Image courtesy. www.DOT.gov

SALARY RANGE: $89,924.00 to $138,136.00 / Per Year
OPEN PERIOD: Friday, July 11, 2014 to Sunday, July 20, 2014

This position is located in the Office of Innovative Program Delivery (HIN), Project Delivery Team, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in Washington, D.C. The Office of Innovative Program Delivery, an organizational element within the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), provides national leadership, direction, and consulting services in new approaches for project finance, procurement (e.g., public-private partnerships (P3s)), and revenue generation (e.g., congestion pricing).  The office also provides for the oversight and stewardship of projects with a total cost in excess of $500 million.  HIN brings together experts on transportation credit assistance; project cost estimating and financial plan development; innovative finance; policy development; P3s; and tolling. 

This position is for the implementation of stewardship and oversight activities to monitor the cost, schedule, and performance of Federal-aid transportation infrastructure projects, especially major projects (those costing over $500 million) to identify problems and initiate action to mitigate implementation risks.  This position provides technical assistance and authoritative consultant services to FHWA field offices, State agencies, and other Federal agencies to assure that Federal regulations and policies are met in the development and delivery of major highway projects.

The ideal candidate will be a mid-career transportation specialist with a specialty in the stewardship and oversight of the major highway project delivery process.

Click here to learn more and to apply

The U.S. Federal Highway Administration has announced the availability of two positions to help support the use of second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) data. Duties for the Interdisciplinary: Operations Research Analyst/General Engineer include planning, initiating, promoting, coordinating, and monitoring SHRP 2 safety data dissemination and research activities including training, technical assistance, and tool development. Duties for the Interdisciplinary: Operations Research Analyst/General Engineer include creating data extraction specifications; and extracting and exporting datasets from larger databases such as SHRP 2 data. Both position announcements are open until May 27. Additional information on each announcement is available online at www.usajobs.gov or by using the links below. 

Position #1 – Interdisciplinary: Operations Research Analyst/General Engineer, GS-1515/801-13/14 
• https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/368928500 (Merit Promotion) 
• https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/368928200 (Public Notice) 

Position #2 – Interdisciplinary: Operations Research Analyst/General Engineer, GS-1515/801-12/13 
• https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/369270700 (Merit Promotion) 
• https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/369271700 (Public Notice)

via TRB E-Newsletter

Just as the nation watches nervously about the impacts of sequestration (while the political blame game rages unabated), the satirists at The Onion have profiled one of the biggest critics of this manufactured crisis – U.S. Department of Transportation’s Secretary Ray LaHood – and how he is dealing with the sequestration. Quite a funny one.

Related articles

• LaHood warns of flight delays if budget cuts hit – Los Angeles Times
• LaHood Tries to ‘Wake Up’ GOP on Sequester
• LaHood says compromise still possible on sequestration
• Budget cuts will cause air travel ‘calamity’, Ray LaHood warns
• FAA cuts would delay flights, LaHood warns – Newsday

It should be maddening for any tax payer in the country to see how the public dollars are spent wastefully on projects that are not really benefiting the community. Today’s Washington Post story on one such wasteful spending measure shows how badly the lawmakers manage the money, despite the pressure to not do so from the administrations (incl. current and the previous administration ). It explores an obscure federal program established by Congress in 2000 allows tiny airports to draw $150,000 in federal funds every year.  The article uses Oklahoma’s Lake Murray State Park Airport as a case study. This issue of wasteful spending takes added importance as the public are nervously watching what’s going to happen with the looming sequestration (scheduled to kick in on March 1) as the country is embroiled in a tough political battle to avoid further slide. Brilliant reporting.

And a few interesting nuggets from this Washington Post story:

• 88 shown airports, as reported, have no paying customers and no planes are based there. (check the interactive map that shows the airports and the number of flights each one received)
• The airports receive $150,000/year, as the result of a grant program established 13 years ago ~2000, which the post appropriately calls Congress’s golden age of pork)
• The looming sequester crisis would not touch the airport program. FAA allotted Lake Murray about $1,500 for each of its takeoffs and landings.
• In this particular case Lake Murray State Park Airport there is no control tower, no runway lights and also staff to monitor it. So what makes people visit?  Mostly for using the rest room facilities and occasionally for golf.
• According to local TV affiliate KOKH Fox 25, the Oklahoma Department of Tourism has tried to shut down Lake Murray State Park Airport for years, but Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission (OAC) officials say closing the airport would cost Oklahoma taxpayers $184,000.  Under FAA guidelines, the airport must stay open for 20 years after the OAC spends money on an improvement project.
• Despite pressures from all corners, the program has remained strikingly difficult for anyone.  If it is any surprise, even

  Pres. Bush opposed continuing the program but the Tea Party dominated congress decided to continue with it.

