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.

 (Source: Wall Street Journal)

A Journal front-pager recently noted an Arizona man charged with attacking a freeway speed camera with a pick ax. Here’s the rest of the story: He was fined $3,500, not given a parade.

But don’t despair. We still live in a democracy. One Arizona sheriff recently proved you could get elected by opposing speed cameras. Meanwhile, the state legislature is considering bills to dismantle the system created by Gov. Janet Napolitano when she faced a gaping budget deficit, before she escaped to the Obama Department of Homeland Security. Petitioners in Arizona are also gathering signatures to put the question directly before voters — speed cameras have never won when submitted to voters.

Even the Scottsdale City Council recently voted not to oppose the anti-camera bills in the state legislature.

Why is this important? Because Arizona, specifically Scottsdale, is home to the two biggest companies, American Traffic Solutions and Redflex Traffic Systems, in the incestuous world of promoting and operating traffic cameras for revenue-hungry governments.

Laid to rest long ago should have been the pretense that the goal is “safety,” not chasing cash. New York State, sinking under budget shortfalls, last week authorized a batch of new red-light cameras around the state. A recent investigation by the Detroit News showed that even conventional ticket-writing is driven by revenue needs. Said one cop: “When you’re being told how many tickets you need to write, to me that’s a quota.”

Consider: Red-light running and speeding, the two main uses of traffic cameras, are implicated in fewer than 8% of accidents. A far more prevalent cause of nondrunken accidents is driver inattention — one study estimated, in a typical case the driver’s eyes are diverted from the road for a full three seconds or more, fidgeting with a cellphone, disciplining the kids in the back seat, snoozing, blotting up spilled coffee, etc.

What’s more, if not for the idiotic diversion of research dollars to fuel economy, the most highly touted auto-industry breakthroughs today would be exactly in this area. Available now or coming soon are devices that warn a driver when he’s wandering out of his lane or when another car is in his blind spot, even applying the brakes to prevent a collision.

(Source: Good Magazine)

Crash test dummies, or anthropomorphic test devices, are replications of human forms and weight distributions, used to study potential human damage in car crashes. We’re all familiar with images of them flying through windshields or being restrained by seat belts and airbags in slow motion. But when looked at through a different lens, the models take on a surreal, human quality. “Crash Tests,” by the French photographer Charles Negre, offers a look at a number of unsung—if inanimate—heroes, without whom we drivers and passengers would be a great deal worse off.  Here is a sample (st one below is the dummy named, David) and click here for the complete picture show.

The one below is Roberto

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:  Greenwire – New York Times; AutoBlogGreen)

Chuck Hurley - Image Courtesy: Dickinson College

Hurley has served as CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving since 2005 and has spent more than three decades working on a host of driving safety initiatives. He previously held senior leadership posts at both the National Safety Council and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonprofit research group funded by auto insurers.

The insurance institute has been critical of past CAFE proposals and has backed an auto industry argument that a disproportionate focus on increasing fuel mileage would lead to smaller and less safe cars (See a related article on TransportGooru that discussed the latest IIHS crash test results correlating vehicle safety during crashes to the size and fuel effieicency factors of small cars). The group helped lead a successful industry push for CAFE standards that use an attribute-based system that requires cars and trucks to achieve different standards depending on each vehicle’s footprint.

Hurley’s work with the institute during the 1990s was enough to worry Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, which has advocated for fuel economy increases. “It would be awkward to have an administrator of NHTSA who’s spent much of his career attacking fuel economy standards that NHTSA administers,” he told the Wall Street Journal.

With exception of the fuel economy concern, Hurley’s nomination drew near-universal praise from highway safety advocates.  In addition to his extensive work on drunk-driving issues, Hurley has also worked with law enforcement agencies on air bag and seat belt issues, child passenger safety and teen driving initiatives.  “Chuck is a passionate safety advocate whose career has been dedicated to reducing motor vehicle deaths and injuries on the highways,” said Vernon Betkey Jr., chairman of the Governors Highway Safety Association.

(Source: Washington Post)

For the Defense Department, the largest consumer of energy in the United States, addiction to fuel has greater costs than the roughly $18 billion the agency spent on it last year.

One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds

(Source: Guardian via Tree Hugger)

The Guardian has a pretty shocking piece about giant cargo ships and the pollution they emit. The title of this post is a line from “confidential data from maritime industry insiders”, and according to them, the low-grade ship bunker fuel that powers cargo ships has up to 2,000 times the sulphur content of diesel fuel used in US, and European automobiles and emission control is practically non-existent.  Here we can see that the primary concern with shipping is air-pollution (“US academic research which showed that pollution from the world’s 90,000 cargo ships leads to 60,000 deaths a year in the US alone and costs up to $330bn per year in health costs from lung and heart diseases”). It does contribute significantly to global warming, but about 5-6 times less than land-based transportation.

