Description

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

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

Audience

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

Learning Outcomes

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

Federal Host:

Mac Lister, ITS Professional Capacity Building Program, ITS Joint Program Office, US DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration

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

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

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

Presenters:

Denise Markow, New Hampshire Transportation Management Center, New Hampshire Department of Transportation

Denise Markow is the Program Manager for the New Hampshire Transportation Management Center and has been working for the New Hampshire Department of Transportation for 15 years. For the past two years, she has also managed the ITS Program, a program that she was integral in initiating. She has spent 13 years in the Highway Design Bureau working with Consulting Firms as a Consultant Reviewer responsible for the QC/QA of design plans. Denise is a registered PE in the state of NH. She earned a Bachelor’s degree in Business/French from the University of Wisconsin and a Bachelor’s and Master’s Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of New Hampshire.

Gail Hambleton, New Hampshire Department of Transportation

Gail Hambleton is the IT Leader for Transportation at New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), a position she has held since June 2008. She has worked in that department for the past seven years and has also worked as a Civil Engineer at NHDOT for 3 years. She has extensive work experience is software and hardware development. Gail is a PE in Civil Engineering (lapsed license since working in IT) and earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of New Hampshire.

Galen McGill, Oregon Department of Transportation

Galen McGill has been the Intelligent Transportation Systems Manager for the Oregon Department of Transportation since the inception of the ITS Program in 1998. He has worked for ODOT for 21 years in various positions related to technology development and implementation. Galen is a registered professional engineer. He has a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from Oregon State University and an MBA degree from Willamette University’s Atkinson Graduate School of Management.

(Source: Wired)

Image via Apture

The electrification of the automobile has been called the auto industry’s “moon shot,” an analogy that works because of both the technology involved and the cost to develop it. Automakers are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the effort with no promise that it will lead to affordable battery-powered vehicles anytime soon — or any guarantee people will buy them once they’re available.

All of the major automakers are racing to put EVs in showrooms as early as next year, and they’re spending money like sailors on shore leave to do it. General Motors has spent about $1 billion developing the Chevrolet Volt. Chrysler wants to invest $448 million in its electric vehicle program to build cars like the Circuit, pictured above at the Los Angeles Auto Show. Elon Musk’s personal investment in Tesla Motors tops $75 million.

The Apollo program cost more than $100 billion in today’s dollars, and as Ron Cogan, founder and editor of Green Car Journal and greencar.com notes, there was no imperative to produce a reasonably priced consumer product. Not so with electric vehicles – the whole point is to sell cars. The Obama Administration is betting heavily on the technology, having recently approved almost $8 billion to help automakers retoolfactories to produce EVs and other fuel-efficient vehicles. Another $16 billion will be doled out next year.

“What people overlook is that accomplishing ‘big picture’ programs like Apollo require accepting the concept of unlimited spending to achieve the mission,” Cogan says. “Current levels of unprecedented federal spending notwithstanding, electric cars are not an exclusive answer to future transportation challenges and consumers will not be willing to buy them at all costs.”

Early adopters and hardcore EV advocates will gladly pay that much, but will the rest of us pay $15,000 to $25,000 more for a car that runs on electricity? Cogan doesn’t think so and says EVs should be considered mid- to long-term solutions until automakers — and the battery makers they rely upon — can bring costs down to a level competitive with vehicles propelled by internal combustion.

Until then, he says, more efficient gasoline cars, clean diesel vehicles and hybrids will comprise the majority of cars sold even as EVs become an increasingly common sight in showrooms.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Tree Hugger)

Trivia: New York’s is also the only subway in the world to run 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Image courtesy: TreeHugger

Our friends at Treehugger have put together a great, easy to understand compilation of subway/metro train fares for a handful of major cities around the world, with a promise to update the list in the near future.  The article takes a stab at comparing the New York Subway system fares against the rest and goes on to analyze What Makes a Subway Fare Fair? and Why is New York City Raising the Subway Fare? Makes for quite an interesting read.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source:  Washington Post)

Image Courtesy: Gothamist via Apture - DC Metro Crash

Sometime soon, investigators will piece together why one train on Metro’s Red Line hurtled into another last Monday, killing nine people and injuring dozens. Early indications suggest a computer system may have malfunctioned, and various accounts have raised questions about whether the driver of the speeding train applied the brakes in time.

The problem, said several experts who have studied such accidents, is that these investigations invariably focus our attention on discrete aspects of machine or human error, whereas the real problem often lies in the relationship between humans and their automated systems.

