(Source: Glenn Havinoviski, Columnist @ ITS Virginia)

Glenn N. Havinoviski is an Associate Vice President and ITS Group Director for HNTB Corporation in Arlington, Virginia.  In his recent column on ITS Virginia’s quarterly Newsletter, Glenn discussed his views on the stimulus funding towards transportation projects and their impact on ITS, jobs, etc.  Here is an excerpt from the PDF version attached here.  

You gotta hand it to the new President. In less than four weeks,he got his way, running roughshod over a political opposition unableto develop or convince others of their own vision and ideas. Uncle”O” signed into law a $785 billion stimulus, an ode to the power ofhope, change and the ability to print lots of money. In Virginia alone,some $700 million will be provided for “shovel-ready” transportationprojects, to be selected in the next few weeks by state officials.Among those projects will be several initiatives related to trafficmanagement, operations and ITS. While the purpose of the stimulusis first and foremost the creation of new jobs, closer to home I knowit may preserve some existing jobs.While I believe this example of Federal largesse will end upbeing more a historical exception rather than the rule, we’ve alreadythrown a like amount at the banks and the struggling auto industry,courtesy of Mr. Obama’s wayward predecessor.So far, it is unclear what that money has gotten us. Banks stillwon’t make loans, GM still can’t sell cars, and too many bank executivesare still partying in Vegas and elsewhere. The toxic assets arestill toxic, and still dwindling in value, seemingly by the hour.

With the horrendous transportation funding cut-backs at thestate level and limited support from elected officials, VDOT hasbeen forced to create an austere vision, one which emphasizesoperating what we have, as opposed to ramrodding a programcontaining projects which in many cases have been deferred acrossseveral lifetimes. The new-look Federal government may be seekingto bankroll a future transit and clean-energy vehicle utopia. But Virginia, as with many other states, has been economically forcedto be more pragmatic with their own money and make very hardbut practical choices.

With all the excitement over a suddenly activist Federal government,what is in danger of getting lost in the mix has been theprogress made in the last decade toward innovative use of resources- including partnerships to leverage both government and privateinvestment, using tolling and road pricing both as revenue streamand as demand management tool, and development of a networkof vehicle-roadside communications for both safety and mobilityapplications.Such approaches to transportation improvements heavily dependon collection and monitoring of real-time information, alongwith electronic payment services and dedicated short-range communications(DSRC). They also create new opportunities for jobs,as well as new markets for information and technology services.No question that they could benefit from, but are not completelydependent on, the largesse of the young handsome Uncle “O” anda largely (but not completely) sympathetic Congress. “

Fiat and Magna emerge as serious bidders for Opel…GM is said to favor a single bidder, which may improve Fiat’s chances somewhat. Union officials and policymakers in Germany, on the other hand, have voiced concerns over the Italian automaker’s plans, saying they welcome the alternative plan from Magna. It should be interesting to see how this all plays out in the coming weeks.[Source: Automotiv…

Deal Would Combine Financing Arms Auto lenders Chrysler Financial and GMAC would be combined under a proposed Chrysler restructuring plan.

GM Offers U.S. a Majority Stake  GM outlined a new turnaround plan that would leave the U.S. government controlling the auto maker, as it set up a showdown with bondholders that could determine whether the troubled American icon lands in bankruptcy court.

Statement from GM Bondholder Committee’s Advisers Here is the statement from advisers to ad hoc committee of GM bondholders:

Billion-Dollar Baby: We Drive the Chevrolet Volt…wheel of GM‘s last best hope: the electric Chevy Volt.

(Source: Streetsblog)

Ultimately, SAFETEA-LU’s greatest failing may have been its failure to articulate a truly multi-modal vision for the nation’s surface transportation network. Essentially a continuation of 1950s-era policies, it repeated the same-old same-old about a need to complete the Interstate highway program, directing billions of dollars to state DOTs to pour asphalt and expand roadways. Nowhere did the legislation suggest a need to adapt to a future in which American dependence on automobiles and fossil fuels must be dramatically reduced. That’s the challenge faced by Congress today.

Less of this...

 Transportation funding from Washington has been heavily weighted toward highway spending ever since President Eisenhower first proposed the Interstate Highway Act in 1956. SAFETEA-LU, 2005’s federal transportation bill, was no exception. It provided $244.1 billionover five years, its revenues raised by the federal gas tax and directed to the Highway Trust Fund, which has both highway and mass transit accounts. $40 billion a year went to highways, most of which was used to expand and upgrade the Interstate highway system; some $10 billion went annually to mass transit.

