(Source: Washington Post)

Since the spring, Metro officials have barred independent monitors from walking along subway tracks to observe safety procedures while trains are in normal service, even if escorted by Metro employees, newly obtained records show.

The monitors, from the Tri-State Oversight Committee, wanted to determine whether Metro was following rules put in place in recent years after a number of workers had been fatally injured on the job.

Instead, they have spent the past six months pressing Metro in writing and in person for access — a period in which two Metro employees were struck and fatally injured on the tracks.

The monitors became so frustrated that at one point, internal e-mails show, they discussed formally notifying federal officials and invoking their toughest sanction: declaring Metro to be officially out of compliance with safety requirements. Such a move could cause Metro to lose part of its federal funding.

In July, the oversight committee made a plea in writing, telling Metro that without access to live tracks, it couldn’t ensure workers’ safety.

On Aug. 9, a track vehicle on the Orange Line struck and killed Metro worker Michael Nash.

A month later, committee members met with Metro officials, telling them that if they were unable to get on the tracks they would “elevate this issue,” notes of the meeting show.

At 10:40 the next morning, a train near Reagan National Airport struck and fatally injured Metro technician John Moore.

Now, more than six months after the dispute began, safety monitors said they remain barred from entering the right of way along active train tracks.

Metro officials told the monitors that they were looking out for their safety. On Friday, Metro spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein said that there had been a “misimpression” and that committee members could approach the tracks if accompanied by safety escorts.

The dispute encapsulates what many safety experts and federal officials have described as a fundamental flaw with Metro and other subway systems: a lack of effective and enforceable oversight that leaves transit systems in charge of policing their own safety.

Click here to read the entire article (free registration req’d)

Transportgooru Musings: Does anyone care to explain what the term “misimpression” is that Lisa Farbstein has cited in her rebuttal?  Does it usually take more than 6 months and a ton of e-mails to resolve this issue?  What happened to the good old telephone to the Committee Chair? How about a phone call from Catoe to the Tri-state Oversight Committee Chair explaining how favorable “Metro” is for such random safety checks? Hey, at the very least, can’t someone at Metro administration send a memorandum explaining what Lisa said to WashPost – ” committee members could approach the tracks if accompanied by safety escorts.”.. Now by NOT doing any of the above, Metro & its management has to do a big battle to undo this public relations mess…Oh not to mention, may be its time to think about a having a chat with the Chief Safety Officer while cleaning up this PR mess..

When

Thursday, November 12, 2009 – Friday, November 13, 2009

Add to Calendar

Where

Keck Center The National Academies 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, District of Columbia 20001 202-334-2003

Get Location Map

Supported by U.S. DOT Research Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)

Many elements of the U.S. surface transportation infrastructure are in deteriorating condition. Facilities are aging, and some are stressed more heavily than ever expected. Traffic volumes have exceeded forecasts, trucks and rail cars are heavier and operate in greater numbers than ever before, and control systems have outlived their functional lives. The burdens of preservation and rehabilitation are growing at a time when revenues from user fees are rising only slowly, and the costs of energy and materials are increasing rapidly.

Because major failures are rare, transportation infrastructure preservation is easily overlooked. But infrastructure components require regular monitoring and management; continuing, fact-driven reinvestment to maintain condition and assure performance, safety, and security; development and application of effective and efficient materials, technologies and tools to meet cost-effectiveness and sustainability goals; and targeted capacity expansion. This conference will bring public and private infrastructure owners and managers together with researchers to discuss infrastructure preservation problems, needs, and achievements, and to identify priority opportunities for both basic and applied research. The conference will encompass a broad range of topics focused on aspects of surface transportation infrastructure preservation. Presentations and posters are invited in these and related areas:

a.      Infrastructure condition assessment, including technologies for intelligent structure health monitoring, remote, automated sensing and reporting, and advanced models of infrastructure deterioration processes.

b.      New materials and methods for preservation, restoration, and construction of transportation infrastructure.

c.       Methods to identify and secure critical transportation infrastructure components.

d.      Strategies for rapid repair and rehabilitation, including contracting, new materials, incentives, and project management.

e.      Methods to estimate costs and benefits of infrastructure preservation and models of deterioration processes.

¹ For TRB Sponsors only (including State DOTs). You must be a Sponsor prior to conference registration. To see if your organization is a TRB Sponsor, you may view a listing of all TRB Sponsors.² Full time students, age 35 or under.  Must present Student ID onsite.

Refunds will be issued, less a $50 cancellation fee, for all cancellations received in writing three weeks prior to the conference start date. No refunds will be issued thereafter.

Click here to register and learn more about the event. (PDF of Final Program for the conference below, courtesy of TRB)

(Sources contributing to this hybrid report:  The Hill, Guardian, UK & NY Times)

Refiners Warn of ‘Staggering’ Costs, Job Losses From Senate Climate Bill

A Senate climate change proposal could add 77 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline, according to Domestic oil refiners.  A group of refiners used the possible price hike on Wednesday to launch the latest in a series of attacks against the proposal. The CEO of refining giant Valero Energy Corp. also warned today that the Senate climate legislation would give a competitive advantage to foreign refiners and cost U.S. jobs.

