You missed the Three Mile Island meltdown anniversary by 3 days. :P
"In California last month, Assembly member Nancy Skinner of Alameda and Contra Costa counties introduced AB 1135, which would require every motorist to report their odometer reading when they register or renew their vehicle. "
Steve_Host: I think the stage is being set for something much bigger than just VMT. Look at this technology and all its potential in dealing with not only taxation, but congestion, pollution as well as public safety (and surveillance):
Traffic and environmental monitoring is today one essential backbone of enhanced traffic and incident management applications as well as for traffic related information services. The COMO Sub-project approaches this topic by bringing the world of fixed roadside sensors together with mobile sensors and providing distributed applications for data provision and data fusion for enhanced service speed.
The high data volume generated by fixed and mobile sensors requires new, innovative approaches to achieve fast response times and a reasonably (in-)expensive data communication between the vehicles, the roadside units and the centres. Since fully centralised systems might not be able to serve all of these goals, CVIS aims on a cooperative system environment in which COMO is implementing applications for data collection, data fusion and (potentially) other related CVIS applications. The interaction concept of COMO is shown below.
(click on picture to enlarge)
Objectives
As mentioned above, COMO aims to develop specifications and prototypes for the collection, integration and delivery of extended real-time information on individual and collective vehicle movements and on the state of the road network.
Thus the sub-project has three major objectives, namely to:
provide cooperative applications with a communication interface that enables them to access monitoring data anywhere and at any time, thus capturing the details of the underlying monitoring infrastructure of probe vehicles and infrastructure sensors. Inside CVIS the application interface will be used by the application oriented subprojects urban (CURB), inter-urban (CINT) and fleet & freight (CF&F).
develop and provide a standardised interface providing data gathered by the vehicle as well as by the local sensor infrastructure, that can be used by a qualified service provider for various purposes. develop the distributed algorithms for data fusion that are required to provide the COMO service to the applications, based on the data delivered by the standardised interface. The data fusion methods will be developed in strong cooperation with the application oriented sub-projects in order to meet their requirements.
COMO will also closely cooperate with the Deployment Enablers Sub-project (DEPN) to establish a business case for the operation of COMO that addresses all non-technical issues.
Innovation
Based on the interaction between the three involved entities cars, infrastructure and operation centre the figure below is showing the space for innovation within COMO. In a first development stage FCD approaches used the speed-profile for data gathering as well as for the event detection. The communication was limited to transmission of data from the car to the centre. In order to improve the information quality GST/EFCD is connecting the vehicle-bus for a multi-sensor data processing and detection inside the car. Furthermore the communication between the car and Centre is bidirectional to enable a detection control inside the car. The EFCD approach is supporting the communication with the infrastructure to forward messages to the service centre. But the infrastructure is only a communication hop without any intelligence for data processing methods.
(click on picture to enlarge)
Now COMO introduces a decentralised system approach to monitoring, supporting the direct communication between cars and infrastructure.
COMO in CVIS
The COMO Sub-project is placed as a central basic service inside the CVIS framework. COMO will cooperate closely with the application oriented activity blocks for urban (CURB), inter-urban (CINT) and fleet & freight (CF&F) applications to capture their particular requirements about monitoring of traffic and environmental information.
The services are based on a consistent set of interfaces, which is applicable throughout the entire CVIS platform to control and manage the required transactions and data flows between vehicles, roadside infrastructure and back office systems like service or traffic management centres. In order to ensure the cooperation between these three entities COMO will provide distributed and decentralised data processing components.
In comparison with conventional FCD schemes, CVIS will potentially capture far more data, and from more vehicles (since all vehicles will be able – through use of standard-based onboard units – to contribute data, not just those subscribing to a specific service). While this will provide the highest quality information on the real-time status over the entire road network, it will also lead to an enormous growth in data communications volume. A major challenge therefore for COMO is to create a distributed architecture where a maximum of processing can be done locally, in individual or amongst groups of vehicles, and where the volume of data transmissions can be moderated according to the context and content of the data (so that more data are transmitted that refer to an important exception – e.g. traffic incident – than for non-changing or slowly changing traffic status).
COMO will provide the tested reference design as an open source implementation to the field trials in the Test Sites. The services will be implemented on the FOAM platform and integrated in the local target environment.
CVIS (Cooperative Vehicle-Infrastructure Systems) is a major new European research and development project aiming to design, develop and test the technologies needed to allow cars to communicate with each other and with the nearby roadside infrastructure.
Based on such real-time road and traffic information, many novel applications can be produced. The consequence will be increased road safety and efficiency, and reduced environmental impact.
The project’s ambition is to begin a revolution in mobility for travellers and goods, completely re-engineering how drivers, their vehicles, the goods they carry and the transport infrastructure interact.
With CVIS, drivers will influence the traffic control system directly, and get guidance to the quickest route to their destination. Information shown on road signs will be available wirelessly and be shown on a display in the vehicle. Such displays can also warn drivers of approaching emergency vehicles, allowing emergency personnel to reach accidents faster with less danger for themselves and for cars along their path. In the same way, hazardous goods shipments can be tracked at all times and have priority along a pre-selected safe route.
Other key innovations include high-precision positioning and local dynamic maps, a secure and open application framework for access to online services and a system for gathering and integrating monitoring data from moving vehicles and from roadside detectors and sensors.
All this, however, can only happen if there is full interoperability in the communication between different makes of vehicle and between vehicles and different types of roadside systems. CVIS will therefore develop a mobile router using a wide range of communication media, including mobile cellular and wireless local area networks, short-range microwave (DSRC) or infra-red, to link vehicles continuously with roadside equipment and servers. The project will apply and validate the ISO “CALM” standards for continuous mobile communication, and will provide input to standards development in European and global standardisation bodies.