Metro officials have already begun a review of the automated control systems on the stretch of track where the crash occurred and have found “anomalies.” While such measures are essential, Lee said, making automated systems safer leads to a paradox at the heart of all human-machine interactions: “The better you make the automation, the more difficult it is to guard against these catastrophic failures in the future, because the automation becomes more and more powerful, and you rely on it more and more.”

Automated systems are often designed to relieve humans of tasks that are repetitive. When such algorithms become sophisticated, however, humans start to relate to them as if they were fellow human beings. The autopilot on a plane, the cruise control on a car and automated speed-control systems in mass transit are conveniences. But without exception, they can become crutches. The more reliable the system, the more likely it is that humans in charge will “switch off” and lose their concentration, and the greater the likelihood that a confluence of unexpected factors that stymie the algorithm will produce catastrophe.

Several studies have found that regular training exercises that require operators to turn off their automated systems and run everything manually are useful in retaining skills and alertness. Understanding how automated systems are designed to work allows operators to detect not only when a system has failed but also when it is on the brink. In last week’s Metro accident, it remains unclear how much time the driver of the train had to react when she recognized the problem.

New cruise-control and autopilot systems in cars and planes are being designed to give better feedback in a variety of ways. When sensors detect another car too close ahead on the road, for example, they make the gas pedal harder to depress. Pilots given auditory warnings as well as visual warnings about impending problems seem to respond better.

One researcher has even found that the manner in which machines provide feedback is important. When they are “polite” — waiting until a human operator has responded to one issue before interrupting with another, for example — improved human-machine relationships produce measurable safety improvements that rival technological leaps.

Click here to read the entire article. (Hat Tip: TheTransitWire.com)

(Source:  Copyranter via Dvice via Gizmodo)

Image Courtesy: Gizmodo

This bus stop ad for Amnesty International’s anti-domestic-abuse campaign is installed in Hamburg, Germany. It is equal parts clever and shocking: when you look at the photo, it’s a smiling couple; when you look away, it’s a dude punchin’ a lady.

The billboard works by scanning its proximity with an eye-tracking camera, which triggers an image switch on the display panel when it senses someone looking at it. The change only occurs after a brief delay, so that observers understand what’s going on, and get the message.  Brilliant!

TransportGooru Musings:  It reminds me of  a scene from one of the sci-fi movies  (I think it is Minority Report) where a hero is walking through the Mall and the wall mounted display consoles will recognize the his identity and start showing voice and video advertisements that are tailored to his consumer profile (the ads sell a particular product based on the person’s previous buying habits, or something like that).   This Amnesty Ad campaign brings us one step closer to that stage where information will be tailored and delivered on the spot  based on the individual viewer’s personal preferences/consumer profile sitting in a database somewhere (this is not even remotely possible now because the behavioral & purchase patterns of the consumer should be captured and mapped in a single database first, which means privacy issues and other such crap needs to be addressed; we are talking big ticket issues data ownership, privacy, and other such public policy issues).  But it is big money in the making for whoever wanting to do this!

(Source: Wikipedia, AOPA Blog, Hoax-Slayer.com)

For many of us, there exists on the world map a small state called Gibraltar, which is a self-governing British overseas territory located on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula andEurope at the entrance of the Mediterranean overlooking the Strait of Gibraltar. The territory covers 6.843 square kilometres (2.642 sq mi) and shares a land border with Spain to the north. The Gibraltar Airport is 1,600 feet from the city, the shortest commute of any major airport in the world. One would naturally ask the question how difficult it is to operate and land aircrafts when the airport is so close to the city.  British Gibraltar has very little area, and the important airport runway takes up a major portion of land. To drive from Gibraltar to Spain, vehicles must cross the runway.The picture below (taken by a Cessna Pilot as he approached for landing) shows you what happens in Gibraltar where pedestrians and vehicles share the space with aircraft on the tarmac.

Image Courtesy: AOPA

(Source: U.S. Government Acocuntability Office)

Why GAO Did this Study

In 1995, the Department of Defense (DOD) began an effort to implement a standard departmentwide travel system—the Defense Travel System (DTS). GAO has made numerous recommendations aimed at improving DOD management, oversight, and implementation of DTS.

Image Courtesy: Apture

GAO was asked to:

• Assess the actions DOD has taken to implement GAO’s prior recommendations;
• Determine the actions DOD has taken to standardize and streamline its travel rules and processes;
• Determine if DOD has identified its legacy travel systems, their operating costs, and which of these systems will be eliminated; and
• Report on DOD’s costs to process travel vouchers manually and electronically.

To address these objectives, GAO (1) obtained and analyzed relevant travel policies and procedures, and documents related to the operation of DTS and (2) interviewed appropriate DOD and contractor personnel.

