(Source: Examiner & Autobloggreen)

In the name of “clean energy,” Washington is subsidizing a switch from gasoline-powered cars to cars powered mostly by coal. In pursuit of “energy independence,” the feds may foster addiction to a fuel concentrated in a socialist-run South American country.

Image Courtesy: Apture - Hybrid electric vehicles at Argonne

Lobbying by automakers, chemical companies and coal-dependent power producers has yielded a slew of subsidies and mandates for electric cars. However promising a gasoline-free automobile may sound, anyone who followed the government’s mad rush to ethanol fuel in recent years has to worry about the clean promise of the electric car yielding dirty results.

Ethanol — an alcohol fuel made from corn or other plants — has been pushed relentlessly on the American people by a Congress under the influence of a powerful ethanol lobby. Touted as a clean fuel, the government-created ethanol boom has contributed to water pollution, soil erosion, deforestation and even air pollution.

Lithium could be the new ethanol, thanks to the government push for electric cars. Lithium is an element found in nature, and lithium-ion batteries are at the heart of the next generation of electric cars. Compared with lead acid (the standard car battery) and nickel metal hydride (the batteries in today’s hybrids), lithium-ion batteries are less toxic, more powerful and longer lasting.

But what would happen if electric cars and these batteries gain wide use?

Before we even get to the batteries, recall that although all-electric, plug-in cars emit nothing, somebody needs to burn something for the car to move. Here, the burning happens at the power plant instead of under your hood.

The Department Energy estimates that coal provides half our electricity. A recent Government Accountability Office study reported that a plug-in compact car, if it is recharged at an outlet drawing its juice from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4 to 5 percent. A plug-in sport utility vehicle provides a CO2 savings of 19 to 23 percent.

The Department Energy estimates that coal provides half our electricity. A recent Government Accountability Office study reported that a plug-in compact car, if it is recharged at an outlet drawing its juice from coal, provides a carbon dioxide savings of only 4 to 5 percent. A plug-in sport utility vehicle provides a CO2 savings of 19 to 23 percent.

If the cleaner and cheaper fuel of a plug-in causes someone to drive even a bit more, it’s a break-even on CO2. GAO co-author Mark Gaffigan raised the question to CNSNews.com; “If you are using coal-fired power plants and half the country’s electricity comes from coal-powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?”

And of course, there’s the lithium lobby. FMC Corp. is the largest lithium producer in the United States. The company employs a dozen lobbying firms and operates its own political action committee. FMC has leaned on Congress and the Energy Department for electric car subsidies.

If the electric car lobby succeeds, brace for another harsh lesson in unintended consequences.

Click here to read the entire Examiner article. Our friends at Autobloggreen were kind enough to point Tim Carney, the author of this Examiner article, the following: While Carney is right that the GAO did warn against all of the coal that could be used to power the EVs of the future, he forgot to mention the GAO’s finding that “Research we reviewed indicated that plug-ins could shift air pollutant emissions away from population centers even if there was no change in the fuel used to generate electricity.”

TransportGooru Musings: Though I agree with some aspects of the author’s argument, I disagree with the notion that  Electric Vehicle investment boom is akin to that of the Ethanol-boom of the years past.   There are many differences between what’s happening now and what happened in the past.  Apart from ridiculing the Government’s strategy, the author, Tim Carney, is not offering any credible solutions and simply terrorizes the readers with an insane argument — Your tax dollars are getting wasted and the lithium lobbies are winning.

Let us see, Mr. Carney! We have two clear choices  — either we continue to tread the same path, guzzling billions of gallons of oil a day (and polluting the environment with gay abandon), all the while facilitating the transfer of your dollars to some petro-dictatorship in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia) or South America (Venezuela).  Or try and invest in something like Electric Vehicles which can help us and our children breathe easy in the years to come.   The latter option may not be very appealing to many folks like you who are grounded in a myopic view of the world.

