(Source: Streetsblog)

Sure, knocking the MTA is a favorite local past time, particularly for the politicians and press who are practically guaranteed a “Hallelujah!” chorus for every barb (today’s scandal: fat cat transit workers poised to rake in cost-of-living allowance!!). But despite the MTA’s problems, as Michael Frumin points out on his Frumination blog, the city’s streets and highways can’t hold a candle to the subways when it comes to moving commuters into and out of Manhattan’s Central Business District.

Parsing data derived from 2008 subway passenger counts and the NYMTC 2007 Hub Bound Report [PDF], Frumin writes:

Just to get warmed up, chew on this — from 8:00AM to 8:59 AM on an average Fall day in 2007 the NYC Subway carried 388,802 passengers into the CBD on 370 trains over 22 tracks. In other words, a train carrying 1,050 people crossed into the CBD every 6 seconds.Breathtaking if you ask me.

Over this same period, the average number of passengers in a vehicle crossing any of the East River crossings was 1.20. This means that, lacking the subway, we would need to move 324,000 additional vehicles into the CBD (never mind where they would all park).

At best, it would take 167 inbound lanes, or 84 copies of the Queens Midtown Tunnel, to carry what the NYC Subway carries over 22 inbound tracks through 12 tunnels and 2 (partial) bridges. At worst, 200 new copies of 5th Avenue. Somewhere in the middle would be 67 West Side Highways or 76 Brooklyn Bridges. And this neglects the Long Island Railroad, Metro North, NJ Transit, and PATH systems entirely.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Green Car Congress)

AeroVironment, Inc. (AV) has been granted a patent (no. 7,444,192) by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for technology that facilitates the optimal charging, management, control and maintenance of battery packs, chargers and electric vehicles (EVs).

AV’s technology is directly applicable to battery packs, chargers and battery-powered EVs that can be linked to the electric utility network and managed by a “smart grid” controller. The technology is designed to gather data from the EV or the charger, and uses the data to determine whether the rate of charge is optimized for the vehicle’s performance, the battery’s long-term health, and the utility’s power availability.

Click the image to enlarge. Document opens in new window

A device employing this technology could create and store a performance profile for the EV and charger. Based on this historical profile, the device could optimize the rate of charge or transmit an alert to the utility or end user.

The technology was developed for AV’s PosiNET system, a Web-based motive power management solution which has been deployed in support of commercial EV fleets in the United States. PosiNET minimizes fleet downtime and optimizes vehicle utilization by providing real-time, predictive and historic reports as well as actionable alerts and equipment usage recommendations to fleet managers.

For passenger EV charging, the system would enable vehicle and grid optimization through grid-tied electric charging systems communicating with utilities via the internet. The system could send alerts and other actionable data to utilities which could then remotely control charge rates using the PosiNET system. The comprehensive information gathered by the system could also be used by the utilities for reporting and analysis. These same capabilities could also be applied by utilities to help enable real-time grid balancing on a local level.

The technology behind AV’s electric vehicle charging solutions emerged after AV’s substantial contributions to the development of the GM Impact, the concept car for General Motors’ EV1, the first modern electric car. AV created a solution combining high-current charging algorithms with intelligent thermal management to safely increase the useful range of electric battery packs. Today, AV’s electric vehicle charging solutions significantly reduce the amount of time required to safely charge electric vehicle battery packs while maximizing their range, performance and lifespan.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Washington Post)

The crash-avoidance system suspected of failing in the recent deadly accident on Metro’s Red Line malfunctioned three months earlier, when a rush-hour train on Capitol Hill came “dangerously close” to another train and halted only after the operator hit the emergency brake, newly obtained records show.

At the time of the March 2 incident, the train operator and control-center supervisors did not know that anything serious was wrong, the records indicate. The operator applied the brake because he realized that the train was not slowing fast enough and would overrun the station platform, a fairly common occurrence. About a week later, while reviewing computer logs, officials determined that there was a problem with the Automatic Train Protection system and that the train had stopped just 500 feet behind another.