To validate the project’s results, all CVIS technologies and applications will be tested at one or more test sites in six European countries: France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands/Belgium, Sweden and the UK.
However, technology is not the only stumbling block on the road to a reality where every car, every traffic light, every road sign and every kilometre of roadway is equipped with CVIS-like technology. A number of non-technical obstacles will also have to be overcome. The CVIS project is therefore creating a toolkit to address key “deployment enablers” such as user acceptance, data privacy and security, system openness and interoperability, risk and liability, public policy needs, cost/benefit and business models, and roll-out plans for implementation.
> For instance, do you know that about 50% of all the energy (in the fuel) generated at electrical power-plants is lost in cooling and transmission?
well, most power plants including nuclear ones are basically heating a boiler which in turn provides steam to turbines driving generators, right ? I estimate plants to have an efficiency of 35-40% while gasoline cars are around 25-30%, which means the remaining percentage is wasted in heat and friction
I voluntarily did not enter into details because new car technologies and new plants are re-shuffling cards. I am happy you are more knowledgeable than I am and I look forward to hearing all the details I either ignored or overlooked.
> I support something similar to a Manhattan Project for this.
I am a supporter of the fusion research project, but currently I am afraid it was considered more urgent to burn billions in Iraqi matters or to bail out inconsiderate financial companies. You may not imagine how difficult it was for so many countries to gather a few hundred millions USD for the ITER project . http://www.iter.org/ but otoh, in a twinkling of an eye, XX billions were shelled to delay GM's bankruptcy
Investing in high efficiency photovoltaics would be a good option too, MIT and other US universities are running promising projects, but the real funds are not there.
>So to give them more taxes without giving US better choices for fuel economy is just not smart
OK but don't you agree that expensive gas was a key drive for car manufacturers to produce fuel efficient vehicles ?
If expensive gas is mostly made of tax, it also means most of the gas money stays in the country. It's up to the politics to use it wisely or to trash it.
If expensive gas is mostly made of tax, it also means most of the gas money stays in the country. It's up to the politics to use it wisely or to trash it.
I would rather give the money to Canada, Saudi Arabia or Mexico for oil than tax to the likes of Pelosi and Reid. I don't think you get the US picture. We have a government that is filled with big fat liars. They say one thing and waste our tax dollars on something else. They have taken in plenty of money to research alternative energy. They come up with Corn Ethanol. Then to make sure we don't buy ethanol cheaper from Brazil they put a tariff on sugar cane ethanol. Politics=corruption. Alternatives WILL be developed by private enterprise when they are needed and are profitable. Wasting tax dollars on R&D gains US very little in practical solutions.
PS Check out the latest on our government blocking wind & solar systems for power.
Feinstein wants desert swath off-limits to solar, wind projects
Reporting from Washington -- While President Obama has made development of cleaner energy sources a priority, an effort is underway to close off a large swath of the Southern California desert to solar and wind energy projects.
In a move that could pit usual allies -- environmentalists and the solar and wind industries -- against each other, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is preparing legislation that would permanently put hundreds of thousands of acres of desert land off limits to energy projects. The territory would be designated California's newest national monument.
So much for clean energy in CA. I say screw em' use MORE COAL. Cheap energy you can count on. The same mentality will block your pet High Speed Rail. After we have wasted $BILLIONS$ on environmental impact studies. This country is at an impasse on everything. I say do not give those B******S another penny in taxes.
You are misinterpreting the article a LITTLE bit, Gary.
I read that a few days ago.
Here is the key:
Feinstein, who regards the 1994 California Desert Protection Act as one of her proudest achievements, noted that the Wildlands Conservancy spent more than $40 million buying the former railroad land in the desert and turning it over to the government in one of the largest land purchases in California history, with the intent of protecting it. "I feel very strongly that the federal government must honor that commitment," she said.
They are not saying "YOU CANNOT DO CLEAN ENERGY IN CALIFORNIA" at all.
More than 130 projects have been proposed, and only 19 of those are in the "protected area." So that means the other 111 are NOT in the protected area.
They are saying "this part of the desert, which has already been purchased by the state for conservation, is off limits. Other areas are FINE."
Seems like ultimate outcome of a CVIS sys would allow one to get into car in own garage turn on navi touch screen and select personal option list of destinations. For example, on weekday morning, touch "office", then "go", and then sit back with cup of coffee and WSJ and let car drive you to work. That kind of CVIS I could like and would not worry about govt monitoring of my travels.
But, back to reality, easiest and fairest way to pay for roads and bridges is fuel taxes as long as govt has strict accounting and transparency. Let that transparency in each State show how gas taxes are used and when/if raising or lowering of taxes is justified.
How many of those not on protected land are being blocked by NIMBY or Enviro types. I know the ONLY wind projects that have gone ahead in our county are on Indian reservations. The solar projects proposed on BLM land are on a 2 year hold for studies.
Your continued defense of our lousy government is noted. I consider it a waste of tax dollars to spend millions on environmental impact studies. Their inability to do ANYTHING constructive with my tax dollars is reason enough to oppose more taxes.
defending against things that they are accused of doing wrong which are not wrong.
That is your opinion on what is wrong or right. Take a look at a map of CA. Most of the desert is protected by some entity. You and I disagree on where solar is best placed. I don't want it on my neighbor's home in front of me. I do not plan to cut down the Engelmann Oak that blocks the sun from his house most of the day. It is an endangered oak species. I cannot put solar on my home as the neighbor has a row of trees that block the sun most of the winter. Do you know what a Mexican stand-off is.
"It's frustrating. We really do have competing national priorities here," said Paul Whitworth, whose San Diego-based Light Source Renewables hopes to put in a solar project on about 6,000 acres near Amboy. "We spent a lot of time researching the desert, and consulting with the BLM to make sure we didn't apply on top of an area of critical environmental concern, or area with other issues. . . . Now, there's uncertainty on whether these projects will go ahead."
