A look inside a fully operational coal fired Co-Gen power station. The process of turning thermal energy into mechanical, and finally electric energy.

-PAmining on YouTube

INTRODUCTION

Highlighting the importance of federal investment in an interstate highway, President Eisenhower declared in his 1955 State of the Union address: “A modern highway system is essential to meet the needs of our growing population, our expanding economy, and our national security.” Fifty-five years later, President Obama also announced a transportation plan that would produce jobs and enhance national security. But this 21st Century plan is considerably different from Eisenhower’s, in that if successful, it would dramatically reduce our dependence on cars and the nation’s demand for oil.

In January 2010, President Obama announced the recipients of an unprecedented $8 billion federal stimulus grant that will jumpstart high-speed rail service on thirteen corridors across the United States. California is to receive the largest share of any state, $2.34 billion, with $2.25 billion allocated to a dedicated high speed rail system (to be matched by state funds from Proposition 1A), and the remainder allocated toward regional  transit projects. The likely scenario is that the majority of the funds arriving in California will be spent on construction in Southern California on a high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to Anaheim.

Excited by the potential of this investment for their constituents, many key political leaders are already touting the myriad benefits of a fast, convenient, and efficient intercity rail system, including lower carbon  emissions, improved mobility, jobs and economic revitalization, and less dependence on foreign oil, which in turn will strengthen our national security. United States Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood recently  pointed out in a press release that highspeed rail will “not only … create good jobs and reinvigorate our manufacturing base, it’s also going to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and help create livable communities. I  have no doubt that building the next generation of rail service in this country will help change our society for the better.”

Just as the Interstate Highway System transformed the way Americans live and where they work, high-speed rail has the same transformative potential. In the arena of transportation, it is a disruptive technology, with  the power – as LaHood noted – to reshape entire regions and communities in a more sustainable manner. Southern California will be ground zero for this transformation: of the seven corridor segments identified in the California High Speed Rail Authority business plan, Los Angeles to Anaheim is currently the most advanced in the planning and environmental review process, and could see limited service commence as early as 2017.

For a long time, Southern California has been known as a desirable place to live and work. The region has added over 2 million people since 2000. Despite a dramatic economic downturn, it is still projected to add over  6 million additional people over the next 30 years.

All of the Southern California counties have invested in transportation infrastructure during the last twenty years. Orange County, in particular, has seen heavy investment – mostly through the addition of freeway  lanes, a toll road network, additional high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, the inauguration of commuter rail service and surface street improvements, much of which was funded by a one-half cent sales tax known as  “Measure M”.

For the most part, these investments have delivered incremental improvements and capacity enhancements to the existing transportation networks. Highspeed rail will, on the other hand, bring to the Southern  California region a new and faster mode of interregional travel, with substantial time-saving and cost advantages over both auto and air networks for the vast majority of destinations served by the proposed CAHSR  corridor. This study will analyze some of the benefits likely to be reaped from high-speed rail, specifically in Orange County, and what strategies are needed to ensure that cities around the region can take advantage of  the investment about to be made in California. It will also examine high-speed rail’s impact in relation to recent legislative initiatives that mandate a reduction in statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (AB 32), and the coordination of regional land use and transportation planning (SB 375) in support of those reduction targets.

AB 32 and SB 375 have recently come under attack by those who perceive a fundamental conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. In particular, some economists predict that regulatory curbs  on GHG emissions could raise energy prices for California consumers and businesses, making the state less competitive and damaging the prospects for a recovery. Proposition 23, currently on the November 2010  statewide ballot in California, would suspend implementation of AB 32 until long-term unemployment in California reaches a pre-recession level of 5.5% for at least four consecutive quarters.1 Proposition 23, if passed, would also put SB 375 into jeopardy since the two pieces of legislation are highly interdependent.

High-speed rail’s delivery of both economic and environmental benefits therefore represents an important convergence of policy objectives, an opportunity to shift the terms of the debate by demonstrating how a  transformative large-scale infrastructure project such as high-speed rail would contribute favorably to both  desired outcomes: more robust employment growth, specifically in the “green” jobs sector, and a lighter  carbon footprint for each of Southern California’s projected nearly 21 million residents by 2035. The project’s positive economic impact deserves to be more thoroughly analyzed and understood not only by regional planners and policymakers, but the public at large.

Download full version (PDF): THINKING AHEAD

About UC Irvine’s Institute of Transportation Studies
www.its.uci.edu
“The Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS), a University of California organized research unit with branches at Irvine, Davis, and Berkeley, was established to foster research, education, and training in the field of transportation.”

