National Communications System
The National Communications System is an office within the United States Department of Homeland Security charged with enabling national security and emergency preparedness communications (NS/EP telecommunications) using the national telecommunications system.
NCS seal
Background and History of the NCS
The genesis of the National Communications System (NCS) began in 1962 after the Cuban missile crisis when communications problems among the United States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and foreign heads of state threatened to complicate the crisis further. After the crisis, President John F. Kennedy ordered an investigation of national security communications, and the National Security Council (NSC) formed an interdepartmental committee to examine the communications networks and institute changes. This interdepartmental committee recommended the formation of a single unified communications system to serve the President, Department of Defense, diplomatic and intelligence activities, and civilian leaders. Consequently, in order to provide better communications support to critical Government functions during emergencies, President Kennedy established the National Communications System by a Presidential Memorandum on August 21, 1963. The NCS mandate included linking, improving, and extending the communications facilities and components of various Federal agencies, focusing on interconnectivity and survivability.
On April 3, 1984, President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order (E.O.) 12472 which broadened the NCS' national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) capabilities and superseded President Kennedy's original 1963 memorandum. The NCS expanded from its original six members to an interagency group of 23 Federal departments and agencies, and began coordinating and planning NS/EP telecommunications to support crises and disasters.
With the United States Information Agency being absorbed into the U.S. State Department in October 2000, the NCS membership currently stands at 23 members.
Each NCS member organization is represented on the NCS through the Committee of Principals (COP) -- and its subordinate Council of Representatives (COR). The COP, formed as a result of Executive Order 12472, provides advice and recommendations to the NCS and the National Security Council through the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board on NS/EP telecommunications and its ties to other critical infrastructures. The NCS also participates in joint industry-Government planning through its work with the President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC), with the NCS's National Coordinating Center for Telecommunications (NCC) and the NCC's subordinate Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC).
After nearly 40 years with the Secretary of Defense serving as its Executive Agent, President George W. Bush transferred the National Communications System to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The NCS was one of 22 Federal agencies transferred to the Department on March 1, 2003, in accordance with Executive Order 13286. A revised Executive Order 12472 reflects the changes of E.O. 13286. On November 15, 2005, the NCS became part of the Department's Directorate for Preparedness after nearly two years under the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate. In March, 2007 the NCS became an entity of the National Protection and Programs Directorate. Currently, the DHS Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs Directorate serves as the NCS Manager.
Services of the National Communications System
In fulfillment of their mission to enable emergency communications, the NCS has created a number of different services.
NS/EP Priority Telecommunications
Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS) - provides emergency access and priority processing in the local and long distance segments of the public switched wireline network. Used in an emergency or crisis situation during which the probability of completing a call over normal or other alternate telecommunication means has significantly decreased.
Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) - provides service vendors with a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandate for prioritizing service requests by identifying those services critical to NS/EP. A telecommunications service with a TSP assignment is assured of receiving full attention by the service vendor before a non-TSP service.
Wireless Priority Service (WPS) - provides priority cellular network access. The WPS was approved by the FCC for NS/EP requirements on a call-by-call priority basis. The NCS executes the program on behalf of the Executive Office of the President. Only individuals in NS/EP key leadership positions are authorized use of WPS.
National Coordinating Center (NCC) for Telecommunications
Alerting and Coordination Network (ACN) - The Alerting and Coordination Network (ACN) provides a stable emergency voice communications network connecting telecommunications service providers’ Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs) and Network Operations Centers (NOCs) to support national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) telecommunications network restoration coordination, transmission of telecommunications requirements and priorities, and incident reporting when the Public Switched Network (PSN) is inoperable, stressed or congested. It is engineered to provide a reliable and survivable network capability, and, as such, has no logical dependency on the PSN. As a result, if the PSN suffers disruptions, the ACN will not be affected.
Shared Resources High Frequency Radio Program (SHARES) - The SHARES HF Radio Program brings together the assets of over 1,000 HF radio stations worldwide to voluntarily pass emergency messages when normal communications are destroyed or unavailable. SHARES uses common radio operating and message formatting procedures and more than 250 designated frequencies. Participation in SHARES is open to all Federal departments and agencies and their designated affiliates on a voluntary basis. More than 90 Federal, state, and industry organizations currently contribute resources throughout the United States and in 26 countries and U.S. possessions
Telecom ISAC - In January 2000, the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism designated the NCC-ISAC as the ISAC for telecommunications. On March 1, 2000, the NCC-ISAC commenced operations. The initial NCC-ISAC membership is based on NCC membership, which is evolving to reflect a broader base of technologies comprising the telecommunications infrastructure. NCC-ISAC will support the mission assigned by Executive Order 12472 and the national critical infrastructure protection goals of government and industry. The NCC-ISAC will facilitate voluntary collaboration and information sharing among its participants gathering information on vulnerabilities, threats, intrusions, and anomalies from telecommunications industry, government, and other sources. The NCC-ISAC will analyze the data with the goal of averting or mitigating impact upon the telecommunications infrastructure. Additionally, data will be used to establish baseline statistics and patterns and maintained to provide a library of historical data. Results will be sanitized and disseminated in accordance with sharing agreements established for that purpose by the NCC-ISAC participants.
Emergency Response Training (ERT)
Planning, Training, and Exercise Support (PTE) - Our mission is to ensure NCS readiness, enhance partnerships within government and industry, coordinate telecommunications operational planning among NCS elements, develop emergency response requirements, and to provide skilled civilians and reservists during crises and emergencies.
Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) - The National Communications System (NCS) Augmentee Program was established in 1988 to provide a cadre of skilled civilian and military reservists to enhance the efforts of the Office of the Manager, NCS (OMNCS), the National Coordinating Center for Telecommunications (NCC), and NCS Regional Managers (RMs) during national crises and emergencies. The NCS Augmentee Program consists of two components: the civilian members of the National Defense Executive Reserve (NDER) and the U.S. Army reservists participating in the Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) Program.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
American School Infrastructure
American School Infrastructure
The American School, also known as "National System", represents three different yet related things in politics, policy and philosophy. It was the American policy for many decades, waxing and waning in actual degrees and details of implementation. Historian Michael Lind describes it as a coherent applied economic philosophy with logical and conceptual relationships with other economic ideas.
It is the macroeconomic philosophy that dominated United States national policies from the time of the American Civil War until the mid-twentieth century[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] (after mercantilism and prior to Keynesian economics, it can be seen as a modified type of classical economics). It consisted of these three core policies:
protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and some include through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises.[9][10][11][12]
It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient. However, despite the "capitalist" label, the American School has been known to be more generous towards the working class than the British school.[citation needed]
The American School's key elements were promoted by John Q. Adams and his National Republican Party, Henry Clay and the Whig Party, and Abraham Lincoln through the early Republican Party which embraced, implemented, and maintained this economic systemThe American School has evolved into the mixed economy of today's America.
During its American System period the United States grew into the largest economy in the world with the highest standard of living, surpassing the British Empire by the 1880s.
Part of a series on Economic systems
Ideologies and theories
Capitalism Communist economy Corporatism Fascist economy Laissez-faire Mercantilism Natural economy Primitive communism Social market economy Socialist economics
Sectors and systems
Closed economy Dual economy Gift economy Informal economy Market economy Mixed economy Open economy Participatory economics Planned economy Subsistence economy Underground economy Virtual economy
Related articles
Anglo-Saxon economy American School Command Economy Global economy Hunter-gatherer Information economy Newly industrialized country Palace economy Plantation economy Token economy Traditional economy Transition economy
Business and Economics Portal
This box: view • talk • edit
History
Roots
A portrait of Alexander Hamilton by John Trumbull, 1792. Hamilton's ideas and three Reports to Congress formed the philosophical basis of the American School.
The American School of economics represented the legacy of Alexander Hamilton, who in his Report on Manufactures, argued that the U.S. could not become fully independent until it was self-sufficient in all necessary economic products. Hamilton rooted this economic system, in part, in the successive regimes of Colbert's France and Elizabeth I's England, while rejecting the harsher aspects of mercantilism, such as seeking colonies for markets. As later defined by Senator Henry Clay who became known as the Father of the American System because of his impassioned support thereof, the American System was to unify the nation north to south, east to west, and city to farmer. A leading proponent and economist of the 19th Century, Henry Carey, called this a Harmony of Interests in his book by the same name, a harmony between labor and management, and as well a harmony between agriculture, manufacturing, and merchants.
The name, "American System," was coined by Clay to distinguish it, as a school of thought, from the competing theory of economics at the time, the "British System" represented by Adam Smith in his work Wealth of Nations.
The American School included three cardinal policy points:
Support industry: The advocacy of protectionism, and opposition to free trade - particularly for the protection of "infant industries" and those facing import competition from abroad. Examples: Tariff of 1816 and Morrill Tariff
Create physical infrastructure: Government finance of Internal improvements to speed commerce and develop industry. This involved the regulation of privately held infrastructure, to ensure that it meets the nation's needs. Examples: Cumberland Road and Union Pacific Railroad
Create financial infrastructure: A government sponsored National Bank to issue currency and encourage commerce. This involved the use of sovereign powers for the regulation of credit to encourage the development of the economy, and to deter speculation. Examples: First Bank of the United States, Second Bank of the United States, and National Banking Act
Henry C. Carey, a leading American economist and adviser to Abraham Lincoln, in his book Harmony of Interests displays two additional points of this American School economic philosophy that distinguishes it from the systems of Adam Smith or Karl Marx:
Government support for the development of science and public education through a public 'common' school system and investments in creative research through grants and subsidies.