Despite repeated promises of greater openness about safety, Metro officials did not make public the near miss at the Potomac Avenue Station, and federal investigators said Metro did not tell them about it after the Red Line crash, which killed nine people and injured 80.

The National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating the June 22 crash, learned of the March incident last week when notified by the little-known Tri-State Oversight Committee, said NTSB spokeswoman Bridget Serchak. Metro officials did not immediately respond to questions about why they did not notify the NTSB.

The Washington Post discovered the incident while reviewing documents obtained through a public records request filed with the oversight committee, which was created 12 years ago to monitor Metro.

“If a part goes down on the car, it’s not necessarily related to the part that’s on the track,” said Farbstein, who described the March and June incidents as “very, very different.”

Farbstein said the March incident, which took place at 4 p.m. on a Monday as a train on the Orange Line headed toward Vienna, was caused by a single failed relay on a subway car that has been fixed. The car was a 1000 series model, the same kind of car on the striking train in the June crash. The June crash is suspected of being caused by a faulty track circuit. Either problem could lead to a temporary failure of the Automatic Train Protection, a fail-safe system that monitors train locations and is supposed to automatically stop a train if it senses it is too close to another.

Farbstein said that in response to the March event, Metro examined relays on its entire fleet of more than 1,000 rail cars and identified only “one relay that could be tied to the incident.”

After the June crash, Metro officials said that the malfunctioning track circuit at the accident site was “a freak occurrence” and that they were unaware of other incidents, including near misses, that stemmed from failures in the safety system.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: The Guardian, UK)

Ana Portet has had an unusual commute to work. At 7.30am she popped down to Sants railway station in Barcelona. Three hours later she was in a meeting with colleagues from her brewery firm, 315 miles away in Madrid.

“I’ll be back in Barcelona by half past five,” she said as her early afternoon bullet train flew back along the new high-speed tracks at up to 210mph. “It’s so quick, sometimes you are there before you have even noticed.”

Portet is one of hundreds of thousands of travellers who have migrated from the world’s busiest air shuttle, linking Madrid and Barcelona, to what is now Spain’s most popular train, the high-speed AVE.

The AVE, an intercom announcement has just told us, will leave us in the centre of Barcelona in two hours and 32 minutes. With Madrid’s AVE station a short walk from the Prado museum, the journey is from one city centre to another. What is more, the high-speed train does this in punctual, hassle-free and elegant style.

High-speed trains pulled by aerodynamic engines with noses shaped like a duck-billed platypus are grounding aircraft across Spain. The year-old Barcelona-Madrid line has already taken 46% of the traffic – stealing most of it from fuel-guzzling, carbon-emitting aircraft. As the high-speed rail network spreads a web of tracks across Spain over the next decade, it threatens to relegate domestic air travel to a distant second place.

A high-speed network is not designed overnight. Spain’s AVE story started in the 1980s, when the socialist prime minister Felipe González commissioned a line between Madrid and his home city of Seville. The project was overshadowed by corruption scandals and greeted with a certain amount of scorn. Why was sleepy Seville getting the line and not busy Barcelona? Some saw it as an expensive white elephant and a monument to González’s ego.

The line, however, was a spectacular success. Remote Seville was suddenly two and a half hours from Madrid. Spaniards, used to shabby, lumbering trains that crawled across the countryside following unpredictable timetables, discovered their trains could be stylish and run on time.

Previously the choice on the Madrid-Seville run was between a hot, tiring six-hour coach journey or an aircraft. Seventeen years later, only one traveller out of 10 takes the plane to Seville. The rest go by a train that is 99% punctual. The Seville line proved that high-speed trains could be part of the answer, albeit an expensive part, to some of Spain’s most enduring problems.