More tax dollars wasted by dueling agencies in the government.
I think anyone protesting their neighbor's roof having USEFUL solar panels instead of USELESS tiles is really making a selfish decision.
I mean, honestly: how many seconds a day do you spend looking at their roof? 10? 15? Unless you are staring at their roof all day (in which you would have other severe mental health issues ) then you should care less what they have on their roof.
I don't want any endangered trees cut down for solar either. There are plenty of sunny spots to put solar panels.
The day guvmint stops wasting tax dollars is the day the Sun goes Nova. Don't protest it so much, because it's like barking at the moon - useless and a waste of time.
If expensive gas is mostly made of tax, it also means most of the gas money stays in the country. It's up to the politics to use it wisely or to trash it.
That's an excellent case for not having an excessively high gas tax! :P I would much rather keep my money then to give it to a politician and HOPE they do something decent with it. I am for as small and unobtrusive a government as possible. To encourage this I try to vote for anyone who will minimize taxes, regulations, and laws. I do all I can not to contribute to the government such that they expand their power and control over us. I believe in a government that sets fair and equitable rules of business and society, and supports projects that are large and not in the private sector - defense, roads, FDA. I do not believe government should be involved in 50% of what they currently are. Therefore I want to starve them of money so they have to withdraw from many of these "optional" programs they get involved in.
I also would rather see my money go to the Canadians, Mexicans, or OPEC rather than go to DC, to continue building Big Brother.
Yes most political issues are polarizing. Speaking of polarizing; my favorite president - Ronald Reagan said "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
This was proven absolutely correct in 2005 when FEMA made the Katrina situation worse.
The government should not meddle in the individuals' choices of when, how, why, and where they go, outside of the basic rules of the road. The government is not here to form a collective-beehive-system.
As long as gasoline is relatively cheap, we will continue our addiction to it. If there was a permanent, US-controlled supply there would be no purely economic reason to change to something else.
However, as I have said previously, we are exporting way too much of our national wealth to pay for this oil.
We are no longer primarily an industrial economy, so we have fewer goods to export to offset massive imports of energy; in other words, we're not using this energy that we're importing to produce equivalent value to export to other countries.
Put another way, we are giving the rest of the world the rope to tie around our neck. Am I the only one who remembers the Arab embargos of the 1970s? Am I the only one who remembers when Russia shut off natural gas exports to Europe a few years ago and Ukraine a couple of years ago?
The only way to fix our energy problems in the short term is to create economic conditions which will make development of alternative energy economically feasible. If oil is $50/barrel no other energy source can compete with it now. But if oil is $125/barrel, then that makes other energy sources a lot more economically viable. As other energy sources come on line, their cost per BTU will inevitably come down significantly.
Put a big tax on oil, and reduce the income tax. Make the two offset each other. Reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Otherwise, he who produces the oil will make the rules.
And for the record,"drill baby drill" was the single stupidest thing any politician has said in my lifetime. But then again, that came from the single stupidest candidate who has run for national office in my lifetime.
>,"drill baby drill" was the single stupidest thing any politician has said in my lifetime. But then again, that came from the single stupidest candidate who has run for national office in my lifetime.
Didn't Obama say, during the campaign, that he was in favor of drilling for resources here in our own country... But of course he has turned that down as soon as he got in office. Say one thing; do another. Yup. Stupidest candidate to run for national office in my lifetime.
Stupidest candidate to run for national office in my lifetime. No he is not stupid.
BO is clever. He has to be because:
Voters chose a candidate for his style, not his substance, his rhetoric, not his record. When offered a choice, voters chose Hollywood over hard work and Santa Claus over self-reliance.
As for him, words now become far less meaninful than judgment and experience. The movie is over and real lfe has begun. :lemon:
Oh please, using W's administration as an example of what government can and can't do is hardly fair. The organizational incompetence will echo through the ages...
Didn't Obama say, during the campaign, that he was in favor of drilling for resources here in our own country... But of course he has turned that down as soon as he got in office. Say one thing; do another. Yup. Stupidest candidate to run for national office in my lifetime.
Actually, domestic oil drilling was only a small part of Obama's overall energy policy. And Obama's policy didn't include trashing the environment. He's also funding alternative energy research, rebuilding the power grid, and pushing the automakers hard to be more energy-efficient, just like he said he would.
I think that higher gas taxes would be the most effective way to cut national gasoline consumption. However, I believe that higher gas taxes MUST be offset by lower taxes elsewhere, e.g. the income tax. A higher gas tax has to be pretty much revenue-neutral for the government and for most people, at least until they start reducing their gas consumption, in which case the reward should be lower overall taxes (lower gas usage = less gas tax paid).
Since when has the Republican party walked the talk of self-reliance? You and I have to be self-reliant, but think about all the corporate welfare that the Republicans shovel out while telling US to be self-reliant...
Increasing the gas tax would certainly reduce gasoline consumption- I don't see how it can be income neutral however. How would government fund massively expanded public transportation services that would be necessitated by the gas tax if it was revenue neutral?
Another interesting issue would be the effect of a significant gas tax on real estate prices- would very suburban real estate be devalued with corresponding increases to real estate closer to urban centers?
Increasing the gas tax would certainly reduce gasoline consumption- I don't see how it can be income neutral however.
They would have to provide credits on income taxes for lower income. The issue is the people that live 100 miles from work vs those that live 5 miles from work and the reasons for that. In the bay area, you have to live further out to afford an apartment, let alone a house, but in Michigan, people want to live by this lake or that lake and work half way across the state.
How would government fund massively expanded public transportation services that would be necessitated by the gas tax if it was revenue neutral?