But Democrats on a key Senate panel shot back, saying the industry’s estimate is based on an inflated projection of the price of permits companies will have to hold to cover their carbon emissions. A cost containment mechanism will keep the price from approaching the industry’s estimate, supporters said.

The lawmakers said the bill will spur industry innovation and that will create millions of new “green” jobs. The chief complaint from refiners is that they wouldn’t get enough free pollution allowances to cover emissions they are on the hook for under the legislation. The Senate bill would give refiners 2.25 percent of the allowances available to cover emissions at their plants. But the industry is also responsible for the emissions from vehicle tailpipes.

To make up the difference, refiners would have to buy emission permits on the market created under the legislation.

Addressing the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Valero’s Bill Klesse alleged that the Senate bill and its House counterpart would create large new costs that would drive domestic gasoline and diesel production offshore, cause job loss, and reduce U.S. energy security. He spoke on behalf of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, the industry’s main trade group.

“You must remember we are a global business,” Klesse said. “You will simply be driving the carbon dioxide emissions overseas.”

Klesse said Texas-based Valero — a large independent refiner with 16 refineries in the United States, Canada and the Caribbean — would face “staggering” costs even at a carbon price of $20 per ton, he said.

For instance, he said the company’s Corpus Christi, Texas, plant would face costs of up to $92 million per year. The industry as a whole, if held responsible for its process emissions and consumer emissions of its products, would face more than $67 billion in annual costs, he said.

But EPW Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a co-sponsor of the bill (S. 1733 (pdf)), attacked Klesse’s conclusion that the bill would harm U.S. security. “The opposite is true,” Boxer said. She cited multiple analyses that conclude global climate change creates national security risks.

The bill would set up a cap-and-trade system under which facilities that produce carbon dioxide emissions must obtain permits for their emissions. Boxer said the bill includes provisions to cushion the effects on refiners. The bill provides 2.25 percent of the free emissions allowances to the refining sector.

Overall, Reicher and other backers of the congressional energy and climate efforts say the effort will increase jobs. “The job creation potential in energy efficiency is extraordinary,” Reicher said.

A major provision is the authorization of so-called border adjustments, or carbon tariffs, on imports from countries that do not adhere to emissions-cutting measures.

The provisions, a priority for lawmakers from manufacturing states, are aimed at preventing “carbon leakage,” in which energy-intensive manufacturing and jobs migrate to countries that do not impose emissions-cutting mandates.

The Senate bill also joins the House bill in providing free allowances to these trade-exposed, energy-intensive industries, although the formulas differ slightly.

The Senate plan provides these sectors with 4 percent of the cap-and-trade program’s freely distributed allowances in 2012 and 2013, rising to 15 percent in 2014 and 2015 and then phasing down after that.

The epic confrontation about how America will power the economy of the future formally got underway on October 27 amid stark warnings from the Obama administration of the costs of inaction on energy reform.

The first of three blockbuster sessions in the Senate held on Oct 27th can be held as a last heave by administration officials and Democratic leaders to advance a bill to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions before an international climate change meeting at Copenhagen, now just six weeks away.

American legislation on climate change is seen as essential to reaching a meaningful deal at Copenhagen. But the White House held up action in the Senate on a climate change bill to focus on healthcare reform. The proposed law, which now stretches for more than 900 pages, would cut America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 20% over 2005 levels by 2020 and encourage the development of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. Democratic leaders in the Senate are now struggling to advance a bill – which does not have solid support even among their own party – before the meeting in Copenhagen.

Click here to read more on this topic.

(Source: Mashable)

Mashable.com reports that the Bay Area Rapid Transit system (BART) in San Francisco has just made history as the first transit agency to partner withFoursquare, the location-based application and game that we think has the potential to be as important as Twitter (they also just launched 15 new cities).

We’ve already seen local businesses take the plunge, offering up special location-based deals that Foursquare automatically serves up to users as they check-in, but now BART is getting in on the action to encourage more public transit use.

BART’s presser has the following interesting info:  Foursquare combines social networking elements with game mechanics, urging users to explore neighborhoods and recommend places to others. You can check in from different venues and earn badges and points for doing different types of things – like a “gym rat” badge if you check in 10 times at a gym during a 30-day period. As part of the partnership with BART, Foursquare will offer a BART-themed badge that can be unlocked by regular riders of BART, which provides train service in the San Francisco Bay Area. BART will award $25 promotional tickets each month for the next three months to riders chosen at random from all the riders who have logged Foursquare check-ins at BART stations, starting in November.

One popular element of Foursquare is a competition to become “mayor” of different places. If you check in more than anyone else, you claim rights as “the mayor” of that place. Regular BART riders already are trading back and forth as “mayors” of the 43 stations. Foursquare updates are shared across other social networking and microblogging sites such as Facebook and Twitter, announcing who has ousted whom as mayor. BART also will look at other ways to coordinate promotions with new and existing venue partners, through www.mybart.org, its free service offering contests and discounts for entertainment, sports and other events. BART is listing tips for things to do near BART stations on its Foursquare profile page (www.foursquare.com/user/SFBART).