Click here to read more.

Related articles

• Pork relic: Tiny airport attracts lots of federal money but few planes
• It’s Plane Pork
• Sequester Could Close Local Air Traffic Towers
• Trenton-Mercer Airport in Ewing may close if federal budget cuts go through
• Budget cuts could mean FAA furloughs, air traffic control tower shutdowns in … – NewsOK.com

(Source: Imgur via Reddit)

TSA has a long way to go in reshaping/redefining itself in the public’s psychology…

The U.S. Department of Transportation will soon be seeking a Director of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS).  BTS, which is part of DOT’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), is charged with advancing rigorous analysis and the deployment of cross-cutting technologies to improve our Nation’s transportation system.

The Director position would lead the BTS, which is responsible for leading the development of high quality transportation data and information.  As a federal statistical agency, BTS provides an objective source of statistical analysis for decision making at all levels.

RITA is looking for a dynamic and visionary leader who can apply their expertise in the collection, analysis, and use of transportation statistics towards positioning BTS as an integral part of a Department of Transportation that bases its very significant investment and policy decisions on sound science and rigorous analysis.

In addition to possessing superior technical acumen, candidates must demonstrate an ability to lead a diverse team and promote cross-office collaboration in the pursuit of achieving organizational excellence.

RITA will soon be posting this position (on USAJobs).  If you know someone interested in this Washington, D.C. based leadership role with relevant experience and proven results please encourage them to contact Linda Riggins, Human Resources, at (202) 366-4847 or Linda.Riggins@dot.gov.

Note:  Received this from a USDOT source; please stay tuned for the official announcement on USAJobs.

(Source: Government Accountability Office)

Why GAO Did This Study

The New Starts program is an important source of new capital investment in mass transportation. To be eligible for federal funding, a project must advance through the different project development phases of the New Starts program, including alternatives analysis, preliminary engineering, and final design. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) evaluates projects as a condition for advancement into each project development phase of the program. FTA has acted recently to streamline the process. This report discusses:

1. The time it has generally taken for projects to move through the New Starts process and what Congress and FTA have done to expedite the process and
2. Options that exist to expedite the process.

In response to a legislative mandate, GAO reviewed statutes, FTA guidance and regulations, and project data. GAO also interviewed Department of Transportation (DOT) officials, projects sponsors, and industry stakeholders.

Image Courtesy: FTA

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOT consider options to expedite project development and continue to improve its data collection efforts. DOT agreed with the first recommendation but not the second, which GAO revised to better reflect FTA’s efforts to date and the ongoing need for complete and reliable data to help strengthen the program.

What GAO Found

Insufficient data are available to describe the time it has taken for all projects to move through the New Starts process. Nevertheless, 9 of 40 projects that have received full funding grant agreements since 1997, and had complete data available, had milestone dates that ranged from about 4 to 14 years to complete the project development phases. However, the data from these 9 projects are not generalizeable to the 40 New Starts projects.

FTA has not historically retained all milestone data for every project, such as the dates that project sponsors apply to enter preliminary engineering and FTA’s subsequent approval. Although not required by its records retention policy, FTA has retained milestone data from some projects longer than 2 years. However, GAO was unable to obtain complete and reliable project milestone data from FTA.

FTA officials acknowledged that, while not historically perfect, the agency has retained sufficient milestone data to help manage the New Starts program. Nevertheless, recognizing the importance of having complete milestone data, FTA has taken several steps in recent years to more consistently collect and retain such data. In addition, GAO found that project sponsors do not consistently retain milestone data for projects that have completed the New Starts process.

