Glenn N. Havinoviski is Associate Vice President for Transportation Systems with Iteris, Inc. in Sterling.  He was President of ITS Virginia from 2006 to 2007 and has been a columnist for the ITSVA Journal since 2002.

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

Imagine, if you can…

Intelligent transportation systems are on their last legs in Virginia.  There is no political support for congestion reduction measures that require any kind of budgetary investment.  There is no popular desire for new measures to provide more travel choices, like express buses, rapid rail, or HOT lanes.  No one really cares to see travel time information along the road or any information about accidents or closures.  We’d rather spend more time in traffic so we can talk and text and Tweet on our cellphones, thus causing more accidents.

And hey, now they’ve got iPhone apps for traffic information, which give you nice green, orange and red lines over Google Maps!  COOL!  Who needs those electronic signs and cameras and service patrols and control centers that are run by the Marxists anyway?

Hey!  Let’s get rid of VDOT!   And how about that big Federal bureaucracy which doesn’t do anything!  We Virginians are resourceful.  The roads might crumble but we can all buy big American SUV’s again and go off-roading and impress each other at church on Sundays!  And they can tow boats too, for when all the bridges fall down. Look at all the American jobs this creates! We can take our kids to our private schools in the woods that don’t require state funding, which is fine since we also want to get rid of those so-called public schools anyway!  All kids need to learn is the Bible and the Constitution, except for those last 15 amendments!

And who needs to worry about oil?  We’ll just drill here, drill now, on the shores of the Potomac!  Heck, let’s drill off Virginia Beach!  We all go to the Outer Banks and Hilton Head anyway!  We can deport all the immigrants, and suddenly it won’t  be so crowded on the roads!  No more smelly buses either! Let the French have their trains! We won’t need any more Statist engineers and planners to tell us what to do! Problems solved!  “Carry me back to old Virgininny….”

Scary, huh? What about this scenario instead?

(Approved Press Release) The USDOT Office of Public Benefit, as directed by the President upon his signature of the Omnibus Reauthorization Welcoming Enhanced Life and Liberty in 2010 (ORWELL 2010),  has suspended all transportation projects funded in part or entirely by private sector entities, except for those providing rail-based transit services to corridors of population density less than 50 persons per square mile. In all cases, maximum fares and rate of return for shall be unilaterally set by the President’s Private Sector Compensation Czar.

Under the provisions of ORWELL 2010, all road tolling in the United States shall be ceased as of March 12, 2011, at which time all state departments of transportation and public, semi-public and private transportation authorities and their assets will become subject to USDOT jurisdiction.

All traffic signals, cameras, sensors and other electronic infrastructure commonly associated with so-called “Intelligent Transportation Systems” that are not powered by recyclable farm organisms shall be removed from public right-of-way by January 1, 2011.

ORWELL 2010 has decreed that all limited-access highways which have not otherwise bio-degraded or collapsed onto themselves shall be redesignated as Advanced Non-Individual Managed Access Lanes (ANIMAL) facilities.  An ANIMAL shall not permit access to individually-driven vehicles, via tolls or otherwise,  but will permit properly-licensed buses, bicycles, solar powered vehicles, Harley-Davidsons, and Toyota Priuses.

Henceforth, on all non-ANIMAL facilities, all travel containing less than four passengers in (or on) a motorized vehicle will be permitted between the hours of 10 pm and 5 am Monday through Friday, and for six non-contiguous hours on Saturday and Sunday to be individually approved by someone in USDOT.

ORWELL 2010 has mandated that all residents of a State, US territory, or possession, shall reside in an urban center of 50,000 population or more unless they can demonstrate they are excluded or protected entities including organic dairy farmers, custodians of wind farms, Native Americans, Members of Congress, or mammals.

All fuel taxes will be increased to a nominal rate of $25 per gallon also effective January 1, 2011, the proceeds of which will be used to build passenger rail lines on urban streets and also to demolish any housing more than 10 miles from an urban center of more than 50,000.  All families will be given 6 months to acquire dwellings within government-designated smart-growth areas,  with dwelling sizes not to exceed 150 square feet per human, or 250 square feet per dog, up to a maximum of 826 square feet.

