hypothetically speaking), doesn’t that account to cacophony? You are not going to convince those business men – “People are in very, very close quarters and this is a circumstance where you would have a cacophony of people on cell phones that would amount to a great potential for trouble.” – Are you Rep. DeFazio?  If you can work  so hard on helping people not just in Oregon but across the country, please refrain from pushing this bill forward. You should spend a couple of minutes to rethin/revise your flawed logic and help all American’s in winning that  the rest of the world rightfully enjoys (i.e.,  in-flight cellular voice calls).  I am sure you want us Americans to be globally competitive in this economy and be ready to serve the needs of our business customers anytime anywhere!