|
|
|
|
There are many ways to generate electricity. To name just a few that we know we have dynamo(use for bicycles), turbine being turned by water, solar cell using sun lights, battery being recharged by alternator as in car and many more that created pollution problem. But here is a new potential sources of lights: vehicles headlights that can probably be trapped or tapped using fiberoptics or present day technology. This can be used to light post lamp in our cities all over the world reducing loads on POWER GRIDs which eventually results in pollution reduction. The operation will begin at night time because traffic lights are acive at that time. This will only be tried first on our busy streets using sensitive materials that can distribute lights on different parts of the city. Therefore this will require a new fiberoptic grid that might in the long run be shared with internet and other communication systems in place to avoid crowding that are already inherent in our cities/towns power systems. At any given nights cities around the world glitter. Thats our sources of energy in the future. It probably can be used to charged batteries for electric cars as well. It will be limited but no busy streets will run out of it rain or shine as long as the traffic goes.
|
|
|
Here is link to my OpEd published today in NYTimes http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12chase.html?ref=opinion
If we required carmakers to make much more sensor data read-only and accessible through the Onboard Diagnostic unit, innovators could develop all sorts of powerful tools. Car owners could opt in to give anonymized data to manufacturers who could spot weird car behavior early.
|
|
|
Vis-a-vis Google - Allow DOT employees 10-20% of their weekly schedule to work on innovative projects and ideas. These novel solutions could be used to generate participation from entrepreneurs and non-profits, thus generating more income.
|
|
|
DOT should create a key word searchable database of letters received from and written to Members of Congress on the DOT website. I believe making this information available to the public would increase transparency.
|
|
|
Corrosive substances are defined as chemicals that cause visible destruction of, or irreversible alterations in, living tissue by chemical action at the site of contact. Dermal corrosivity testing is conducted by the Department of Transportation (DOT) to identify chemicals that potentially pose this hazard to humans. Test results are used to classify and label chemicals with regard to this potential hazard so that consumers and workers can take appropriate precautions to prevent injury. Test results are also used to determine appropriate packaging that will minimize hazardous spills during transport.
Historically, the DOT has required the use of a “skin necrosis” test using rabbits to classify and label chemical corrosivity. In this test, rabbits' backs are shaved and corrosive chemicals to be applied to their raw skin and left there for up to two weeks. These chemicals often burn the skin, leading to tissue damage. Rabbits are also given no pain relief during this excruciating test, and after the test is finished, they are killed.
Almost two decades ago, the DOT approved the use of a non-animal test, Corrositex®, as an alternative to tests using rabbits for most classes of chemicals. As explained in the 1999 peer review evaluation of Corrositex® by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP), “Corrositex® performance indicates that, in specific testing circumstances such as that required by US DOT, Corrositex® is useful as a stand-alone assay for evaluating the corrosivity or noncorrosivity of acids, bases, and acid derivatives.”
Shockingly, however, the DOT continues to recommend that shipping companies use the rabbit test—even though Corrositex® satisfies the DOT's needs without harming a single animal. The DOT has even advised some companies to use both the rabbit test and the Corrositex® test so that the company can choose whichever result it prefers when the two tests produce different results! Because the DOT has stated that Corrositex® , “may be more stringent than the skin necrosis [rabbit] test,” the DOT’s failure to require the use of Corrositex® where it is applicable constitutes regulatory neglect and a potential public health hazard as well as an egregious lack of concern for animal suffering.