I have not seen the Feds supporting our mass transit. In fact the state just dropped its funding to the San Diego MTS. Routes are being cut and prices raised. Which I believe those riding should pay. I just wonder where all this supposed Mass Transit funds from the Feds is going? My guess into the pockets of the environmentalists and agencies that will study the impact. Great way to launder our tax dollars. More gas taxes more waste by the Federal government. Cut taxes and spending. Both novel ideas for our Federal Government.
Anyone that thinks our government will come up with alternative energy based on increased gas tax is living in lala land. Their best effort to date is Corn Ethanol. That is a multi billion dollar boondoggle and corporate welfare to the MAX....
The local bus system gets a huge support from various grants and government subsidies. They also have a sales tax--major mistake. The various grants built up a huge reserve a few years ago. The highly overpaid executive, retired one day and reemployed herself the next day receiving a huge retirement from the public system and at full pay--she neglected to notify the board that she was going to do that. Their reserve also was used to help build a stadium for the Dayton Dragons under the logic taht having the games would increase bus ridership. I haven't seen a bus dropping people off near the stadium and I've worked down there a lot of games during 3 years of being in a group that runs a concession booth.
The mass transit monies have built bicycle trails around here. That reduces cars on the road is the logic.
Corn alcohol has been a huge mistake. It benefited ADM and other big companies along with a lot of startups (often associated with large companies) that got lots of grant money. Now the prices of food are up because of less corn for feed and the alcohol is hard-to-sell because many people caught on you get less gas mileage with the cheaper cornoline fuel and it actually is more expensive to use than gasoline. So the states et al mandate using a certain amount of alcohol in all fuels to try to generate a market for the cornoline. In Ohio the alcohol isn't taxes for fuel so the gallon of corn-o-hol pays less tax, but the stations using lots of alcohol keep the same price, which ends up as extra profit in their pocket.
Cut spending where? On what? Eliminating pork helps a little, but the main problem areas are social security, health care and defense. All of those are getting nothing but worse.
How about the worthless Department of Education. How about cutting EPA now that they have set the highest emissions standards in the World. FEMA has proven worthless in the last two disasters in Kentucky and North Dakota. Not to mention the $Billions wasted on Corn Ethanol. If you look at that Stimulus and find 10% that is needed let me know. It is almost all Pork paybacks for this last election. We have the finest Congress money can buy.
When you have saved about $500B there and still need money to build a highway or repair a bridge, we can talk about raising the gas tax. What' with the food stamps, about $4B per month. I survived the 1950s without a penny in Federal aid. Our church gave US food. Just as we give food today. How much of those food stamp dollars are traded for drugs and alcohol?
Yes we need to cut, and the military is not the place to start. That is why we need a Federal Government to protect our borders and our interest abroad. They could start with our borders.
PS on SS, just give me the $250,000 invested in my name with interest and I will take care of my own SS thank you, same goes for Medicare.
Seriously, how would you pay to build and maintain the roads?
I had not noticed much maintenance for the 60 cents per gallon we are currently paying in CA. Some of the roads are being privatized and charging tolls. I don't believe paying more tax would induce the thieves in Washington and the State Capitols to spend it where it is proposed.
We're getting 1-2" of rain today and it's in the 40's. No way I want to trudge thru a mass transit parking lot, and wait for a bus even if one ran every 20 min. No way I'd ride a bike and be miserably cold, and ride on the road with wet brakes and people in 4,000 Lb vehicles.
If the intent of a gas tax is to reduce gas consumption, then it probably should not include a discussion about mass transit. I think it should just be an offset against income tax.
Mass transit discussions are enormously complex politically, environmentally, and economically. If that gets bundled into the discussion, it'll take years to resolve.
It won't be easy to do an offset income tax credit, but one idea could be to let people take a standard or itemized credt for needed driving; for example, if you take the standard credit you'd get $2000 off your income tax (I'm just making up numbers here to illustrate the point); but if you drive 100 miles each way to get to work, then you could itemize that credit to get a bigger benefit.
Thus, people would have an incentive to find ways to cut back on gas consumption, whether by buying more efficient cars, finding mass transit options, telecommuting, etc.
We're getting 1-2" of rain today and it's in the 40's. No way I want to trudge thru a mass transit parking lot, and wait for a bus even if one ran every 20 min. No way I'd ride a bike and be miserably cold, and ride on the road with wet brakes and people in 4,000 Lb vehicles.
I would think that putting the jobs closer to where people live would be a good thing. As far as the bike thing, you should tar and feather your city leaders for not incorporating bike lanes on your roads...perhaps the gas tax could go for those type of improvements (like in Santa Barbara/Goleta, or Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti).
In San Luis Obispo (the whole place is suburbia except the few block down town) the buses were about perfect. And they had a spot for my bike too!
Unfortunately, if people are serious about this getting off foreign oil thing and maybe helping the environment, there are going to be sacrifices. You think all those people in Europe or Japan really want to take the bus or the train? They have to, they can't afford not to. Something has to give- everyone can't commute alone in their cars- people are going to have to do things they might otherwise choose not to. Wealthy people will be the ones who can afford to commute on their own in cars,.
As far as the bike thing, you should tar and feather your city leaders for not incorporating bike lanes on your roads.
This is New England, not the new cities out west. The roads are frequently no more than 1 lane each way. In fact our main east-west highway here in NH is no more than 1 lane each way, with no breakdown lane. And 5-6 months of the year any shoulder is either full of snow or sand. Bike riding is not an alternative with the weather, roads, poor drivers, and if you want to transport anything. People do not live close enough together to make mass transit possible - the biggest city in a 50 mile radius is pop. 20,000, and most people's house are on 1+ acres down what used to be farm roads.
We had an ice storm this winter where many towns were without power for 2-3 weeks. So gasoline was what kept everyone moving and kept the generators going. I wouldn't buy an electric car unless it also had an ICE.
Wealthy people will be the ones who can afford to commute on their own in cars,.
