Alex Goldmark

(Washington, D.C. -- Todd Zwillich, Transportation Nation) As many as a third of all U.S. traffic fatalities involve drug users.

That’s the conclusion of a new analysis out today from the White House Office of Drug Control Policy and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The alarming statistic comes from an analysis of 2009 NHTSA crash data. It shows a full 33% of all post-mortem tests on people who perished in traffic accidents had drugs in their systems. That includes illegal drugs like marijuana, cocaine and methamphetamine, but also includes legal prescription and non-prescription drugs like antidepressants and pain killers. The report does not state what percentage of Americans are on drugs, including legal ones, at any given time.

Alcohol and nicotine were excluded from the analysis, suggesting that “drugged driving” is a much larger safety problem on American roadways than previously thought.

“Unfortunately, it may be getting worse,” said ONDCP director Gil Kerlikowske, also known as the ‘drug czar’.

The report concludes that the incidence of positive drug tests in fatal crashes is up five percent over the last five years, even while overall traffic deaths are down.

Federal drug and auto safety officials want drugged driving to become a bigger part of efforts to cut impaired driving. They’re using the numbers to tout a White House pledge to cut drugged driving by 10% by 2015.

But now, some caveats: The NHTSA data only apply to traffic fatalities in which drug tests are performed and then later available. That is not all crashes, so the actual presence of drugs in fatal crashes could be much higher than 33%. On the other hand, the analysis doesn’t separate high levels of drugs—levels that lead to significant impairment—with lower levels that may not.

For example, marijuana stays in the body for 4-6 weeks after its smoked. So the simple presence of marijuana in a driver’s system doesn’t mean he or she used the drug immediately before driving. Also, drugs like antidepressants, while they can be impairing in large doses or if they cause drowsiness, are not necessarily intoxicating when taken day after day. Again, a positive test is a long way from proving the drug caused, or even played a role in, a crash.

Norm Mineta in 2001. Image: Alex Plummer / FEMA

Norm Mineta served as Secretary of the Department of Transportation in both the Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations. Lately Mineta's been teaming up with Republicans and Democratic DOT secretaries in the hopes of convincing Congress to make major new transportation investments, including a $50 billion infrastructure bill championed by President Obama.

The trouble is that in these days of giant debt and political polarization, Congress is in little mood to listen. Transportation Nation's Todd Zwillich recently sat down with Mineta at his current office in at the Washington lobbying firm of Hill & Knowlton to ask about Washington's attitude toward roads and highways, high speed rail, and the prospects for bipartisan agreement in an era of political warfare.

[MP3]http://audio.wnyc.org/news/news20101123_minetta_zwillich.mp3[/MP3]

"I was hoping that we'd be able to see something around the infrastructure bank being considered in the past during the lame duck session....I haven't seen anything to confirm any kind of activity that would connote action during the lame duck."

TZ: You joined the president and bi-partisan past transportation secretaries in the WH rose garden a few weeks ago pushing for the president's proposal for an immediate 50 billion investment in infrastructure and transportation. What are you hearing around Washington about the prospects of that money being approved in the near term...?

Norm Minetta: I was hoping that we'd be able to see something around the infrastructure bank being considered in the past during the lame duck session. In fact that's what we were hoping would be the result of former Secretary Sam Skinner and I meeting with Pres Obama and Secretary Geithner and Secretary LaHood, but I haven't seen anything to confirm any kind of activity that would connote action during the lame duck. And I did see secretary LaHood maybe about a week, ten days or a week after that session and it didn't seem like anything was happening.  So I guess we'll have to wait until after the start of the new 112th congress.

TZ: ...You've called for a transformational investment in infrastructure. Can we get it in this 112th congress? Where do you think we're heading given this political environment?