All cats shall be permitted to roam freely within the smart growth zone (please refer to ORWELL 2010’s companion legislation, “Pelosi-McCain Feline Freedom Act”).

All broadcast, satellite and cable television and radio stations along with electronic and material mailings which present viewpoints which are contrary to the regulations and mandates stipulated in ORWELL 2010 shall be reported within 4 hours to the Office of Public Benefit, under penalty of prosecution.

“Kumbaya….”

How far are we from either of these?  Really!

After all, we are in a battle for hearts and minds,  not to mention money.  ITS and congestion management seems to be lost in the shuffle here.  Take a look at what is really happening.

For example, Arlington County has recently sued the Feds and the Commonwealth over the proposed project on I-95/395 to expanding and convert the existing HOV lanes to High-Occupancy Toll lanes, demanding the overturning of the project’s environmental Categorical Exclusion and suspending the project until their objections (notably not enough emphasis on transit, potential harm to air quality, concern about congested interchanges and local roads as a result of the project) were satisfied.

And, although years ago families saw that Arlington had run out of room and housing stock and had no choice but to move farther out, the County said “the project actually encourages additional sprawl, further exacerbating traffic congestion and harmful air emissions.”  Chickens or eggs first?

(I can’t help but think back to that California Air Resources Board study in the 1990’s which effectively said that congestion was good because fewer cars can use the road and people travel slower.  Guess we can’t win now.)

On the other hand, several freedom fighters from the “additional sprawl” in Prince William County have complained that HOT Lanes would endanger their sluglines, as people who picked up riders for their trips to the Pentagon would now selfishly pay tolls and drive by themselves, while the jilted slugs had to make do with taking the lowly bus instead.

Never mind all this counterpunching flies in the face of the HOT lane successes (from both a revenue and a congestion reduction perspective) in California, Utah, Colorado, Texas, Washington and Minnesota,  a coalition of red and blue states if I’ve ever seen one.  And the I-495 HOT lanes construction, which has a much larger impact on the surrounding communities than 95/395 would, is surging forward.

But then again, we shouldn’t worry.  After all, we all know that ITS and congestion management are a significant means of reducing greenhouse gases and improving our environment, right?  It must be true, because we’ve been saying so for years.

Well, witness the big brouhaha over the “Moving Cooler” study for Urban Land Institute with support from USDOT, the Environmental Defense Fund, EPA, ITS America, and others, which was to provide some ammunition on projected benefits of various transportation and land use strategies in curbing greenhouse gases.  The study,  to many, has left more questions than answers.

The estimates for ITS, and operations benefits were said to be a cumulative 0.3 to 0.6% reduction over 50 years for all such systems deployed together, which angered many experts, including AASHTO.  But the other individual benefits for road pricing,  transit  and land use changes did not exceed 4.4% each, and for the most part averaged 1 to 2%.

So how, when the four areas are combined, was there a cumulative 18% to 24% reduction in GHG?  And how much will individual activities cost, especially when cumulative investment would be $50 to $80 billion per year for 40 years?!  The benefits, including “reduced travel and reduced fuel consumption” did not get contrasted with any opportunity costs (e.g., relocations, additional percentage of income devoted to taxes, job shifts or losses, etc) associated with redefining our life styles. So the actual personal costs may add to the already substantial investment, either by or mandated from government.

Considering Virginia legislators haven’t been willing to make the investment in even a rudimentary transportation improvement program in the state,  this would mean we’re headed toward a giant Federal involvement in our society with all the attendant issues that brings, like constitutionality.

I attended the “Moving Cooler” media and political event in Washington in late July, presided over by several legislators (notably Rep. Oberstar-MN, Rep. Blumenauer-OR, and Sen. Menendez-NJ).  I was also surrounded by many people in small bow ties and luminescent plastic bicycle medallions on their lapels, so we do know that land use, bicycles and transit were a big deal, and we were repeatedly told that the Dutch and the Danes do over 30% of travel by bicycle, and that the Spanish and Chinese had exemplary national rail investment programs.  And we all need to be just like Portland, Oregon,  OK.