Written by Allison Brooks

Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a community development model focused on nurturing healthy people and places and better connecting them to one another through a robust, “multimodal” transportation network. At its core, TOD is about connecting, or reconnecting, the fabric of our communities— imagine a quilt, if you will—where neighborhoods and places of varying shapes, colors, sizes and textures are integrated into a vibrant and cohesive region. Implementing equitable TOD involves rethinking the current paradigm, where a person’s zip code can determine important outcomes such as educational attainment or employment opportunities.

To that end, fostering TOD requires collaboration and coordination among a varied set of actors from different disciplines. These different actors operate at all scales in a range of capacities including transportation and planning, elected officials, non-profit organizations, community-based activists, , for-profit and non-profit developers, financial institutions, the philanthropic sector, and service providers, to name a few! They come from fields such as transportation, community development, economic development, education, business, health, labor and the environment, among others. Given the wide range of actors and disciplines that need to be engaged in the TOD process and the variety of places and conditions where development can occur, TOD is a complex community development model to implement.

But, at the same time, the range of benefits that can be realized by optimizing the symbiotic relationship between public transportation and comprehensive community development is very real, particularly for low and moderate income (LMI) individuals and working families. Some of these benefits include:

• Improved access to job centers and economic opportunity;
• Expanded mobility choices that reduce dependence on the automobile, reduce transportation costs and free up income for other purposes;
• Reduction in neighborhood isolation and concentrated poverty across a region;
• Walkable communities that accommodate more healthy and active lifestyles;
• Reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and thereby lowered greenhouse gas emissions;
• Reduced dependence on foreign oil;
• Potential for added value produced through increased and/or sustained property values where transit investments have occurred, which can be invested back into the community.

In recognition of these potential benefits, TOD has gained traction over the last ten years and is being embraced by federal agencies like the Department of Transportation (DOT), Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). DOT, HUD and EPA recently formed the Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities and have demonstrated a commitment to investing in equitable TOD at levels that can truly bring it to scale across the country. The Partnership also provides resources and tools to coordinated regional efforts that have introduced innovative approaches to advance equitable TOD
goals around the nation.

The purpose of this article is to define TOD, introduce the concepts and principles behind the term, and to present strategies for implementing successful TOD initiatives, especially those that benefit LMI individuals and communities.

Download full article (PDF): Weaving Together Vibrant Communities

About Reconnecting America
www.reconnectingamerica.org
“Reconnecting America is a national non-profit organization that is working to integrate transportation systems and the communities they serve, with the goal of generating lasting public and private returns, improving economic and environmental efficiency, and giving consumers more housing and mobility choices.”

REMU WL 160 waterpipes Backfilling

From MichaelAnkarhorn on YouTube

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An investigation led by expert hydrogeologists has identified 39 more coal combustion waste (CCW) disposal sites in 21 states that have contaminated groundwater or surface water with toxic metals and other pollutants. Their analysis is based on monitoring data and other information available in state agency files and builds on a report released in February of 2010, which documented similar damage at 31 coal combustion waste dumpsites in 14 states. When added to the 67 damage cases that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has already acknowledged, the total number of sites polluted by coal ash or scrubber sludge comes to at least 137 in 34 states. This total represents nearly a three-fold increase in the number of damage cases identified in EPA’s 2000 Regulatory Determination on the Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels.

Drinking Water Standards Routinely Exceeded On-site, Sometimes by Orders of Magnitude
At every one of the 35 sites with groundwater monitoring wells, on-site test results show that concentrations of heavy metals like arsenic or lead exceed federal health-based standards for drinking water. For example, arsenic levels were above the 10 microgram per liter “maximum contaminant level” (MCL) at 26 of 35 sites, with concentrations reaching as high as 3,419 micrograms (over 341 times the standard) at the Hatfield’s Ferry site in Pennsylvania. Table A presents a summary of results for select contaminants.

Drinking Water at Risk

Where off-site sampling of private wells occurred, contaminated drinking water was found in every case.
States do not generally require off-site monitoring of drinking water wells beyond the fenceline, even when there is documented contamination at the property boundary. Nevertheless, at four of the five sites examined in this report for which such monitoring data are available, test results show violations of the federal MCL or a federal or state health advisory at one or more wells used for drinking water. At the fifth site (Joliet 9 (IL)), although off-site monitoring data are limited and consequently violation of federal or state standards are not confirmed, at least 18 nearby drinking water wells were closed due to boron contamination.