NM: Well, I think those of us who are proponents of transportation spending, really haven't done a good job of justifying what that spending is all about. When we think about everything we eat, wear, consume, whether as individuals or a business, it just seems to me what we're not seeing is that everything we have in terms of food, clothing, whatever you want to talk about, got to a store, got to a distribution center got to our house by something on wheels, and we really haven't done a very good job of relating that spending. When I hear these folks talk about look at that pork. Well that pork  is really economic activity and it just seems to me then we just  haven't done a good job at explaining. The mere fact that spending money, is not pork. That there is substance to that spending. And the other thing to is besides spending from tax revenues, there's also a great deal that is accumulating in the private sector that's available for expenditures in infrastructure, what I call pipeline -- private investment in public enterprises. So it seems to me what we ought to be doing is utilizing this whole public/private partnership in order to advance spending and not just tax revenue.

"When I hear these folks talk about look at that pork. Well that pork  is really economic activity and it just seems to me then we just  haven't done a good job at explaining. The mere fact that spending money, is not pork. That there is substance to that spending."

TZ: As you know the reality of our political environment right now suggests that any increased spending ... might be pretty unlikely and a lot of people in Washington are limping along with what are called continuing resolutions--staying with current funding levels. ...Now if that happens, and we just go along with any continuing resolutions for the next 2 or 3 year, what are the consequences of that in practical terms?

NM: Well, just in the transportation field, in the past we've has T-21: the transportation efficiency act for the 21st century. That was a $230 billion expenditure over a six year period.  SAFETEA-LU was a successor and that was $270 billion over a 6 year period. Chairman Oberstar put in the surface transportation assistance act and he called for $450 billion, but to the extent that the surface transportation assistance act never got enacted, we're now working on the $270 billion that's now been replaced since 2003. So here we are in 2010, and we're still working on a $270 billion authorized level. Now in the meantime, there's been a tremendous increase in the cost of doing business. And when you think about the highway trust fund, 87% of that highway trust fund, is going to maintaining what we have already built. So that means that 14% is available for new but again with the cost increases, we're really getting 20% less for what we have to spend. So it is costing us all very dearly. And the problem is that today, given that we're working on a global economic marketplace, we're going to be impacting on our own productivity, impacting on our own congestion and have a economic disadvantage competing against Germany, China, India, Japan, all the other countries in the economy who are making tremendous investments in their own transportation infrastructure.

TZ: In the short term, over the next year, the new chair Mr. Mica from Florida, starts to work on a transportation bill, do you see any prospects of the kind of bipartisan agreements that can make the kind of investments you're talking about?

NM: I think given the fact that that gasoline tax generates about 300 billion, instead of a $450 billion bill, maybe we should just stay with a $300 billion bill and work on that for the time being.

TZ: That's a lot of maintenance then and not much new. You gave a matrix before of maintenance versus new. Scaling back to $300 billion sounds like a lot of maintenance for the next few years.

NM: But it's still an increase from the present $270 billion, so to that extent, it is an increase, but it's not ... you figure it's a 20% increase in cost, that means we should probably be at minimum $330 billion, and that is to an extent, a reduction if we stay with $300 billion. But it seems to me, $300 billion is a better place to me to be working on these extensions, that we have right now. I think we're working on our 11th extension right now. and that ends on Dec. 31. So during the lame duck session, we're going to have to extend that Dec. 31st date to June, sometime in that time period.

TZ: What do you think is the future of high speed rail? Will it survive this political environment? And if a couple of states stick with their high speed rail, but most don't, will it take the wind out of the sails for high speed rail and this push that the stimulus act tried to make for it.

NM: I think high speed rail was always considered to be a regional kind of a program: There was Portland-Seattle-Vancouver. California had LA to San Francisco, Texas, Florida, the Northeast corridor and the Midwest. So there's been really, regional high speed rail. The $8 billion that was in the stimulus program went to something like 120 areas. I think Chairman-designate Mica  coming in the 112th congress is supportive of high speed rail, but thinks that there ought to be criteria by which we measure projects that are going to be funded, so that we are speaking on the  high speed rail and not higher speed rail. I think congressmen Mica is supportive of high speed rail, but doesn't like the sort of the spreading out of the money to 120 or so projects and would rather have had that money concentrated in ...