Note: As a transportation nerd, Transportgooru thinks this is a bloody brilliant idea.  Hope other transit agencies around the country take note (at least the ones in the 15 cities that Four Square currently has a lock).

(Source: NPR)

NPR’s three part special series titled ” Flight Mechanics: The Business of Airline Repairs” examines the industry practices to cut costs and how they  are battling to survive the economic downturn.  The short blurb of the special report says “Recent maintenance mistakes raise questions about a growing practice at U.S. airlines: Since an economic crisis began shaking the industry in 2002, most major airlines have stopped repairing and overhauling most of their own planes. Instead, they are sending the planes to be fixed for less money by private repair companies — often in developing countries.” Here is an (Text and Audio) excerpt from Part 2 of the three-part series.

———————————————————————————————–

“Shortly before sunrise on Jan. 23, 2009, passengers on US Airways Flight 518, who were flying from Omaha to Phoenix, were startled by a terrifying shriek.

The pressure seal around the main cabin door was failing, and that shriek was the sound of air leaking through. The plane diverted to Denver. Everybody was safe.

In the weeks before the door seal started to fail, US Airways had sent that Boeing 737 to be overhauled at Aeroman, a repair company in El Salvador. And mechanics installed a key part on the door — a “snubber” — backward.

Source: FAA Inspector General, Aeronautical Repair Station Association Credit: NPR

But that was before 2002 — when US Airways filed for bankruptcy, American Airlines slashed flights, and other airlines teetered at the brink. Since then, airlines have been trying to survive by cutting back on any expenses they can control — including the little bags of peanuts.

One of the biggest areas airlines can cut costs is maintenance. Consider this: If an airline fixes its own planes in the U.S., it spends up to $100 per hour for every union mechanic, including overhead and other expenses, according to industry analysts. The airline spends roughly half as much at an independent, nonunion shop in America. And it spends only a third as much in a developing country, such as El Salvador.

Since the airline crisis hit seven years ago, the statistics have flip-flopped: The industry is now sending most of its planes to be overhauled and fixed at private repair shops both in the U.S. and overseas. And roughly 20 percent of planes are going to facilities in developing countries, according to industry surveys.

Industry analysts say there are roughly 700 FAA-approved repair companies in other countries — including repair shops in Argentina, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Kenya, China and Indonesia. The Aeroman company in El Salvador is becoming one of the more popular, drawing business from US Airways, JetBlue, Frontier, Southwest and other U.S. carriers.

The way the system works, the airlines fly empty planes needing an overhaul to Aeroman’s hangars at the international airport near the capital, San Salvador. Salvadoran mechanics strip the inside of the plane down to the bare metal. They fix cracks and rust and bad wiring. Then they put everything back together, and the plane is flown back to the U.S.

When people hear that U.S. airlines are getting their planes fixed in developing countries, they often raise their eyebrows and ask, “Should I worry?”

—————————————————————————————————-

Part I – To Cut Costs, Airlines Send Repairs Abroad: Recent malfunctions affecting US Airways planes raise questions about a controversial and growing practice at most U.S. airlines: The industry is sending almost 1 out of every 5 planes needing overhaul or repair to developing countries, from Central America to Asia.

Part II – Crossed Wires: Flaws In Airline Repairs Abroad: Mechanics have made some mistakes fixing US Airways planes at an FAA-approved facility in El Salvador. Industry executives and the FAA say the maintenance work is just as safe as any work done in the U.S. But airlines and the FAA don’t make maintenance problems public.

Part III – Bucking Trend, Airline Keeps Repairs In-House: As many major U.S. airlines shift their repair and maintenance work to outside firms, American Airlines is taking a different approach. The airline has its own crew of 6,000 mechanics based in Tulsa, Okla., who service its fleet and even contract for outside business.

Click here to read/listen the entire series. Don’t forget to check the interactive map while you are reading the special report.

This webinar will explore the findings of Transportation Research Board Special Report 298: Driving and the Built Environment:  Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions.  This congressionally mandated study examines the relationship between land development patterns and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the United States to assess whether petroleum use, and by extension greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, could be reduced by changes in the design of development patterns.   The study estimates the contributions that changes in residential and mixed-use development patterns and transit investments could make in reducing VMT by 2030 and 2050, and the impact this could have in meeting future transportation-related GHG reduction goals.

Commissioned papers used by the committee to help develop Special Report 298 are available online.  A four page summary of and a press release on the report is also available online.

Image Courtesy: TRB - Click the image to access the report

The committee chair, José A. Gómez-Ibáñez, Derek C. Bok Professor of Urban Planning and Public Policy of Harvard University, will present the study findings.   The report estimates the contributions that changes in residential and mixed-use development patterns and transit investments could make in reducing VMT by 2030 and 2050, and the impact this could have in meeting future transportation-related GHG reduction goals.