State records indicate the potential for more private wells to be contaminated.
Contaminated groundwater underneath at least 15 of the 39 sites is within two miles of private wells, according to monitoring data and public information on private well locations at the following CCW dumpsites:  Independence (AR), Joliet 9 (IL), Lansing (MI), Cayuga (NY), Cardinal (OH), Gavin (OH), Muskingum (OH), Uniontown (OH), Northeastern (OK), Boardman (OR), Bruce Mansfield (PA), Hatfield’s Ferry (PA), Big Stone (SD), Fayette Power Project (TX), and Oak Creek (WI). Public information on private drinking water wells is often incomplete or out of date, but for at least eight of these CCW disposal sites – Joliet 9, Gavin, Lansing, Muskingum, Uniontown, Bruce Mansfield, Fayette Power Project and Oak Creek – there are 25 or more private drinking water wells at or within two miles of the site. At Joliet 9 and Uniontown, there are 90 or more private drinking water wells within a mile of the contaminated CCW disposal sites.

CCW contaminants may threaten public water wells or intakes, potentially requiring expensive cleanup.
Public wells that serve local communities have tremendous pumping capacities that often change the direction of groundwater flow and pull contaminated water into the public’s water supply. These pollutants must be removed at drinking water treatment plants, sometimes at great expense, to meet federal and state standards for safe drinking water. At least 18 of the 39 contaminated sites are located within five miles of a public groundwater well that could potentially be affected by CCW pollutants. In fact, there are at least five public water wells within a 5-mile radius of at least eight of those sites, namely: Flint Creek (AR); Montville (CT); Lansing (IA); George Neal North (IA); George Neal South (IA); Big Cajun (LA); Cardinal (OH); and Fayette Power Project (TX).

In several cases (e.g., Hatfield’s Ferry (PA), Gallatin (TN), and Johnsonville (TN)), CCW disposal sites are leaking their toxic cargo into rivers just upstream from intakes for public water systems. Often, metals like arsenic are discharged to rivers through adjacent groundwater. For example, monitoring wells in an aquifer that flows from the Hatfield’s Ferry (PA) site to the Monongahela River, less than half a mile away, have consistently measured arsenic at levels substantially above the MCL for the last five years. The contaminated groundwater discharges to the river are across from the water supply intake for the community of Masontown. Although historically, Pennsylvania has only required this public water system to test for arsenic every eight years, even in this limited testing, arsenic 2-3 times higher than the federal drinking water standard was found in the intake water at least twice since 2000. Groundwater discharges from CCW dumps may load drinking water sources with additional contaminants that must ultimately be removed from the water supply at public expense.

…

Download full report: IN HARM’S WAY

About Environmental Integrity Project
www.environmentalintegrity.org
“EIP combines research, reporting, and media outreach to spotlight illegal pollution, expose political intimidation of enforcement staff, and encourage federal and state agencies to take enforcement action to stop these practices.  EIP’s work has been cited in Congressional hearings and debates, in reports by the US General Accountability Office, and in frequent news articles.”

A road diet involves narrowing or eliminating travel lanes on a roadway to make more room for pedestrians and bicyclists. While there can be more than four travel lanes before treatment, road diets are often  conversions of four-lane, undivided roads into three lanes—two through lanes plus a center turn lane (see figure 1 and figure 2). The fourth lane may be converted to a bicycle lane, sidewalk, and/or on-street parking. In other words, the existing cross section is reallocated. This was the case with the two sets of treatments in the current study. Both involved conversions of four lanes to three at almost all sites.

Road diets can offer benefits to both drivers and pedestrians. On a four-lane street, speeds can vary between lanes, and drivers must slow or change lanes due to slower vehicles (e.g., vehicles stopped in the left lane waiting to make a left turn). In contrast, on streets with two through lanes plus a center turn lane, drivers’ speeds are limited by the speed of the lead vehicle in the through lanes, and through vehicles are separated from left-turning vehicles. Thus, road diets may reduce vehicle speeds and vehicle interactions, which could potentially reduce the number and severity of vehicle-to-vehicle crashes. Road diets can also help pedestrians by creating fewer lanes of traffic to cross and by reducing vehicle speeds. A 2001 study found a reduction in pedestrian crash risk when crossing two- and three-lane roads compared to roads with four or more lanes.