By 2020 Spain will have Europe’s largest high-speed network, its 6,000 miles of track outgunning even France’s TGV system. By then 90% of the population will be within 30 miles of a station. New lines have already been opened to Segovia, Valladolid and Malaga in the last 18 months. New links will eventually connect France and Portugal.

The high-speed train network also helps Spain control carbon emissions, with passengers on the Madrid-Barcelona line cutting their own emissions by 83% on the trip.

Click here to read the entire article.

Transportgooru Musings:

Something unusual is happening with the mainstream media these days.  There seems to be a renewed interest in pushing the idea of having a high-speed rail network in to the minds of the American public .  We have seen two articles on CNN/Fortune have brought too fore how China is pushing ahead with its investment in building a sophisticated, world class HSR network.  This spurred a good bit of debate on many popular infrastructure & transportation forums such as the Infrastrucrist.  Another one appeared in LA Times, by business writer David Lazarus whose sentiments about the American transportation system was summarized as follows after experiencing the highly systematic & super-sleek Japanese network: “It’s hard to appreciate how truly pitiful our public transportation system is until you spend some time with a system that works.” Many of us know that feeling.  Then he gushes about the consistently reliable, affordable and convenient transit systems in Japan. “I rode just about every form of public transit imaginable — bullet trains, express trains, commuter trains, subways, street cars, monorails and buses.”  Again, our good friends at Infrastructurist followed-up with a nice debate.

Now we have this Guardian article, that gushes about the glorious Spanish high-speed rail network.  I am sure this would stir another round of renewed interest in the minds of us transportation nerds, especially among those who keenly the TransportGooru and Infrastructurist columns on this topic. But do these discussions go beyond the comments section of these portals.  I wonder if the Government is even taking note of these anxiety-laden cries that advocate the need for a comparable HSR.  As the President and his administration staff reiterate his commitment to keep American workforce competitive in every field, pushing huge loads of money for all sorts of industries (Automobile manufacturing, battery research etc.) , everyone in the Government seems to forget that competitiveness should also extend beyond roads and vehicles.  The vast American bureaucracy is slowly pushing ahead with limited funding ($8Billion) and a massive goal (a HSR-network in pockets of nation with targeted connectivity), while other nations like China and Spain are blazing ahead with massive investments in a rail network.  Unless we as a nation get serious about investing in alternative transportation options such as rail, we will continue to remain dependent on our expensive oil addiction.

With the Government pushing new thinking such as transit-oriented development, it is probably not too far in the future before urban living becomes “cool” again and the minor discomforts of not having the plush sub-urban life with white picket fences and acre-wide manicured lawns might fade away.   The Government facilitated the emergence of the sprawl and the suburban lifestyle with its policy and funding push for interstates.  Back in the past were days when railroading was the best alternative for longer distances.  Ford and other American automakers created a new way of life with the commercialization of automobile technology, which has now blossomed into a thriving industry.  Can the Government enable a similar push for building high speed rail networks around the country?

Before we even get there, let’s first ask: Is there a need for it?   Yes, clearly there is a need for it, at least for distances shorter than 400 miles and there is also a desire for it among folks.  But the only thing that is lack is the Governmental backing. The paltry $8B will not be enough but it is definitely a good start.  It is not always a bad thing to emulate successful strategies, irrespective of where it emulates from.  American ingenuity stems from this ability to take ideas irrespective of their origin and tweak to make them suitable for the American landscape.  We did this for years by simply importing foreign talent (from nuclear scientists to PhD students) propelled new ideas and thinking to create a huge economy that was atop the world for decades. Why not do the same for building a rail network?

We have the need, we have the people who can get it done. All we need is the willingness to invest and the determination to get it done. As demonstrated in the past, Americans can accomplish great things (from building the interstate system to the invention of the atomic bomb), when the Government stood firm and pushed ahead to finish these mega-projects.  Some of these projects not only became a rallying point for nation building (during and after WWII) but they also spawned new economies and industries, spurring job growth and economic development in communities.

