GM, Segway to Make Vehicle - WSJ.com

GM, Segway to Make Vehicle - WSJ.com

Have a look at the photo in this story. Raise your hand if you live where it snows and tell me if you'd buy one, even if it came with studded tires?

PUMA obviously is a sunny weather city vehicle. They'd be great in Italy's narrow city streets, but will they make a two-seater? A model for use by people with disabilities might make sense.

Public Transportation in Vermont - School Buses

I was just thinking... Hundreds of school buses sit idle for a large part of the day and most of the summer. Why couldn't these be used to provide additional public transportation in this very rural state?

I can think of a dozen impediments, but does it make sense for them to sit idle so much of the time?

How To Pay For Surface Transportation Infrastructure

Below is an excerpt from the interim report by the National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing. While they haven't made any specific recommendations about how to fund the increasing demand for infrastructure upgrades, present taxation methods are clearly inadequate.

Vermont should consider new approaches to funding infrastructure, too. Increasing the level of taxation on a diminishing commodity, fuel, will not produce the long term revenue needed. Novel approaches are suggested to move the basis for taxation to usage of roads, instead of the surrogate of fuel, because fuels will be supplanted by electricity in the future.

One could tax electricity, I suppose, but determining which electricity is used for recharging vehicles is problematic.

One intriguing proposal would tax vehicle mileage directly with different rates for different weights and vehicle types presumably using an on-board metering system that automatically recorded and transmitted miles driven (and where?) using GPS technology. This seems like a good solution if (a BIG if) the privacy wonks can be satisfied.

"It is important to note that innovations in information technology are enabling new pricing strategies across all modes of travel. Technologies that can establish variable use rates based on time of day, type of vehicle, level of emissions, and specific road traveled are being deployed around the world. For example, on the federal highway system in Germany, heavy trucks are equipped with transponders and GPS systems and use an automatic toll collection system based on truck weight, level of emissions, and distance traveled. Transportation officials in the Netherlands are planning to transition to a satellite-based system that would charge drivers based on vehicle miles traveled (and potentially other factors, such as congestion)."

Perhaps Vermont should plan to be an early adopter of this system which would take years to implement. It makes the most sense in the long run.

"We provide in this report the criteria by which we plan to evaluate various funding sources and financing techniques. We describe the broader surface transportation system issues and challenges that provide the context for examining possible funding recommendations. And we sincerely invite stakeholder feedback on all aspects of our approach in order to help us develop constructive and specific recommendations that will support our nation’s future transportation needs.

Finally we identify some preliminary observations and invite comment on them as
well. In brief:

• System demands are outpacing investment;

• System maintenance costs are competing with necessary expansion of the system;
  

• The fuel tax, which has been the key federal funding source for our system, is no longer sufficient at current rates;
  

• More direct user charges should be explored; and We need not only more investment in our system, but more intelligent investment complemented by better operation of the system.

• 
  

I.B.M.’s Chief Sees Technology Leading a Recovery - NYTimes.com

The notion of leveraging technology to improve efficiencies on a massive systems scale is a wonderful idea and should be pursued. Obviously, the notion serves IBM's interests, but in the grand scheme of things can we afford not to do this to remain competitive with our economy?

Such a massive undertaking may not have access to the numbers of skilled people required to pull it off. An additional factor that will weigh against it is the dislocation of jobs. Efficiency improvements inevitably result in reducing and/or changing the type of jobs required.

On the one hand we need the momentum that technological innovation can provide, but it will be tempered with the inertia of its initial negative effect on people's livelihoods.

His speech is here.

I.B.M.’s Chief Sees Technology Leading a Recovery - NYTimes.com

Energy Musings

I'm not advocating cheap oil. Price signals are the best stimulus for change and we will gradually move away from our reliance on traditional petroleum for transportation. But we shouldn't underestimate the time it will take to change the transportation fuel infrastructure.For example, people are experimenting with hydrogen powered cars but the delivery and storage problems are BIG. The answer for transportation will be a mix of fuel/energy sources, but petroleum will be the biggest component by far throughout my lifetime.

Today, energy sources are not wholly interchangeable. Major reworking of our infrastructure, culture and economy will be necessary for that to happen. For example, electricity from 'clean' coal is not a direct substitute for petroleum until electric cars become far more widespread and they can be charged when and where needed. We'll get far quicker petroleum savings from millions of cars that get 40-50 mpg. Europe does it now. We can and should, too. We need far more low-sulfur diesel fueled autos.

Too many people believe that wind and solar are the answer to our electricity needs when 'clean' coal and nuclear are the only viable sources to meet baseload electricity demand which will increase under my scenario. I'll bet you my fuel cell powered wheelchair that wind and solar combined will contribute less than 5% of our total energy/fuel use by 2040!

I believe we can conserve and become more efficient in things that use all forms of energy by ~15% in the near term. However, despite our best efficiency efforts, demand will continue to grow as population increases in an electronic age.

I certainly agree that we would be better off ensuring our energy future than fighting in Iraq, but if "it's all about oil" as many contend, the Middle East will be critical to our energy supply for a long, long time. If we should not be there militarily, how would we ensure that supply continues?

My point is we must wean ourselves off Middle East, and probably African oil, too, for transportation needs, but that will not happen quickly despite our best efforts.

An Oil Quandary: Costly Fuel Means Costly Calories - New York Times

Are we faced with the law of unintended consequences as the demand for vegetable oils for fuel confronts the food uses of oil, thus raising prices for both? When the world's thirst for liquid energy sources competes with food uses, we have the makings of a catastrophe.

This is a fascinating analysis of the dilemma faced by poorer countries when prices of, in this instance palm oil, rise very rapidly because of demand for it to make biofuels.