So do we only have a choice between “spend no money, everyone on their own, God Bless America”  and  “shame on you, greedy and slothful suburbanite, come live in our dense community, ride your bikes and take the trolley powered by electricity produced by some coal plant far enough away it doesn’t impact us”?    In reality,  we are faced with both situations happening, depending on what state or community you live in.  There may be a choice between these two.  But if we are not careful, there may not be any choices in between.

This combination of willful abandonment of a public sector role in our infrastructure (right wing) and direct control of our private lives and wealth (left wing) are a scary combination, and one we have to address with reasonableness, pragmatism, and the best that technology can offer.  As always, we need to push some simple facts about ITS and clear-headed transportation management strategies, which I think more than other can provide tools that keep us from descending into an abyss we cannot control.  In other words, Virginia (and other states) must step up, or get stepped on.

The key words we must use are CHOICES,  QUALITY, SAFETY and MOBILITY.   ITS enables all of these things.

ITS provides the information so travelers can make choices on when, where and how to travel, and can achieve them through alternatives that are priced based on relative convenience and utility.

ITS improves the quality of transportation services by providing timely information about their operational status, as well as actively managing the operation of the freeway, the arterial (including the bike lane or bike path) or transit service through messaging, signals, vehicle monitoring, dynamic road pricing, etc. to reduce delays.

ITS improves safety by improving information by advising of the otherwise unexpected (incidents, delays,  speed reductions needed because of weather/pavement/operational conditions, and if IntelliDrive becomes reality, various warnings of conflicts at intersections).

And finally,  all of this facilitates the ability for individuals to travel when and where they want or need to, enhancing personal mobility. It also enhances interstate commerce, which is an integral purpose of our Federal government.  It says so in our Constitution.

To me, mobility is an essential part of freedom, whether you are red or blue.

Some places may choose to barely maintain their overworked, underfed transportation networks and not invest. Some others may be willing to make enormous investments which may impact the public significantly, and force them to make lifestyle changes which may or may not be in their own self-interest.  Either way, we have to balance self-interest and the common good.  And ITS should be a part of the overall solution.

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

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the author.  TransportGooru is proud to invite anyone and everyone who wishes to use this platform to engage the community in a social dialogue, there by creating a healthy debate on some of the pressing transportation issues that affect our quality of life.   Please register your comments below for the author so that he can hear the community’s voice on the issues he has addressed in the above paragraphs.

(Source: GAO)

Why GAO Did this Study

The federal government has increasingly focused on linking affordable housing to transit oriented developments—compact, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods located near transit—through the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) housing programs and the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) transit programs. GAO was asked to review (1) what is known about how transit-oriented developments affect the availability of affordable housing; (2) how local, state, and federal agencies have worked to ensure that affordable housing is available in transit-oriented developments; and (3) the extent to which HUD and FTA have worked together to ensure that transportation and affordable housing objectives are integrated in transit-oriented developments. To address these issues, GAO reviewed relevant literature, conducted site visits, and interviewed agency officials.

What GAO Found

Characteristics of transit-oriented developments can increase nearby land and housing values, however determining transit-oriented development’s effects on the availability of affordable housing in these developments are complicated by a lack of direct research and data. Specifically, the presence of transit stations, retail, and other desirable amenities such as schools and parks generally increases land and housing values nearby. However, the extent to which land and housing values increase—or in the rare case, decrease—near a transit station depends on a number of characteristics, some of which are commonly found in transit-oriented developments. According to transit and housing stakeholders GAO spoke with, higher land and housing values have the potential to limit the availability of affordable housing near transit, but other factors—such as transit routing decisions and local commitment to affordable housing—can also affect availability.

Few local, state, and federal programs are targeted to assisting local housing and transit providers develop affordable housing in transit-oriented developments. The few targeted programs that exist primarily focus on financial incentives that state and local agencies provide to developers if affordable housing is included in residential developments in transit-oriented developments. However, GAO found that housing developers who develop affordable housing in transit-oriented developments generally rely on local and state programs and policies that have incentives for developing affordable housing in any location. HUD and FTA programs allow local and state agencies to promote affordable housing near transit, but rarely provide direct incentives to target affordable housing in transit-oriented developments.