For argument sakes, for the time being we can remain content that our nation has a sophisticated air transportation network, with even the tiniest of the towns boasting an airport.  In reality, many of our airports are overwhelmed and strained by heavy operational delays and operate with sub-par efficiency, at times also posing a risk to passenger safety.  But at the end of the day, we are still going to be an oil-dependent economy, ply our cars and planes with imported for the near future.  Of course, there is a lot more to it than just saying and writing it on these websites and newspapers.  But that’s where the Government comes in to figure it all out and to make it happen.  That’s what the American tax-payers pay for every year before April 15th – to fund and keep a massive bureaucracy working for the to safeguard the interests of its citizens and not budge for the disgruntled political masses.

For what it matters, we are blessed with a dedicated team of professionals who are a part of this massive bureacracy and the USDOT employs thousands of people under its railroad-ing arm, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).  The agency should be given special powers (agreed that we are not Communist China and it may all have to be worked out within a Democratic framework) to expedite the approval process for the pending HSR proposals.  It should also be taken into account that allied industres such as steel manufacturing be reviatlized with incentives for making steel locally.  This would be a really good way to resuscitate the long-shuttered steel mills of our nation.  Hire a new workforce to build these raillines (as a data nugget, consider what China had been able to do in keeping its workforce busy.  The CRCC now employ 110,000 workers on a single line connecting Beijing and Shanghai.  If you are running short of professional capacity to build and manage all this new work, employ the new grads coming out of our universities (FYI,  the CNN article on Chinese HSR plans offer this data:  Last year China Railway Construction Co., the nation’s largest railroad builder, hired 14,000 new university graduates — civil and electrical engineers mostly — from the class of 2008. This year, says Liang Yi, the vice CEO of the CRCC subsidiary working on the Beijing-to-Shanghai high-speed line, the company may hire up to 20,000 new university grads to cope with the company’s intensifying workload. But with the private sector cutting way back on hiring — and university students desperate for work — taking on that many new engineers and managers hasn’t been too difficult) and put them to work on this project of national importance.   If we managed to somehow put aside all our  political in-fighting and come together to accomplish this in the next 20 years, our future generations may have a better shot at being competitive.  We may even see a renewed interest in our nations private-sector players to invest and operate these new railroads (many foreign and local infrastructure firms are now buying rights to build and operate our nation’s ports and toll-roads).  Who knows! Someday in the future we may have a sophisticated system if we “get it right”).

It takes a special leader , who can stand tall amidst all the challenges and marshall his troops to get the mission accomplished and our President sure has shown glimpses of such qualities.  But as we all know, mere glimpses are not enough.  Unless our leadership shows some serious commitment and interest, the possibilities of an average American riding an Ave-like or Shinkansen-like or a TGV-like system will remain elusive.  Will the real leader stand up and deliver?

Image Courtesy: Nissan via Tree Hugger

(Source: Tree Hugger)

In the days leading up to the unveiling of its flagship Leaf EV, Nissan also unveiled this contact-free charging technology. At the same demonstration where folks got to test drive the EV platform and took-in the iPhone interface, they got to see a working example of induction charging in action.  Induction charging is already a common technology in products ranging from electric toothbrushes and razors to kitchen cooktops and artificial hearts. Our friends at Tree Hugger have now published a nice article, offering the details of this wireless goodness. Here are some interesting details:

• Wireless charging works on the principal of electromagnetic induction, and when two coils (one on the ground and one under the car) come into proximity, a charge can be transfered from a power supply to the battery.
• It takes a few seconds for the primary and secondary coils to recognize each other, but once they do, the system could charge this small EV in three hours.
• Nissan engineers are certain the charging efficiency is as good or better than plugging in, and that induction charging is simple and cheap.

Earlier Tree Hugger reported that Nissan is not only investigating induction charging for stationary applications such as in a garage or parking spot but is also looking at embedding plates into roadways, so that battery powered cars could charge while driving. Induction charging certainly has a ways to go and many questions to answer: what will it do to other devices, are there health risks from long-term exposure, what if you have an artificial heart (which is also powered by induction), not to mention how much efficiency might be lost in transmission?