Questions from the audience will be addressed by Dr. Gómez-Ibáñez and two committee members who also contributed to the report:

• Dr. Marlon Boarnet, University of California, Irvine
• Mr. Andrew Cotugno, Portland METRO

Questions may be posed any time during the webinar, and will be answered at the end of the session.
Registration:  There is no fee to join this webinar. Space is limited, so we encourage participants to register 24 hours prior to the start of the webinar.

For questions about using this software, including webinar audio or visual complications, please contact Reggie Gillum at rgillum@nas.edu or 202-334-2382.

Prepared by the Office of Planning, Environment and Realty, Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)

Recent Events

DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Propose Landmark Joint Regulations to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE). The proposed regulations, published in the Federal Register on September 28, 2009, have two goals: reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy. The proposal follows from the National Fuel Efficiency Policy announced by President Obama on May 19, 2009, responding to the country’s critical need to address global climate change and to reduce oil consumption. EPA is proposing the first-ever GHG emissions standards under the Clean Air Act; NHTSA is proposing CAFE standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. These standards apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016 and would result in an overall fleet fuel economy of 35.5 mpg. Comments must be received on or before November 27, 2009. To read the proposed rulemaking and find out how to submit comments, go to http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-22516.htm. (See related article on trends in fuel economy from 1923-2006)

Climate Change Bill Introduced in the Senate. On September 30, Senators Kerry and Boxer introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act “to create clean energy jobs, promote energy independence, reduce global warming pollution, and transition to a clean energy economy.” The bill would add two new sections (Titles VII and VIII) to the Clean Air Act, which would set declining limits on GHG emissions and establish a Pollution Reduction Investment (PRI) program, also known as cap-and-trade. The Act would require EPA to establish 1) GHG emission standards for new heavy-duty vehicles and engines, and for nonroad vehicles and engines and 2) to standardized emission models and related methodologies for States and MPOs. It would create an emissions reduction program, allowing DOT to provide grants to States and MPOs to help them reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector. It would establish goals to reduce GHG emissions from the nation’s largest stationary sources-initially around 7,500 facilities that account for nearly three-quarters of U.S. carbon pollution-to 97% of 2005 levels by 2012, 80% by 2020, 58% by 2030, and 17% by 2050 (versus a reduction to 20% of 2005 GHG emissions by 2050 called for in the House bill, the American Security and Clean Energy Act, introduced by Congressmen Waxman and Markey, which passed the House on June 26, 2009). The Boxer-Kerry bill also would establish a National Climate Change Adaptation Program and require EPA to distribute formula-based funding to States for projects and activities that address impacts on coastal watersheds.

EPA Finalizes Nation’s First GHG Emissions’ Reporting System/Monitoring to Begin in 2010. On January 1, 2010, EPA will, for the first time, require large, stationary-source emitters of GHGs to begin collecting data under a new reporting system, which will cover approximately 85 percent of the nation’s GHG emissions and apply to roughly 10,000 facilities. The reporting system will provide a better understanding of where GHGs are coming from and will guide development of policies and programs to reduce emissions. The data will also allow businesses to track their emissions, compare them with those of similar facilities, and provide assistance in identifying cost-effective ways to reduce emissions in the future. Fossil fuel and industrial GHG suppliers, motor vehicle and engine manufacturers, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year will be required to report GHG emissions data to EPA annually. More information on the new reporting system and reporting requirements is available at:http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html. State and local officials interested in additional information about developing and implementing cost-effective climate and energy strategies that help further environmental goals and achieve public health and economic benefits may visit: http://epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-programs/state-and-local/index.html.

U.S. Climate Envoy Elaborates on President Obama’s Speech at United Nations Climate Summit Regarding Climate Change and December U.N. Conference of Parties (COP15). Speaking at a White House press briefing after the President’s climate change speech at the U.N., Todd Stern, the U.S. climate envoy, said that the U.S. would still have a solid bargaining position in Copenhagen even if the Administration fails to push its own GHG legislation through Congress before the intergovernmental conference. “We would like to see the maximum possible progress… on our domestic legislation,” Stern said. “In the event that there’s not domestic legislation done by the time of Copenhagen, we will negotiate with that in mind. But certainly the most progress we can get would be helpful.” At the U.N., the President said that the major developing countries, where virtually all of the growth in emissions over the next 30 years is going to occur, also have to take actions. Elaborating on that Stern said “[The major developing countries] have to stand behind those actions to the same degree that the US and other developed countries do. The President is making that very clear. And that has not traditionally been the way that the climate change negotiations and the whole climate change international debate have gone on.” (See related “FYI” article.)

Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions (TRB Special Report 298) Published. This recently-released report examines the relationship between land development patterns and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the United States to assess whether petroleum use, and by extension GHG emissions, could be reduced by changes in the design of development patterns. The report estimates the contributions that changes in residential and mixed-use development patterns and transit investments could make in reducing VMT by 2030 and 2050, and the impact this could have in meeting future transportation-related GHG reduction goals. Increasing population and employment density in metropolitan areas could reduce vehicle travel, energy use, and CO2 emissions from less than 1 percent up to 11 percent by 2050 compared to a base case for household vehicle usage, depending on the assumptions used. Commissioned papers used by the committee to help develop Special Report 298 are available online. A four page summary of and a press release onthe report is also downloadable at http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12747&utm_medium=etmail&utm_source=National%20Academies%20Press&utm_campaign=NAP+mail+new+09.8.09&utm_content=Downloader&utm_term=. On Wednesday, October 21, TRB will be hosting a webinar to explore the findings of this congressionally-mandated study. Space is limited. To reserve a “seat,” go to https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/606169224.

NSF Awards NCSE $1.67M Climate Change Education Grant. The National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE) has been awarded a three-year grant of $1,666,820 by the National Science Foundation to create a nationwide cyber-enabled learning community for solutions to climate change to be known as CAMEL (Climate, Adaptation, and Mitigation e-Learning). CAMEL will engage experts in science, policy and decision-making, education, and assessment in the production of a virtual toolbox of curricular resources designed for teaching climate change causes, consequences, and solutions.The project was developed by theCouncil of Environmental Deans and Directors (CEDD), which is managed by NCSE. More information on CAMEL, including a PowerPoint presentation by principal investigator David Hassenzahl and a video thereof, can be found at the CEDD website (http://ncseonline.org/Updates/cms.cfm?id=3274).

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Releases Its Annual Energy Review (AER).The AER is EIA’s primary report of historical annual energy statistics. For many series, data begin with the year 1949. Included are data on total energy production, consumption, and trade; overviews of petroleum, natural gas, coal, electricity, nuclear energy, renewable energy, international energy, as well as financial and environmental indicators; and data unit conversion tables. Two especially interesting graphics are for Primary Energy Consumption by Source and Sector, 2008 (the most recent year for which data is available) and the Petroleum Overview, 1949-2008, which shows how closely petroleum consumption in the U.S. tracks with petroleum imports (see below).

Publications released by University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Ann Arbor, Michigan:

Effect of “Cash for Clunkers” Program on Overall Fuel Economy of Purchased New Vehicles. September 2009. Conclusions: Based on data from October 2007 through June 2009 and using unemployment rate and price of gasoline as predictors of the fuel economy, the program improved the average fuel economy of all vehicles purchased by 0.6 mpg in July 2009 and 0.7 mpg in August 2009.
Economic Indicators as Predictors of Number and Fuel Economy of Purchased New Vehicles. July 2009. Conclusions: During October 2007 through June 2009, average fuel economy of purchased light-duty vehicles improved by a substantial amount-1.1 mpg-as a result of unemployment and price of gasoline; however, significantly fewer vehicles were purchased as a result of unemployment. The price of gasoline did not reduce the number of vehicles purchased.
Recent Reductions in Carbon Dioxide Emissions from New Vehicles. July 2009. Conclusions: Improved fuel economy of purchased new vehicles and decrease in distances driven, resulted in lower CO2 emissions per driver from purchased new vehicles were lower in November 2007 through April 2009, when compared to October 2007. The greatest reduction in emissions-12%-occurred in July 2008. The reduction in April 2009 (the latest month examined) was 8%.
Mechanisms involved in recent large reductions in U.S. road fatalities. Injury Prevention, June 2009. Conclusion: One factor in the large reductions in U.S. road fatalities was the decrease in leisure driving related to the price of gasoline.
Fuel efficiency of vehicles on U.S. roads: 1923-2006. Energy Policy, 2009. Conclusions: Overall fleet fuel efficiency decreased from 14 mpg in 1923 to 11.9 mpg in 1973. Starting in 1974, efficiency increased rapidly to 16.9 mpg in 1991. Thereafter, improvements have been small, with efficiency reaching 17.2 mpg in 2006.

State and Local News

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) Releases Regional GHG Emissions Inventory Available for Download at No Charge. This inventory will help regional policy makers and citizens understand the sources of GHG emissions so they can make well-informed decisions for regional and local policies to reduce them. In addition, the inventory has been allocated to the municipal level, supporting local action in cities, boroughs, and townships across the region. The U.S. EPA is actively engaged with this work as a pilot for developing a standard national protocol for carrying out GHG emissions inventories at the metropolitan level.

U.S. EPA Offers Free, Downloadable Webinars: Greenhouse Gas Inventory 101 for Local, Regional, and State Governments covering:
Creating an Inventory. Topics include understanding the purpose and scope of a GHG inventory, inventories vs. registries, setting a boundary, setting a baseline, quantification approaches, certification and reporting protocols, comparability, and level of effort.
Translating Inventory Results into Action. Topics include describing the various uses of GHG inventories, including benchmarking, tracking emissions and progress over time, setting emission reduction goals, policy options for meeting goals, evaluating policy options, and processes for setting goals and policies.
State Inventory Tool (SIT) Training. Topics include background information on the development of the SIT modules and a live demonstration of the CO2 from Fossil Fuel Combustion Module, Natural Gas and Oil Module, Synthesis Module, and Projection Tool.