Rejection of class struggle, in favor of the "Harmony of Interests" between: owners and workers, farmer and manufacturers, the wealthy class and the working class. In a passage from his book, The Harmony of Interests, Carey wrote concerning the difference between the American System and British System of economics:
"Two systems are before the world;… One looks to increasing the necessity of commerce; the other to increasing the power to maintain it. One looks to underworking the Hindoo, and sinking the rest of the world to his level; the other to raising the standard of man throughout the world to our level. One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other to increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world."
The Government issue of fiat paper money has also been associated with the American School from the 1830s onwards. The policy has roots going back to the days of the American Colonies, when such a type of currency called Colonial Scrip was the medium of exchange. As early as 1837, John C. Calhoun called for a debt-free currency issued and controlled by the Government.Such a policy would reduce the profits of the banks, and in response to this, the banking institutions threw their support behind the British school, espousing the gold standard throughout the 1800s. In the Civil War, a shortage of specie led to the issue of such a fiat currency, called United States Notes, or "Greenbacks". Towards the end of the Civil War in March 1865, Henry C. Carey, Lincoln's economic advisor, published a series of letters to the Speaker of the House entitled "The Way to Outdo England Without Fighting Her." Carey called for the continuance of the Greenback policy even after the War, while also raising the reserve requirements of the banks to 50%. This would have allowed the US to develop its economy independent of foreign capital (primarily British gold). Carey wrote:
The most serious move in the retrograde direction is that one we find in the determination to prohibit the further issue of [United States Notes]...To what have we been indebted for [the increased economic activity]? To protection and the " greenbacks"! What is it that we are now laboring to destroy? Protection and the Greenback! Let us continue on in the direction in which we now are moving, and we shall see...not a re-establishment of the Union, but a complete and final disruption of it.
Carey's plans did not come to fruition as Lincoln was assassinated the next month and new President Andrew Johnson supported the gold standard, and by 1879 the US was fully on the gold standard. This resulted in a prolonged shortage of currency, and it contributed to the Long Depression from 1873-96.
Advocacy
Senator Henry Clay leader of the Whig Party and advocate for the American System.
The "American System" was the name given by Henry Clay in a speech before Congress advocating an economic program based on the economic philosophy derived from Alexander Hamilton's economic theories (see Report on Manufactures, Report on Public Credit I and II). Clay's policies called for a high tariff to support internal improvements such as road-building, and a national bank to encourage productive enterprise and to form a national currency as Hamilton had advocated as Secretary of the Treasury.
"Clay first used the term “American System” in 1824, although he had been working for its specifics for many years previously. Portions of the American System were enacted by Congress. The Second Bank of the United States was rechartered in 1816 for 20 years. High tariffs were maintained from the days of Hamilton until 1832. However, the national system of internal improvements was never adequately funded; the failure to do so was due in part to sectional jealousies and constitutional scruples about such expenditures."
Clay's plan became the leading tenet of the National Republican Party of John Quincy Adams and the Whig Party of himself and Daniel Webster.
The 'American System' was supported by New England and the Mid-Atlantic, which had a large manufacturing base. It protected their new factories from foreign competition.
The South opposed the 'American System' because its plantation owners were heavily reliant on production of cotton for export, and the American System produced lower demand for their cotton and created higher costs for manufactured goods. After 1828 the United States kept tariffs low until the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1861.
The term became synomonous with other phrases such as "National System" and "Protective System" as it was used over the course of time.
Implementation
An extra session of congress was called in the summer of 1841 for a restoration of the American system. When the tariff question came up again in 1842, the compromise of 1833 was overthrown, and the protective system placed in the ascendent.
Due to the dominance of the then Democratic Party of Van Buren, Polk, and Buchanan the American School was not embraced as the economic philosophy of the United States until the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, who with a series of laws during the American Civil War was able to fully implement what Hamilton, Clay, List, and Carey theorized, wrote about, and advocated.
President Lincoln an "Old Henry Clay tariff Whig" by his own definition, enacted much of the American School's core policies into law during his tenure as President 1861-1865.
According to an article at US-History.com: "As soon as Lincoln took office, the old Whig coalition finally controlled the entire government. It immediately tripled the average tariff, began to subsidize the construction of a transcontinental railroad in California even though a desperate war was being waged, and on February 25, 1862, the Legal Tender Act empowered the secretary of the treasury to issue paper money ('greenbacks') that were not immediately redeemable in gold or silver."
The United States continued these policies throughout the later half of the 19th century. President William McKinley (1897–1901) stated at the time:
"[They say] if you had not had the Protective Tariff things would be a little cheaper. Well, whether a thing is cheap or dear depends upon what we can earn by our daily labor. Free trade cheapens the product by cheapening the producer. Protection cheapens the product by elevating the producer. Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man.
"[It is said] that protection is immoral…. Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefitting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, ‘Buy where you can buy the cheapest'…. Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: ‘Buy where you can pay the easiest.' And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards."
The American System was important in the election politics for and against Grover Cleveland.
Evolution
As the United States entered the 20th century, the "American School" was the policy of the United States under such names as: "American Policy", "Economic nationalism", "National System", "Protective System", "Protection Policy", and "Protectionism", which alludes only to the 'tariff policy' of this system of economics.
This continued until 1913 when the administration of Woodrow Wilson initiated his New Freedom policy that replaced the National Bank System with the Federal Reserve System, and lowered tariffs to revenue only levels with the Underwood Tariff.
The election of Warren G. Harding and the Republican Party in 1920 represented a partial return to the American School through restoration of high tariffs, although a shift away from productive investments into speculation by the Federal Reserve System continued. This speculation lead to the Stock Market Crash on Black Friday in October of 1929. President Herbert Hoover responded to this crash and the subsequent bank failures and unemployment by signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which some economists considered to have deepened the Great Depression, while others disagree.
The New Deal continued infrastructure improvements through the numerous public works projects of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) as well as the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA); brought massive reform to the banking system of the Federal Reserve while investing in various ways in industry to stimulate production and control speculation; but abandoned protective tariffs while embracing moderate tariff protection (revenue based 20–30% the normal tariff under this) through reciprocity, choosing to subsidized industry as a replacement. At the close of World War II, the United States now dominant in manufacturing with little competition, the era of Free Trade had begun.
In 1973 when the "Kennedy" Round concluded under President Richard Nixon which cut U.S. tariffs to all time lows, the New Deal orientation towards reciprocity and subsidy ended, which moved the United States further in the Free Market direction and away from its American School economic system.
The American School, also known as "National System", represents three different yet related things in politics, policy and philosophy. It was the American policy for many decades, waxing and waning in actual degrees and details of implementation. Historian Michael Lind describes it as a coherent applied economic philosophy with logical and conceptual relationships with other economic ideas.
It is the macroeconomic philosophy that dominated United States national policies from the time of the American Civil War until the mid-twentieth century[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] (after mercantilism and prior to Keynesian economics, it can be seen as a modified type of classical economics). It consisted of these three core policies:
protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and some include through subsidies (especially 1932–70)
government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)
a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises.[9][10][11][12]
It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program. The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient. However, despite the "capitalist" label, the American School has been known to be more generous towards the working class than the British school.[citation needed]
The American School's key elements were promoted by John Q. Adams and his National Republican Party, Henry Clay and the Whig Party, and Abraham Lincoln through the early Republican Party which embraced, implemented, and maintained this economic systemThe American School has evolved into the mixed economy of today's America.
During its American System period the United States grew into the largest economy in the world with the highest standard of living, surpassing the British Empire by the 1880s.
Part of a series on Economic systems
Ideologies and theories
Capitalism Communist economy Corporatism Fascist economy Laissez-faire Mercantilism Natural economy Primitive communism Social market economy Socialist economics
Sectors and systems
Closed economy Dual economy Gift economy Informal economy Market economy Mixed economy Open economy Participatory economics Planned economy Subsistence economy Underground economy Virtual economy
Related articles
Anglo-Saxon economy American School Command Economy Global economy Hunter-gatherer Information economy Newly industrialized country Palace economy Plantation economy Token economy Traditional economy Transition economy
Business and Economics Portal
This box: view • talk • edit
History
Roots
A portrait of Alexander Hamilton by John Trumbull, 1792. Hamilton's ideas and three Reports to Congress formed the philosophical basis of the American School.
The American School of economics represented the legacy of Alexander Hamilton, who in his Report on Manufactures, argued that the U.S. could not become fully independent until it was self-sufficient in all necessary economic products. Hamilton rooted this economic system, in part, in the successive regimes of Colbert's France and Elizabeth I's England, while rejecting the harsher aspects of mercantilism, such as seeking colonies for markets. As later defined by Senator Henry Clay who became known as the Father of the American System because of his impassioned support thereof, the American System was to unify the nation north to south, east to west, and city to farmer. A leading proponent and economist of the 19th Century, Henry Carey, called this a Harmony of Interests in his book by the same name, a harmony between labor and management, and as well a harmony between agriculture, manufacturing, and merchants.
The name, "American System," was coined by Clay to distinguish it, as a school of thought, from the competing theory of economics at the time, the "British System" represented by Adam Smith in his work Wealth of Nations.