TZ: let's say - Florida.

NM: Florida has an Atlanta to Tampa route. That's a 110-mile-route. California is probably the longest at 150 miles. Portland, Seattle, Vancouver is probably 100, maybe 200 miles. Of course Texas is such a big state, it has a potentially big one.

TZ: This method of 120 locations, regions that you describe, is the classic formula that congress uses to get by in from as many members as possible, we have something to gain or nothing to lose if it's not funded. Mr. Mica is talking about something much more streamlined. Do you agree with that approach or would it jeopardize the support you can get with that kind of funding if the benefit only goes to a couple of places, instead of being spread around?

We "ought to really be getting to an effective high speed rail... greater than 200 mph... Even if  we have only five places in the country that have real high speed rail that we would be better off than having short segments of 90 mph trains."

NM: Well when the Europeans and Asians talk about high speed rail, they're talking about 220 miles per hour. Japan is going to a maglev that goes to 300 miles per hour. When we talk about high speed rail, we're talking about 120, 150 to 220 mph.  Right now a lot of these projects, trains are going 85 mph and we're going to go to maybe 97 mph. Well, I think if I read Congressman Mica correctly what he's saying, we ought not to be doing this kind of high speed rail. But ought to really be getting to an effective high speed rail based on what others think of, and that is at least 220 mph- 200 mph,  greater than 200 mph... Even if  we have only five places in the country that have real high speed rail that we would be better off than having short segments of 90 mph trains.

TZ: You've dealt with Congress. You've had experience in both Democratic and Republican administrations. High speed rail in five regions. Is that something you can get the rank and file go along with? And is that something in the Midwest or people in places that don't get the direct benefit, don't necessarily want to sign up for if it's just Florida, California and New York that benefits?

NM: Well, I think it has to be done, in conjunction with something else the Miller Report talks about and that is a budget reform. And you have actually two budgets: a capital budget and an operating budget. And the train systems under a bifurcated budget system like this will get no operating subsidies, in that they will have to be cost recovery based on the fare box.

TZ: In other words, the federal government can invest in building, but operating costs will be in fares, with no transfer of funds, let's say from tax payers in Kansas to commuters in New York City.

NM: Europeans and Asians, you look at those high speed rail systems--TGV in France, Shinkansen in Japan--get no operating subsidies from the government. They are totally dependent on their efficiency of operation, their fares, and their fare box, for the operation of the system. Yet the Japanese Federal Government helps in the construction of the capital arena.

"I can cite examples of Halliburton or KBR or Blackwater spending billions and what we have nothing really to show for it. So it seems to me, again, that if they are going to say spending needs to be looked at then, it seems to me we have to look at spending all across the board."

TZ: In the environment that we have ... can Washington produce any kind of transformational transportation and infrastructure policy over the next two years or, honestly, are we going to have to just limp along until 2012 in terms of transportation?

NM: If the conservative groups are willing to say all defense spending is good and we ought to keep spending there and we don't apply and standards of efficiency or lets say an internal rate of return or return on investment. Then that seems to be to be foolish. I can cite examples of Halliburton or KBR or Blackwater spending billions and what we have nothing really to show for it. So it seems to me, again, that if they are going to say spending needs to be looked at then, it seems to me we have to look at spending all across the board.

Why is the Chamber of Commerce promoting their ATM, their Americans for Transportation Mobility? Because it is important in terms of economic engine, as job builder. So to me this is not just a business issue, its also personal in terms of quality of life. Am I going to be caught up in congestion and not able to get home to have dinner with my family, or can I be home in time to be with Johnny for his soccer match. To me congestion is part of that economic equation of what happens in life. And we ought to be working on relieving congestion, and this is going to require spending. so we have to make sure that the money we spend is being spent efficiently, and there is a return on that dollar. So we can make a differentiation on the types of spending that goes on.