Announcements

Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations’ 2009 Annual Conference to be held October 28-30, 2009 in Savannah, GA. There will be sessions on Critical Issues Related to Land Use Planning in Transportation and Livability, plus a pre-conference workshop on Practical Examples of Integrating Land Use Planning with Transportation Planning. Three sessions will be devoted to climate change:
Strategies to Reduce GHG Emissions with presentations on Moving Cooler by David Jackson from Cambridge Systematics; TRB Special Report on Land Use, VMT, and GHG by Professor Jose Gomez-Ibanez, Harvard Kennedy School; and Global Climate Change: A “Top 10” List for MPOs by Cindy Burbank, Parsons Brinckerhoff.
GHG Emissions and Air Quality Standards with presentations on Alternative Regulatory and Incentive-Based Approaches to Reducing GHG Emissions: Potential Implications for MPOs by Michael Grant and Janet D’Ignazio, ICF International, and Implementing AQ Standards in the Context of New Planning Changes by Tracy Clymer, Cambridge Systematics. The session will be moderated by Sarah Siwek, Sarah Siwek & Associates.
Climate Change: Adaptation with presentations on Adapting to Climate Change Impacts by Michael Culp and Rob Ritter, FHWA, and Adaptation in Response to Global Climate Change: International Best Practices in Long Range Planning by Michael Flood and Chris Dorney, Parsons Brinckerhoff.

National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) Holds National Rural Transportation Conference in coordination with the AMPO conference. A climate change session on October 29 will cover strategies for beginning to incorporate climate change into regional transportation planning in rural and small metro areas. FHWA will make a presentation and Stephen Lawe, RSG Inc., will talk about a new GHG emissions model that may be useful for RPOs and small MPOs that don’t have their own modeling capabilities.

FYI

What are the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark and COP15 that I’ve been hearing about? The 15th annual Conference of the Parties (COP 15), which will be held from December 7-18, 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark, is the culmination of a series of meetings among the 192 parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The COP adopt decisions and resolutions related to reducing GHG emissions, which make up a detailed set of rules for implementation of the Convention. Concurrently with the COP, there is a Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted in 1997 and came into force in 2005 after a sufficient number of countries had ratified it. Together the Conferences are called the United Nations Climate Change Conference.

Next month: What is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)?

Previous Newsletters

• August 2009
• July 2009
• June 2009
• May 2009
• April 2009
• March 2009
• February 2009
• January 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008

If you have any suggestions for inclusion in future issues of Transportation and Climate Change News, or if someone forwarded this newsletter to you and you would like to receive it directly in the future, please send your suggestions or request to Kathy Daniel at Kathy.Daniel@dot.gov.

Webinar Overview

Session Description

Many transit agencies have implemented automatic vehicle location (AVL) / computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems to manage real-time bus operations. These systems generate large quantities of data, and dispatchers typically do not have sufficient time to digest the data for decision making in a normal operating environment or are unable to recognize patterns of operational problems. A solution to this problem is decision support tools for dispatchers or “Transit Operations Decision Support Systems (TODSS).” TODSS are expert systems designed to support dispatchers in real-time bus operations management in response to incidents, special events, and other changing conditions in order to restore service when disruptions occur.

To support the development of TODSS, the USDOT worked with the transit industry to develop core requirements and then, via a cooperative agreement, worked with Pace Suburban Bus Service and Continental Corporation to develop and demonstrate a TODSS prototype based on the core requirements. The TODDS prototype became operational in April 2009.

This T3 Webinar will discuss the results of the USDOT sponsored TODSS project and provide a demonstration of the pilot TODSS. Specifically, Yehuda Gross of the RITA ITS Joint Program Office and Steve Mortensen of FTA will discuss the background of the TODSS development effort, followed by David Jackson of Booz Allen Hamilton who will give an overview of TODSS and discuss the types of incidents that the system addresses. John Braband and Tariq Khan from Pace Suburban Bus Service will then provide a live demonstration of TODSS, followed by Bill Hiller of Logged On Transit and Dan Spinks of Continental Corporation who will discuss TODSS benefits and highlight some of the key lessons learned to date. Yehuda Gross will wrap up the webinar by identifying USDOT potential next steps for TODSS.

Audience

Transit agency bus operations managers and practitioners, and transit ITS vendors and consultants interested in learning about the functionality, capabilities, and value of transit bus fleet management expert systems such as TODSS.

Learning Objectives

• Greater awareness of the transit industry developed core TODSS requirements
• Greater awareness of TODSS functionality, applications, capabilities, and value
• Results of the USDOT sponsored TODSS Demonstration project including the key lessons learned
• Potential next steps for TODSS

Federal Hosts:

Yehuda Gross, ITS Joint Program Office

Yehuda brings with him close to 40 years of experience in engineering technologies with 27 of them applied in the transportation field. He joined the US Department of Transportation approximately nine years ago and is responsible for all elements of transit ITS in the Joint Program Office. Currently he is leading a federal effort that introduced a coordinated transportation service approach in nine federal government departments with the intent to eliminate redundancies and enhance service.