The American School included three cardinal policy points:
Support industry: The advocacy of protectionism, and opposition to free trade - particularly for the protection of "infant industries" and those facing import competition from abroad. Examples: Tariff of 1816 and Morrill Tariff
Create physical infrastructure: Government finance of Internal improvements to speed commerce and develop industry. This involved the regulation of privately held infrastructure, to ensure that it meets the nation's needs. Examples: Cumberland Road and Union Pacific Railroad
Create financial infrastructure: A government sponsored National Bank to issue currency and encourage commerce. This involved the use of sovereign powers for the regulation of credit to encourage the development of the economy, and to deter speculation. Examples: First Bank of the United States, Second Bank of the United States, and National Banking Act
Henry C. Carey, a leading American economist and adviser to Abraham Lincoln, in his book Harmony of Interests displays two additional points of this American School economic philosophy that distinguishes it from the systems of Adam Smith or Karl Marx:
Government support for the development of science and public education through a public 'common' school system and investments in creative research through grants and subsidies.
Rejection of class struggle, in favor of the "Harmony of Interests" between: owners and workers, farmer and manufacturers, the wealthy class and the working class. In a passage from his book, The Harmony of Interests, Carey wrote concerning the difference between the American System and British System of economics:
"Two systems are before the world;… One looks to increasing the necessity of commerce; the other to increasing the power to maintain it. One looks to underworking the Hindoo, and sinking the rest of the world to his level; the other to raising the standard of man throughout the world to our level. One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other to increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world."
The Government issue of fiat paper money has also been associated with the American School from the 1830s onwards. The policy has roots going back to the days of the American Colonies, when such a type of currency called Colonial Scrip was the medium of exchange. As early as 1837, John C. Calhoun called for a debt-free currency issued and controlled by the Government.Such a policy would reduce the profits of the banks, and in response to this, the banking institutions threw their support behind the British school, espousing the gold standard throughout the 1800s. In the Civil War, a shortage of specie led to the issue of such a fiat currency, called United States Notes, or "Greenbacks". Towards the end of the Civil War in March 1865, Henry C. Carey, Lincoln's economic advisor, published a series of letters to the Speaker of the House entitled "The Way to Outdo England Without Fighting Her." Carey called for the continuance of the Greenback policy even after the War, while also raising the reserve requirements of the banks to 50%. This would have allowed the US to develop its economy independent of foreign capital (primarily British gold). Carey wrote:
The most serious move in the retrograde direction is that one we find in the determination to prohibit the further issue of [United States Notes]...To what have we been indebted for [the increased economic activity]? To protection and the " greenbacks"! What is it that we are now laboring to destroy? Protection and the Greenback! Let us continue on in the direction in which we now are moving, and we shall see...not a re-establishment of the Union, but a complete and final disruption of it.
Carey's plans did not come to fruition as Lincoln was assassinated the next month and new President Andrew Johnson supported the gold standard, and by 1879 the US was fully on the gold standard. This resulted in a prolonged shortage of currency, and it contributed to the Long Depression from 1873-96.
Advocacy
Senator Henry Clay leader of the Whig Party and advocate for the American System.
The "American System" was the name given by Henry Clay in a speech before Congress advocating an economic program based on the economic philosophy derived from Alexander Hamilton's economic theories (see Report on Manufactures, Report on Public Credit I and II). Clay's policies called for a high tariff to support internal improvements such as road-building, and a national bank to encourage productive enterprise and to form a national currency as Hamilton had advocated as Secretary of the Treasury.
"Clay first used the term “American System” in 1824, although he had been working for its specifics for many years previously. Portions of the American System were enacted by Congress. The Second Bank of the United States was rechartered in 1816 for 20 years. High tariffs were maintained from the days of Hamilton until 1832. However, the national system of internal improvements was never adequately funded; the failure to do so was due in part to sectional jealousies and constitutional scruples about such expenditures."
Clay's plan became the leading tenet of the National Republican Party of John Quincy Adams and the Whig Party of himself and Daniel Webster.
The 'American System' was supported by New England and the Mid-Atlantic, which had a large manufacturing base. It protected their new factories from foreign competition.
The South opposed the 'American System' because its plantation owners were heavily reliant on production of cotton for export, and the American System produced lower demand for their cotton and created higher costs for manufactured goods. After 1828 the United States kept tariffs low until the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1861.
The term became synomonous with other phrases such as "National System" and "Protective System" as it was used over the course of time.
Implementation
An extra session of congress was called in the summer of 1841 for a restoration of the American system. When the tariff question came up again in 1842, the compromise of 1833 was overthrown, and the protective system placed in the ascendent.
Due to the dominance of the then Democratic Party of Van Buren, Polk, and Buchanan the American School was not embraced as the economic philosophy of the United States until the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, who with a series of laws during the American Civil War was able to fully implement what Hamilton, Clay, List, and Carey theorized, wrote about, and advocated.
President Lincoln an "Old Henry Clay tariff Whig" by his own definition, enacted much of the American School's core policies into law during his tenure as President 1861-1865.
According to an article at US-History.com: "As soon as Lincoln took office, the old Whig coalition finally controlled the entire government. It immediately tripled the average tariff, began to subsidize the construction of a transcontinental railroad in California even though a desperate war was being waged, and on February 25, 1862, the Legal Tender Act empowered the secretary of the treasury to issue paper money ('greenbacks') that were not immediately redeemable in gold or silver."
The United States continued these policies throughout the later half of the 19th century. President William McKinley (1897–1901) stated at the time:
"[They say] if you had not had the Protective Tariff things would be a little cheaper. Well, whether a thing is cheap or dear depends upon what we can earn by our daily labor. Free trade cheapens the product by cheapening the producer. Protection cheapens the product by elevating the producer. Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man.
"[It is said] that protection is immoral…. Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefitting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, ‘Buy where you can buy the cheapest'…. Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: ‘Buy where you can pay the easiest.' And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest rewards."
The American System was important in the election politics for and against Grover Cleveland.
Evolution
As the United States entered the 20th century, the "American School" was the policy of the United States under such names as: "American Policy", "Economic nationalism", "National System", "Protective System", "Protection Policy", and "Protectionism", which alludes only to the 'tariff policy' of this system of economics.
This continued until 1913 when the administration of Woodrow Wilson initiated his New Freedom policy that replaced the National Bank System with the Federal Reserve System, and lowered tariffs to revenue only levels with the Underwood Tariff.
The election of Warren G. Harding and the Republican Party in 1920 represented a partial return to the American School through restoration of high tariffs, although a shift away from productive investments into speculation by the Federal Reserve System continued. This speculation lead to the Stock Market Crash on Black Friday in October of 1929. President Herbert Hoover responded to this crash and the subsequent bank failures and unemployment by signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which some economists considered to have deepened the Great Depression, while others disagree.
The New Deal continued infrastructure improvements through the numerous public works projects of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) as well as the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA); brought massive reform to the banking system of the Federal Reserve while investing in various ways in industry to stimulate production and control speculation; but abandoned protective tariffs while embracing moderate tariff protection (revenue based 20–30% the normal tariff under this) through reciprocity, choosing to subsidized industry as a replacement. At the close of World War II, the United States now dominant in manufacturing with little competition, the era of Free Trade had begun.
In 1973 when the "Kennedy" Round concluded under President Richard Nixon which cut U.S. tariffs to all time lows, the New Deal orientation towards reciprocity and subsidy ended, which moved the United States further in the Free Market direction and away from its American School economic system.
Water supply and sanitation Infrastruture
Water supply and sanitation Infrastruture
Is provided by towns and cities, public utilities that span several jurisdictions and rural cooperatives. About 15 million Americans are served by their own wells. Public water supply and sanitation systems are regulated by state-level regulatory commissions and the EPA. Water consumption in the U.S. is one of the highest in the world and water tariffs (rates) are among the lowest in developed countries. There is a massive need to replace ageing water and sanitation infrastructure that may require much higher water tariffs in the future.
United States: Water and Sanitation
Data
Water coverage (broad definition)
100%
Sanitation coverage (broad definition)
100%
Continuity of supply (%)
high
Average urban water use (l/c/d)
260 (only in-door residential use)
Average urban water and sanitation tariff (US$/m3)
0.50
Share of household metering
very high
Annual investment in WSS
US$ 25/capita/year
Share of self-financing by utilities
High
Share of tax-financing
Low
Institutions
Decentralization to municipalities
Yes
Water and sanitation regulator
Yes (multi-sector at state level)
Responsibility for policy setting
Shared, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture
Sector law
No
Number of service providers
54,000
Access
Urban (80% of the population)
Rural (20% of the population)
Total
Water
Broad definition
100%
100%
100%
House connections
100%
100%
100%
Sanitation
Broad definition
100%
100%
100%
Sewerage
95%
33%
83%
Source: WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program (2004) Access to improved water supply and sanitation in the United States is universal. However, access to improved sanitation is provided through different technologies depending on local circumstances. 83% of households are served by sewers (95% in urban areas and 33% in rural areas) and the remainder is served by on-site sanitation systems such as septic tanks.
Water use
According to a 1999 study by the AWWA Research Foundation residential end use of water in the United States is equivalent to more than 1 billion glasses of tap water per day.According to the same study 58% of water is used outdoors (gardening, swimming pools) and 42% indoors. Other sources indicate that outdoor use is only 25% of total residential water use..