The $10 billion in public transportation funds is distributed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for a variety of uses. The FTA administers the urban areas program, which allocates money to metropolitan areas for transit system capital expenses, as well as a rural areas program that helps states pay for rural transit. SAFETEA-LU also included a fixed-guideways formula, aimed at keeping mostly older rail transit systems like those in Chicago or Boston in working condition. Finally, the New Starts/Small Starts program allowed the FTA to fund competitive grants for major capacity expansion such as new subway or bus rapid transit lines.

More of this...

 SAFETEA-LU provided for $40 billion in annual funding from the highway account, the traditional federal source for financing Interstate highways. But under the law, money from the account could actually be spent on more than just roads. Roughly $6.5 billion per year was allocated to the “Surface Transportation Program.” States were allowed to use this money to fund transit and “bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways.” The “Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program” — about $1.7 billion a year — went to projects likely to reduce pollution, and specifically forbade funding “a project which will result in the construction of new capacity available to single occupant vehicles.”

There’s one problem, though. The federal government may allow such funds to be spent on non-auto uses, but that’s rarely the case.

That’s because, while each metropolitan area has a federally-mandated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) whose role is to establish priorities for transportation investments, state departments of transportation have ultimate discretion over how national highway funds are used. The inevitable consequence? Asphalt-happy DOTs usually choose to invest highway funds in roads, even when MPOs advocate for improved transit or bikeways. According to Transportation for America, only five states — California, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia — have taken advantage of the flexibility of these funds. The rest have spent the vast majority on auto infrastructure.

What’s more, SAFETEA-LU made it easy for states to build roads and hard for them to build transit projects. While funds for new roads were simply distributed to states based on a formula, new transit lines had to undergo the rigorous New Starts process — competing with other projects from all over the country — before winning a share of federal dollars. There was no such required audit for road projects.

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program Strategic Planning Workshop

 May 6, 2009

The workshop is designed to present the results-to-date of the strategic planning effort and to invite discussion from the public.  Participants will be engaged in question/answer sessions with break-out session discussions.  All feedback will be captured and incorporated into FTA’s ITS strategic planning effort.  Using this input, the FTA’s Office of Mobility Innovation expects to program a robust agenda for research and deployment assistance that reflects the current and future needs of the transit industry. 

If attending, please RSVP to: Suzanne.Sloan@dot.gov.  A similar workshop will take place at the APTA Rail Conference in Chicago, Illinois (June 14-17, 2009).  Location:  Chicago Hilton / TBD

U.S. DOT Requests Public Comments on ITS Program. The Research and Innovative Technology Administration is requesting public comments on the strategic direction of its Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program. Comments will be used to shape the next, multi-year, ITS research agenda. Specifically, the Department seeks comment and insight on a set of proposed goals and objectives for the ITS Program. Additionally, the Department is interested in exploring new opportunities for research and development, technology transfer, and evaluation of next generation ITS technologies. Responses should take into account the critical role of advanced technologies in achieving transformative change in the areas of safety, mobility, environmental stewardship, and deployment policy. A Request for Information along with instructions for submittal can be found athttp://www.regulations.gov under docket number RITA 2009-0001.  Alternatively, you can visit:

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648095e55e

Should you have any questions, please contact Ms. Riddle: 202-366-5128.

Here is a copy of the RFI. Please visit the above links to submit your comment. 

One of the factors that has helped to make cars so ubiquitous over the past century is standards. By standardizing things like fuel fillers, inflation nozzles on tires, 12V power sockets and countless other elements, automakers have been able make owning and operating a car much more practical. After all, if you had to drive around to 20 different gas stations to find one with a nozzle that fits your tank, it would be a real nuisance to drive. Most of those industry standards are defined by committees of the Society of Automotive Engineers. One of the standards currently being worked on is SAE J1772 which will define standard connectors for plug-in vehicles.  GM’s Fast Lane blog notes “with SAE J1772™, we’re defining what a common electric vehicle conductive charging system architecture will look like for all major automakers in North America, but more importantly, we’re working to resolve general physical, electrical and performance requirements so these systems can be manufactured for safe public use.