Though majority of the electric power produced in the US comes from coal,  we can to a large degree control the emissions from these coal plants with current technology.  It may require some more arm twisting on the Government’s part to make these coal-fired electric plants to adhere to the stringent emissions standards but this is a lot more easy to manage.  Also, with more government investment in other forms of generating electricity and a great deal of consumer interest in purchasing clear power, we have  golden an opportunity for investing in other forms of electricity production (Nuclear,  Wind, solar. etc – FYI, Government data indicate there have been 17 licence applications to build 26 new nuclear reactors since mid 2007, following several regulatory initiatives preparing the way for new orders and the Government envisions producing significant share of the power from Nuclear by 2020).

In this option, the Fed & State Governments can regulate and control these domestic sources of power generation and to a large degree keep the investments within the American borders.  If you are advocating to continue the same path as we have done in the past decades, Petro-dictators on the other parts of the globe  (Saudi, Venezuela, Russia, etc) are going to grow richer and they do not listen to what you or your government wants.  They do what they want and run a cartel (OPEC) that is very unrestrained and at times acts like a bunch of thugs.  In this option, your price at the pump is not dictated by your Government but some hukka-smoking, arms-dealing perto-aggresor, who is trying to make the best of the situation and extract as much as he can from your wallet.

The Ethanol buzz dissipated quickly because the Detroit lobby was too damn powerful and them automakers were not listening well to what the customers wanted.   When the economy tanked (and the markets wreacked havock on their stock values) and the customers started showing love for foreign manufactured cars like Prius & Insight,  Detroit had a sudden realization that they need to change their strategy and started moving away from making those huge SUVs and Trucks. Now they are talking about newer cars that are small, functional, economic and environmentally viable products.

It is hard to disagree that there was a flood of investment in the Ethanol technology, but the underlying concept remained the same (burning fuel using the conventional combustion engine) and there was nothing ground-shaking about the way it was promoted.  It is just that we were simply trying to change the amount of emissions coming out of our tailpipes.  But now with Electric-vehicles, we are changing the game completely.

Though it may take a few more years to develop the “Perfect” technology, full electrification of vehicles will eliminate the very concept of a tailpipe in a vehicle.  Tesla and numerous other manufacturers are trying to do this and I consider this to be a step in the right direction.  One thing we have to bear in mind is that during the Ethanol era, the U.S. was the major proponent (because we have way to much areable land and corn growing farmers around) and the rest of the world was just playing along with mild interest because of various reason.  But this time around the  scenario looks very different.  Worldwide there is a coordinated push for heavy investments in alternative energy technologies, and almost every industrialized nation jumped into this EV bandwagon pushing research funds towards development of green cars when the oil prices sky rocketed.  No one is interested in paying $140+ dollars/barrel for oil.

Above all, we are at a time when the Government needs to invest its tax-payer dollars back in the communities in a fruitful way. The addiction to oil has gotten way bad and the sky-high oil prices of 2008 were a good indicator that we can’t afford to continue treading in the same path as we did in the decade past. If the Government has to hold back from investing in clean energy technologies, it might invest in other areas that may look very appealing in the short run but potentially leaving a huge developmental hole in the transportation sector.  This is the RIGHT TIME for investing in Electric Vehicles.  Now the Government has a stake in two of the three Detroit Automakers, which offers the flexibility to steer the development of new technologies and  newer vehicle platforms running on clean fuels such as electric and hydrogen power.

Going by your argument that by switching enmass to Electric-vehicles, we are going to create a demand for Lithium, simply shifting our oil dependence to socialist-Bolivia’s Lithium reserves, so be it.  You want to know why? Any day, I’ll take the Democratically-elected Bolivian Government (headed by a Evo Morales)  over the petro-crazy OPEC members.  If it helps resuscitate a nation that is living in depths of poverty, why not do that.  We in the Western world helped the Saudi’s & other mid-east monarchs become rich and modern from their goat-sheperding Bedouin past with the invention of modern Automobiles.  If we can do the same to Bolivia with the introduction of a new technology (Lithium-ion batteries for running cars), why do you get so jittery about that.