Click here to read the entire article.

This week is National “Stop on Red” Week, and the Federal Highway Administration has kicked off several activities that highlight how dangerous blowing through a red light can be.  The activities for the week include a special edition of the Campaign’s Safety Focus newsletter, written by 13 red light running victims, survivors and their families and friends.

It has also released a video that can make you think twice before speeding through  the yellow at an intersection.  The video is a collection of actual crashes captured by traffic cameras situated at these intersections.  In one scene, a motorcycle flies through an intersection slamming into a car. In another, a car t-bones a sport utility vehicle.

The Stop Red Light Running Program was created by the Federal Highway Administration in 1995 as a community-based safety program. This campaign raised awareness of the dangers of red light running and helped reduce fatalities in many of the participating communities. The program calls attention to the dangers of red light running each year in the Annual National Stop on Red Week, – a week dedicated to educating Americans about the dangers of running red lights.

Remember, the number of fatal crashes at traffic signals is rising faster nationwide than any other type of fatal crash.  In 2007 in the U.S., almost 900 people were killed and an estimated 153,000 were injured in crashes that involved red light running. Public costs exceed $14 billion per year, and more than half of the deaths in red light running crashes are other motorists and pedestrians.

Show your Support! Stop on Red!

(Source: Fortune Magazine via CNN Money)

Images via Apture

When lunch break comes at the construction site between Shanghai and Suzhou in eastern China, Xi Tong-li and his fellow laborers bolt for some nearby trees and the merciful slivers of shade they provide.

Image Courtesy:Fortune

It’s 95 degrees and humid — a typically oppressive summer day in southeastern China — but it’s not just mad dogs and Englishmen who go out in the midday sun.

Xi is among a vast army of workers in China — according to Beijing’s Railroad Ministry, 110,000 were laboring on a single line, the Beijing-Shanghai route, at the beginning of 2009 — who are building one of the largest infrastructure projects in history: a nationwide high-speed passenger rail network that, once completed, will be the largest, fastest, and most technologically sophisticated in the world.

Creating a rail system in a country of 1.3 billion people guarantees that the scale will be gargantuan. Almost 16,000 miles of new track will have been laid when the build-out is done in 2020. China will consume about 117 million tons of concrete just to construct the buttresses on which the tracks will be carried. The total amount of rolled steel on the Beijing-to-Shanghai line alone would be enough to construct 120 copies of the “Bird’s Nest” — the iconic Olympic stadium in Beijing.

The top speed on trains that will run from Beijing to Shanghai will approach 220 miles an hour. Last year passengers in China made 1.4 billion rail journeys, and Chinese railroad officials expect that in a nation whose major cities are already choked with traffic, the figure could easily double over the next decade.

Construction on the vast multibillion-dollar project commenced in 2005 and will run through 2020. This year China will invest $50 billion in its new high-speed passenger rail system, more than double the amount spent in 2008. By the time the project is completed, Beijing will have pumped $300 billion into it.

This effort is of more than passing historical interest. It can be seen properly as part and parcel of China’s economic rise as a developing nation modernizing at warp speed, catching up with the rich world and in some instances — like high-speed rail — leapfrogging it entirely.

Last November, as the developed world imploded — taking China’s massive export growth and the jobs it had created with it — Beijing announced a two-year, $585 billion stimulus package — about 13% of 2008 GDP.

Infrastructure spending was at its core. Beijing would pour even more money into bridges, ports, and railways in the hope that it could stimulate growth and — critically — absorb the excess labor that exporters, particularly in the Pearl River Delta, were shedding as their foreign sales shrank more than 20%.