The pressure on poor people will have disastrous consequences, not to mention the trauma to the land as more forests are cleared to plant palm oil trees. Food seems more important than energy, but at what price to we have conflict or starvation?

I expect to hear/read more environmental hand wringing spawned by this situation. The world's insatiable demand for energy is running headlong into an even more basic necessity, food. There are no obvious good solutions here.

Perhaps the world's gurus will have this on their agenda in Davos, Switzerland later this month. I doubt they have a solution.

An Oil Quandary: Costly Fuel Means Costly Calories - New York Times

Report predicts $203M shortfall for transportation: Rutland Herald Online

Here's a decent summary of the transportation and infrastructure funding dilemma facing Vermont. Of course, there's never enough money to fund all the wants, but now we're in a time where the needs go wanting.

For starters, the Legislature should demand that all transportation revenue go toward transportation costs, otherwise the notion of even having a Transportation Fund is diminished. That would mean $50 Million or so would not go to education. It should never have gone there in the first place. That $50 Million should not be replaced and state funding for education should be reduced by that amount.

I fear that's about as likely as climate change coming off the table in Montpelier.

 

Rutland Herald Transportation Story

A Taxpayer's Advice to Vermont Legislators

A slightly different version of this was published in The Colchester Sun on January 10, 2008.

Your comments, Senator Ginny Lyons, and Representatives John Zenie, Kristy Spengler, Jim Condon and Gaye Symington published in The Colchester Sun of January 3, 2008 portend the outcome of the second half of the Legislative biennium: Find more taxpayer dollars to spend on______ (fill in the blank).

The issues you mentioned include paying for, or "doing something about" health care, climate change remediation, energy efficiency and affordability, education and its funding, quality of Vermont life, economic development, affordable housing, workforce development, maintenance of highways and bridges, the circumferential highway, and developing a more robust public transportation system, among others. No one suggests spending fewer taxpayer dollars. Why not?

A reading of your columns would benefit from soft violins in the background to accompany the flowing rhetoric. However, snare drums and a few thumps on the bass drum would help. Missing from most comments is the harsh reality you face this session... where will the money come from to pay for all the services and improvements you hope to deliver?

How you plan to deal with these issues, as I read your comments, are by working together, providing leadership, homegrown ingenuity, promoting exercise and good eating habits, trend-setting, team work, supporting local businesses and farmers and diversified ideas. As valuable as these behavioral qualities may be in arriving at legislation, the harsh reality is most Vermont taxpayers want to pay less, not more, to live here.

Please heed our advice.Your best contribution and an example to struggling Vermonters would be a reduction in taxes, certainly not an increase. Please seriously consider reducing the size of our tax-supported programs that have taken on a life of their own. You have enabled government to grow too rapidly in the recent past, faster than any other New England state.

While probably too late this session, Governor Douglas, if truly serious about his affordability agenda, should submit a budget to you that is 3-5% less than spent last year. Expansive legislative thinking requiring more taxpayer dollars or redistribution of income to improve our already high quality of life should be off the table. Alas, because it's an election year, this cutback strategy is very likely not on your minds.

But if your Legislative leaders and the Governor can agree on a spending cap in advance of debating program details, you could reorient your thinking to less government, not more. I know the pressures on you will be enormous from all the special interest groups to increase spending. I sympathize with you in this regard, but the best approach to all of them is "we can't afford it."

Please, lawmakers, don't waste time fiddling with the world's climate this session. Arguing about global warming is a waste of your time and my tax dollars. Your debates can do nothing to change the dynamics of the earth. The only benefit might be for you to curry votes with certain constituencies.

Instead, support policies that promote a reliable energy supply. If you must have an expanded all-fuels conservation program, please fund it from the savings that are generated. That's much more equitable than redistributing income by levying surcharges on everyone's fuels to pay for energy conservation that benefits individuals.

Please don't fool around debating our carbon footprint. If you think that's important, more efficient use of energy and fuels will take care of that as a by-product. Don't scurry about trying to educate everyone about carbon credits and pollution trading schemes. There are as many drawbacks as benefits in that morass. And please, oh please, any mention of a carbon tax should fall into a black hole.

As an example of working together, how about a joint statement early in the session from the Legislative leadership about your shared priorities to set the tone?

Two final reminders... please spend less and go home early.

Vermont Transportation Investments

(posted by me in the Burlington Free Press' online forum on August 3; published in their print edition on August 7, 2007)

The Vermont Department of Transportation has been saying consistently for years that we need to move faster in fixing bridges in the state. Replacing a bridge is not a quick task with planning, design, permitting and available contractor capacity. The minimum goal for Vermont would be for our Legislature to commit to spending ALL transportation tax revenue (likely to decrease as vehicles become more fuel efficient and people drive less) on transportation issues. Even that would not suffice.

In addition, we probably should consider a significant increase in spending, probably by long term bonding. We could use the state's excellent credit rating to increase asset replacements, primarily bridges. This would have the advantage of forcing the commitment of future $ to transportation infrastructure rather than divert them to the political 'cause of the hour.'

If we continue to underfund the most basic underpinnings of our economy and way of life, that neglect will eventually come back to bite us and we should not expect the Feds to do more than they are now.

I believe we have a huge financial storm ahead as the infrastructure demands and the health care funding crisis may converge at the same time.

True leadership in state government would put this potential financial crisis scenario front and center for the next legislative session. It transcends next year's budget in importance.

Legislators...are you listening?

Vermont Transportation Energy Study

The UVM Transportation Center recently published this report about energy usage in the transportation sector. Some valuable information in the report. It should serve to inform policy makers about one aspect of Vermont's transportation sector.

I would love to see a study of the future costs of options to bring Vermont's transportation infrastructure into better condition.