Congress and FTA have taken action to expedite projects through the New Starts process. For example, legislative action created the Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program (Penta-P) to study the benefits of using public-private partnerships for certain new fixed-guideway capital projects, such as accelerating project delivery. In addition, FTA has implemented administrative changes to expedite the New Starts process. For example, FTA has developed and offered training workshops for project sponsors and has introduced project delivery tools. These tools include checklists for project sponsors to improve their understanding of the requirements of each phase of the New Starts process.

Project sponsors and industry stakeholders GAO interviewed identified options to help expedite project development within the New Starts program. These options include tailoring the New Starts evaluation process to risks posed by the projects, using letters of intent more frequently, and applying policy and guidance changes only to future projects. Each option has advantages and disadvantages to consider.

In addition, FTA must also strike the appropriate balance between expediting project delivery and maintaining the accountability of the program. For example, by signaling early federal support of projects, letters of intent could help project sponsors use potentially less costly and time-consuming alternative project delivery methods, such as design-build. However, such early support poses some risk.

It is possible that with more frequent use of letters of intent, FTA’s commitment authority could be depleted earlier than expected, which could affect the anticipated funding stream for future projects. Furthermore, some options, like combining one or more statutorily required project development phases, would require legislative action.

Click here to download/read the entire report (in PDF).

(Source: U.S. Government Acocuntability Office)

Why GAO Did this Study

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

Image Courtesy: Apture

GAO was asked to:

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

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

What GAO Found

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

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

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

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

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

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

What GAO Recommends

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

Click here to read/download the entire report.

(Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office)

The U.S. transportation sector relies almost exclusively on oil; as a result, it causes about a third of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Advanced technology vehicles powered by alternative fuels, such as electricity and ethanol, are one way to reduce oil consumption. The federal government set a goal for federal agencies to use plug-in hybrid electric vehicles–vehicles that run on both gasoline and batteries charged by connecting a plug into an electric power source–as they become available at a reasonable cost. This goal is on top of other requirements agencies must meet for conserving energy.

In response to a request, GAO examined the:

(1) potential benefits of plug-ins,

(2) factors affecting the availability of plug-ins, and

(3) challenges to incorporating plug-ins into the federal fleet. GAO reviewed literature on plug-ins, federal legislation, and agency policies and interviewed federal officials, experts, and industry stakeholders, including auto and battery manufacturers.

Increasing the use of plug-ins could result in environmental and other benefits, but realizing these benefits depends on several factors. Because plug-ins are powered at least in part by electricity, they could significantly reduce oil consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions. For plug-ins to realize their full potential, electricity would need to be generated from lower-emission fuels such as nuclear and renewable energy rather than the fossil fuels–coal and natural gas–used most often to generate electricity today. However, new nuclear plants and renewable energy sources can be controversial and expensive. In addition, research suggests that for plug-ins to be cost-effective relative to gasoline vehicles the price of batteries must come down significantly and gasoline prices must be high relative to electricity.

Auto manufacturers plan to introduce a range of plug-in models over the next 6 years, but several factors could delay widespread availability and affect the extent to which consumers are willing to purchase plug-ins. For example, limited battery manufacturing, relatively low gasoline prices, and declining vehicle sales could delay availability and discourage consumers. Other factors may emerge over the longer term if the use of plug-ins increases, including managing the impact on the electrical grid (the network linking the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity) and increasing consumer access to public charging infrastructure needed to charge the vehicles.

The federal government has supported plug-in-related research and initiated new programs to encourage manufacturing. Experts also identified options for providing additional federal support. To incorporate plug-ins into the federal fleet, agencies will face challenges related to cost, availability, planning, and federal requirements. Plug-ins are expected to have high upfront costs when they are first introduced. However, they could become comparable to gasoline vehicles over the life of ownership if certain factors change, such as a decrease in the cost of batteries and an increase in gasoline prices.

Agencies vary in the extent to which they use life-cycle costing when evaluating which vehicle to purchase. Agencies also may find that plug-ins are not available to them, especially when the vehicles are initially introduced because the number available to the government may be limited. In addition, agencies have not made plans to incorporate plug-ins due to uncertainties about vehicle cost, performance, and infrastructure needs.