Since 2005, HUD and FTA, and more recently DOT, have collaborated on three interagency efforts to promote affordable housing in transit-oriented developments including (1) an interagency agreement, (2) a HUD-FTA action plan, and (3) a new DOT-HUD partnership. While these interagency efforts have produced numerous strategies, local housing and transit officials told GAO that these strategies had little impact, in part, because they have yet to be implemented. However, the agencies have not yet developed a comprehensive, integrated plan to implement all efforts, and without such a plan, the agencies risk losing momentum. GAO has previously identified key practices that could enhance and sustain collaboration among federal agencies; when compared to these practices, GAO found that HUD, FTA, and DOT have taken some actions consistent with some of these practices—such as defining a common outcome. However, weaknesses in agency housing data and analytical transportation planning methods will limit these agencies’ ability to effectively monitor, evaluate, and report results—another key collaboration practice. GAO found that other collaboration practices, such as establishing compatible policies and procedures, could be taken to strengthen collaboration. Finally, without a more formalized approach to collaboration, including establishment of memorandum of agreements, these agencies may not effectively leverage their unique strengths.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending that DOT and HUD develop a plan for implementing interagency efforts to promote affordable housing in transit-oriented developments, ensure they collect sufficient data to assess the results of these efforts, and formalize key collaboration practices. DOT and HUD agreed to consider the report’s recommendations.

(Sources contributing to this hybrid report: Boston.com, ULTraPRT.com & ABC7)

The city of San Jose is planning to build a PRT system that will run between the airport and a Bay Area Rapid Transit station as well as a nearby light rail station. They say it will include up to five stations, but this and other details are still being worked out.

Back in 2008, the city has issued a request for proposals and allotted $4 million to conduct an economic and technical evaluation, and then to work with a vendor. When San Jose compared PRT with an automated people mover, the kind of large, driverless shuttle that is common at airports, officials decided that PRT would be cheaper and more convenient for passengers. The government has not sworn off other options during this exploratory phase, but officials say they will most likely proceed with a PRT system.

Image Courtesy: ULTra PRT - Click the image for more details

One of the vendors, ULTra PRT whose first deployment is scheduled for London Heathrow Airport in Spring 2010, expected to serve Heathrow’s new Terminal 5, has published more details on this project.  The website notes ULTra PRT is an electric, 200-mpg-equivalent, elevated transit system with many 5-person vehicles.  Working as circulator transit for office parks, airports, universities, and other major activity centers, PRT is faster than a car. In these applications, PRT makes carpooling and transit more effective, by solving the “last mile problem.”

Laura Stuchinksy is a sustainability officer for San Jose’s Department of Transportation. She and other city officials are considering the idea of having such a public pod system link the Mineta San Jose International Airport with area businesses, hotels and other nearby transit options, like Caltrain, BART and the VTA Light Rail.

PRT also enables longer bike commutes and shopping trips.  The only existing, functioning example in the world is an eight-mile network built in the 1970s to move people around the West Virginia University campuses (which also happens to be TransportGooru’s Alma Mater; enjoyed riding this system while studying there back in the 90s).

San Jose is anticipating population growth of a half million people over the next 30 years, so an automated pod transit system could certainly improve quality of life in the city – plus generate thousands more clean-tech jobs. Here is a video  coverage of this story (courtesy of ABC 7).

(Source:  WUSA9.com & Moving Momentarily)

Washington’s aging Metro system will be getting a 21st century security makeover that will include video cameras capable of integrating with other “facial recognition” systems in use in the National Capital region.

Some $78 million in grants for enhanced security were recently approved by the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security.  Grants also include money for 20 additional transit police officers, 3 bomb-sniffing dog teams and security training for 9,000 “front line” employees. The lion’s share of of the grant money will be spent on enhanced video surveillance of Metro’s sprawling rail and bus system.

And $27.8 million in grants from the Department of Homeland Security will pay for cameras on buses, in ventilation shafts, at station entrances and near the end of platforms over the next few years. $7.1 million is designated to monitor passengers inside rail cars. Metro Transit Police officers will be able to view in-railcar cameras in real-time on portable computers.