TZ: What is the single greatest area of transportation infrastructure?

NM: Roads and highway conditions, is to me critical. The interstate highway system after WWII created the largest increase in economic development in the country. That was not just by accident. That great growth of our economy is directly attributable to the interstate highway system  and its expansion. And at the same time it gave mobility to people to move about as freely as they want. So to me the roads and highways still need a great deal of improvement and what we have already built requires maintenance, and it would be foolish not to do the maintenance given all of the money that has been used on constructing the highway system.

TZ: Former Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta, thanks for joining us.

NM: Thanks for having me on board Todd.

Image: Arthur Cherry via GOOD

(Alex Goldmark, Transportation Nation)  GOOD magazine has announced the winners of their hunt for the "Best Bus Route in America." The Midwest swept the final awards, winning both the judges vote and the people's choice.

The top prize goes to Green Line Rapid Transit in Kansas City, Missouri. (Pictured above) Nominated by Arthur Cherry: "The brand new Green Line rapid transit route features green technologies: hybrid electric buses, rain gardens, and a pervious concrete park and ride."

The people's choice goes to the #29 in Chicago. Reader Alex Burchard submitted a river view photo with flanking skyscrapers to make his case for the #29.   "CTA Bus Route #29 overlooking the Chicago River (West facing) as it crosses on State St. More reliable than the CTA Red line in my experience."

I'd like to nominate this submission for an honorable mention: the Circle Isle Rt 52 in Honolulu submitted by John Nouchi, "The Bus’ Circle Isle Rt 52 travels 92 miles from urban jungle to famous North Shore where pineapples, surf, turtles/seals await!" Scenic photo here.

See the fifteen finalists here, each with photo, some of the bus, others on it, and more than one of a smiling bus driver.

And kicking yourself for not nominating your own bus ride?  Comments and photos, positive or negative, are welcome!  Or email them to transponation@gmail.com.

(Alex Goldmark, Transportation Nation) Starting today, cameras are helping to police New York's bus rapid transit route. The Department of Transportation announced five cameras are watching out for drivers that illegally enter the bus lanes on the new Select Bus Service on Manhattan's East Side.

In case you were wondering, the New York Police Department has issued 13,833 summonses for violating the lanes—that's without the use of any camera assistance.

The figure is current, according to NYPD, as of November 17.  That means the NYPD has been issuing about 350 tickets every day since the SBS lanes launched on October 10. Each ticket for driving in the bus lanes is at least $115.

Here's the math: NY's Finest have served about $1.6 million in summonses in protection of speedier East Side bus service so far.

We'll follow up to see if the pace of ticketing tapers off as drivers learn more about the lanes and awareness of the rules and enforcement increase. We'll also try to find out if the pace of the buses picks up with this traffic enforcement.

(Alex Goldmark, Transportation Nation) New York has been slowly encouraging more and more car sharing, with re-zoning, reserving cars for city use, and promoting extra parking for the collectively used vehicles. All of those initiatives presume you check out a car and return it to the same location. Hertz Connect, the car sharing arm of Hertz rental cars, announced they are launching what they call an industry first: one-way car sharing. You can now check out a car in Manhattan and drop it off at any area airport, paying by the hour for the rental.

That makes checking out a car a lot more like a bike share than a traditional car rental, and, Hertz hopes, it might make the concept competitive with taxis in certain circumstances.

The initial roll out will let drivers rent a Hertz Connect car from one location in Manhattan, West 55th street, and drop it off at LaGuardia, JFK or Newark Liberty airports or vice versa. Soon, Hertz Connect will expand the locations to other classic Hertz rental car posts.

Most bike shares permit, in fact, are designed to encourage one-way rides. Finding an empty slot on a communal bike rack at the end of your trip is the only obstacle to that kind of plan (no small hassle during peak times as Parisians will tell you). Coordinating the space for cars to flow according to the one-way whims of NYC car sharers is a more challenging task.  So to make this work Hertz would have to ensure that they have the space to accommodate drop-offs at enough locations so drivers can count on low hassle at the other end of a car share trip.