At a moment when the developed world — the U.S., Europe, and Japan — is still stuck in the deepest recession since the early 1980s, China’s rebound is startling. And the news comes just as Washington is embroiled in its own debate about whether the U.S. requires — and can afford — another round of stimulus, since the first one, earlier this year, has thus far done little to halt the downturn. Tax cuts made up about one-third of the $787 billion package, and only $60 billion of the remaining $500 billion has been spent so far.

Proponents of more stimulus are likely to cite China’s example of what a properly designed stimulus program can accomplish. Maybe so. But a closer look at China’s high-speed rail program also reveals some risks that should factor into the “Why can’t we do that?” debate that’s surely coming in Washington.

Last year China Railway Construction Co., the nation’s largest railroad builder, hired 14,000 new university graduates — civil and electrical engineers mostly — from the class of 2008. This year, says Liang Yi, the vice CEO of the CRCC subsidiary working on the Beijing-to-Shanghai high-speed line, the company may hire up to 20,000 new university grads to cope with the company’s intensifying workload. But with the private sector cutting way back on hiring — and university students desperate for work — taking on that many new engineers and managers hasn’t been too difficult.

Consider that the Northeast Corridor, between Boston and Washington, D.C., is served by Amtrak’s Acela train, which clips along at a stately average speed of 79 miles an hour. There’s a lot of talk now, as part of President Obama’s stimulus plan, about upgrading the system and building new, faster lines all across the nation. In his stimulus bill Obama has allocated $8 billion over three years for high-speed rail, and 40 states are now bidding for the funds, with results to be released in September. Among the possibilities, California wants to link San Francisco with L.A. via a high-speed link. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wants the private sector to get into the act, proposing a high-speed spur to connect Las Vegas with L.A.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Fortune)

President Obama may call a nationwide high-speed passenger rail network a priority, but it’s going to take a lot more than $8 billion to make it happen.

Though Thomas the Tank Engine earned a loyal following of American children in the 1980s and 1990s through his popular PBS television show, real trains have long been out of favor with the American public. Even Thomas was a British import.

Indeed, the fact that an early 20th-century steam locomotive — and not a sleek, high-speed model — so captured the modern young American imagination is an apt commentary on the state of train travel in the United States: The country lags years behind some of its peers.

America has 457 miles of high-speed track from Boston to Washington, D.C. In Japan, by comparison, trains netting speeds up to 188 miles-per-hour cross 1,360 miles of track; France features 1,180 miles of rail to support trains that can travel up to 199 miles-per-hour; and, as Bill Powell’s article, “China’s Amazing New Bullet Train,” shows in the latest issue of Fortune, China aspires to dart even farther ahead with its $300 billion high-speed rail project.

But President Barack Obama hopes to bridge this gap, emphasizing the importance of developing a nationwide high-speed rail network in several of his speeches. Just a month into his tenure, the President successfully urged Congress to dedicate $8 billion of February’s stimulus funds towards the system’s development.

“What we need … is a smart transportation system equal to the needs of the 21st century,” Obama said in a speech in April, the same month the Federal Railroad Administration released its prospectus for the high-speed program, “Vision for High-Speed Rail in America.” “[We need] a system that reduces travel times and increases mobility, a system that reduces congestion and boosts productivity, a system that reduces destructive emissions and creates jobs,” Obama continued in phraseology typical of his rhetoric. But it remains to be seen whether the U.S. government can translate “talk” into “walk” when it comes to high-speed rail.

Last month, 40 states — both individually and in groups — submitted 278 pre-applications for various stimulus-funded high-speed passenger rail projects, amounting to $102.5 billion in requests. Final applications are due August 24, and the FRA will begin distributing funds in September.

Click here to read the entire article. (Hat tip: WTSLosangeles@Twitter)

(Source: Government Accountability Office)

Why GAO Did This Study

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

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

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

Image Courtesy: FTA

What GAO Recommends

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

What GAO Found

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Source: The Infrastructurist)

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

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

Images Courtesy: Apture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. Potentially for two reasons, in fact.

Click here to read the entire article.