Yehuda received his education and engineering degrees from the City College of New York, NYU and Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute.

Steve Mortensen, Federal Transit Administration Office of Research, Demonstration & Innovation

Steve Mortensen is a Senior ITS Engineer with the Federal Transit Administration Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation. Mr. Mortensen represents FTA in the USDOT management of the multimodal Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) initiative and Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA) evaluations. Steve also manages several transit ITS research projects, including the Caltrans and SANDAG Vehicle Assist and Automation (VAA) demonstrations and evaluations, Transit Operations Decision Support Systems (TODSS) demonstration, and Chattanooga SmartBus evaluation.

Prior to FTA, Steve worked at Noblis providing ITS program technical and management support to the ITS Joint Program Office and FTA in the areas of traveler information, rural transit, human services transportation coordination, electronic payment, and rail transit. Prior to Noblis, Steve worked at PB Farradyne developing ITS deployment and implementation plans for several metropolitan regions.

Mr. Mortensen has a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering and a Master of Community and Regional Planning degree from Iowa State University. Steve is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP).

Speakers:

John Braband, Pace Suburban Bus

John is the Project Manager for the Transit Operations Decision Support System (TODSS). He was formerly the Project Manager for the implementation of the Pace Intelligent Bus System (IBS) which rolled out in 2005. As manager of Bus Operations, John oversees a fixed route system consisting of over 700 buses. John has over 34 years of transit experience.

William Hiller, LoggedOn Transit

Mr. Hiller provides technical support and planning for public transit Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) through his consulting company LoggedOn Transit. Mr. Hiller most recently spent four years as an associate at Booz Allen providing consulting services in the areas of ITS Data Analysis, ITS Transit Design, ITS Transit Implementation and Field Operational Testing. Mr. Hiller brings a strong background in bus operations and IT from over 33 years of transit experience. Mr. Hiller started his career as a bus operator at the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) and became the IT Manger responsible for agency-wide project management for all technical and ITS projects. After leaving AATA, Mr. Hiller spent five years at Siemens in several capacities including creating and managing the Transit CAD/AVL Owner Services group, product line management, and technical sales support. Mr. Hiller has a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science from Eastern Michigan University.

David Jackson, Booz Allen

Mr. David Jackson has been leading Information Technology (IT) and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) engagements over the last seven years with Booz Allen. Mr. Jackson specializes in operations technologies including CAD/AVL Systems, IT and ITS system infrastructure design, and development of ITS system architecture to support operations and planning activities.

Tariq J. Khan — Pace Suburban Bus

Tariq is responsible for maintaining and troubleshooting IBS program software, hardware and communications (LAN & WAN). He has 25 years of experience in software engineering, including 20 years in transportation.

Dan Spinks, Continental Corporation

Dan has been directing software product development efforts for Continental Corporation over the last 4 years and also directed the project house for over 40 mass transit CAD/AVL integration projects for 3 years. He and his team of software engineers led the innovative development approach to TODSS by working very closely with PACE and the FTA. He has over 20 years of software development experience with a third dedicated to integrating transit solutions.

Additional Resources

Please view the core TODSS requirements document on the Electronic Document Library website

Webinar Overview

Webinar Description

The Architecture provides a common framework for planning, defining, and integrating intelligent transportation systems. It is a mature product that reflects the contributions of a broad cross-section of the ITS community (transportation practitioners, systems engineers, system developers, technology specialists, consultants, etc.). The National Architecture is required on ITS projects receiving funding in whole or in part from the Highway Trust Fund, including the Mass Transit Account.

This T3 will focus on new features found in Version 6.1 of the National ITS Architecture and the new Version 4.1 of the Turbo Architecture Software. This T3 Webinar is not an overview of the National ITS Architecture but will address some history and background. All transportation professionals are welcomed to attend but participants familiar with the National ITS Architecture will benefit most from the content being presented.

Resources for the use of the ITS Architecture will be discussed. Visit the FHWA Office of Operations for ITS Architecture Implementation Program for a list of resources for new and experienced users of the National ITS Architecture.

Audience

Anyone involved in planning, implementation, and operation of ITS systems, including Federal, State, and local transportation professionals, Metropolitan Planning Office staff, systems engineers, system developers, technology specialists, and consultants.

Learning Outcomes

• Ability to identify areas of the National ITS Architecture affected by changes to the framework.
• Understanding of new features available in Version 6.1 of the National ITS Architecture and their affect on the overall Architecture.
• Understanding of the deployment support and resources available to state and local agencies to aid in ITS implementation and support Rule 940 requirements.
• Understanding of new features in Version 4.1 of Turbo Architecture Software.