Under most annual average daily traffic (AADT) conditions tested, road diets appeared to have minimal effects on vehicle capacity because left-turning vehicles were moved into a common two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL). However, for road diets with AADTs above approximately 20,000 vehicles, there is an increased likelihood that traffic congestion will increase to the point of diverting traffic to alternative routes.

While potential crash-related benefits are cited by road diet advocates, there has been limited research concerning such benefits. Two prior studies were conducted using data from different urbanized areas. The first, conducted by HSIS researchers, used data from treatment sites in eight cities in California and Washington. The second study analyzed data from treatment sites in relatively small towns in Iowa. While the nature of the treatment was the same in both studies (four lanes reduced to three), the settings, analysis methodologies, and results of the studies differed. Using a comparison of treated and matched comparison sites before and after treatment and the development of negative binomial regression models, the earlier HSIS study found a 6 percent reduction in crash frequency per mile and no significant change in crash rates at the California and Washington sites. Using a long-term (23-year) crash history for treated and reference sites and the development of a hierarchical Poisson model in a Bayesian approach, the later Iowa study found a 25.2 percent reduction in crash frequency per mile and an 18.8 percent reduction in crash rate. Because of these differences, researchers from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 17-25 project team  obtained and reanalyzed both data sets using a common methodology. This summary documents the results of that reanalysis.

Download full version: Evaluation of Lane Reduction “Road Diet” Measures on Crashes

About Highway Safety Information System
www.hsisinfo.org
“The Highway Safety Information System is a multistate database that contains crash, roadway inventory, and traffic volume data for a select group of States. The HSIS is operated by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC) and LENDIS Corporation, under contract with FHWA.”

Two months ago we reported on the railroad industry’s reaction to the FRA’s directive setting forth the terms of the so-called “Stakeholder Agreements.” Those are the agreements between state authorities and Class I railroads that will govern the shared-use freight-passenger rail service in rail corridors receiving federal aid under the Administration’s high-speed rail (HSR) program. The FRA directive stunned and angered railroad executives by what they regarded as unreasonable demands, and burdensome requirements. For example, the government proposed to impose penalties on freight railroads for failing to meet on-time performance standards for passenger traffic. Railroad executives also objected to the peremptory manner in which the directive was handed down. Reportedly, they had no advance knowledge of the announcement nor did they participate in the preparation of the guidance. Although none of the parties would go on the record at the time as threatening to break off negotiations and walk away from the high speed rail program, senior railroad executives left no doubt that there were limits to how far they were willing to compromise their primary responsibility to maintain safe operations and keep commitments to their customers — a responsibility that requires giving precedence to freight operations. As we wrote at the time:

“The final act in this imbroglio has yet to be written. In the months ahead, a number of Stakeholder Agreements will be executed and submitted to FRA for approval. The agency will have an opportunity to acknowledge the railroads’ concerns and demonstrate flexibility in accepting [less demanding} terms. … We hope the Administration will come to realize that there is too much at stake to let overly stringent performance standards and rigid grant-making procedures become obstacles to gaining the railroads’ active support and cooperation. Surely, there are ways of protecting the public investment without imposing draconian conditions and unrealistic requirements that would lead to endless disputes, misunderstandings and litigation. We think that with good will on both sides, a workable compromise can be found. (”Is the High-Speed Rail Program at Risk?, NewsBrief June 16).

We are happy to report that reason and good sense have prevailed. In a press conference on August 20, FRA Administrator Joseph Szabo announced that the agency has withdrawn the controversial directive. We commend the Administrator for his integrity and candor in admitting that his agency “did not have an appropriate level of dialogue and vetting” with the railroads prior to releasing the directive. “It was poorly worded and poorly vetted,” Szabo said, accepting personal responsibility for the failure to consult with the rail community and recognizing “the legitimate concerns and fears” the FRA directive caused within the rail community. The Administrator promised to engage in a “constructive dialogue” with the railroads in redrafting the directive and pledged to preserve and improve America’s freight rail system. “We are not going to let anything harm our world-class freight railroad network,” Szabo declared.

These are reassuring words. But the devil is in the details. It remains to be seen precisely what concessions the FRA will be willing to make in its earlier stance of requiring measurable service standards, and how far the freight railroads are prepared to relent in their opposition to any form of quantifiable service outcomes. One thing is certain: the rail community will not let Mr. Szabo forget his pledge to “do no harm” to the freight rail system.