Hertz called this an industry first in an email to Transportation Nation even though,  for now, it's just to and from airports. If they are able to harness their significant stock of cars—4oo Hertz Connect cars in the NYC area—and their 175 locations around the NYC metro area this could expand the pool of potentially interested car sharers.

We're looking into the details now, like wait times, drop-off hassle at the airport, and how this compares with alternatives.
Check back for more soon.

(Minneapolis -- Dan Olsen, MPR) An unusual, and expensive, bike trail through one of the most hectic areas of Minneapolis may not open this year. The Cedar Lake bike trail, just slightly more than one-mile long, is eagerly awaited by cycling enthusiasts, but the path to building it has been long and difficult.

City of Minneapolis civil engineer Jack Yuzna says building this stretch of the Cedar Lake biking and walking trail in downtown Minneapolis is one of the most challenging projects in his professional career.

Yuzna says it involves negotiations with office building owners, a railroad company, various levels of government and the Minnesota Twins.

"We're actually walking underneath the promenade overhead of the Target Field ball park," Yuzna said while showing the project. "And if you listen you can hear there's a freight train passing through which was all part of the complexities of building the ball park along with the trail."

Bicycling advocates have been waiting 20 years for the link.

New York lawmakers continue their push to collect the $3 billion in federal transportation money originally pledged to the now-canceled ARC tunnel project.  Here's the letter requesting New Jersey's forgone funds sent to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood by members of New York's Congressional delegation .

ARC letter from NY Pols

(Alex Goldmark, Transportation Nation) There's one fewer bike lane in New York City, but no one seems to want to comment.

After repaving a major traffic artery on Staten Island, the City DOT is replacing the bike lane along Father Capodanno Blvd. with parking and a bus lane.  The lane used to connect the Staten Island Ferry Terminal to local light rail.

The lane had been a point of contention among local drivers and cyclists for some time. The borough's newspaper even called for its removal, saying it endangered cyclists -- and arguing there were alternative routes (though those routes are shared with pedestrians, and after a certain hour, require a detour.)

There was no public announcement about the removal of the bike lane, but DOT chief, Janette Sadik-Khan told the Staten Island Advance, "we heard from the community and worked closely with local leaders to engineer a solution that works whether you’re on transit, a bike or behind the wheel."

Local politicians also supported the move, but did not return calls on the topic.

Local bike advocates are irate. Transportation Alternatives issued a statement lamenting the lack of formal process in removing the bike lane, citing a similar move a year ago in Brooklyn that was politically motivated.  WNYC last year had reported that City Hall wasn't denying that the removal of that lane, through a heavily orthodox Jewish section of Williamsburgh,  was a political favor delivered after Mayor Michael Bloomberg's narrow election victory.

They point out that this bike lane was part of the bike masterplan, and see this as a step backward from building a bike friendly city.

Republican Jeff Flake of Arizona is probably the House's most outspoken critic of earmark spending. In fact, his attacks on earmarks by his own party have landed him punishments including being stripped of valuable committee assignments. Well, now Flake is enjoying vindication. Republicans in the House and Senate have vowed to forgo requesting earmark, at least in the near term.

Todd Zwillich caught up with Flake just off the House floor as the congressman discussed earmarks and how the ban might affect Washington's funding of vital transportation projects.

[MP3]http://audio.wnyc.org/news/news20101118_jeff_flake_earmarks.mp3[/MP3]

A TSA Agent viewing images from a full body X-Ray scanner. Image: Getty Images

(Alex Goldmark, Transportation Nation) Opposition from travelers is mounting to new security screening equipment that uses full-body x-ray technology at airports ever since it surfaced that thousands of images of travelers were being saved, and some of them surfaced online.

Our partner, The Takeaway, will be speaking with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano tomorrow morning. It's sure to come up. For now they're asking you if this new technology is causing you to rethink your travel holiday travel plans.  Here are some of the responses they've gotten so far:

Read more comments here.