Host:

Emiliano Lopez, ITS Deployment Program Manager, FHWA Headquarters

Emiliano is currently the ITS Deployment Program Manager for ITS Regional Architectures and Systems Engineering in Washington DC. Prior to his assignment in Headquarters, Emiliano worked in the FHWA Resource Center providing technical expertise and assistance on ITS project development, review, deployment and operations/maintenance. He also provided expertise and assistance on ITS Standards. Before joining FHWA Emiliano worked at both the state and local levels with agencies such as the Virginia Dept. of Transportation, and the Cities of San Diego and Anaheim. Combined public agency work Emiliano brings over 20 years of experience to the agency. He has a Masters in Public Administration from Central Michigan University, and a B.S. in Civil Engineering and minor in Electrical Engineering from San Diego State University.

Emiliano provides training, outreach and technical support for the National ITS Architecture and Systems Engineering programs. He co-chairs FHWA’s Architecture Field Support Team, and FHWA’s Operations Council architecture and systems engineering working group.

Emiliano is a certified instructor for NHI. He teaches courses in ITS Software Acquisition, Systems Engineering and National ITS Architecture.

Presenters:

National ITS Architecture Team:

Cliff Heise, Iteris

Cliff has over 25 years of experience in the areas of project management and systems and software engineering throughout all phases of program development. He has been the Program Manager of the National ITS Architecture Program for Iteris since 1996 and has been involved in all aspects of the program’s outreach, maintenance, and management. Cliff has also managed the development and implementation of ITS Architectures at the state and local levels, most recently in Virginia, and has experience with the challenges and policy issues surrounding the application of the National ITS Architecture. Cliff is the Vice President of Federal and Research Programs for Iteris in Sterling, VA. He has a Bachelor’s Degree in Mathematics from Oklahoma State University.

David Binkley, Lockheed Martin

David Binkley is a Senior Systems Engineer at Lockheed Martin. He has 19 years experience in all aspects of Systems Engineering for government and commercial projects. He joined the National ITS Architecture Team in 1995 and has served as the program’s Principal Investigator / Chief Engineer for the past 6 years. Today he directs the maintenance updates to the National ITS Architecture. He is currently involved with testing the next release of Turbo Architecture and participating in numerous Deployment Support activities. David has a Bachelor’s in Electrical Engineering from Georgia Tech.

Click here to register.

(Sources: Washington Post, Fuel Cell Today & Huliq News)

The hydrogen car may have legions of fervent fans, but Energy Secretary Steven Chu apparently is not among them. Earlier this year, the Nobel prize-winning scientist essentially zeroed government funding for the clean vehicles and came close to mocking their potential, saying the technology needs four “miracles” before it can become widely adopted.

“Saints only need three,” he cracked in a magazine interview.

But the hydrogen car is back. On Thursday, the Senate agreed to restore nearly all the money for hydrogen car research that the administration had proposed to cut.

The measure, part of an appropriations bill previously approved by the House, is expected to be signed by President Obama.

“It’s the right set of priorities,” said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), a leader in the effort to fund the technology. “If you discontinue the research, you shortchange the future.”

This year’s revival of government funding is unlikely to end the broader dispute over hydrogen cars, however. Before the cars can become much more than an experiment on American roads — it is estimated that there are fewer than 200 operating in the United States — the industry may need as much as $55 billion more in government support over the next 15 years, according to industry sources and a National Research Council report last year. That money would pay for more research and subsidies to build fueling stations.

By comparison, the amount appropriated Thursday is meager: $187 million. But even that level of government support has critics, who say the possibilities and benefits of the technology have been wildly exaggerated. In a press release published on the Fuel Cell Today, the USFCC said ” The bill approved by Congress is a significant win for fuel cells overall. The Obama administration requested $68 million for the EERE program. Under the final Congressional compromise, funding for fuel cells and hydrogen will receive $174 million, or $106 million higher than the Obama administration’s request.”

Funding for research into production of the hydrogen car is highly controversial. There are currently less than 200 of these cars operating in the United States.

The issue is the additional funding that will be required to establish fueling stations across the country to support these vehicles. It is currently estimated that an additional $55 billion of government support could be required to make that a reality.

Nevertheless, hydrogen cars might represent the future for automobiles in this country. These cars are fueled with hydrogen gas which combines with oxygen in the air. The only byproduct of this fuel is water vapor. This means that hydrogen fuel cell cars may provide the best means of reaching the goal of emission-free vehicles.

The reality of hydrogen powered vehicles is really not such a stretch. In Iceland, the first country to begin making a truly concerted effort to break free from the constraints and costs of fossil fuel, hydrogen powered cars and ships are already a reality. Iceland has been working on this technology for years, and does have an advantage over many other countries in the world because so much of the energy sources in Iceland are from renewable sources, such as geo-thermal and hydro-electric power.

The governments of Norway, Japan and Germany also are investing hundreds of millions in the technology, with the Germans aiming to build 1,000 stations by 2015, according to auto industry sources.

Here are some articles on the investments around the world:

• Europe’s love affair with hyrdogen technology continues; Germany Launches H2 Mobility Initiative to Expand Infrastructure for Refueling Hydrogen Vehicles
• Norway leaps ahead with its love for Hydrogen fuel – Dedicates 580 kilometer hydrogen highway

Click here to read more.