That is why we as a nation need to remain competitive. I have no problem with the people of the U.S. being successful and driving vehicles, and let other countries take the bus. The reason I work hard everyday is just so that I can afford to enjoy my car and gasoline. Those things are one of the main reasons (along with taking nice vacations), that I get up everyday and go to work. :P
As far as the bike thing, you should tar and feather your city leaders for not incorporating bike lanes on your roads
As Kernick pointed out many roads even in CA are too narrow to accommodate a bike lane. Our area seems to be a regular weekend bike rally road. There are spots that you cannot pass the bike riders safely without crossing the double yellow line. Most bike riding in CA is for pleasure. My guess about 99% pleasure. Our CA budgets are so over stressed we cannot fill the potholes on many or our roads. Buying right of ways for widening our roads to handle Sunday bike riders should be WAY DOWN the list of spending. Until bike riders kick in some money for their own lanes they should just stay off the roads that are not wide enough to handle them safely.
Spending gas tax on bike paths seems unconstitutional. But then the Constitution has been so subverted over the years, that it is meaningless. Maybe a $100 per year license on all bikes would help build these fancy private bike paths.
And after they are built, the bikers will compete with the dog walkers for space on the bike paths. The dog walkers should then trump the bikers because at least they have licensed their pets. :P
this discussion has to be political to some extent in order to have any meaning.
It's an interesting job. A few people see everything through a political lens and try to turn every discussion into a place to further an agenda, whether it's related to the discussion or not. Then we get complaints to the help desk and new wannabe posters decide to go elsewhere. Meanwhile no one seems to realize that the pols are temporary popularity contest winners and it's the bureaucrats that really run everything.
When we try to keep the discussion focused on the topic then the Limbaughs and Frankens gripe that their posts are removed.
Fortunately the members are pretty good at keeping the conversations on track and we can sit back and remove the spam and promo some site links.
None of which is on topic here nor does it pay the gas bill.
Comments
"In California last month, Assembly member Nancy Skinner of Alameda and Contra Costa counties introduced AB 1135, which would require every motorist to report their odometer reading when they register or renew their vehicle. "
California is Setting the Stage for a Tax on Vehicle Miles Traveled (LA Streets Blog)
from: http://www.cvisproject.org/en/cvis_subprojects/applications/como/como.htm
COOPERATIVE MONITORING
Traffic and environmental monitoring is today one essential backbone of enhanced traffic and incident management applications as well as for traffic related information services. The COMO Sub-project approaches this topic by bringing the world of fixed roadside sensors together with mobile sensors and providing distributed applications for data provision and data fusion for enhanced service speed.
The high data volume generated by fixed and mobile sensors requires new, innovative approaches to achieve fast response times and a reasonably (in-)expensive data communication between the vehicles, the roadside units and the centres. Since fully centralised systems might not be able to serve all of these goals, CVIS aims on a cooperative system environment in which COMO is implementing applications for data collection, data fusion and (potentially) other related CVIS applications. The interaction concept of COMO is shown below.
(click on picture to enlarge)
Objectives
As mentioned above, COMO aims to develop specifications and prototypes for the collection, integration and delivery of extended real-time information on individual and collective vehicle movements and on the state of the road network.
Thus the sub-project has three major objectives, namely to:
provide cooperative applications with a communication interface that enables them to access monitoring data anywhere and at any time, thus capturing the details of the underlying monitoring infrastructure of probe vehicles and infrastructure sensors. Inside CVIS the application interface will be used by the application oriented subprojects urban (CURB), inter-urban (CINT) and fleet & freight (CF&F).
develop and provide a standardised interface providing data gathered by the vehicle as well as by the local sensor infrastructure, that can be used by a qualified service provider for various purposes. develop the distributed algorithms for data fusion that are required to provide the COMO service to the applications, based on the data delivered by the standardised interface. The data fusion methods will be developed in strong cooperation with the application oriented sub-projects in order to meet their requirements.
COMO will also closely cooperate with the Deployment Enablers Sub-project (DEPN) to establish a business case for the operation of COMO that addresses all non-technical issues.
Innovation
Based on the interaction between the three involved entities cars, infrastructure and operation centre the figure below is showing the space for innovation within COMO. In a first development stage FCD approaches used the speed-profile for data gathering as well as for the event detection. The communication was limited to transmission of data from the car to the centre. In order to improve the information quality GST/EFCD is connecting the vehicle-bus for a multi-sensor data processing and detection inside the car. Furthermore the communication between the car and Centre is bidirectional to enable a detection control inside the car. The EFCD approach is supporting the communication with the infrastructure to forward messages to the service centre. But the infrastructure is only a communication hop without any intelligence for data processing methods.
(click on picture to enlarge)
Now COMO introduces a decentralised system approach to monitoring, supporting the direct communication between cars and infrastructure.
COMO in CVIS
The COMO Sub-project is placed as a central basic service inside the CVIS framework. COMO will cooperate closely with the application oriented activity blocks for urban (CURB), inter-urban (CINT) and fleet & freight (CF&F) applications to capture their particular requirements about monitoring of traffic and environmental information.
The services are based on a consistent set of interfaces, which is applicable throughout the entire CVIS platform to control and manage the required transactions and data flows between vehicles, roadside infrastructure and back office systems like service or traffic management centres. In order to ensure the cooperation between these three entities COMO will provide distributed and decentralised data processing components.
In comparison with conventional FCD schemes, CVIS will potentially capture far more data, and from more vehicles (since all vehicles will be able – through use of standard-based onboard units – to contribute data, not just those subscribing to a specific service). While this will provide the highest quality information on the real-time status over the entire road network, it will also lead to an enormous growth in data communications volume. A major challenge therefore for COMO is to create a distributed architecture where a maximum of processing can be done locally, in individual or amongst groups of vehicles, and where the volume of data transmissions can be moderated according to the context and content of the data (so that more data are transmitted that refer to an important exception – e.g. traffic incident – than for non-changing or slowly changing traffic status).