What GAO Found

While the department has made progress in improving the efficiency of its travel operations by implementing DTS and revising its processes and policies, unresolved operational issues continue to exist. DOD has taken sufficient action to satisfactorily address 6 of the 14 recommendations GAO made in 2006 pertaining to unused airline tickets, restricted airfares, testing of system interfaces, and streamlining of certain travel processes. More effort is needed to address the remaining 8 related to requirements management and system testing, utilization, premium-class travel, and developing an automated approach to reduce the need for hard-copy receipts to substantiate travel expenses. For example, in the area of requirements management and testing, GAO’s analysis found that the display of flight information by DTS is complicated and confusing. This problem continues because DOD has yet to establish DTS flight display requirements that minimize the number of screens DOD travelers must view in selecting a flight.

The 1995 DOD Travel Reengineering Report made 22 recommendations to streamline DOD’s travel rules and processes. GAO found that DOD had satisfactorily addressed all 22 recommendations. For example, DOD has mandated the use of commercial travel offices (CTO), established a single entity within DOD—the Defense Travel Management Office—to contract with CTOs for travel services, and has begun modifying CTO contracts as they become subject to renewal to standardize the level of services provided.

According to DOD officials, except for locations where DTS has not yet been deployed, DTS is used by the military services and all 44 defense agencies and joint commands to process temporary duty (TDY) travel vouchers. The department uses two legacy systems to process:

• TDY travel vouchers at locations where DTS is not yet deployed and
• Civilian and military permanent duty travel vouchers since DTS currently lacks the functionality to process these vouchers.

DOD provided us with fiscal year 2008 expenditure data for one system and budget data for the other system. The expenditure/budget data provided by DOD were comparable to the amounts budgeted for these systems for fiscal year 2008. According to DOD officials, these legacy systems will not be eliminated because they provide the capability to process military and civilian permanent duty travel vouchers. Although DTS is expected to provide the capability to process military permanent duty travel vouchers in fiscal year 2010, DOD has not yet decided if civilian permanent duty travel voucher processing will be added to DTS.

DOD cost data indicate that it is about 15 times more expensive to process a travel voucher manually—$36.52 manually versus $2.47 electronically. DOD officials acknowledged that the department continues to lack the data needed to ascertain the complete universe of travel vouchers that should be processed through DTS.

What GAO Recommends

Because GAO has existing recommendations regarding the actions needed to address the weaknesses discussed in this report, GAO reiterates 8 of its 14 prior recommendations. DOD commented that it has taken sufficient action to address 12 of the 14 recommendations, including 6 of the 8 GAO is reiterating, and described actions under way or planned to address the other 2. GAO disagrees. GAO received technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate.

Click here to read/download the entire report.

(Source: Streetsblog, WATodau.au.com, Smart Growth America)

Image Courtesy: Smart Growth America

Within the $787 billion stimulus bill that became law in February, Congress provided states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) with $26.6 billion in flexible funds for transportation projects. Today marks 120 days from the apportionment of the funds to the states.

Smart Growth America released a report today examining how well states have been spending these billions. As they say on the Smart Growth America blog today, not only did the money arrive in a time of economic recession, but “at a time of embarrassingly large backlogs of road and bridge repairs, inadequate and underfunded public transportation systems, and too-few convenient, affordable transportation options.”

So after 120 days, how have states done in addressing these pressing needs and investing in progress for their communities?

After analyzing project descriptions provided by states and MPOs, Smart Growth America found forward looking states and communities that used the stimulus money as flexibly as possible, repairing roads and bridges and making the kinds of smart, 21st century transportation investments that their communities need to support strong economic growth.

While some states proved excellent at investing wisely and making progress, most states failed to fulfill pressing transportation needs. Nearly one-third of the money, $6.6 billion, went towards building new road capacity. Only 2.8% was spent on public transportation, and 0.9% percent on non-motorized projects.

The Secretary of Transportation, Ray Lahood, in his daily blog noted that ARRA is working successfully across America. Some folks in the transportation community are not totally happy about how the money had been spent. Streetsblog points out that $6.6B in Stimulus Cash is spent on New Roads, Not Repair. It says:

Distressingly — but unsurprisingly — quite a lot is going to new roads rather than repair of existing ones. Of the $26.6 billion sent to states under a flexible transportation mandate, SGA found that $6.6 billion has gone towards building new highway capacity.

Only $185 million of the flexible stimulus aid has been used on transit and non-motorized transportation, which was given about $8 billionin separate funding as well.

One culprit behind this questionable use of taxpayer money, as SGA reports, is a theme at risk of repeating itself during the upcoming debate over broad transportation reform: the lack of accountability.