The growing threat of environmental degradation and the fallout from the rising green house gas emissions fore-casted by our eminent scientists are too damn threatening to our world and hard to ignore. Be happy thinking that your Government is doing something to improve the status-quo (which is guzzling billions of gallons of oil) instead of  sitting around waiting for a miracle.   For all that matters Electric Vehicles may be just an evolution in the quest for a better form of transportation.  Who knows!  But by investing in these technologies, we may at least have a chance to live a better life in the future. If our Government is not doing any of the above, we may never have a future after all.  So, let’s stop being an obstacle along the way for everything the Government does just because it is run by people who have a diabolically different views and principles.

(Source:  Green Car Congress & Synovate)

Market research firm Synovate released new study findings showing that nearly six in ten people would choose to buy a green car over a dream car, even if money was no object. In March 2009, Synovate surveyed more than 13,500 people across 18 markets (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the United Kingdom and the United States of America) about “green” versus “dream” cars, vehicle ownership, intent to buy in the next year and attitudes towards cars, traffic, public transport and their need-for-speed.

The top answer across all 18 markets, if money was no object, was to buy a green car, with 37% of respondents saying this would be their preference. Thirty percent said they would buy their dream car and a further 22% claimed that &ldqou;my dream car is a green car”, meaning that 59%—or very nearly six in ten—showed the desire to go green.

This In:fact survey on cars was conducted in March 2009 across 18 markets - Australia (AU), Brazil (BR), Canada (CA), China (CN), Egypt (EGY), France (FR), Germany (DE), Greece (GR), India (IN), Japan (JP), Korea (KR), Malaysia (MY), South Africa (ZA), Thailand (TH), Turkey (TR), the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (US). It covered over 13,200 urban respondents

• The nation most likely to simply elect green car was Germany, with 58% choosing the environment over their dream cars.
• The 30% of people globally who would still choose their dream car, green-be-damned, comprised of 35% men and 27% women.
• The single biggest result for dream car came from South Africa where over half of all respondents (53%) would go for their fantasy vehicle over a green one.
• In the United States (US), 35% would buy a dream car, 23% chose green and 19% say their dream car is a green car. More American women than men say that their dream car is a green car (20% women versus 17% men).
• Overall, 15% of respondents across all 18 markets surveyed, including 9% in the US, say they will buy a new car in the next 12 months. The new car purchase intenders were topped by India at 38% and Egypt at 24%.
• 6% of survey respondents across the 18 markets say they will buy a used car in the next year, including 7% of Americans. 53% would be happy to pay more for a used car if it came with a manufacturer certification and warranty.
• South Africa (18%) as well as the US, Malaysia and Thailand (all 15%) were tops among the households globally in which more than two cars can be found.
• 14% of respondents across the 18 markets say they will use public transport more often in the coming year. The highest level of agreement was in China at 39%. The lowest level of agreement was in the US at 2%.
• 9% of people globally, including 5% of Americans, said they would be riding bikes or walking more often.

Click here to read the entire study.

(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: 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.

7th International Energy Conversion and Engineering Conference (IECEC)

2 – 5 Aug 2009
Colorado Convention Center
Denver, Colorado

The 7th IECEC will explore the future of clean energy systems through a series of panel discussions and technical paper presentations. This year’s hot topics include:

Alternative power systems – such as fuel cell technology and solar system technology

Biofuels, including biodiesel fuels and fuels created from food-waste

Electric power systems which would replace traditional fossil fuel based propulsion systems

Nanotechnlology applications for solar power systems, among many others. There will also be a discussion of future energy policy needs to answer the demand for “green” energy systems.

Featured Sessions:

• Apollo Anniversary Panel (Joint Session with JPC): Gerry Griffin, Glynn Lunney, Frank Van Rensselaer, J.R. Thompson, Harrison “Jack” Schmitt, and Bob Sieck
• Joint IECEC/JPC Session: Electrical Power Extraction from Propulsion Systems, Meeting Increasing Demands: Features experts in propulsion and electrical power generation to discuss the issues and effects of supplying large dynamic electrical loads from air-breathing propulsion systems
• Energy Policies for a Green Future: An overview of the current and upcoming policies and activities in government, industry and academia that will lead to more efficient, less polluting energy systems
• Impact of the USAF/SMC Lithium Ion Battery Standard on Future Spacecraft Batteries: A discussion on the issues and implication of the new lithium ion battery standard
• Joint IECEC/JPC Session: Biofuels for Propulsion and Terrestrial Power Generation: A look into biofuel development as it relates to both propulsion and power generation applications

And Much More!