COMO will provide the tested reference design as an open source implementation to the field trials in the Test Sites. The services will be implemented on the FOAM platform and integrated in the local target environment.
from: http://www.cvisproject.org/en/cvis_project/
Helping cars and Infrastructure Cooperate
CVIS (Cooperative Vehicle-Infrastructure Systems) is a major new European research and development project aiming to design, develop and test the technologies needed to allow cars to communicate with each other and with the nearby roadside infrastructure.
Based on such real-time road and traffic information, many novel applications can be produced. The consequence will be increased road safety and efficiency, and reduced environmental impact.
The project’s ambition is to begin a revolution in mobility for travellers and goods, completely re-engineering how drivers, their vehicles, the goods they carry and the transport infrastructure interact.
With CVIS, drivers will influence the traffic control system directly, and get guidance to the quickest route to their destination. Information shown on road signs will be available wirelessly and be shown on a display in the vehicle. Such displays can also warn drivers of approaching emergency vehicles, allowing emergency personnel to reach accidents faster with less danger for themselves and for cars along their path. In the same way, hazardous goods shipments can be tracked at all times and have priority along a pre-selected safe route.
Other key innovations include high-precision positioning and local dynamic maps, a secure and open application framework for access to online services and a system for gathering and integrating monitoring data from moving vehicles and from roadside detectors and sensors.
All this, however, can only happen if there is full interoperability in the communication between different makes of vehicle and between vehicles and different types of roadside systems. CVIS will therefore develop a mobile router using a wide range of communication media, including mobile cellular and wireless local area networks, short-range microwave (DSRC) or infra-red, to link vehicles continuously with roadside equipment and servers. The project will apply and validate the ISO “CALM” standards for continuous mobile communication, and will provide input to standards development in European and global standardisation bodies.
To validate the project’s results, all CVIS technologies and applications will be tested at one or more test sites in six European countries: France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands/Belgium, Sweden and the UK.
However, technology is not the only stumbling block on the road to a reality where every car, every traffic light, every road sign and every kilometre of roadway is equipped with CVIS-like technology. A number of non-technical obstacles will also have to be overcome. The CVIS project is therefore creating a toolkit to address key “deployment enablers” such as user acceptance, data privacy and security, system openness and interoperability, risk and liability, public policy needs, cost/benefit and business models, and roll-out plans for implementation.
well, most power plants including nuclear ones are basically heating a boiler which in turn provides steam to turbines driving generators, right ?
I estimate plants to have an efficiency of 35-40% while gasoline cars are around 25-30%, which means the remaining percentage is wasted in heat and friction
I voluntarily did not enter into details because new car technologies and new plants are re-shuffling cards.
I am happy you are more knowledgeable than I am and I look forward to hearing all the details I either ignored or overlooked.
> I support something similar to a Manhattan Project for this.
I am a supporter of the fusion research project, but currently I am afraid it was considered more urgent to burn billions in Iraqi matters or to bail out inconsiderate financial companies. You may not imagine how difficult it was for so many countries to gather a few hundred millions USD for the ITER project .
http://www.iter.org/
but otoh, in a twinkling of an eye, XX billions were shelled to delay GM's bankruptcy
Investing in high efficiency photovoltaics would be a good option too, MIT and other US universities are running promising projects, but the real funds are not there.
OK but don't you agree that expensive gas was a key drive for car manufacturers to produce fuel efficient vehicles ?
If expensive gas is mostly made of tax, it also means most of the gas money stays in the country. It's up to the politics to use it wisely or to trash it.
I would rather give the money to Canada, Saudi Arabia or Mexico for oil than tax to the likes of Pelosi and Reid. I don't think you get the US picture. We have a government that is filled with big fat liars. They say one thing and waste our tax dollars on something else. They have taken in plenty of money to research alternative energy. They come up with Corn Ethanol. Then to make sure we don't buy ethanol cheaper from Brazil they put a tariff on sugar cane ethanol. Politics=corruption. Alternatives WILL be developed by private enterprise when they are needed and are profitable. Wasting tax dollars on R&D gains US very little in practical solutions.
PS
Check out the latest on our government blocking wind & solar systems for power.
Feinstein wants desert swath off-limits to solar, wind projects
Reporting from Washington -- While President Obama has made development of cleaner energy sources a priority, an effort is underway to close off a large swath of the Southern California desert to solar and wind energy projects.
In a move that could pit usual allies -- environmentalists and the solar and wind industries -- against each other, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is preparing legislation that would permanently put hundreds of thousands of acres of desert land off limits to energy projects. The territory would be designated California's newest national monument.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-desert25-2009mar25,0,616858- - 2.story
So much for clean energy in CA. I say screw em' use MORE COAL. Cheap energy you can count on. The same mentality will block your pet High Speed Rail. After we have wasted $BILLIONS$ on environmental impact studies. This country is at an impasse on everything. I say do not give those B******S another penny in taxes.
I read that a few days ago.
Here is the key:
Feinstein, who regards the 1994 California Desert Protection Act as one of her proudest achievements, noted that the Wildlands Conservancy spent more than $40 million buying the former railroad land in the desert and turning it over to the government in one of the largest land purchases in California history, with the intent of protecting it. "I feel very strongly that the federal government must honor that commitment," she said.
They are not saying "YOU CANNOT DO CLEAN ENERGY IN CALIFORNIA" at all.
More than 130 projects have been proposed, and only 19 of those are in the "protected area." So that means the other 111 are NOT in the protected area.
They are saying "this part of the desert, which has already been purchased by the state for conservation, is off limits. Other areas are FINE."