Most states and localities reported the projects they selected for stimulus aid only after the fact, allowing a privately run website to monitor the process much faster than the Obama administration.

But inconsistent reporting is just the beginning of the problem, as SGA points out in its report:

Most states failed to educate, engage, and seek input from the public before making decisions. … There is not a clear articulation of what project portfolios should accomplish, no methods identified for evaluating projects against these goals or against one another, and few repercussions for achieving or failing to achieve these goals.

SGA mined the stimulus itself, as well as comments by administration officials, to produce a list of nine goals that can be used to evaluate its transportation spending. But the lack of tangible consequences for not meeting those goals has left states free to spend at will, often focusing more on the report’s No. 1 objective (“create and save jobs”) than Nos. 5 (“improve public transportation”), 7 (“cut greenhouse gas emissions”), and 8 (“not contribute to additional sprawl”).

Interestingly enough, Senior White House adviser David Axelrod says the economic stimulus package has not yet “broken the back of the recession” but set aside calls for a second massive spending bill. Republicans, meanwhile, have called the spending under way a failure.

Some economists and business leaders have called for a second spending bill designed to help guide the economy through a downturn that has left millions without jobs. Axelrod said it’s too early to know if more spending would be needed or if the administration would seek more money from Congress.

“Most of the stimulus money – the economic recovery money – is yet to be spent. Let’s see what impact that has,” Axelrod said. “I’m not going to make any judgment as to whether we need more. We have confidence that the things we’re doing are going to help, but we’ve said repeatedly, it’s going to take time, and it will take time. It took years to get into the mess we’re in. It’s not going to take months to get out of it.”

Click here to download Smart Growth for America’s report:  The States and the Stimulus – Are they using it to create jobs and 21st century transportation?

(Source: AFP via Google, ITDP & Jakarta Post)

New laws requiring disabled pedestrians to wear traffic signs have met with frustration and derision in Indonesia, where in the eyes of the law cars have taken priority over people.

The laws will do nothing to improve road safety or ease the traffic that is choking the life out of the capital city of some 12 million people, and serve only to highlight official incompetence, analysts said.

Within five years, if nothing changes, experts predict Jakarta will reach total gridlock, with every main road and backstreet clogged with barely moving, pollution-spewing cars.

That’s too late for the long-awaited urban rail link known as the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT), which has only just entered the design stage and won’t be operational until 2016 at the earliest.

“Just like a big flood, Jakarta could be paralysed. The city’s mobility will die,” University of Indonesia researcher Nyoman Teguh Prasidha said.

Instead of requiring level footpaths and ramps, lawmakers voted unanimously this month to demand disabled people wear signs announcing their condition so motorists won’t run them down as they cross the street.

Experts say the new traffic law is sadly typical of a country which for decades has allowed cars and an obsession with car ownership to run rampant over basic imperatives of urban planning.

“It is strange when handicapped people are asked to carry extra burdens and obligations,” Institute of Transportation Studies (Instran) chairman Darmaningtyas said.

A 2004 study by the Japan International Cooperation Agency found that traffic jams cost Jakarta some 8.3 trillion rupiah (822 million dollars) a year in extra fuel consumption, lost productivity and health impact.

Paralyzing traffic jams and severe air pollution are the most frequent answers when people are asked what they know about Jakarta. Motorized vehicle ownerships increase in line with a rise in income per capita.

An Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) study notes that motorized vehicle ownership is growing at 9 percent every year, with more than 1,500 new registrations being filed a day for motorcycles and 500 a day for cars.  The study discusses various options including BRT, incentives for biking, etc to manage the growing congestion problem that is now threatening to cripple the growth of the country’s economy and adversely affect the quality of life of its citizens.

Now, growth of the vehicle population is not the only problem.  The drivers behind the wheel are adding to the chaos on the roads.  An article that recently appeared in the online edition of Jakarta Post, says the following: Driving in Jakarta is nothing short of chaotic, thanks to the huge quantity of people using the roads, the often terrible condition of the roads and the vast variety of vehicles there are. All of this chaos is only made worse by drivers who are reckless and dismissive of other road users.

There are drivers that seem utterly oblivious to there being anybody else on the roads except themselves. Perhaps they are too comfortable in the enclosed air-conditioned capsule that is their vehicle, as they listen to pumped-up stereophonic music or even watch small video screens, to pay any attention or care about anyone else on the roads.

Click here to read the entire article.