This event will be co-located with the 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit

REGISTRATION

Registering in advance can save conference attendees up to $100. A check made payable to AIAA or credit card information must be included with your registration form. Advance registration forms must be received by 06-Jul-2009. Preregistrants may pick up their materials at the advance registration desk.

Click here to learn more about the conference and to register.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit

2 – 5 Aug 2009
Colorado Convention Center
Denver, Colorado

http://www.aiaa.org/events/jpc

Early Bird Registration Deadline: 6 July 2009

AIAA, ASME, SAE, ASEE, and their industry partners, Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, and Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, proudly invite you to Denver, Colorado, the Mile High City and Gateway to the Rockies, for the 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, 2–5 August 2009.

The 45th JPC will field a strong lineup of keynote addresses, panel discussions, and technical sessions, examining the future of propulsion systems and their ability to meet the demand for “clean aerospace” technology. Highlights of the conference include a panel on the X-51 “Waverider” scramjet aircraft as it prepares for its maiden flight, a review of recent progress in the field of constant volume combustion, an analysis of the future of gas turbine technology, a critical examination of the history of liquid propulsion flight, and a look at the future of hypersonic propulsion systems. Keynote addresses will explore recent innovations in aeronautical and exo-atmospheric propulsion, the future of the Constellation program, and recent innovations in space launch and space propulsion systems.

The design of our next generation flight and space systems will be dependent more than ever on high performance, increasingly efficient, reliable and affordable propulsion systems. Our ability to incorporate new technologies into aircraft and spacecraft will have far reaching impacts to the evolutionary roles these complex systems play in our everyday lives. Our ability to incorporate new technologies into aircraft and spacecraft will have far reaching impacts to the evolutionary roles these complex systems play in our everyday lives. Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, and Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control invite you to Denver and be a part of the exciting future of the aerospace propulsion industry.

Featured Speakers for 2009

Apollo Anniversary Panel:

• Gerry Griffin – Lead flight director in Mission Control for three lunar landings during the Apollo program, and was an integral part of the team that helped the astronauts of Apollo 13 safely return to Earth after their oxygen tank exploded on their journey to the moon.
• Glynn Lunney – An employee of NASA since its foundation in 1958, Lunney was a flight director during the Gemini and Apollo programs, and was on duty during historic events such as the Apollo 11 lunar ascent and the pivotal hours of the Apollo 13 crisis.
• Frank Van Rensselaer – Has held various management positions with NASA during a 20-year period culminating at NASA headquarters where he was a charter member of Senior Executive Service, earning two of the three highest NASA awards.
• J.R. Thompson – Was the fifth Director of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center located in Huntsville, Alabama. He served as Director from September 29, 1986 to July 6, 1989. Thompson also served as NASA’s deputy director from July 6, 1989 to November 8, 1991.
• Harrison “Jack” Schmitt – Played a key role in training Apollo crews to be geologic observers when they were in lunar orbit and competent geologic field workers when they were on the lunar surface. After each of the landing missions, he participated in the examination and evaluation of the returned lunar samples and helped the crews with the scientific aspects of their mission reports.
• Bob Sieck – Joined NASA at the Kennedy Space Center in 1964 as a Gemini Spacecraft Systems engineer. He served as an Apollo Spacecraft test team project engineer, Shuttle Orbiter test team project engineer, and in 1976 was named the Engineering Manager for the Shuttle Approach and Landing tests at Dryden Flight Research Facility in California.

Keynote:Innovation in Aeronautical and Exo-Atmospheric Propulsion :

• Dr. Werner Dahm, USAF Chief Scientist

Keynote:Innovation’s Future-Constellation Initiatives

• Brian Duffy, Lockheed Martin, Vice President Altair Program Manager

Award’s Luncheon Keynote: Innovation in Launch and Space System Propulsion

• Gen. Bob Kehler, USAF Space Command

Why Should You Attend?

Identify and highlight how innovative aerospace propulsion technologies get inserted into both new and evolving systems.

Attend special panel sessions with a focus on advanced system applications that can be used to showcase the propulsion systems, components and technologies that enable them.