(Washington, D.C. -- Todd Zwillich, Transportation Nation) Senate Republicans on Tuesday made good on their plans to swear off those pet spending projects called "earmarks." House Republicans have done the same, largely under pressure from vocal tea party activists and others decrying out-of-control government spending.

But before believing the $16 billion in annual earmark spending is about to go away, consider a few things:

• Republicans have pledged only to forgo requesting earmarks for themselves. And judging from the statements of some senior Republicans, not everyone supports the ban. While it's likely all Republicans will avoid earmarks as a show of solidarity, they certainly don't have to. And in promising not to request earmarks for two years, Senate Republicans have not pledged to vote against spending bills that contain earmarks.

• Cutting earmarks may cut spending, but it doesn't have to. Many on lawmakers worry that the ban simply cedes more power to the Obama White House to program money the way it sees fit, not the way Congress wants. That means that lawmakers who could once fund local transportation projects with earmarks will now have to go hat-in-hand to President Obama to ask for White House backing. One example: A 14-year dredging project for the Port of Savannah in Georgia that has survived on congressional earmarks. Local Republicans and Democrats desperately want the project to continue and may soon find themselves asking the White House for help.

• Democrats and Independents have signed no such earmark pledge. As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told reporters, "I personally am not going to stop bringing things back for Nevada."

(Alex Goldmark, Transportation Nation) Residents in some parts of New York City pay an additional fee--as much as $55 a day--to rent a car in the tri-state area because of their home address. The fee, charged by Dollar/Thrifty Rental Car, is determined not by where the car is rented, but by where the driver lives.

Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer and other New York State elected officials held an event Wednesday calling attention to this practice and demanding that the company end the fees. Stringer said in a statement "it’s time for Thrifty and Dollar ... to halt this unconscionable practice once and for all. There’s only one way to describe these outrageous extra fees--and that’s price gouging.”

New York City residents of Manhattan and Staten Island pay no extra fee. Residents of Brooklyn pay $55 a day in additional fees, Bronx residents pay $53 a day and Queens residents pay $11 a day in extra fees.

In his statement, Stringer noted that many other car companies used to charge similar fees. As recently as 2006, Stringer said Hertz charged $56 for Bronx residents, $34 for Brooklyn residents, $15 for Queens residents and $3 for Manhattan residents. In fact New York City passed a law in 1992 banning the practice of residency-based fees for rental cars that was successfully challenged in court by Hertz, so the law remains unenforced.

Car rental industry analysts say it's not unusual for private companies to vary their rates in any number of way.

Calls to Dollar and Thrifty, part of a single corporation, were not returned.

Image: (CC) by Flickr user Mulad.

(Tim Nelson, MPR) Minnesota's first commuter rail line marked its first anniversary Tuesday morning.

This year, nearly 600,000 people have stepped aboard the line's trains for the half-dozen round trips Northstar makes daily between Big Lake, Minn. and downtown Minneapolis.

But there haven't been as many riders as Northstar's builders had hoped when the line opened with great fanfare. Ridership is running about 5 percent below projections -- or about 30,000 fares. The shortfall is expected to worsen to as much as 15 to 20 percent below projections for the rest of this year.

Still, commuters who use the line are happy that they can take the train instead of driving.

"Traffic's pretty bad, and the train is a lot easier," said Jeff Burrell, a systems administrator who lives in Coon Rapids. "It's cheaper than paying for filling my tank every four days. It's convenient, it's more convenient [and] it's a smoother ride than the bus."

(St. Paul -- Elizabeth Dunbar, Minnesota Public Radio) While Republicans are set to formalize a non-binding pledge banning earmarks, not every legislator thinks it's good policy. U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), defended congressional earmarks today, saying limits have been put in place and that the money spent on them represents only a small part of the overall federal budget.