Shipping by numbers (From Guardian)The world’s biggest container ships have 109,000 horsepower engines which weigh 2,300 tons.

Each ship expects to operate 24hrs a day for about 280 days a year

There are 90,000 ocean-going cargo ships

Shipping is responsible for 18-30% of all the world’s nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution and 9% of the global sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution.

One large ship can generate about 5,000 tonnes of sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution in a year

70% of all ship emissions are within 400km of land.

85% of all ship pollution is in the northern hemisphere.

Shipping is responsible for 3.5% to 4% of all climate change emissions

The calculations of ship and car pollution are based on the world’s largest 85,790KW ships’ diesel engines which operate about 280 days a year generating roughly 5,200 tonnes of SOx a year, compared with diesel and petrol cars which drive 15,000km a year and emit approximately 101gm of SO2/SoX a year.

Smart USA quickly responds to IIHS crash test results

(Source:  Autoblog, Jalopnik & IIHS)

“There are good reasons people buy minicars,” says Institute president Adrian Lund. “They’re more affordable, and they use less gas. But the safety trade-offs are clear from our new tests. Equally clear are the implications when it comes to fuel economy. If automakers downsize cars so their fleets use less fuel, occupant safety will be compromised. However, there are ways to serve fuel economy and safety at the same time.”

The three tests we have are between the Honda Accord and the Honda Fit, the Toyota Camry and Toyota Yaris, and finally the Mercedes C300 and the Smart ForTwo. With each we get a full speed offset frontal crash with both cars traveling at 40 MPH, destruction and carnage ensue and rightly so, there’s a lot of energy involved here. These are hardly scientific tests, and they represent the absolute most extreme crash scenario for these speeds, especially for the smaller cars. Ratings got from “Good” at the top of the scale through “Acceptable” and “Poor.” Considering this is one car bashing into another, the evaluation is somewhat subjective, but it gives an idea of relative performance. Let’s take a closer look at each.

 Click here to read the entire article and to watch two other awesome videos.  Seen below is the IIHS report in PDF format.  To download the report, please visit the IIHS website. 

P.S:  According to AutoBlog, folks over at Smart USA were not pleased to see the results of the latest batch of crash testing from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The IIHS did a series of frontal offset crash tests between small and mid-size cars, one of which included a smart ForTwo versus a Mercedes C300. While the results may have been what most people expected, they don’t correlate with the ForTwo’s results in standardized tests where the IIHS rates the smart as good in front and side impacts. The feds at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration give the smart 4 stars on frontal impact and 5 on side impact. 

The problem, as Smart USA sees it, is that the IIHS devised a test that no automaker has designed to and that they claim only represents about one percent of real world accidents. Smart has even set up a site for customer testimonials about the crash safety performance of their ForTwo. Typically, in the past, Smarts have actually done quite well in similar vehicle-on-vehicle tests, such as the ones conducted by Mercedes and Auto Motor und Sport after the jump.

(Source: Tree Hugger)

Leader in the Pack 
Rep. Sutton’s Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save (CARS) Act would give consumers incentives of $3,000 to $5,000 for turning in vehicles that are 8 years or older to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles or to obtain a transit voucher. She says that support is growing every day. The bill has gathered 21 co-sponsors so far, up from 19 a couple of weeks ago. The bill is still working out the metric of how cars would need to be traded in and what fuel efficiency would need to be for the new car. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has a similar proposal (with a short title of Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Act of 2009) that would mandate that the new car be 25% aboveCAFE standards . There has not been anything mentioned about how many cars one person or family can switch for the credit. Also, some states already have incentives for buying cleaner cars, so will individuals be able to get both state and federal credits? If so, in places like Texas , a person could get a combined total of as much as $8,500.00 for a new car.

Click here to read the entire article.  Here is the CNBC video of  the Cash for Clunkers featuring industry experts Dave McCurdy, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and John Wolkonowicz, IHS Global Insight.

 Note:  Below is a list of articles published on TransportGooru, offering insight into state of various “Cash for Clunkers” style programs implemented (or currently being debated) across the globe (Germany, UK, etc,).

Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save (CARS) Act revives “Cash for Clunkers” scrapping plan in U.S

Germany plans to extend Abwrackprämie aka “Environmental Bonus”

The bickering starts over the implementation of the Cash for Clunkers legislation

Obama Favors “Cash for Clunkers”

Germany increases subsidy to 5 Billion Euros, tripling incentives for its “Cash for Clunker” (Abwrackprämie) program

Britain mulls implementation of “Cash for Clunkers” scheme to boost ailing auto sales