The DOT must include language in its Open Government Plan requiring the use of the Corrositex® test in place of corrosion testing on rabbits and must stop recommending that shipping companies freely conduct the skin necrosis test for chemical classes for which Corrositex® has been approved. Further, the DOT must clearly state on its website that Corrositex® is the method of choice as a standalone test of chemical corrosivity so that users are able to find and follow this guidance.
|
|
|
Suggest that all DOT web sites, public and internal, have a hotlink to a stakeholder feedback input form. Information recorded in the form would then be transmitted to an organization email address. Stakeholders can then inquire about organizational products and services, along with the ability pt provide comments/suggestions on the currency of web site content.
|
|
|
The key to software safety is transparency as in food or other consumer product labeling. You put food in your body and you put your body into a vehicle. You can't label auto software but we should have access to a website cataloging the source code and documentation for all software used in our vehicles, propietary or not. If such information doesn't exist in a complete and accurate form that should be proof enough that the software is not fit for public use.
|
|
|
Transportation accounts for 70% of oil use, and much attention is being focused on improving vehicle technology (hybrids, clean diesel, etc.). However, much of fuel waste occurs in local stop & go traffic and other congestion. This also results in increased carbon emissions, plus loss of productivity (lost wages and quality of life). In the Chicago area, near-continual repair of roads and expressways means perpetual lane closures and delays. Meanwhile, dated traffic signal systems cause cars to wait at intersections even when there is no cross traffic. The problem: state DOTs have no incentive to use their meager road maintenance budgets to worry about national interests like reduced energy & emissions -- they need every cent to just maintain/build roads regardless of negative side effects. Local communities also have no incentive to use shrinking budgets to buy intelligent traffic signals that improve traffic flow, especially with tax revenues down. Doing what's good for the nation as a whole is often at odds with being good stewards of local resources. Meanwhile, America imports 1.5 billion barrels of oil per year from “dangerous or unstable” countries alone at a cost of about $150 billion, which releases 640.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere... Congestion costs the nation around $70B/year in lost productivity, and even more in congested-related accident costs. THIS IS A FEDERAL POLICY PROBLEM! How about smart, enlightened policies that reward local and state agencies for developing and maintaining infrastructure that also serves national interests. If we can reduce accidents, energy consumption, and emissions with a small, federal plus-up to local budgets, we’ll get a good return on investment.
|
|
|
I think it is important for the IT offices within DOT to learn and select a software/System development life cycle. It would make it easy to manage information technology projects and new systems development.
The Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC), or Software Development Life Cycle in systems engineering and software engineering, is the process of creating or altering systems, and the models and methodologies that people use to develop these systems. The concept generally refers to computer or information systems.
Also, DOT federal project managers and team leaders need to understand and implement better project management practices with the use of an SDLC.
|
|
|
The DOT needs to evaluate the FAA's use of its Performance Management System which basically removed the FAA from most of Title V regulation. I would like to see shared on the Open Government Website for DOT the performance metrics based on that transition. The initial transition to its own PMS system ocurred in 1996: On November 15, 1995, Congress enacted Section 347 of the 1996 Department of Transportation (“DOT”) Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 104-50, § 347, 109 Stat. 460 (1995), directing the FAA to develop and implement a new personnel management system, to address “the
unique demands on the agency’s workforce.”
From my perspective the transition to PMS has not assisted the Agency in saving taxpayer dollars, has not promoted efficiencies and has limited employees rights, not only at the bargaining table but also right to an appeal. As a result of PMS and the loopholes it created the FAA has now become one of the worst places to work in the Federal Government. Employees are no longer a PART of the decision making processes that affect the Agency's missions and goals.
The DOT should post accurate metrics so that the flying public can see how their tax dollars are spent. How much has the FAA spent on Labor Relations alone in the last 5 years? And when I say Labor Relations I mean the division within the Agency that does nothing but PREVENT communication between employees and thier managers, not the Unions.
|
|
|
The automakers need to install a cell phone signal jammer (blocker) in all new autos. They should have an emergency button that would send out an sos if you get in trouble.
|
|
|
We are a nation that faces increasing stress, obesity, gas prices, carbon emissions, traffic jams, and parking fees. Providing federal funding and mandates to expand metropolitan bicycling infrastructures would simultaneously address all these problems, while offering an improvement in the quality of life of a significant portion of the US population.