A leaking tap.
Daily indoor per capita water use in a typical single family home is 69.3 gallons (260 litres). Overall use falls into the following categories:
body cleanliness:
Toilets - 26.7%
Baths - 1.7%
Showers - 16.8%
washing:
Clothes Washers - 21.7%
Dishwashers - 1.4%
Faucets - 15.7%
Leaks - 12.7%
Other Domestic Uses - 2.2%
These figures do not include water use in offices and commercial establishments, which is significant. Overall, per capital water use in the United States is about twice as high as in Europe (see water use in France, water use in Germany and water use in the UK).
Water sources
About 90% of public water systems in the U.S. obtain their water from groundwater. However, since systems served by groundwater tend to be much smaller than systems served by surface water, only 34% of Americans (101 million) are supplied with treated groundwater, while 66% (195 million) are supplied with treated surface water.
Few U.S. cities pump water from sources clean enough not to require filtration plants (see water purification). The major exceptions are New York City, Boston, San Francisco, and Portland, Oregon.[7] These cities have water sources with a high degree of natural purity. New York City's water supply, for example, is fed by a 2,000 square mile watershed in the Catskill Mountains. Because the watershed is in one of the largest protected wilderness areas in the United States, the natural water filtration process remains intact and filtration plants are unnecessary.
Service quality
There seems to be no comprehensive source of information on water supply and sanitation service quality in the United States.
Water quality
In almost all cases water supply is continuous, under good pressure and in conformity with the norms of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
Sanitation quality
Sanitation service quality is mixed, and sewer backflows into homes as well as combined sewer overflows into creeks and streams remain a problem. Wastewater treatment plants are operated satisfactorily in most cases. Discharges of wastewater are governed by the Clean Water Act.
Billing accuracy
The accuracy of billing remains a problem for some utilities. Possible sources of overbilling are inaccurate metering (such as metering of air when a tap is left open during a service interruption and the returning water pushes air through the meter) and miscategorization of users in a higher and more expensive consumption category, if a single bill is issued covering a lengthy period and if the utility uses increasing-block tariffs. There are no statistics on the prevalence of inaccurate billing in the US.
Water users who cannot resolve a billing complaint with their utility are encouraged to contact their respective State Public Utility Commissions, which in many states have jurisdiction to regulate water utilities.
Responsibility for water supply and sanitation
Service provision
The California Aqueduct
According to EPA's community water system survey 2000 there are about 54,000 community public water systems in the United States. In urban areas, these systems are either managed directly by towns and cities (such as in New York City) or indirectly by water companies (public utilities) owned by towns, cities and counties. In some cases public utilities span several jurisdictions, such as in the form of special-purpose districts. Utility cooperatives are a major provider of water and sanitation services, especially in rural areas [11] Privately owned water supply and sanitation utilities operating under concessions by local jurisdictions are rare in the United States.
There are also a few large bulk water suppliers in the arid Southwest of the United States. One of them is the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) which sells treated water from the Colorado River and Northern California to its member utilities in Southern California through the California Aqueduct. 26 cities and water districts serving 18 million people are members of MWD. Another example is the Central Arizona Water Conservation district which operates the Central Arizona Project Aqueduct (CAP) which supplies water from the Colorado River to 80 municipal, industrial, agricultural and Indian customers in Central and Southern Arizona.
Approximately 15% of Americans rely on their own wells as a source of drinking water. Water from these wells is not subject to regulation by the EPA.
Regulation
The economic regulation of water and sanitation service providers in the U.S. (in particular in relation to the setting of user water rates) is usually the responsibility of regulators such as Public Utility Commissions at the state level (see economic regulator). The environmental and drinking water quality regulation is the responsibility of state departments of health or environment and the EPA.
Rates
Water rates (sometimes also called tariffs or user fees) in the United States are among the lowest in OECD countries. On average water rates were only $0.50 per cubic meter ($1.89 per 1,000 gallons) in 1999. However, due to higher water consumption in the US water bills are about the same level as in most other OECD countries.
The average American family spends $474 each year on water and sewerage charges according to the EPA . This is about the same level as in some European countries (see tariffs in France and tariffs in the UK).
Concerning rate structures, about one third of water rates are linear (the unit rate is independent of the level of consumption), one third are increasing-block rates (the unit rate increases with consumption) and one third are decreasing-block tariffs (the unit rate decreases with consumption). Decreasing-block rates offer hardly any incentive for water conservation.
Financing and Investment
Financing
Financing is provided through revenues from user fees (see above), debt and grants. Most debt contracted by utilities is commercial debt, usually in the form of bonds, in particular tax-free municipal bonds. In the past substantial federal grants and other subsidies have been provided, in particular to introduce wastewater treatment in order to comply with the Clean Water Act.
State Revolving Funds
The EPA and states administrate two major State Revolving Funds (SRF) Programs. Under both programs the federal government provides "capitalization grants" to states, provided that states match those funds with a contribution of at least 20%. Federal and state resources are pooled in State Revolving Funds, which in turn provide low-cost loans and other types of assistance to utilities. Revolving funds recycle funds and thus reduce the need for federal gran funding in the future. Several states have increased the funds available by issuing bonds secured by capitalization grant funds. These bond issues have provided twice as much funding as the grants themselves. The SRF bond sector received a AAA bond credit rating from a major credit rating agency - the only segment of the municipal bond market to achieve that distinction.
The first SRF, called Clean Water State Revolving Fund, aims at reducing pollution. It finances not only sanitary sewers, stormwater drainage and wastewater treatment plants, but also nonpoint source pollution control such as erosion control and wetland protection and restoration. While most of the funds have historically been directed at municipalities, homeowners and nonprofit organizations are also eligible to receive funds. On average interest rates are 2% and loans can be up to 20 years. They can fund up to 100% of project costs. Created in 1987, the program has so far disbursed more than US$ 60 billion, or US$ 4.5 billion annually in recent years. In 2006, 21 percent of funding was channeled to small communities with populations less than 10,000 inhabitants. Eligibility criteria vary by state, since states are the main administrators of the program.
The second group of funds, called Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, was created in 1997 using the Clean Water State Revolving Fund as a model. It specifically targets drinking water supply infrastructure as opposed to wastewater infrastructure. A particular feature of the funds is that states can set aside a portion of their capitalization grants to fund activities including source protection, capacity development and operator certification. EPA allocates funds to states based on a drinking water infrastructure survey carried out by EPA every four years. However, every state is guaranteed to receive at least 1% of the funding. States in turn allocate funds to utilities according to a ranking that uses criteria established by law. Priority is given to eligible projects that:
address the most serious risk to human health;
are necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act; and,
assist systems most in need, according to State-determined affordability criteria.
The program has provided nearly $9.5 billion of low-interest loans between 1997 and 2005. At least 15% of the funds are directed at small communities.
Federal assistance to small communities
In rural areas, the United States Department of Agriculture provides grants, loans and loan guarantees for water supply and sanitation in small communities (those with less than 10,000 inhabitants), in addition to technical assistance and training.
Investment
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) estimates that it will cost between $280 and $400 billion to replace the country's ageing water infrastructure. The EPA estimated in its Second Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey that $150 billion would have to be invested over a 20-year period in water supply systems alone (without sanitation) to ensure clean and safe drinking water.. EPA's clean and drinking water infrastructure gap analysis of 2002 showed that if present levels of spending do not increase, there would be a significant funding gap by 2019.
Bicycle-friendly Infrastructure
"Bicycle-friendly" describes policies, places and practices which help some people feel more comfortable about traveling by bicycle with other traffic.
Examples may include:
Engineering
segregated cycle facilities, including designated bicycle lanes, paved shoulders, sidepaths, and rail trails
speed reduction measures, traffic calming, road diets, lane diets and colorized bike lanes
improved passing facilities, such as wide outside lanes (to reduce social friction between cyclists and motorists)
bike racks on transit vehicles (which allow for longer-distance trips)
bike lockers or other accommodations for secure bicycle storage at railroad stations, airports, public buildings and other important destinations
measures to reduce ground level ozone, smog and other forms of air pollution which clogs lungs
opposition to certain forms of traffic calming and intersections, such as choke points and roundabouts with excessive entry or exit speeds (15-20 mph is considered friendly to pedestrians and bicyclists). Engineering must be sensitive to cyclists and pedestrians.
Education
educate everyone about the rules of the road (including children, via bicycle rodeos and school based traffic-ed programs)
improve public understanding of road sharing
help employers understand the benefits of accommodating, incentivizing and encouraging cycling
improve public understanding that bicycles riding with the flow of traffic are far safer than those riding against the flow
improve public understanding that night riding requires significant added equipment in lighting, reflectors and rider training
Enforcement
equal enforcement of the basic rules of the road when cyclists are involved
equal effort to recover and return stolen human powered vehicles
Encouragement
bike sharing programs such as White Bikes
public service announcements and advertising campaigns, including stickers placed in public vehicles such as taxis in Toronto
active involvement of local parks and recreation departments in cycling events
development of Bicycle Commuting Mentor Programs
There is a general rule that the lower speed and volume roadways (15-25 mph) need the fewest treatments for bicyclists; while those with higher traffic speeds (30-60 mph) and volumes require greater attention.