Moving momentarily editor poses an interesting question to the readers and riders: How do you feel about Metro getting federal monies for facial recognition technology at stations? Does it make the system safer?  Register your thoughts below in the comments section.

Funding of transportation-related infrastructure is at a crossroads. Traditional funding mechanisms, such as general and specific tax revenues, are proving to be insufficient to maintain existing facilities and fund expanded capacity. Infrastructure providers and operators are looking to users to make up for the shortfall. Transport-related infrastructure offers an exceptional opportunity for raising funds to establish and/or sustain such infrastructure while providing an attractive return on investment to both public and private investors. Key to achieving such returns are the prices charged to users. But how should user charges be set?

• Should every user pay the same fee?
• Is it practical, commercially worthwhile, and socially acceptable to charge differential prices?
• How should the price be set relative to the cost of alternatives modes or routings?
• How are these pricing principles changed when the facility is congested?
• Can pricing be used to reduce the problems of congestion?
• How does private operation of a facility change the pricing objectives?
• How might the public sector regulate prices?

These questions and more will be addressed in this two-and-half day course offered by the Transportation Center at Northwestern University.

Click Here for a Full-Brochure of the Program.

View Faculty

Facilities & Location

Registration & Fee*Registration

Program Fee (after 10.5.09) $2,700
Early Registration Fee (before 10.5.09) $2,160
Government & academic rate $2,160
Registration

Who Should Attend

The course is aimed at professionals who currently, or might in the future, set user charges; financial personnel; and engineers and project managers who oversee facility maintenance and new construction. It is also applicable to consultants to infrastructure providers, and those who finance infrastructure projects.

Course Format

Program content will be thoroughly integrated by the course faculty, so that participants will emerge with a comprehensive understanding and perspective of transportation infrastructure pricing strategies.  The focus of the course is on the economics of pricing. Some prior knowledge of economics, such as might be obtained from an introductory college level microeconomics course, will be useful.

Topics to be covered include:Full Program Schedule

For additional information please visit the Northwestern University Transportation Center website or contact: Ms. Diana Marek, Program Registrar – 847-491-2280; dmarek@northwestern.edu

(Source: Washington Post)

Forget about getting more money for Metro or whether to fire the general manager. The real issue is poor customer service: mysterious train halts, boarded-up escalators, rude station attendants.

That, at least, is the view of a bearded, 41-year-old former news reporter who writes the successful gadfly blog with the off-color title Unsuck DC Metro. He doesn’t want his name published, saying he’s received several threats over blog posts that embarrassed Metro employees. On that condition, however, he agreed to meet for lunch for his first full interview and discuss what he thinks ails Metro following the toughest three months in the transit system’s 33-year history.

The blogger, whose site is http://unsuckdcmetro.blogspot.com, bases his judgment partly on personal experience but mostly on the thousands of e-mails, comments, photographs and Twitter messages he’s received since he started in January. He gets more than 1,000 hits a day and has nearly 1,400 followers on Twitter — very near the approximately 1,650 following Metro’s own Twitter site.

General Manager John B. Catoe Jr., whose contract was just extended for three years, should pay attention. The bloggers have come to speak for Metro’s core customers and serve as a kind of collective conscience for the system.

To its credit, Metro responds to bloggers’ queries and, despite some understandable tensions, deals with them professionally. Other bloggers following Metro include Greater Greater Washington, Moving Momentarily, Why I Hate DC, Infosnack and DCist (along with such mainstream media blogs as The Post’s Get There, which features Dr. Gridlock).

Mr. Unsuck decided to blog after he changed jobs in November and began commuting regularly on the Orange Line. He was surprised when trains stopped regularly mid-trip and when, in his first week, he had to get off and wait three or four times when a train was suddenly taken out of service. Compared with foreign systems he knew, “I just felt there was something wrong with this one,” he said.

His blogging is part-time and unpaid. On slow days, he works on the blog for 20 minutes in the morning and 20 minutes after work. A lengthy posting might take several hours. The lunch I bought him (his share was $27.50) was the first material benefit he’d received.

Click here to read the entire article.