Surveys might be taken to target high-profile early adopters, as a first phase. But changing our culture is also very much an "if you build it, they will come" proposition. As the benefits become measurable and real, increased emphasis on this alternative for travel will grow, together with the multiple "wins" in the aforementioned areas.
|
|
|
Use of Open Collaboration Tools can improve information sharing, communication and morale.
|
|
|
DOT can improve business processes across DOT systems by utilizing SOA to revamp existing sytems and make some systems more flexible for enhancements. SOA will save money and will allow us to reuse some of the existing functionalities within the current systems.
|
|
|
I think DOT should begin to look into cloud computing options for web based systems and applications.
|
|
|
The Air Traffic Control (ATC) system is still in dire need of a long overdue overhaul. Re-open The FAA Academy in Oklahoma City for all new ATC hires. Send them to school with a policy and goal of sending into the field only the best potential candidates. Since the FAA closed the FAA Academy the weeding out process has been shifted to "Field Facilities" working with "live" air traffic. Am I the only one that sees this as inherently dangerous to the flying public? Question: If your loved ones are flying from point A to point B, do you not want the best trained Air Traffic Controller working the flight or someone that passed Air Traffic Control because the FAA has a "no fail" policy?
|
|
|
Allow users to choose their username as it appears on the site. Currently, it defaults to your email handle.
|
|
|
This site should not be used by businesses to promote their products. Users should be able to flag posts as spam, and there should be a method for removing these posts from the web site.
Example spam post: http://opendot.ideascale.com/a/dtd/31636-7039
|
|
|
This could be done through a consolidated DOT portal where recipients of DOT funds are required to publish project status reports.
|
|
|
I think the idea of reducing emissions and traffic through telecommuting has not been given enough attention. For knowledge workers whose primary job involves sitting at a computer all day anyway I see no reason why those jobs can't be done from a home with high speed internet. I think it's the next evolutionary step in virtualization. It reduces the power consumption required to maintain office spaces as well as highway congestion and fuel emissions. The technology to communicate securely over the internet has existed for some time and many knowledge workers already possess the mobile connectivity required to adjust their work locations immediately. It is only by allowing telecommuting that solutions to the problems with productivity and accountability can be addressed. I think tax incentives should be offered to companies for each knowledge worker that is able to telecommute at least 50% of the time (not including employees whose jobs are >= 50% travel). Government should actively promote telecommuting and reward those companies that implement it. Telecommuters themselves receive a reward by reducing fuel costs and personal stress but telecommuting should be voluntary where it is offered. Some of the tools for solving the problems of global warming and fuel consumption are already staring us in the face. The benefit is immediate and doesn't require any further research and I believe that it is foolish not to capitalize on it.
|
|
|
Even though information offered herein as a "New Idea" by commercial entities may be informative or useful to some users, these entities should not be allowed to post in this manner. By allowing corporations to do so, this 'offering' may become an avenue enabled by the government for the promotion of products and services provided by these corporations.
|
|
|
Over $1 trillion leaves the U.S. every 5 years instead of circulating in the U.S. economy because of the country's dependence on fuel derived from oil.
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/annual.html
"The 2009 petroleum deficit ($204.3 billion) was the lowest since 2004 ($163.4 billion)."
Adding a 'no emissions' for the first 10 miles per day requirement to the CAFE standard allows the DOT to collaborate with other government departments by supporting the EPA's goal of reducing carbon emissions and supporting the DOE FreedomCar goal (less foreign oil).
Automobile manufacturers state that a majority of people commute an average of 40 miles per day.
So, requiring a car to produce no emissions for 10 miles per day and the existing CAFE standard after that would reduce carbon emissions from passenger vehicles by about 25 percent and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
The no emissions requirement can be increased as battery costs decrease. The 'all or nothing' approach to changing how vehicles are powered has not resulted in significant change.