The League of American Bicyclists has formally recognized some USA cities as Bicycle-friendly communities for "providing safe accommodation and facilities for bicyclists and encouraging residents to bike for transportation and recreation."
Town planning
Trip length and journey times are argued to be key factors affecting cycle use. Therefore, town planning may have a key impact in deciding whether key destinations, schools, shops, colleges, health clinics, public transport interchanges remain within a reasonable cycling distance of the areas where people live. It is argued that the urban form can influence these issues, compact and circular settlement patterns tending to promote cycling. Alternatively, the low-density, non-circular (i.e., linear) settlement patterns characteristic of urban sprawl tends to discourage cycling. In 1990, the Dutch adopted the "ABC" guidelines, specifically limiting developments that are major attractants to locations that are readily accessible by non-car users.
US-style housing division.
The manner in which the public roads network is designed, built and managed can have a significant effect on the utility and safety of cycling as a form of transport. The key issue is whether the cycling network provides the users with direct, convenient routes minimising unnecessary delay and effort in reaching key destinations. Settlements that provide a dense roads network consisting of interconnected streets will tend to be viable utility cycling environments.
In contrast, other communities may use a cul-de-sac based, housing estate/housing subdivision model where minor roads are disconnected and only feed into a street hierarchy of progressively more "arterial" type roads. It is arguable that such communities discourage cycling by imposing unnecessary detours and forcing cyclists onto busy and dangerous arterial roads. There is evidence that people who live in such estates are heavier than people who live in places where walking and cycling are more convenient. It is also reported that the extra motor-traffic such communities generate tends to increase overall per-capita traffic casualty rates. Designs that propose to resolve the contradiction between the cul-de-sac and the traditional interconnected network, such as the Fused Grid, have been proposed and built with varying levels of success. Particular issues have arisen with personal security and public order problems in some housing schemes using "back alley" type links.
Cycling infrastructure
The cycling infrastructure comprises all the public ways that are available to cyclists traveling from one destination to another. This includes the same network of public roads that is used by drivers of motor vehicles minus those roads from which cyclists have been banned (most freeways) and plus additional routes that are not available to motorised traffic, such as cycle tracks and (in some jurisdictions) sidewalks.
Aspects of the cycling infrastructure may be viewed as either cyclist-hostile or as cyclist-friendly. In general, roads infrastructure based on prioritising motoring and attempting to create a state of constant "flow" for cars will tend to be hostile to non-car users. In 1996, the British Cyclists Touring Club (CTC) and the Institute for Highways and Transportation jointly produced the document "Cycle-friendly infrastructure: Guidelines for planning and design". This defined a hierarchy of measures for cycling promotion in which the goal is to convert a more or less cyclist-hostile roads infrastructure into one which encourages and facilitates cycling.
The CTC/IHT hierarchy
Traffic reduction. Can traffic levels, particularly of heavy vehicles, be reduced?
Traffic calming. Can speed be reduced and driver behaviour modified?
Junction treatment and traffic management. These measures include:
Urban traffic control systems designed to recognise cyclists and give them priority.
Exempt cyclists from banned turns and access restrictions.
Provide contra-flow cycle lanes on one-way streets.
Implement on-street parking restrictions.
Provide advanced stop lines/bypasses for cyclists at traffic signals.
Junction alterations, signalise roundabouts, cycle-friendly junction design.
Redistribution of the carriageway -such as by marking wide kerb lanes or shared bus/cycle lanes.
Cycle lanes and cycle tracks. Having considered and implemented all the above, what cycle tracks or cycle lanes are considered necessary?
Traffic reduction
Removing traffic can be achieved by straightforward diversion or alternatively reduction. Diversion involves routing heavy traffic away from roads used by high numbers of cyclists and pedestrians. Examples of diversion include the construction of arterial bypasses and ring roads around urban centres.
Traffic reduction can involve direct or indirect methods. Indirect methods involve reducing the infrastructural capacity dedicated to moving or storing cars. This can involve reducing the number of lanes for cars, closing bridges to motorised traffic and creating vehicle restricted zones or environmental traffic cells. In the 1970s the Dutch city of Delft began restricting private car traffic from crossing the city centre. Similarly, Groningen is divided in to four zones that cannot be crossed by private motor-traffic, (private cars must use the ring road instead). Cyclists and other traffic can pass between the zones and cycling accounts for 50%+ of trips in Groningen (which reputedly has the third highest proportion of cycle traffic of any city). The Swedish city of Gothenburg uses a similar system of traffic cells.
Reducing car parking capacity is an associated method. Starting in the 1970s, the city of Copenhagen, which is now noted for high cycling levels, adopted a policy of reducing available car parking capacity by several per cent a year. The city of Amsterdam, where around 40% of all trips are by bicycle, adopted similar parking reduction policies in the 80s and 90s. Direct traffic reduction methods can involve straightforward bans or more subtle methods like road pricing schemes or road diets. The London congestion charge reportedly resulted in a significant increase in cycle use within the affected area.
Speed reduction
Gatso speed camera
Some cycling experts argue for placing direct restrictions on motor-vehicle speed and acceleration performance. However, speed reduction has traditionally been attempted by either education, enforcement or road engineering. Education can mean publicity campaigns or targeted road user training. Enforcement in this context generally means the enforcement of statutory speed limits. Speed limit enforcement techniques include: direct police action, automated systems such as speed cameras or vehicle activated signs or traffic lights triggered by traffic exceeding a preset speed threshold. In addition to enforcement of the standard speed limits it is argued that limits of 30 km/h (20 mph) and lower are more appropriate for urban roads with mixed traffic. The Austrian city of Graz has achieved steady growth in cycling and has applied 30 km/h limits to 75% its streets since 1994. An EU report on promoting walking and cycling specifies as one of its top measures comprehensive camera-based speed control using mainly movable equipment at unexpected spots. The Netherlands has an estimated 1,500 speed/red-light camera installations and has set a target for 30 km/h limits on 70% of urban roads. By contrast, the recent use in the UK of a substantial number of visible speed-cameras primarily at fixed locations on arterial routes has had a questionable impact on general motorist behaviour and has been accompanied by a decrease in cycling. Engineering measures involve physically altering the road layout or appearance to actively, or passively slow traffic down. Measures include speed humps, chicanes, curb extensions, and living street and shared space type schemes. The town of Hilden in Germany has achieved a rate of 24% of trips being on two wheels, mainly via traffic calming and the use of 30 km/h (20 mph) zones. As of 1999, the Netherlands had over 6000 woonerven where cyclists and pedestrians have legal priority over cars and where a motorised speed limit of "walking speed" applies.However, some UK and Irish "traffic calming" schemes, particularly involving road narrowings, are viewed as extremely hostile and have been implicated directly in death and injury to cyclists.
One-way streets
One-way street systems are viewed as a product of urban management that focuses on trying to keep motorised vehicles moving at all costs. If applied to cyclists, they are argued to impose unnecessary trip length and inconvenience. It is argued that there are rarely any traffic management justifications for imposing this restriction on cyclists. In northern Europe, cyclists are frequently granted exemptions from one-way street restrictions. German research indicates that making one-way streets two-way for cyclists results in a reduction in the total number of collisions. It is also argued that contraflow cyclists may be at reduced risk of certain types of accident - particularly so called "dooring" type incidents. In Belgium, all one-way streets in 50 km/h zones are by default two-way for cyclists.Denmark, a country with high cycling levels, makes no use of such traffic-flow focused one-way systems. Some commentators from cyclist-hostile/car-focused jurisdictions argue that the initial goal should be to dismantle large one-way street systems as a traffic calming/traffic reduction measure, followed by the provision of two-way cyclist access on any one-way streets that remain.
Junction design
In general, junction designs that favour higher-speed turning, weaving and merging movements by motorists will tend to be hostile for cyclists. Features such as large entry curvature, slip-roads and high flow roundabouts are associated with increased risk of car–cyclist collisions. On large roundabouts of the design typically used in the UK and Ireland, cyclists have an injury accident rate that is 14-16 times that of motorists. Research indicates that excessive sightlines at uncontrolled intersections compound these effects. In the UK, a survey of over 8,000 highly experienced and mainly adult male Cyclists Touring Club members found that 28% avoided roundabouts on their regular journey if at all possible. Cycling advocates argue for modifications and alternative junction types that resolve these issues such as reducing kerb radii on street corners, eliminating slip roads and replacing large roundabouts with signalised intersections.
Traffic signals/Traffic control systems
Cyclists use a segregated cut through of a busy interchange in London at rush hour.
How traffic signals are designed and implemented directly impacts cyclists. For instance where vehicle detector systems are used to trigger signal changes, some may not detect cyclists at all or must be carefully adjusted to do so. This can leave cyclists in the position of having to "run" red lights if no motorised vehicle arrives to trigger a signal change. Some cities use urban adaptive traffic control systems (UTC's), which use linked traffic signals to manage traffic in response to changes in demand. There is an argument that using a UTC system merely to provide for increased capacity for private motor traffic will simply drive growth in such traffic. However, there are more direct negative impacts. For instance, where signals are arranged to provide private motor traffic with so called green waves, this can create "red waves" for other road users such as cyclists and public transport services. Traffic managers in Copenhagen have now turned this approach on its head and are linking cyclist-specific traffic signals on a major arterial bike lane to provide green waves for rush hour cycle-traffic. Cycling-specific measures that can be applied at traffic signals include the use of advanced stop lines and/or bypasses. In some cases cyclists might be given a free-turn or a signal bypass if turning into a road on the nearside.