…

In the meantime, despite Secretary LaHood’s confident prediction that high-speed trains would link 80 percent of America within 25 years, the debate about the future of high-speed rail in America is far from over. With new high-speed rail lines requiring massive sums of money and long-term financial commitments, railroad industry observers agree that the program will need a dedicated source of funds. This raises three questions: First, will high-speed rail engender grassroots support for a dedicated tax-financed rail fund similar to the Highway Trust Fund, that could sustain a rail investment program over several decades? Second, will there be enough passenger rail users to generate sufficient tax revenue for such an ambitious  program (estimated at $500 billion)? And, lastly, will future presidents and Congresses share this Administration’s enthusiasm for high-speed rail, or will concern about budget deficits oblige them to focus on other, more urgent infrastructure priorities? Despite the optimistic rhetoric of HSR boosters and Secretary LaHood about the “inevitability” of high-speed rail in this country, there are huge uncertainties concerning all three questions.

Both sets of issues will be discussed at two forthcoming events: the former at a conference on “Passenger Trains on Freight Railroads” sponsored by Railway Age at the Washington Marriott Hotel on October 18-19; the latter at a National Press Club debate on High-Speed Rail, to be sponsored by the Progressive Policy Institute on September 29.

…

C. Kenneth Orski is a public policy consultant and former principal of the Urban Mobility Corporation. He has worked professionally in the field of transportation for over 30 years, in both the public and private sector. He is editor and publisher of Innovation NewsBriefs, now in its 21st year of publication.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

With over $787 billion in funding, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is one of the single boldest and largest investments in the U.S. economy in the nation’s history. The Recovery Act’s design was three-fold: to rescue a rapidly deteriorating economy; put the country on a path to recovery by putting Americans back to work quickly; and reinvest in the country’s long-term economic future, building a foundation for a new, more robust, and competitive American economy.

Within the reinvestment spending of the Recovery Act, over $100 billion is invested in innovative and transformative programs. This report explores four areas within those innovative programs in which game-changing breakthroughs are being sought, and in some cases, new American industries are being born:

1. Modernizing transportation, including advanced vehicle technology and high-speed rail;
2. Jumpstarting the renewable energy sector through wind and solar energy;
3. Building a platform for private sector innovation through investments in broadband, Smart Grid, and health information technology; and
4. Investing in groundbreaking medical research.

Modernizing Transportation, including Advanced Vehicle Technology and High-Speed Rail

In 2009, the U.S. had only two factories manufacturing advanced vehicle batteries that power electric vehicles and produced less than two percent of the world’s advanced vehicle batteries. The Recovery Act is investing over $2 billion in advanced battery and electric drive component manufacturing. By 2012, 30 factories with the capacity to produce an estimated 20 percent of the world’s advanced vehicle batteries will exist in the U.S. At full scale, they will produce enough batteries and components to support 500,000 plug-in and hybrid electric vehicles.

Between 2009 and 2013, when 20 Recovery-Act funded battery factories will be up and running, battery costs are expected to drop by half – cutting an electric car’s cost premium in half. Looking further into the future, Recovery Act-funded start-ups like Envia and FastCAP are pursuing technologies that could take us well beyond today’s best lithium-ion batteries. This will create lighter, cheaper, and more powerful electrical energy storage devices such as batteries, allowing for better mileage, greater safety, and better acceleration—putting the U.S. in position to build the best cars in the world.

Outside the Recovery Act, the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program is providing over $2.4 billion in loans to Fisker, Nissan, and Tesla to support three of the world’s first electric car factories in Delaware, Tennessee, and California, respectively. These investments will increase U.S. manufacturing capability in the near future.

The future of transportation in the U.S. will also benefit from better rail travel. With $8 billion in funds, the Recovery Act is beginning to make high-speed rail a reality across the country. For example, the California high-speed rail mega-project promises to alter significantly the transportation landscape in the state by connecting its largest metropolises with up to 220-mph service.

Jumpstarting the Renewable Energy Sector through Wind and Solar Energy

The Recovery Act is helping to deploy more rapidly the latest generation of solar power technologies while expanding manufacturing of these technologies here in the U.S. The Section 1603 Payments-In-Lieu-Of-Tax-Credits program is supporting more than 200 megawatts (MW) of solar projects that are already delivering solar power to consumers. In Pensacola, Florida, the program has helped fund the 25 MW DeSoto Solar Park, the largest photovoltaic power plant in North America that consists of over 90,000 solar panels. The Section 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credits are helping solar manufacturers like FirstSolar, which is expanding a large manufacturing plant in Perrysburg, Ohio. Loan guarantees are helping innovative thin-film solar manufacturer Solyndra build a high-tech solar module manufacturing facility in Fremont, California, with the capacity to produce modules totaling 230 MW each year. In addition, the U.S. Department of Energy has issued a conditional commitment for a loan guarantee to support the 400 MW BrightSource solar thermal project, the world’s largest solar thermal facility with approximately 349,000 mirrors.