Republican House leaders called for a moratorium on the earmark process, which allows members of Congress to fund specific projects in their states or districts. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), has said he also supports a ban on earmarks.

But McCollum said she's concerned about the $45 million earmark pending before the House for Minnesota's Central Corridor light rail project. She said the project is worthwhile and will create thousands of jobs.

"[Earmarks are] one half of one percent of the entire federal budget," McCollum told MPR's Morning Edition. "This is for local communities. I'm a big supporter of local control, especially when it comes to spending some of our tax dollars."

McCollum said she is working with the Obama administration to save Central Corridor from Republican cuts.

While the light rail project is a priority, McCollum said there are other earmarks she's supported in past years, such as money for the Harriet Tubman crisis centers in the Twin Cities.

"That's a community project that the community came together and said, 'Would you help us fund this,'" she said.

Listen to the full interview with McCollum at MPR.

(Alex Goldmark, Transportation Nation) In response to our series on the future of transportation, we got an email pointing us to "tubular rail." ????????

In this vision for an alternative train type, there is no track. Stanchions, 100 feet apart, house rollers that propel the train as it passes.  The train doesn't fall even as it's nose is suspended unsupported in the same way that a pencil on the edge of a tabletop won't begin to tip and fall until more than half of it is dangling past the precipice.

The website for Tubular Rail Inc. explains how the proposed plan would work, and answers many questions about top speed, power sources, emergency evacuation and braking.

Engineers?  Responses?

(Alex Goldmark, Transportation Nation) Can design be used to encourage bike riding? Pepin Gelardi and Teresa Herrmann, both designers, think so. The number one reason people don't ride, they tell GOOD Magazine, is because people feel outnumbered by cars and don't feel safe. So they created Contrail to visually show the bounty of bikes around town, to convey a sense of a cycling community and get people thinking they, too, can ride around their city.

Contrail turns bikes into (non-permanent) paintbrushes. Cyclists strap the device to the frame and the real wheel powers a pump that drips a stream of colorful chalking fluid along behind, trailing a bright line.

Image: Contrail

It's still in the prototype phase, so it's unclear if it would be adopted in any large number enough to achieve the designers' goal of conveying community through a city-wide cross hatch of colored strips and swirls.

Some bike advocates, however, are already big fans. The designers are encouraging them to imagine Contrail as a tool to draw attention to their cause of building cycle-friendly cities.

There is evidence this kind of tool would be adopted by activists. To advocate for a new bike lane, the artist collective Länsiväylä in Helsinki, Finland poured water-based paint on the street and had cyclists ride through it, trailing the colors along what the group hoped would become the new bike lane.

Flickr user Länsiväylä: Pyöräilykaista2010

Contrail designers also point out it would facilitate group rides of all stripes, from neighborhood tours to anything else, because the trails would make it easy to follow the leader/tour guide even if you lose sight. On their website, they say it can also facilitate fundraising, or just fun, as an artsy addition to city riding. They don't mention critical mass rallies, but it's easy to see how the cycling stalwarts behind the monthly ride to "reclaim" the streets would want to mark their territory, especially because there is no announced route ahead of time.

Watch a video of how Contrail works.

Contrail by Ulicu LLC from Teresa Herrmann on Vimeo.

The project is still a prototype in the fundraising phase with more details and a request for financial support at their Kickstarter page.

The proposed California rail plan, courtesy of the California High Speed Rail Authority

If high-speed rail is going to happen anywhere on a bigger scale than the current Northeast Acela service, it's going to be in California. In 2008, voters approved a $10 billion bond measure to fund a train that can zip people from L.A. to San Francisco in just two-and-a-half hours.

But the train would also be noisy, and to some residents, and unwanted eyesore. Palo Alto and two other cities are suing the state to stop California's plan. It's by no means a sure thing.  KALW's Casey Miner examines the real prospects of the biggest rail project in the country. Listen to the full story here on Marketplace.

And you can see the whole Marketplace series on the Future of Transportation here.