Redistribution of the carriageway
One method for reducing potential friction between cyclists and motorised vehicles is to provide Wide Kerb (nearside) lanes (UK) or Wide outside through lanes (USA). These extra wide lanes increase the probability that motorists will be able to pass cyclists at a safe distance without having to change lanes. This is held to be particularly important on routes with a high proportion of wide vehicles such as buses or HGVs. They also provide more room for cyclists to filter past queues of cars in congested conditions.
A bus and cycle lane in Mannheim, Germany
Cycle friendly infrastructure argues for a marked lane width of 4.25 m. It is argued that, on undivided roads, this width provides cyclists with adequate clearance from passing HGVs while being sufficiently narrow to deter car users from attempting to “double up” and form two lanes. This “doubling up” effect may be related to junctions. At non-junction locations, greater width might be preferable if this effect can be avoided. The use of such wide lanes is specifically endorsed by Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities, the European Commission policy document on cycle promotion.
Shared Bus and Cycle lanes are also a widely endorsed method for providing for cyclists. Research carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory describes shared bus cycle lanes as "generally very popular" with cyclists[ Guidance produced for Cycling England endorses bus lanes as providing cyclists with a direct and barrier free route into town centres and as avoiding the difficulties associated with other provisions such as shared-use footways. According to a French survey 42% of cyclists described themselves as "enthusiasts" for shared bus bike lanes versus 33% who were of mixed opinion and 27% who were opposed. Many cycling activists view these as being more attractive than cycle paths, while others object to being in close proximity to bus exhausts.
As of 2003, mixed bus/cycle lanes accounted for 118km of the 260km of cycling facilities in Paris. The French city of Bordeaux has 40km of shared bus cycle lanes. It is reported that that in the city of Bristol, a showcase bus priority corridor, where road space was re-allocated along a 14km stretch also resulted in more space for cyclists and had the effect of increasing cycling. The reverse effect has also been suggested, a review carried out in London reports that cycling levels fell across Kew bridge following the removal of a bus lane - this was despite a general increase in cycling level in the city generally. In addition, it is arguably easier, politically speaking, to argue for funding of joint facilities rather than the additional expense of both segregated cycling facilities and bus-only lanes. In some instances. bus lane proposals have run into vehement opposition from cyclists reps - a typical theme is the perceived generation of conflict due to the narrowing of other lanes already shared by cars/cyclists so as to create space for the bus lanes The TRL reports that cyclists and bus drivers tend to have low opinions of each otherThere have been reports in Dublin of conflict as cyclists choose to cycle in the bus lanes and a bus driver apparently expected them to use adjacent cycle tracks instead. In other cities the arrangements seem to work successfully with bus companies and cyclists' groups taking active steps to ensure that understanding is improved between the two groups of road users.
Cycle lanes and cycle tracks
The use of segregated cycle facilities such as cycle lanes and cycle tracks is often advocated as a means of promoting utility cycling. Roads or paths that are open to cyclists but not motorists can benefit cyclists where they provide links that are more convenient than the main road network, or help resolve obstacles. Examples include routes through pedestrian precincts etc. However, the use of such devices alongside, or within, existing roads is highly controversial both in terms of safety and cycling promotion. In terms of safety, separate cycle lanes or cycle tracks can seriously undermine safety if inappropriately designed or if used at inappropriate locations. Similarly, while it is possible to use separate facilities to promote cycling, it is also possible to use them for the opposite purpose: for removing priority from cyclists and giving it to motorists. Thus it is argued that the use and potential effects of segregated facilities for cyclists cannot be viewed in isolation from the underlying design, management and legal philosophies that govern the overall transportation infrastructure.
Trip-end facilities
Bicycle parking/storage arrangements
Bicycle parking at the Alewife subway station in Cambridge, Massachusetts, located at the intersection of three cycle paths.
Bicycle parking lot in Amsterdam.
Secure parking is argued to be a key factor influencing the decision to cycle.To be considered secure, the parking must be of a suitable design: allowing the bicycle to be locked via the frame. In addition, the bike parking must be located in a readily observable location permitting so-called passive security from passers-by. Weather protection is also desirable. As a rule, where cycling is being encouraged as an alternative to motoring, efforts are made to make bicycle parking more convenient and attractive to use than the equivalent car parking arrangements. This usually means providing a wide distribution of visible, well-signed, parking as close as possible to the entrances of the destinations being served. Storage rooms or bicycle lockers may also be provided. In some cases large concentrations of bike parking may be more appropriate. These storage facilities can sometimes be supervised and sometimes charge a fee. Examples include large bike parks at public transport interchanges such as railway, subway, tram or bus stations.
Conversely, at particular destinations, or in cultures, where cycling is seen as an unwelcome or inappropriate activity, bicycle parking may simply not be provided or else deliberately placed at awkward, out-of-sight, locations away from public view. In such cultural situations, cyclists may even be expressly forbidden from parking their bicycles at the most obvious and convenient locations. In April 2007, the authorities at the University of California's Santa Barbara campus started confiscating bicycles not parked at the allegedly inconvenient official bike racks
Other trip end facilities
Some people need to wear special clothes such as business suits or uniforms in their daily work. In some cases the nature of the cycling infrastructure and the prevailing weather conditions may make it very hard to both cycle and maintain the work clothes in a presentable condition. It is argued that such workers can be encouraged to cycle by providing lockers, changing rooms and shower facilities where they can change before starting work.
Is provided by towns and cities, public utilities that span several jurisdictions and rural cooperatives. About 15 million Americans are served by their own wells. Public water supply and sanitation systems are regulated by state-level regulatory commissions and the EPA. Water consumption in the U.S. is one of the highest in the world and water tariffs (rates) are among the lowest in developed countries. There is a massive need to replace ageing water and sanitation infrastructure that may require much higher water tariffs in the future.
United States: Water and Sanitation
Data
Water coverage (broad definition)
100%
Sanitation coverage (broad definition)
100%
Continuity of supply (%)
high
Average urban water use (l/c/d)
260 (only in-door residential use)
Average urban water and sanitation tariff (US$/m3)
0.50
Share of household metering
very high
Annual investment in WSS
US$ 25/capita/year
Share of self-financing by utilities
High
Share of tax-financing
Low
Institutions
Decentralization to municipalities
Yes
Water and sanitation regulator
Yes (multi-sector at state level)
Responsibility for policy setting
Shared, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture
Sector law
No
Number of service providers
54,000
Access
Urban (80% of the population)
Rural (20% of the population)
Total
Water
Broad definition
100%
100%
100%
House connections
100%
100%
100%
Sanitation
Broad definition
100%
100%
100%
Sewerage
95%
33%
83%
Source: WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program (2004) Access to improved water supply and sanitation in the United States is universal. However, access to improved sanitation is provided through different technologies depending on local circumstances. 83% of households are served by sewers (95% in urban areas and 33% in rural areas) and the remainder is served by on-site sanitation systems such as septic tanks.
Water use
According to a 1999 study by the AWWA Research Foundation residential end use of water in the United States is equivalent to more than 1 billion glasses of tap water per day.According to the same study 58% of water is used outdoors (gardening, swimming pools) and 42% indoors. Other sources indicate that outdoor use is only 25% of total residential water use..
A leaking tap.
Daily indoor per capita water use in a typical single family home is 69.3 gallons (260 litres). Overall use falls into the following categories:
body cleanliness:
Toilets - 26.7%
Baths - 1.7%
Showers - 16.8%
washing:
Clothes Washers - 21.7%
Dishwashers - 1.4%
Faucets - 15.7%
Leaks - 12.7%
Other Domestic Uses - 2.2%
These figures do not include water use in offices and commercial establishments, which is significant. Overall, per capital water use in the United States is about twice as high as in Europe (see water use in France, water use in Germany and water use in the UK).
Water sources
About 90% of public water systems in the U.S. obtain their water from groundwater. However, since systems served by groundwater tend to be much smaller than systems served by surface water, only 34% of Americans (101 million) are supplied with treated groundwater, while 66% (195 million) are supplied with treated surface water.
Few U.S. cities pump water from sources clean enough not to require filtration plants (see water purification). The major exceptions are New York City, Boston, San Francisco, and Portland, Oregon.[7] These cities have water sources with a high degree of natural purity. New York City's water supply, for example, is fed by a 2,000 square mile watershed in the Catskill Mountains. Because the watershed is in one of the largest protected wilderness areas in the United States, the natural water filtration process remains intact and filtration plants are unnecessary.
Service quality
There seems to be no comprehensive source of information on water supply and sanitation service quality in the United States.
Water quality
In almost all cases water supply is continuous, under good pressure and in conformity with the norms of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
Sanitation quality
Sanitation service quality is mixed, and sewer backflows into homes as well as combined sewer overflows into creeks and streams remain a problem. Wastewater treatment plants are operated satisfactorily in most cases. Discharges of wastewater are governed by the Clean Water Act.
Billing accuracy
The accuracy of billing remains a problem for some utilities. Possible sources of overbilling are inaccurate metering (such as metering of air when a tap is left open during a service interruption and the returning water pushes air through the meter) and miscategorization of users in a higher and more expensive consumption category, if a single bill is issued covering a lengthy period and if the utility uses increasing-block tariffs. There are no statistics on the prevalence of inaccurate billing in the US.