In addition, the Recovery Act is helping to ramp up production of wind energy and its component manufacturing base in the U.S., maintaining strong demand and financing for projects and helping attract billions of dollars of additional private investment. The Section 1603 program has provided over $3 billion in payments-in-lieu-of-tax-credits to more than 100 wind projects in 30 states around the country, totaling 5.3 GW of wind power capacity. The Section 48C Manufacturing Tax Credit program awarded $346 million in tax credits for 52 wind manufacturing projects across the country, which will substantially increase U.S. wind manufacturing capacity to meet a growing market with domestic production.

The Recovery Act is supporting breakthrough innovations in both solar and wind. FloDesign in Massachusetts is developing a novel shrouded wind turbine design with advanced aerospace technology that should reduce the cost and noise of wind energy dramatically. Likewise, companies like 1366 Technologies and Semprius are developing new approaches to make solar cells much less expensive than today’s best thin film technology.

Building a Platform for Private Sector Innovation through Investments in Broadband, Smart Grid, and Health Information Technology

A stronger economy must also rely on smarter energy use, a more efficient health administration system, and more robust and wide-reaching information transmission network. Significant investments in broadband aim to bring America’s telecommunications capacity into the 21st century, increasing access, improving quality, and driving down the cost to access broadband for millions of Americans. In addition to the $4.4 billion provided to the Department of Commerce, $2.5 billion in funds was provided to the Department of Agriculture to increase broadband access in rural America. Millions of Americans, as well as tens of thousands of anchor institutions will have better access to broadband as a result. Farmers will be able to access real-time weather reports, water conditions, and crop commodity pricing, helping them be as competitive as possible in a global market.

To further empower consumers in their energy usage decisions, increase flexibility, and enhance reliability, a combination of Recovery Act funds and private investments will add 18 million new smart meters to the eight million currently in use. To improve system reliability, the Recovery Act will install more than 875 transmission system sensors that can alert system operators and help prevent minor disturbances from cascading into large outages. Finally, for further system reliability, the Recovery Act funds will help equip approximately 700 substations with automated devices to detect and respond to system irregularities, thereby helping to avoid outages.

The Recovery Act is investing approximately $20 billion in health information technology to boost significantly advancements in electronic health records, e-prescribing, e-care, and community health initiatives. Through the $250 million Beacon Communities program, communities will demonstrate the use of new technologies aimed at sustainable improvements in health outcomes, health care quality, safety, and efficiency. These efforts will not only cut certain medical costs, but also improve care. Finally, the rise in e-care technologies or telemedicine will allow medical personnel to treat patients remotely, while being able to monitor conditions and prescribe or administer medications from miles away.

…

Download full report (PDF): The Recovery Act

]]> http://www.infrastructureusa.org/the-recovery-act-transforming-the-american-economy-through-innovation/feed/ http://www.infrastructureusa.org/in-atlanta%e2%80%99s-tiger-bid-innovative-%e2%80%9cbeltline%e2%80%9d-takes-backseat-to-streetcar/ http://www.infrastructureusa.org/in-atlanta%e2%80%99s-tiger-bid-innovative-%e2%80%9cbeltline%e2%80%9d-takes-backseat-to-streetcar/#comments Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:08:12 +0000 Content Coordinator http://www.infrastructureusa.org/?p=3553 STREETSBLOG

Written by Angie Schmitt

For years, the city of Atlanta has been developing ambitious plans to connect its radial transit lines with a circular “beltline.” As envisioned, the $2.8 billion project would include 22 miles of light rail and recreational amenities, circling the central city, taking advantage of existing freight lines. For now, however, those plans are getting less attention from city leaders than a 2.6-mile streetcar line that would serve as an east-west connector for downtown.

Atlanta submitted its streetcar plans yesterday to the federal TIGER program, which will be awarding transportation grants to cities around the country on a competitive basis. In order to improve Atlanta’s chances, a separate application for $13 million to begin trail development on the Beltline was taken off the table.

View full version (Streetsblog.org): In Atlanta’s TIGER Bid, Innovative “Beltline” Takes Backseat to Streetcar

About Streetsblog
www.Streetsblog.org

Video by akjohngomes on YouTube