Note: Transportgooru congratulates fellow bloggers Greater Greater Washington, Moving Momentarily, Why I Hate DC, Infosnack and DCist for the great job they have done in getting the Metro to pay attention to the Metro riders’ issues.   If anything, the community is glad to have these platforms to share their agonizing commuter tales & Metro’s woeful performance/behavior.   Hat tip to all these bloggers for their community service!

(Source: Transportation for America; USA Today)

A yearly census survey released Monday illustrates the continuation of a trend that started well before the recession: Americans are taking steps to reduce their dependence on cars, and are looking for other options for getting around. The daily drumbeat of high unemployment, home foreclosures and plummeting retail sales drowns out a less obvious impact of the recession: its influence on America’s lifestyle.  Rates of solo driving and car ownership are dropping, according to this story in the USA Today about new census data. The paper cites a census report showing drops in both Americans who drove alone to work and in overall car ownership.

Commuting. The share of workers who drove to work alone has dropped to 75.5% from 76% the past two years — a possible consequence of high gas prices and the recession.

(Source: CarFreeMetroDC)

Car Free Day is an international event celebrated every September 22nd in which people are encouraged to get around without their car – highlighting transit, bicycling, walking and all alternative modes of transportation. By taking a fair number of cars off the roads people who live and work there are given a chance to consider how their neighborhood might look and work with a lot fewer cars. Click here for more information about World Car Free Day.

Washington celebrated Car Free Day for the first time in 2007 with about 1,000 District residents committing to be car free for the day. Last year, Car Free Day expanded to the entire Washington Metropolitan Area, and 5,445 residents throughout the region pledged to be car free. This year we hope even more drivers throughout the region will leave their cars at home or go “car lite” by sharing a ride to work. By taking the Car Free Challenge, participants not only help to improve air quality, save money, and reduce their carbon footprint, but also get a chance to win great prizes at the event.

There are a number of regional resources that can help you be Car Free or Car Lite.

• Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for bus and rail information.
• Washington Area Bicyclist Association for bike routes and safe cycling information.
• Commuter Connections for information on carpooling, vanpooling, telework, guaranteed ride home and more.
• General Services Administration for Telework Center information.
• Telework Exchange information for the Federal telework community
• If you live, work or visit Arlington visit our World Car-Free Day page.
• Commuter Trains, VRE for Virginia or MARC for Maryland.

(Source: NPR’s Talk of the Nation)

This evening I was listening to an interesting piece (click here to listen to the audio) on NPR’s Talk of the Nation hosted by Neal Conan.  The program’s guest was Chris Steiner, author of this book: $20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better, who says our lives would be a lot happier and healthier if gas prices rose into the double digits.

Image Courtesy: NPR

Last year, gas prices soared over four dollars a gallon and Americans responded by driving a hundred billion fewer miles than the year before. Right now, at $2.50 a gallon or so, things seem back to normal. But writer Christopher Steiner argues that’s a delusion. He thinks we need to prepare for life at six, 10, even 20 dollars a gallon, prices which will change a lot more than our driving habits. They will transform what we eat, where we live, and how we view the world. And while there will be losers, he believes the airline industry will largely disappear, for example, for the most part, he asserts our lives will be better.

The following excerpt from his book paints a scary (and also good) picture:  Many people, quite understandably, don’t consider the implications of expensive gasoline so grand. The fact remains that the price of oil will inevitably rise, however. Two simple factors are responsible: first, we’re running out of oil (albeit slowly) and second, world demand will continue to rise for decades. We use six barrels of oil for every one we find. Half of the world’s petroleum comes from 3% of its oil fields — and those fields are old. The average age of the world’s 14 largest oil fields: 50 years, the exact age when most fields’ productions start an irreversible ebb. On the demand side, consider this: There are 1 billion people on the globe living what would be considered an American-style life, including ourselves. By 2040, that number will triple. The world’s burgeoning middle class will demand oil and it will get oil. Steady price increases are academic. Economics 101: Supply down, Demand up = higher prices.