Water users who cannot resolve a billing complaint with their utility are encouraged to contact their respective State Public Utility Commissions, which in many states have jurisdiction to regulate water utilities.
Responsibility for water supply and sanitation
Service provision
The California Aqueduct
According to EPA's community water system survey 2000 there are about 54,000 community public water systems in the United States. In urban areas, these systems are either managed directly by towns and cities (such as in New York City) or indirectly by water companies (public utilities) owned by towns, cities and counties. In some cases public utilities span several jurisdictions, such as in the form of special-purpose districts. Utility cooperatives are a major provider of water and sanitation services, especially in rural areas [11] Privately owned water supply and sanitation utilities operating under concessions by local jurisdictions are rare in the United States.
There are also a few large bulk water suppliers in the arid Southwest of the United States. One of them is the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) which sells treated water from the Colorado River and Northern California to its member utilities in Southern California through the California Aqueduct. 26 cities and water districts serving 18 million people are members of MWD. Another example is the Central Arizona Water Conservation district which operates the Central Arizona Project Aqueduct (CAP) which supplies water from the Colorado River to 80 municipal, industrial, agricultural and Indian customers in Central and Southern Arizona.
Approximately 15% of Americans rely on their own wells as a source of drinking water. Water from these wells is not subject to regulation by the EPA.
Regulation
The economic regulation of water and sanitation service providers in the U.S. (in particular in relation to the setting of user water rates) is usually the responsibility of regulators such as Public Utility Commissions at the state level (see economic regulator). The environmental and drinking water quality regulation is the responsibility of state departments of health or environment and the EPA.
Rates
Water rates (sometimes also called tariffs or user fees) in the United States are among the lowest in OECD countries. On average water rates were only $0.50 per cubic meter ($1.89 per 1,000 gallons) in 1999. However, due to higher water consumption in the US water bills are about the same level as in most other OECD countries.
The average American family spends $474 each year on water and sewerage charges according to the EPA . This is about the same level as in some European countries (see tariffs in France and tariffs in the UK).
Concerning rate structures, about one third of water rates are linear (the unit rate is independent of the level of consumption), one third are increasing-block rates (the unit rate increases with consumption) and one third are decreasing-block tariffs (the unit rate decreases with consumption). Decreasing-block rates offer hardly any incentive for water conservation.
Financing and Investment
Financing
Financing is provided through revenues from user fees (see above), debt and grants. Most debt contracted by utilities is commercial debt, usually in the form of bonds, in particular tax-free municipal bonds. In the past substantial federal grants and other subsidies have been provided, in particular to introduce wastewater treatment in order to comply with the Clean Water Act.
State Revolving Funds
The EPA and states administrate two major State Revolving Funds (SRF) Programs. Under both programs the federal government provides "capitalization grants" to states, provided that states match those funds with a contribution of at least 20%. Federal and state resources are pooled in State Revolving Funds, which in turn provide low-cost loans and other types of assistance to utilities. Revolving funds recycle funds and thus reduce the need for federal gran funding in the future. Several states have increased the funds available by issuing bonds secured by capitalization grant funds. These bond issues have provided twice as much funding as the grants themselves. The SRF bond sector received a AAA bond credit rating from a major credit rating agency - the only segment of the municipal bond market to achieve that distinction.
The first SRF, called Clean Water State Revolving Fund, aims at reducing pollution. It finances not only sanitary sewers, stormwater drainage and wastewater treatment plants, but also nonpoint source pollution control such as erosion control and wetland protection and restoration. While most of the funds have historically been directed at municipalities, homeowners and nonprofit organizations are also eligible to receive funds. On average interest rates are 2% and loans can be up to 20 years. They can fund up to 100% of project costs. Created in 1987, the program has so far disbursed more than US$ 60 billion, or US$ 4.5 billion annually in recent years. In 2006, 21 percent of funding was channeled to small communities with populations less than 10,000 inhabitants. Eligibility criteria vary by state, since states are the main administrators of the program.
The second group of funds, called Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, was created in 1997 using the Clean Water State Revolving Fund as a model. It specifically targets drinking water supply infrastructure as opposed to wastewater infrastructure. A particular feature of the funds is that states can set aside a portion of their capitalization grants to fund activities including source protection, capacity development and operator certification. EPA allocates funds to states based on a drinking water infrastructure survey carried out by EPA every four years. However, every state is guaranteed to receive at least 1% of the funding. States in turn allocate funds to utilities according to a ranking that uses criteria established by law. Priority is given to eligible projects that:
address the most serious risk to human health;
are necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act; and,
assist systems most in need, according to State-determined affordability criteria.
The program has provided nearly $9.5 billion of low-interest loans between 1997 and 2005. At least 15% of the funds are directed at small communities.
Federal assistance to small communities
In rural areas, the United States Department of Agriculture provides grants, loans and loan guarantees for water supply and sanitation in small communities (those with less than 10,000 inhabitants), in addition to technical assistance and training.
Investment
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) estimates that it will cost between $280 and $400 billion to replace the country's ageing water infrastructure. The EPA estimated in its Second Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey that $150 billion would have to be invested over a 20-year period in water supply systems alone (without sanitation) to ensure clean and safe drinking water.. EPA's clean and drinking water infrastructure gap analysis of 2002 showed that if present levels of spending do not increase, there would be a significant funding gap by 2019.
Bicycle-friendly Infrastructure
"Bicycle-friendly" describes policies, places and practices which help some people feel more comfortable about traveling by bicycle with other traffic.
Examples may include:
Engineering
segregated cycle facilities, including designated bicycle lanes, paved shoulders, sidepaths, and rail trails
speed reduction measures, traffic calming, road diets, lane diets and colorized bike lanes
improved passing facilities, such as wide outside lanes (to reduce social friction between cyclists and motorists)
bike racks on transit vehicles (which allow for longer-distance trips)
bike lockers or other accommodations for secure bicycle storage at railroad stations, airports, public buildings and other important destinations
measures to reduce ground level ozone, smog and other forms of air pollution which clogs lungs
opposition to certain forms of traffic calming and intersections, such as choke points and roundabouts with excessive entry or exit speeds (15-20 mph is considered friendly to pedestrians and bicyclists). Engineering must be sensitive to cyclists and pedestrians.
Education
educate everyone about the rules of the road (including children, via bicycle rodeos and school based traffic-ed programs)
improve public understanding of road sharing
help employers understand the benefits of accommodating, incentivizing and encouraging cycling
improve public understanding that bicycles riding with the flow of traffic are far safer than those riding against the flow
improve public understanding that night riding requires significant added equipment in lighting, reflectors and rider training
Enforcement
equal enforcement of the basic rules of the road when cyclists are involved
equal effort to recover and return stolen human powered vehicles
Encouragement
bike sharing programs such as White Bikes
public service announcements and advertising campaigns, including stickers placed in public vehicles such as taxis in Toronto
active involvement of local parks and recreation departments in cycling events
development of Bicycle Commuting Mentor Programs
There is a general rule that the lower speed and volume roadways (15-25 mph) need the fewest treatments for bicyclists; while those with higher traffic speeds (30-60 mph) and volumes require greater attention.
The League of American Bicyclists has formally recognized some USA cities as Bicycle-friendly communities for "providing safe accommodation and facilities for bicyclists and encouraging residents to bike for transportation and recreation."
Town planning
Trip length and journey times are argued to be key factors affecting cycle use. Therefore, town planning may have a key impact in deciding whether key destinations, schools, shops, colleges, health clinics, public transport interchanges remain within a reasonable cycling distance of the areas where people live. It is argued that the urban form can influence these issues, compact and circular settlement patterns tending to promote cycling. Alternatively, the low-density, non-circular (i.e., linear) settlement patterns characteristic of urban sprawl tends to discourage cycling. In 1990, the Dutch adopted the "ABC" guidelines, specifically limiting developments that are major attractants to locations that are readily accessible by non-car users.
US-style housing division.
The manner in which the public roads network is designed, built and managed can have a significant effect on the utility and safety of cycling as a form of transport. The key issue is whether the cycling network provides the users with direct, convenient routes minimising unnecessary delay and effort in reaching key destinations. Settlements that provide a dense roads network consisting of interconnected streets will tend to be viable utility cycling environments.
In contrast, other communities may use a cul-de-sac based, housing estate/housing subdivision model where minor roads are disconnected and only feed into a street hierarchy of progressively more "arterial" type roads. It is arguable that such communities discourage cycling by imposing unnecessary detours and forcing cyclists onto busy and dangerous arterial roads. There is evidence that people who live in such estates are heavier than people who live in places where walking and cycling are more convenient. It is also reported that the extra motor-traffic such communities generate tends to increase overall per-capita traffic casualty rates. Designs that propose to resolve the contradiction between the cul-de-sac and the traditional interconnected network, such as the Fused Grid, have been proposed and built with varying levels of success. Particular issues have arisen with personal security and public order problems in some housing schemes using "back alley" type links.
Cycling infrastructure
The cycling infrastructure comprises all the public ways that are available to cyclists traveling from one destination to another. This includes the same network of public roads that is used by drivers of motor vehicles minus those roads from which cyclists have been banned (most freeways) and plus additional routes that are not available to motorised traffic, such as cycle tracks and (in some jurisdictions) sidewalks.