But, back to reality, easiest and fairest way to pay for roads and bridges is fuel taxes as long as govt has strict accounting and transparency. Let that transparency in each State show how gas taxes are used and when/if raising or lowering of taxes is justified.
Your continued defense of our lousy government is noted. I consider it a waste of tax dollars to spend millions on environmental impact studies. Their inability to do ANYTHING constructive with my tax dollars is reason enough to oppose more taxes.
That is your opinion on what is wrong or right. Take a look at a map of CA. Most of the desert is protected by some entity. You and I disagree on where solar is best placed. I don't want it on my neighbor's home in front of me. I do not plan to cut down the Engelmann Oak that blocks the sun from his house most of the day. It is an endangered oak species. I cannot put solar on my home as the neighbor has a row of trees that block the sun most of the winter. Do you know what a Mexican stand-off is.
"It's frustrating. We really do have competing national priorities here," said Paul Whitworth, whose San Diego-based Light Source Renewables hopes to put in a solar project on about 6,000 acres near Amboy. "We spent a lot of time researching the desert, and consulting with the BLM to make sure we didn't apply on top of an area of critical environmental concern, or area with other issues. . . . Now, there's uncertainty on whether these projects will go ahead."
More tax dollars wasted by dueling agencies in the government.
I think anyone protesting their neighbor's roof having USEFUL solar panels instead of USELESS tiles is really making a selfish decision.
I mean, honestly: how many seconds a day do you spend looking at their roof? 10? 15? Unless you are staring at their roof all day (in which you would have other severe mental health issues ) then you should care less what they have on their roof.
I don't want any endangered trees cut down for solar either. There are plenty of sunny spots to put solar panels.
The day guvmint stops wasting tax dollars is the day the Sun goes Nova. Don't protest it so much, because it's like barking at the moon - useless and a waste of time.
That's an excellent case for not having an excessively high gas tax! :P I would much rather keep my money then to give it to a politician and HOPE they do something decent with it.
I am for as small and unobtrusive a government as possible. To encourage this I try to vote for anyone who will minimize taxes, regulations, and laws. I do all I can not to contribute to the government such that they expand their power and control over us.
I believe in a government that sets fair and equitable rules of business and society, and supports projects that are large and not in the private sector - defense, roads, FDA.
I do not believe government should be involved in 50% of what they currently are. Therefore I want to starve them of money so they have to withdraw from many of these "optional" programs they get involved in.
I also would rather see my money go to the Canadians, Mexicans, or OPEC rather than go to DC, to continue building Big Brother.
Amen. Whole heartedly agree.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
This was proven absolutely correct in 2005 when FEMA made the Katrina situation worse.
The government should not meddle in the individuals' choices of when, how, why, and where they go, outside of the basic rules of the road. The government is not here to form a collective-beehive-system.
However, as I have said previously, we are exporting way too much of our national wealth to pay for this oil.
We are no longer primarily an industrial economy, so we have fewer goods to export to offset massive imports of energy; in other words, we're not using this energy that we're importing to produce equivalent value to export to other countries.
Put another way, we are giving the rest of the world the rope to tie around our neck. Am I the only one who remembers the Arab embargos of the 1970s? Am I the only one who remembers when Russia shut off natural gas exports to Europe a few years ago and Ukraine a couple of years ago?
The only way to fix our energy problems in the short term is to create economic conditions which will make development of alternative energy economically feasible. If oil is $50/barrel no other energy source can compete with it now. But if oil is $125/barrel, then that makes other energy sources a lot more economically viable. As other energy sources come on line, their cost per BTU will inevitably come down significantly.
Put a big tax on oil, and reduce the income tax. Make the two offset each other. Reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Otherwise, he who produces the oil will make the rules.
And for the record,"drill baby drill" was the single stupidest thing any politician has said in my lifetime. But then again, that came from the single stupidest candidate who has run for national office in my lifetime.
Didn't Obama say, during the campaign, that he was in favor of drilling for resources here in our own country... But of course he has turned that down as soon as he got in office. Say one thing; do another. Yup. Stupidest candidate to run for national office in my lifetime.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
BO is clever. He has to be because:
Voters chose a candidate for his style, not his substance, his rhetoric, not his record. When offered a choice, voters chose Hollywood over hard work and Santa Claus over self-reliance.
As for him, words now become far less meaninful than judgment and experience. The movie is over and real lfe has begun. :lemon:
Actually, domestic oil drilling was only a small part of Obama's overall energy policy. And Obama's policy didn't include trashing the environment. He's also funding alternative energy research, rebuilding the power grid, and pushing the automakers hard to be more energy-efficient, just like he said he would.
Sounds like a pretty smart guy to me.
Anyone else want to weigh in on gas tax increases?
Another interesting issue would be the effect of a significant gas tax on real estate prices- would very suburban real estate be devalued with corresponding increases to real estate closer to urban centers?
They would have to provide credits on income taxes for lower income. The issue is the people that live 100 miles from work vs those that live 5 miles from work and the reasons for that. In the bay area, you have to live further out to afford an apartment, let alone a house, but in Michigan, people want to live by this lake or that lake and work half way across the state.
I have not seen the Feds supporting our mass transit. In fact the state just dropped its funding to the San Diego MTS. Routes are being cut and prices raised. Which I believe those riding should pay. I just wonder where all this supposed Mass Transit funds from the Feds is going? My guess into the pockets of the environmentalists and agencies that will study the impact. Great way to launder our tax dollars. More gas taxes more waste by the Federal government. Cut taxes and spending. Both novel ideas for our Federal Government.
Anyone that thinks our government will come up with alternative energy based on increased gas tax is living in lala land. Their best effort to date is Corn Ethanol. That is a multi billion dollar boondoggle and corporate welfare to the MAX....
The mass transit monies have built bicycle trails around here. That reduces cars on the road is the logic.