A U.S. automobile manufacturer already has a design that would more than comply with such a standard (40 miles on electric power and gasoline to recharge batteries after that to extend range). In the first few model years, having to only go 10 miles on electric power would reduce the battery cost of this particular vehicle by 75%.
Such a change would allow batteries to be mass produced reducing costs, create jobs, increase energy independence, reduce the petroleum deficit keeping more money in the U.S. to stimulate the economy, etc.
Once mass production of batteries brings costs down, the standard can be raised to further to support creating more jobs, increase energy independence, reduce the petroleum deficit keeping more money in the U.S. to stimulate the economy, etc.
On an individual basis, the initial 'no emissions for the first 10 miles' requirement does not save the consumer much money directly, but, on a national level, in aggregate, it has many benefits for those living in this country.
|
|
|
Just like Pelosi's 757 jet costing the taxpaye ov 5 million dollars annually -- she can take a bus -- the FAA wastes millions of dollars in unnecessary travel to educate Pilot and Mechanic Designees. Trips to Vegas and Hawaii and all other locations amount to a Boondoggle!! These designees are supervised by their local offices. With the Internet and advances in webinar and on-line classrooms lets save the taxpayer millions of dollars in designee and instructors, hotel, travel, rent-a-car, food, tolls, etc., ect,, charges
|
|
|
America’s transportation infrastructure is facing significant challenges and is on the verge of becoming overwhelmed over the next decade. We must address this issue now to safely and efficiently keep our economy running.
Freight hauled by trucks in the U.S. is expected to nearly double by 2035, and truck traffic is growing 11 times faster than road capacity. If current vehicle weight limitations remain in place, even more trucks will have to take to the road to ship these goods.
Raising the interstate weight limit would make roads safer and less congested as America's needs grow - allowing for more efficient shipping with reduced environmental impact.
The federal vehicle weight limit should be 97,000 pounds—but only for vehicles equipped with an additional (sixth) axle. The required sixth axle would maintain braking capacity and the current distribution of weight per tire without changing the size of the truck. While the additional axle maintains vehicle safety performance and minimizes pavement wear, a user fee for six-axle units would fund vital bridge repair.
Raising vehicle weight limits for six-axle tractor-trailers would effectively:
- Make Roads Safer
- Reduce Environmental Impact
- Strengthen the Economy
- Preserve Transportation Infrastructure
SAFER ROADS
Tractor-trailers are traveling more miles than ever to keep up with rising demand. Truck traffic has grown with the needs of the U.S. economy and population—increasing 11 times faster than road capacity. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that by 2020, the amount of freight shipped throughout the U.S. will increase 87 percent from what it was in 1998.
The 80,000 pound limit set in 1982 is outdated and will compromise public safety as freight continues to increase and requires more trucks on the road. Consolidating freight on fewer trucks would further reduce collisions between trucks and passenger vehicles.
The biggest single factor in the number of vehicle/tractor-trailer accidents is vehicle miles traveled. Tractor trailers are traveling twice as many miles as they were in 1982. More trucks must travel more miles to meet demand, increasing the chances of collision. Reducing the number of trucks needed to deliver a specific amount of freight would reduce vehicle miles traveled and therefore make roads safer.
Anti-lock brakes, training requirements and other safety improvements have cut fatal accident rates in half since 1982—making the proposed weight increase a safe alternative to putting more trucks on the road. Academic studies have shown, and empirical evidence proves, that raising the federal weight limit to 97,000 pounds for six-axle trucks would improve highway safety and maintain current road standards.
Since the United Kingdom raised its gross vehicle weight limit to 97,000 pounds for six-axle vehicles in 2001, fatal truck-related accident rates have declined by 35 percent. More freight has been shipped, while the vehicle miles traveled to deliver a ton of freight has declined.