Through SAE, our industry is working together to answer fundamental questions about plug-in electric vehicles such as battery electrochemistry, optimal battery-size and state of charge, and lifecycle among other issues, but zeroing in on the ergonomics, safety and performance of the charging interface is one of the most basic ways we can help build consumer confidence in plug-ins.

Think about it, if you have no reservations or confusion about charging your vehicle, you’re probably going to be more likely to drive one. Drivers shouldn’t have to worry about electromagnetic compatibility, emission and immunity when they need to plug-in – that’s what engineers like me get paid to do.”

Webinar Overview

Date:   May 6, 2009 Time:  1:00-2:30 P.M. ET Cost:  All T3s are free of charge

Register On-line
Contact the T3 Administrator

Description

The presenters will describe the reason, vision and process for updating their current performance measures report. A primary motivator for embarking on this endeavor is to support the continual process improvement of Traffic Management Centers’ operations. The intent of this T3 is to share the successes and pitfalls in addition to stressing the importance of a holistic approach to measuring performance.

Audience

The audience for this webinar includes transportation professionals who are responsible for developing and using performance measures that support the improvement of Traffic Management Centers.

Learning Objectives

Participants will be exposed to the following:

• A reusable framework for development of Traffic Management Center performance measures.
• An understanding of the difference between Outcome and Output performance measures.
• An appreciation of the value of traceability between desired Outcomes and operations Outputs.
• An overview of how performance measures can be used to support continual process improvement.
• Knowledge of some of the challenges and pitfalls to avoid when pursuing development of performance measures on a shoestring budget.

Federal Host:

Lokesh Hebbani, Federal Highway Administration, Georgia Division Office

Lokesh Hebbani currently works as a Traffic Management/ITS/Safety Engineer at FHWA‘s Georgia Division Office. His past experience includes five years as a Traffic Operations/ITS Engineer at the FHWA Florida Division and eight years as a Freeway Operations Engineer at Wisconsin DOT. Lokesh is an active Board member of ITS Georgia and Georgia Traffic Incident Management Enhancement (TIME) Task Force. Lokesh is also the Task Team Leader of Georgia’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Lokesh holds several degrees: an MBA from Marquette University, an M.S. in Transportation Engineering from the University of Wyoming, and an M.E. in Geotechnical Engineering from Bangalore University, India.

Presenters:

Hugh Colton, Georgia Department of Transportation

Hugh Colton works for the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) as the Transportation Management Center’s Operations Manager in Atlanta. Currently, he is working on day-to-day operations and is the project manager for the Georgia Regional ITS Architecture update. Previously, he was the project manager for the Statewide ITS Concept of Operations Plan, the Statewide ITS Strategic Deployment Plan, and established a configuration management system for GDOT‘s ITS. He assisted FHWA in the creation of a Configuration Management training course. Soon after joining GDOT in 1999, he graduated from the University of London with a Masters Degree in Geographic Information Science.

Marcus Wittich, Serco Inc.

Mr. Wittich has over two decades of experience working with leading edge technologies and human resources management in roles such as a Management Consultant, a Project Manager, a Systems Engineer, a Business Analyst, and an Entrepreneur. His work spans a broad range of public and private sector assignments including ATMS work on the Development of NaviGAtor Web, Atlanta’s Metropolitan ITS Integration project (MITSI), Maryland Department of Transportation’s Multi Modal Traveler Information System (MMTIS), the Georgia Traffic Incident Management Enhancement (TIME) Task Force, and the development of the Next Generation of the Georgia ATMS. Prior to his involvement in ATMS development, Mr. Wittich led teams in the development of internet-based applications including the development of Cartoon Network’s cartoon orbit site, Nascar.com, NMFN.com, Burger King’s corporate Internet strategic plans and Hewlett Packard’s hp.com. Mr. Wittich holds a B.S. from Carnegie Mellon University.

Sapienza University of Roma

Faculty of Engineering

The International Conference on Models and Technology for Intelligent Transportation Systems aims at providing an opportunity for scholars engaged in basic or industrial research to meet and to discuss requirements for ITS applications, unsolved problems and future developments.

 Important dates

Abstract submission: March 15, 2009

Acceptance notification: April 15, 2009

Early Registration: April 30, 2009

Topics

·       Dynamic models for ITS applications

(Source: Wall Street Journal)