Corn alcohol has been a huge mistake. It benefited ADM and other big companies along with a lot of startups (often associated with large companies) that got lots of grant money. Now the prices of food are up because of less corn for feed and the alcohol is hard-to-sell because many people caught on you get less gas mileage with the cheaper cornoline fuel and it actually is more expensive to use than gasoline. So the states et al mandate using a certain amount of alcohol in all fuels to try to generate a market for the cornoline. In Ohio the alcohol isn't taxes for fuel so the gallon of corn-o-hol pays less tax, but the stations using lots of alcohol keep the same price, which ends up as extra profit in their pocket.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
When you have saved about $500B there and still need money to build a highway or repair a bridge, we can talk about raising the gas tax. What' with the food stamps, about $4B per month. I survived the 1950s without a penny in Federal aid. Our church gave US food. Just as we give food today. How much of those food stamp dollars are traded for drugs and alcohol?
Yes we need to cut, and the military is not the place to start. That is why we need a Federal Government to protect our borders and our interest abroad. They could start with our borders.
PS
on SS, just give me the $250,000 invested in my name with interest and I will take care of my own SS thank you, same goes for Medicare.
In real life, I had to buy 10% ethanol gas in TN on Friday. I still got over 23 mpg in my '98 Astro.
" The power to tax is the power to destroy "
The answer is to remove all taxes from gasoline which harm lower income people more that anyone.
Anyone remember: "Thou Shall Not Steal"?
We need to desperately decrease the size of Washington and the tax burden. It is out of control.
Seriously, how would you pay to build and maintain the roads? User fees and tolls? Just tax corporations since businesses rely on roads?
I had not noticed much maintenance for the 60 cents per gallon we are currently paying in CA. Some of the roads are being privatized and charging tolls. I don't believe paying more tax would induce the thieves in Washington and the State Capitols to spend it where it is proposed.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2009-04-05-jobs-sprawl-suburbs_- N.htm
We're getting 1-2" of rain today and it's in the 40's. No way I want to trudge thru a mass transit parking lot, and wait for a bus even if one ran every 20 min. No way I'd ride a bike and be miserably cold, and ride on the road with wet brakes and people in 4,000 Lb vehicles.
Mass transit discussions are enormously complex politically, environmentally, and economically. If that gets bundled into the discussion, it'll take years to resolve.
It won't be easy to do an offset income tax credit, but one idea could be to let people take a standard or itemized credt for needed driving; for example, if you take the standard credit you'd get $2000 off your income tax (I'm just making up numbers here to illustrate the point); but if you drive 100 miles each way to get to work, then you could itemize that credit to get a bigger benefit.
Thus, people would have an incentive to find ways to cut back on gas consumption, whether by buying more efficient cars, finding mass transit options, telecommuting, etc.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2009-04-05-jobs-sprawl-suburbs_- - N.htm
We're getting 1-2" of rain today and it's in the 40's. No way I want to trudge thru a mass transit parking lot, and wait for a bus even if one ran every 20 min. No way I'd ride a bike and be miserably cold, and ride on the road with wet brakes and people in 4,000 Lb vehicles.
I would think that putting the jobs closer to where people live would be a good thing. As far as the bike thing, you should tar and feather your city leaders for not incorporating bike lanes on your roads...perhaps the gas tax could go for those type of improvements (like in Santa Barbara/Goleta, or Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti).
In San Luis Obispo (the whole place is suburbia except the few block down town) the buses were about perfect. And they had a spot for my bike too!
This is New England, not the new cities out west. The roads are frequently no more than 1 lane each way. In fact our main east-west highway here in NH is no more than 1 lane each way, with no breakdown lane. And 5-6 months of the year any shoulder is either full of snow or sand. Bike riding is not an alternative with the weather, roads, poor drivers, and if you want to transport anything. People do not live close enough together to make mass transit possible - the biggest city in a 50 mile radius is pop. 20,000, and most people's house are on 1+ acres down what used to be farm roads.
We had an ice storm this winter where many towns were without power for 2-3 weeks. So gasoline was what kept everyone moving and kept the generators going. I wouldn't buy an electric car unless it also had an ICE.
That is why we as a nation need to remain competitive. I have no problem with the people of the U.S. being successful and driving vehicles, and let other countries take the bus. The reason I work hard everyday is just so that I can afford to enjoy my car and gasoline. Those things are one of the main reasons (along with taking nice vacations), that I get up everyday and go to work. :P
As Kernick pointed out many roads even in CA are too narrow to accommodate a bike lane. Our area seems to be a regular weekend bike rally road. There are spots that you cannot pass the bike riders safely without crossing the double yellow line. Most bike riding in CA is for pleasure. My guess about 99% pleasure. Our CA budgets are so over stressed we cannot fill the potholes on many or our roads. Buying right of ways for widening our roads to handle Sunday bike riders should be WAY DOWN the list of spending. Until bike riders kick in some money for their own lanes they should just stay off the roads that are not wide enough to handle them safely.
Spending gas tax on bike paths seems unconstitutional. But then the Constitution has been so subverted over the years, that it is meaningless. Maybe a $100 per year license on all bikes would help build these fancy private bike paths.
And after they are built, the bikers will compete with the dog walkers for space on the bike paths. The dog walkers should then trump the bikers because at least they have licensed their pets. :P
It's an interesting job. A few people see everything through a political lens and try to turn every discussion into a place to further an agenda, whether it's related to the discussion or not. Then we get complaints to the help desk and new wannabe posters decide to go elsewhere. Meanwhile no one seems to realize that the pols are temporary popularity contest winners and it's the bureaucrats that really run everything.
When we try to keep the discussion focused on the topic then the Limbaughs and Frankens gripe that their posts are removed.
Fortunately the members are pretty good at keeping the conversations on track and we can sit back and remove the spam and promo some site links.
None of which is on topic here nor does it pay the gas bill.