A 2009 Wisconsin DOT study found that if higher weights with an additional axle had been in place in 2006, it would have prevented 90 truck-related accidents in the state during that year. The Transportation Research Board determined that heavier vehicles with additional axles do not lose stopping capability as long as axle weight limits are not exceeded.
CLEANER ENVIRONMENT
Vehicle weight limit reform will benefit the environment by requiring fewer trucks to ship goods, which saves fuel and reduces greenhouse emissions.
Six-axle trucks carrying 97,000 pounds get 17 percent more ton-miles per gallon than five-axle trucks carrying 80,000 pounds, according to a 2008 study by the American Transportation Research Institute. The U.S. DOT estimates that raising the federal weight limit would save 2 billion gallons of diesel fuel annually and result in a 19 percent decrease in fuel consumption and emissions per ton mile.
The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, responsible for air quality management in California’s largest agricultural production region, supports increasing the federal vehicle weight limit for its positive environmental and economic impact.
STRONGER ECONOMY
Raising weight limits will help U.S. businesses improve their competitive edge.
The U.S. gross vehicle weight limits are among the lowest of industrialized nations. Canada , Mexico and most European nations now have higher vehicle weight limits. Raising the limit would help the U.S. compete in the global economy.
Raising the weight limit would allow American producers to consolidate goods and reduce the number of weekly shipments. It will also spur investment in upgraded equipment, create jobs and transition the U.S. to a more efficient transportation network.
Once the economy recovers from the current recession, a shortage of long-haul truck drivers will return and likely quadruple by 2014 from 2004 levels. Even with increased weight limits, the driver shortage (and available trucking jobs) will still exist.
IMPROVED INFRASTRUCTURE
The user fee for 97,000-pound, six-axle trucks will fund accelerated bridge repair and maintenance, while these trucks will collectively inflict less wear on our nation’s roads. The addition of a sixth axle ensures that no additional weight per tire results from the higher weight limits.
The higher weight limit would cut the number of trucks needed for shipments—saving $2.4 billion in pavement restoration costs over 20 years, according to a U.S. DOT study. Fewer trucks would satisfy America ’s shipping needs, putting less overall weight on any given stretch of pavement while directing higher user fees toward bridge repair and maintenance.
|
|
|
Much effort will be spent making vehicles more efficient in the future. This is a very good thing for both the individual, and the government. However, very little effort has been expended to make our traffic control system more efficient. Two are two reasons for this. First, it has been historically difficult to interconnect traffic intersections with a central control facility. Even after all the connections are made, maintaining the infrastructure becomes daunting, and expensive. Second, many cities are a patch-work of many different authorities, each with differing agenda's and budgets.
Therefore, my idea is to create an autonomous traffic control system. The system would consists of a simple hardware upgrade to the existing hardware already present at a traffic intersection.
To create an autonomous system the hardware located at a traffic intersection would need three things. First, an automatically adapting software algorithm would be used. The software would continuously trim and adjust traffic flow patterns so as to gain the maximum throughput (or efficiency). Second, to maintain the traffic flow pattern (without timing drift) the system would rely on timing signals from GPS. The GPS signals are very accurate and very inexpensive to receive. And third, the system would rely on traffic input sensors. The sensors would be used in the feedback loop within the adaptive software algorithm.
There are a couple of things to note about this idea. First, it would be low cost to implement. Second, simply by upgrading an intersection, the adaptive software algorithm would immediately start searching for (and find) efficiency gains. But the more important gain would be that the system would adapt to future changes. No person would be required to "retune" the intersection when a new subdivision entrance was added. As a further example, even seasonal adjustments would be done automatically.
I believe the gains to the motorists from this system could be profound. If all the traffic control intersections, within a geographic area, we retrofitted with this system it would appear to the motorist that all the traffic lights were interconnected as in "progressional traffic system".
The fuel saving alone would pay for this system in very short order.
|
| Displaying 1 - 25 of 63 Ideas |
|
I Agree
I Disagree
Closed
Close