REGISTRATION

Registering in advance can save conference attendees up to $100. A check made payable to AIAA or credit card information must be included with your registration form. Advance registration forms must be received by 06-Jul-2009. Preregistrants may pick up their materials at the advance registration desk.

Press Release for JPC: http://intranet.aiaa.org/industryresources/PDF/JPCRelease.pdf

Note seen below is applicable for both conferences:

NASA Conference Restrictions Lifted
NASA participation at technical conferences has been cleared per an April 10 NASA Interim Directive 9312.2. You are invited to read the Acting Administrator’s letter to AIAA. To read the letter, click HERE.

(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: Wired)

Image Courtesy: Apture

Seven billion gallons of gasoline. That’s how much fuel America consumes each year just running the air conditioning in their cars. And don’t think riding with the windows down is the answer; the Mythbusters have long since debunked that solution.

That’s 5.5 percent of the country’s fuel use, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says auto air conditioning contributes more than 58 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually. Factor in a 50 million additional tons of CO2 due to refrigerant leakage and you have a environmentally unhealthy result that no American would be proud of.

In the age of gaining independence from oil and seeking responsible consumption, the Department of Energy (DOE) has funded the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) to seek solutions to make air conditioning and other similar ancillary systems more efficient. The findings of this research can help automakers hit President Obama’s target for increased average fuel efficiency and put a dent in the carbon footprint of American cars. Research on cabin cooling efficiency is aimed at three areas:

(Source: Autobloggreen, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Guardian, UK)

• Financial crisis, pricey oil halve rise in CO2 emissions
• Developing nations now emit more than industrialised world

Image Courtesy: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)

High oil prices and the impact of a global recession halved yearly rises in global greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels in 2008, the first evidence of an impact from the financial crisis, a study said on Thursday.

Also for the first time, the share of global carbon emissions from developing countries was higher than from industrialised nations, at 50.3 percent. China recently overtook the United States as the world’s top carbon emitter.

The good news comes to us via a study by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) which points out that the use of biofuels and an increase in the use of renewables has helped achieve the encouraging result. It’s also worth noting that America actually reduced emissions by 3 percent and that the continuing increases are mostly occurring in developing countries. One final positive worth underlining is that 2008 was the first year investment in renewables was greater than investments in fossil-fuelled technologies.

Thursday’s data showed that global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels and from cement production reached 31.6 billion tonnes in 2008, up 40 percent from 1990 levels and a doubling since 1970. Scientists say that annual increases in global greenhouse gas emissions must level off and start to fall by 2015-2020 to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

Emissions increased by 1.7 percent in 2008 compared with 3.3 percent in 2007. Since 2002, the average annual increase was almost 4 percent, the study said.

Click here to read the results of the entire PBL study. Below is an interesting exceprt from the report.

Trends in USA, European Union, China, Russia and India

In total, CO2 emissions of the USA and the European Union decreased by about 3% and 1.5% in 2008, Although China’s emissions showed an increase of 6%, this is the lowest increase since 2001. Cement production in China showed a similar pattern, with a 2.5% increase in 2008, a drop from 9.5% in 2007. The declining increase of China’s emissions fits in the trend since 2004, when its emissions increased by 17%. Smaller contributions to increasing global emissions were made by India and Russia, which emissions increased by 7% and 2%, respectively.

Since 1990, CO2 emissions per person of China have increased from 2 to 5.5 tonne of CO2 per capita and decreased from 9 to 8.5 for the EU-15 and from 19.5 to 18.5 for the USA. These changes reflect the large economic development of China, structural changes in national and global economies and the impact of climate and energy policies.

It can be observed that due to its fast economic development, per capita emissions of China quickly approaches levels that are common within the industrialised countries of the Annex I group under the Kyoto Protocol. Among the largest countries, other countries that show fast increasing per capita emissions are South Korea, Iran and Australia. On the other hand per capita emissions of the EU-15 and the USA are gradually decreasing over time. Those of Russia and Ukraine have decreased fast since 1990, although the emissions in 1990 and therefore the trend are rather uncertain due to the dissolution of the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s.