Finally, agencies must meet a number of requirements covering energy use and vehicle acquisition–such as acquiring alternative fuel vehicles and reducing facility energy and petroleum consumption–but these sometimes conflict with one another. For example, plugging vehicles into federal facilities could reduce petroleum consumption but increase facility energy use. The federal government has not yet provided information to agencies on how to set priorities for these requirements or leverage different types of vehicles to do so. Without such information, agencies face challenges in making decisions about acquiring plug-ins that will meet the requirements, as well as maximize plug-ins’ potential benefits and minimize costs.

The recommendations are listed below:

• To enable agencies to more effectively meet congressional requirements, the Secretary of Energy should, in consultation with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), General Services Administration (GSA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and organizations representing federal fleet customers such as Interagency Committee for Alternative Fuels and Low-Emission Vehicles (INTERFUEL), Federal Fleet Policy Council (FEDFLEET), and the Motor Vehicle Executive Council, propose legislative changes that would resolve the conflicts and set priorities for the multiple requirements and goals with respect to reducing petroleum consumption, reducing emissions, managing costs, and acquiring advanced technology vehicles.
• The Secretary of Energy should begin to develop guidance for when agencies consider acquiring plug-in vehicles, as well as guidance specifying the elements that agencies should include in their plans for acquiring the mix of vehicles that will best enable them to meet their requirements and goals. Such guidance might include assessing the need for installing charging infrastructure and identifying areas where improvements may be necessary, mapping current driving patterns, and determining the energy sources used to generate electricity in an area.
• The Secretary of Energy should continue ongoing efforts to develop guidance for agencies on how electricity used to charge plug-ins should be measured and accounted for in meeting energy-reduction goals related to federal facilities and alternative fuel consumption. In doing so, the Secretary should determine whether changes to existing legislation will be needed to ensure there is no conflict between using electricity to charge vehicles and requirements to reduce the energy intensity of federal facilities, and advise Congress accordingly.
• The Administrator of GSA should consider providing information to agencies regarding total cost of ownership or life-cycle cost for vehicles in the same class. For plug-in vehicles that are newly offered, the Administrator should provide guidance for how agencies should address uncertainties about the vehicles’ future performance in estimating the life-cycle costs of plug-ins, so agencies can make better-informed, consistent, and cost-effective decisions in acquiring vehicles.
• Once plug-in hybrids and all-electrics become available to the federal government but are still in the early phases of commercialization, the Administrator of GSA should explore the possibility of arranging pass-through leases of plug-in vehicles directly from vehicle manufacturers or dealers–as is being done with DOD’s acquisition of neighborhood electric vehicles–if doing so proves to be a cost-effective means of reducing some of the risk agencies face associated with acquiring new technology.

Click here to read or download the entire report.

(Source: Autobloggreen & Royal Automobile Club Foundation)

A new study by the Royal Automobile Club Foundation found that as many as 6.75 million British drivers are thinking about or could consider buying an electric vehicle – once they become available, of course. RAC surveyed 1,000 motorists over two weekends this month and asked the question: “Would you consider or are you planning on purchasing an electric car within the next five years?” Twenty percent picked either “Yes, would consider” or “Yes, planning on purchasing an electric car.” We’re right there with you, says the UK government, which will offer incentives worth up to £5,000 for EVs starting in 2011.

Also, the RAC points out that 20 percent of 33.8 million drivers means there could be a lot of people who want but can’t buy an EV. They say, “The RAC Foundation has discovered that by the Government’s own reckoning electric vehicles won’t be available on the mass market until at least 2017, leaving millions of potential buyers frustrated.”

Commenting on the findings, the director of the RAC Foundation Professor Stephen Glaister had the following words:

• “What the Government is in danger of doing is putting the cart before the horse. It is actively promoting the purchase of electric vehicles long before there is any chance of manufacturers making them widely available.”
• “It has gone out of its way to encourage people to make green choices, yet these choices are not yet realistic.”
• “Ministers’ thinking on green technology is all over the place. They talk of incentives of up to £5,000 for prospective buyers of electric cars from 2011. Yet at that stage there will be almost nothing in the showroom for people to purchase.”
• “The RAC Foundation fully supports the introduction of green vehicles. But electric cars are not the short-term solution. What the Government should be doing is improving the road network and encouraging manufacturers to refine existing technology. That means increasing road capacity to cut congestion and CO2 emissions; focussing on producing leaner petrol and diesel engines; and making smaller and lighter cars.”