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

Image Courtesy: Climatecrisis.net - An Inconvenient Truth

The U.S. House of Representatives on Friday narrowly passed a climate change bill that would create a national system to cap greenhouse gas emissions and allow trade of such credits. Only eight Republicans joined Democrats in backing the measure. Prospects for Senate passage this year are uncertain. States that have set the U.S. agenda on addressing greenhouse gas emissions are lining up behind a federal climate bill, fearing signs of dissent would weaken a plan that still faces hurdles.

The vote was the first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change. The legislation, which passed despite deep divisions among Democrats, could lead to profound changes in many sectors of the economy, including electric power generation, agriculture, manufacturing and construction.

There was no derth of drama in the House from the moment the legislators began the day’s proceedings.  The Democrats released a 301-page amendment to the bill at 3:09 a.m. Friday, drawing protest from Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.  “This is the biggest job-killing bill that has ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives. Right here. This bill,” Boehner said.

The leaders of the House are customarily granted unlimited speaking time, but when the Boehner’s speech went more than 2½ hours, Democrats objected.  “Is this an attempt to try to get some people to leave on a close vote?” asked Rep Henry Waxman, D-California, the bill’s lead sponsor.

President Obama hailed the House passage of the bill as “a bold and necessary step.” Mr. Obama had lobbied wavering lawmakers in recent days, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore had made personal appeals to dozens of fence-sitters.

But the legislation, a patchwork of compromises, falls far short of what many European governments and environmentalists have said is needed to avert the worst effects of global warming. And it pitted liberal Democrats from the East and West Coasts against more conservative Democrats from areas dependent on coal for electricity and on heavy manufacturing for jobs.

The House legislation reflects a series of concessions necessary to attract the support of Democrats from different regions and with different ideologies. In the months of horse-trading before the vote Friday, the bill’s targets for emissions of heat-trapping gases were weakened, its mandate for renewable electricity was scaled back, and incentives for industries were sweetened.

Several House members expressed concern about the market to be created in carbon allowances, saying it posed the same risks as those in markets in other kinds of derivatives. Regulation of such markets would be divided among the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Following is a list of key provisions of the landmark bill (thanks to Washington Post):

• Emissions from a large sector of the U.S. economy, including power plants, factories and auto tailpipes, will be required to be cut 17 percent below their 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent below those levels by 2050.
• These reductions would be managed by requiring emitters to amass buyable, sellable “credits” equal to their pollution.
• About 85 percent of these credits would be given away for free, many of them with the mandate that electricity distributors sell them and use the proceeds to soften the blow of rising energy prices. Environmentalists had wanted the government to auction them all off.
• Electricity producers would be required to get at least 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020, with up to 5 percent more energy saved from new efficiency measures. The two figures must add up to 20 percent.
• Polluters could also balance out some of their emissions by purchasing carbon “offsets,” which are official certificates that greenhouse gas emissions have been avoided, or taken out of the air. In a last-minute amendment, oversight over offsets generated on farms was taken from the Environmental Protection Agency and given to the Agriculture Department.
• A new Clean Energy Deployment Administration funded with $7.5 billion in “green bonds” would provide government money to private companies investing in environment-friendly technologies.

Nearly half the U.S. states have moved toward curbing greenhouse gas emissions and want the federal government to learn from their experience in creating systems to cap emissions and trade pollution credits.  States that have set the U.S. agenda on addressing greenhouse gas emissions are lining up behind a federal climate bill, fearing signs of dissent would weaken a plan that still faces hurdles.

Image Courtesy: www.fivethirtyeight.com

At the heart of the legislation is a cap-and-trade system that sets a limit on overall emissions of heat-trapping gases while allowing utilities, manufacturers and other emitters to trade pollution permits, or allowances, among themselves.

The cap would grow tighter over the years, pushing up the price of emissions and presumably driving industry to find cleaner ways of making energy.

Regional considerations tend to loom larger in debates over environmental policy than in other sorts of affairs. Some states consume more energy than others. Some states have more carbon-intensive economies than others.

Some states are more or less likely to be negatively impacted by global warming. And some states are better equipped to take advantage of green energy development.

One of the first of those concerns: household energy usage. The goal here is simple: the Congressional Budget Office recently put out an estimate (.pdf) of the costs of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. The CBO estimated that the average American household would wind up paying a net of $175 in additional energy costs in the year it benchmarked, which was 2020. But how does that cost translate to individual states?

Our renowned statistics whiz at fivethiryeight.com has come up with a brilliant way to translate the CBO’s numbers, based on his interpretation of the CBO’s assumptions, to the level of individual states, making it easy for us common folk to understand what is to be expected when this cap and trade takes effect  ( Transportgooru recommends this as a must read article, especially if you care to know about the the nuts and bolts of “cap-and-trade” system)