On Monday, the Federal Transit Administration sent this letter to NJ Transit requesting immediate repayment of $271 million in federal money spent on preliminary work for the ARC tunnel project killed by Governor Chris Christie on October 27th.

The federal government had obligated $350 million already for the initial phase of planning and construction. Of that, New Jersey has spent just over $271 million and the feds want it back. NJ Transit, for its part, is saying not so fast. Their response is below the FTA letter.

ARC Repayment Letter

NJ Transit issued Transportation Nation this response:

"NJ TRANSIT received the FTA request for repayment on November 8, 2010.  At this time, we are reviewing the request, and are assessing our options.  NJ TRANSIT does not agree that the issues are as clear cut as portrayed in the FTA letter."

Last week Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, an adamant rail supporter,  suddenly stopped all work on his state's high speed rail projects. He did it because Governor-elect Scott Walker has said he plans to kill the $800+ million dollar project citing cost concerns.

Here's Governor Doyle's explanation for shutting down the rail projects he fought so hard for. It's as bittersweet as you can get in a press release.   (Double click on the image and you should be able to see it full size)

Image: Amtrak

We’re changing how we move, and that’s changing how we live and work. Transportation Nation partner, Marketplace, is exploring the Future of Transportation this week. We'll collect the stories in this post as they air. Check your local station to find out when the show is on in your area.

A quick hint of what's to come: 200 mile per hour trains will steal business from airlines, cars will talk to each other and traffic, well, there will still be traffic--but there’s innovation there too.

WEDNESDAY: What are the real prospects of high-speed rail in California? In 2008, voters approved a $10 billion bond measure to fund a train that can zip people from L.A. to San Francisco in just two-and-a-half hours. A rail trip faster, safer than driving and, well, we'll wait and see on the price. But the train would also be noisy, and to some residents, and unwanted eyesore. Palo Alto and two other cities are suing the state to stop California's plan. It's by no means a sure thing.  So what are the real chances and real obstacles to the nation's bigger rail project underway right now? (Listen to the full story here)

WEDNESDAY: Could high-speed rail kill short hop flights? Last month, the U.S. government pledged another $2.5 billion for high speed rail. That money will go toward building train lines between Los Angeles and San Francisco, and Chicago and Detroit–the kind of short trip a business traveler right now takes to the skies for. So what will happen to airlines when trains will get us to a place almost as fast?(Listen to the story here)

TUESDAY:  Are fast buses the ticket? Buses have a bad rap, but done right, experts say, they can be as fast as subways, more pleasant, and WAY, way cheaper.  A look at Cleveland's healthline, and why Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and Portland are paying attention.  (Listen to the full story).

TUESDAY: Leading the electric charge in Houston

Houston, Tex., is usually better known as a capital of Big Oil. But things may be changing, as the nation's fourth largest city is also trying position itself as a leader in electric cars. (Listen to the full story)

MONDAY: Intelligent Cars

It's tempting to daydream -- as you're fighting traffic to and from work every day -- of a time when cars will drive themselves. When all you'll have to do is climb in, sip your coffee and read the headlines on your iPad -- whatever's going to take its place. Google did make big news last month sending four driver-less vans down the Pacific Coast Highway.

But as exciting -- or perhaps scary -- as it might be to think about life with a robotic chauffeur, that reality is way, way down the road, so to speak. Soon enough, though, cars will be equipped to help us drive better and safer.  The Department of Transportation is funding research to build "intelligent" cars that can warn you of potential accidents and suggest less-congested routes.   (Listen to the full story)

MONDAY: Congestion Pricing

This is a given:  Transportation is vital to our economy. But what happens when fuel taxes are lost to more efficient cars and better mass transit? In the first of a series on the "Future of Transportation," Cathy Duchamp looks at one alternative to the gas tax, something called congestion pricing. As cars get more fuel efficient, and transit becomes a better option, the amount of gasoline tax the government collects gets smaller and smaller. Congestion pricing might the answer, even on highways.  (Listen to the full story)