The changes to our society will begin at $6 per gallon and continue on from there, affecting things far beyond the kinds of cars we drive and how often we drive them. America’s obesity rate will fall. Mass transit will spread across the country. Plane graveyards will overflow. We’ll lose the option to cheaply travel by plane, but high-speed train networks will slowly snake state to state. Disneyworld will lock its gates, Las Vegas’ strip will shrink to half its size. Our air will be cleaner. Cities like Detroit, St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Milwaukee will revive at $12 per gallon, their streets rife with commerce, people and stores. The exurbs of America, where we’ve poured so much of our wealth during the last several decades, will atrophy, destroying the equity of those who held fast. Wal-Mart will go bankrupt at $14 per gallon and manufacturing jobs will return to the U.S. en masse. When gas reaches $16 per gallon, Michael Pollan will get the food world he lobbies for in The Omnivore’s Dilemma.

Recently, NY Times has also reviewed Mr. Steiner’s work.  Writing about this NY Times review on his blog, Mr. Steiner says ” The Times neither praised the book nor panned it. The review proceeded as cautious and as neutral as would seem possible, with a bit of skepticism tossed in. It was reviewed in the Business Section, however, not in Styles or Books, so that may explain the stern pragmatism of the reviewer.”

Here is an excerpt from NY Times review:  “The book’s arguments are sometimes overstated in hyperbolic prose. In the chapter about the end of the airline industry as we know it, it says that some companies will be “permanently torpedoed” by high gas prices. It warns that a “giant herd of people” will lose their jobs. And it says that our grandchildren will “undoubtedly gawp in awe” when we recount our childhood trips to Disneyland. Well, that’s something to look forward to in our old age.”

If you are one of  those people who have already read his book, let us know what do you think.  Worth a buy??

Click here to read the entire transcript from this interview.

(Source: Greenwire @ New York Times)

According to a Center for Public Integrity report released yesterday, there are nearly 1,800 special interest groups lobbying Congress on the transportation bill, ranging from local officials and planning agencies to real estate companies, construction firms and universities. In the first half of this year, the groups employed more than 2,000 lobbyists and spent an estimated total of $45 million on their transportation lobbying.

The road to reforming the nation’s transportation systems looks to be a long and winding one.

Once lawmakers decide when to move forward with the sweeping overhauls they promise, they will need to find a way to pay for it. And once that difficult task is accomplished, the debate will only grow more complicated.

Many in the transportation community agree the next multi-year surface transportation bill needs to significantly boost federal funding for the nation’s roads, rails and bridges. But the consensus soon begins to crumble when the issue turns to how to pay for the overhaul — with lawmakers loath to tell Americans they will need to foot the bill and the rest of the transportation community agreeing that is the only option to pay for it (E&E Daily, Sept. 15).

But even off the Hill, where key players agree massive reform is needed to make the system more performance-based and effective, there is no consensus on exactly what that new system would look like and what those performance goals should be.

Many of the goals discussed at the invitation-only event are conflicting by nature. The usual suspects include the funding ratio for highways and transit systems, and the rate of return that individual states see from taxes they pay to finance the nation’s road and rail work.

Robert Atkinson, who chaired one of two congressionally created blue ribbon panels to examine transportation investment needs, said his panel, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, did not even broach the subject of where the increased investment should be spent in its report.

According to government estimates, the transportation sector accounts for roughly a third of U.S. carbon emissions, and Democrats have vowed to recast the nation’s roads and rails in a “greener” light.

But many state highway departments that had previously voiced support for the new environmental focus are now worrying that the emissions goals may grow overly ambitious and threaten to deliver another blow to both the economy and their efforts to repair and replace crumbling roads and bridges (Greenwire, Aug. 27)

Congress must also decide whether or not to welcome the private sector into the transportation field by giving firms long-term leases on public roads and bridges, effectively turning public infrastructure into a private product.

Click here to read the entire article.  For those wondering what is in the minds of our lawmakers drafting the reauthorization bill, here is congressman Oberstar’s handwritten scrap-paper version (pulled right from the House T&I Committee website, which has a lot of interesting materials to read on this subject).  Though it is not very detailed, it offers a general sensing of the direction he is taking (e.g., consolidating the existing behemoth (108 programs) into 4 categories to simplify the mgmt. structure, adding Office of Livability & Office of Expedited Project Delivery to the FHWA, etc.)