Aspects of the cycling infrastructure may be viewed as either cyclist-hostile or as cyclist-friendly. In general, roads infrastructure based on prioritising motoring and attempting to create a state of constant "flow" for cars will tend to be hostile to non-car users. In 1996, the British Cyclists Touring Club (CTC) and the Institute for Highways and Transportation jointly produced the document "Cycle-friendly infrastructure: Guidelines for planning and design". This defined a hierarchy of measures for cycling promotion in which the goal is to convert a more or less cyclist-hostile roads infrastructure into one which encourages and facilitates cycling.
The CTC/IHT hierarchy
Traffic reduction. Can traffic levels, particularly of heavy vehicles, be reduced?
Traffic calming. Can speed be reduced and driver behaviour modified?
Junction treatment and traffic management. These measures include:
Urban traffic control systems designed to recognise cyclists and give them priority.
Exempt cyclists from banned turns and access restrictions.
Provide contra-flow cycle lanes on one-way streets.
Implement on-street parking restrictions.
Provide advanced stop lines/bypasses for cyclists at traffic signals.
Junction alterations, signalise roundabouts, cycle-friendly junction design.
Redistribution of the carriageway -such as by marking wide kerb lanes or shared bus/cycle lanes.
Cycle lanes and cycle tracks. Having considered and implemented all the above, what cycle tracks or cycle lanes are considered necessary?
Traffic reduction
Removing traffic can be achieved by straightforward diversion or alternatively reduction. Diversion involves routing heavy traffic away from roads used by high numbers of cyclists and pedestrians. Examples of diversion include the construction of arterial bypasses and ring roads around urban centres.
Traffic reduction can involve direct or indirect methods. Indirect methods involve reducing the infrastructural capacity dedicated to moving or storing cars. This can involve reducing the number of lanes for cars, closing bridges to motorised traffic and creating vehicle restricted zones or environmental traffic cells. In the 1970s the Dutch city of Delft began restricting private car traffic from crossing the city centre. Similarly, Groningen is divided in to four zones that cannot be crossed by private motor-traffic, (private cars must use the ring road instead). Cyclists and other traffic can pass between the zones and cycling accounts for 50%+ of trips in Groningen (which reputedly has the third highest proportion of cycle traffic of any city). The Swedish city of Gothenburg uses a similar system of traffic cells.
Reducing car parking capacity is an associated method. Starting in the 1970s, the city of Copenhagen, which is now noted for high cycling levels, adopted a policy of reducing available car parking capacity by several per cent a year. The city of Amsterdam, where around 40% of all trips are by bicycle, adopted similar parking reduction policies in the 80s and 90s. Direct traffic reduction methods can involve straightforward bans or more subtle methods like road pricing schemes or road diets. The London congestion charge reportedly resulted in a significant increase in cycle use within the affected area.
Speed reduction
Gatso speed camera
Some cycling experts argue for placing direct restrictions on motor-vehicle speed and acceleration performance. However, speed reduction has traditionally been attempted by either education, enforcement or road engineering. Education can mean publicity campaigns or targeted road user training. Enforcement in this context generally means the enforcement of statutory speed limits. Speed limit enforcement techniques include: direct police action, automated systems such as speed cameras or vehicle activated signs or traffic lights triggered by traffic exceeding a preset speed threshold. In addition to enforcement of the standard speed limits it is argued that limits of 30 km/h (20 mph) and lower are more appropriate for urban roads with mixed traffic. The Austrian city of Graz has achieved steady growth in cycling and has applied 30 km/h limits to 75% its streets since 1994. An EU report on promoting walking and cycling specifies as one of its top measures comprehensive camera-based speed control using mainly movable equipment at unexpected spots. The Netherlands has an estimated 1,500 speed/red-light camera installations and has set a target for 30 km/h limits on 70% of urban roads. By contrast, the recent use in the UK of a substantial number of visible speed-cameras primarily at fixed locations on arterial routes has had a questionable impact on general motorist behaviour and has been accompanied by a decrease in cycling. Engineering measures involve physically altering the road layout or appearance to actively, or passively slow traffic down. Measures include speed humps, chicanes, curb extensions, and living street and shared space type schemes. The town of Hilden in Germany has achieved a rate of 24% of trips being on two wheels, mainly via traffic calming and the use of 30 km/h (20 mph) zones. As of 1999, the Netherlands had over 6000 woonerven where cyclists and pedestrians have legal priority over cars and where a motorised speed limit of "walking speed" applies.However, some UK and Irish "traffic calming" schemes, particularly involving road narrowings, are viewed as extremely hostile and have been implicated directly in death and injury to cyclists.
One-way streets
One-way street systems are viewed as a product of urban management that focuses on trying to keep motorised vehicles moving at all costs. If applied to cyclists, they are argued to impose unnecessary trip length and inconvenience. It is argued that there are rarely any traffic management justifications for imposing this restriction on cyclists. In northern Europe, cyclists are frequently granted exemptions from one-way street restrictions. German research indicates that making one-way streets two-way for cyclists results in a reduction in the total number of collisions. It is also argued that contraflow cyclists may be at reduced risk of certain types of accident - particularly so called "dooring" type incidents. In Belgium, all one-way streets in 50 km/h zones are by default two-way for cyclists.Denmark, a country with high cycling levels, makes no use of such traffic-flow focused one-way systems. Some commentators from cyclist-hostile/car-focused jurisdictions argue that the initial goal should be to dismantle large one-way street systems as a traffic calming/traffic reduction measure, followed by the provision of two-way cyclist access on any one-way streets that remain.
Junction design
In general, junction designs that favour higher-speed turning, weaving and merging movements by motorists will tend to be hostile for cyclists. Features such as large entry curvature, slip-roads and high flow roundabouts are associated with increased risk of car–cyclist collisions. On large roundabouts of the design typically used in the UK and Ireland, cyclists have an injury accident rate that is 14-16 times that of motorists. Research indicates that excessive sightlines at uncontrolled intersections compound these effects. In the UK, a survey of over 8,000 highly experienced and mainly adult male Cyclists Touring Club members found that 28% avoided roundabouts on their regular journey if at all possible. Cycling advocates argue for modifications and alternative junction types that resolve these issues such as reducing kerb radii on street corners, eliminating slip roads and replacing large roundabouts with signalised intersections.
Traffic signals/Traffic control systems
Cyclists use a segregated cut through of a busy interchange in London at rush hour.
How traffic signals are designed and implemented directly impacts cyclists. For instance where vehicle detector systems are used to trigger signal changes, some may not detect cyclists at all or must be carefully adjusted to do so. This can leave cyclists in the position of having to "run" red lights if no motorised vehicle arrives to trigger a signal change. Some cities use urban adaptive traffic control systems (UTC's), which use linked traffic signals to manage traffic in response to changes in demand. There is an argument that using a UTC system merely to provide for increased capacity for private motor traffic will simply drive growth in such traffic. However, there are more direct negative impacts. For instance, where signals are arranged to provide private motor traffic with so called green waves, this can create "red waves" for other road users such as cyclists and public transport services. Traffic managers in Copenhagen have now turned this approach on its head and are linking cyclist-specific traffic signals on a major arterial bike lane to provide green waves for rush hour cycle-traffic. Cycling-specific measures that can be applied at traffic signals include the use of advanced stop lines and/or bypasses. In some cases cyclists might be given a free-turn or a signal bypass if turning into a road on the nearside.
Redistribution of the carriageway
One method for reducing potential friction between cyclists and motorised vehicles is to provide Wide Kerb (nearside) lanes (UK) or Wide outside through lanes (USA). These extra wide lanes increase the probability that motorists will be able to pass cyclists at a safe distance without having to change lanes. This is held to be particularly important on routes with a high proportion of wide vehicles such as buses or HGVs. They also provide more room for cyclists to filter past queues of cars in congested conditions.
A bus and cycle lane in Mannheim, Germany
Cycle friendly infrastructure argues for a marked lane width of 4.25 m. It is argued that, on undivided roads, this width provides cyclists with adequate clearance from passing HGVs while being sufficiently narrow to deter car users from attempting to “double up” and form two lanes. This “doubling up” effect may be related to junctions. At non-junction locations, greater width might be preferable if this effect can be avoided. The use of such wide lanes is specifically endorsed by Cycling: the way ahead for towns and cities, the European Commission policy document on cycle promotion.
Shared Bus and Cycle lanes are also a widely endorsed method for providing for cyclists. Research carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory describes shared bus cycle lanes as "generally very popular" with cyclists[ Guidance produced for Cycling England endorses bus lanes as providing cyclists with a direct and barrier free route into town centres and as avoiding the difficulties associated with other provisions such as shared-use footways. According to a French survey 42% of cyclists described themselves as "enthusiasts" for shared bus bike lanes versus 33% who were of mixed opinion and 27% who were opposed. Many cycling activists view these as being more attractive than cycle paths, while others object to being in close proximity to bus exhausts.
As of 2003, mixed bus/cycle lanes accounted for 118km of the 260km of cycling facilities in Paris. The French city of Bordeaux has 40km of shared bus cycle lanes. It is reported that that in the city of Bristol, a showcase bus priority corridor, where road space was re-allocated along a 14km stretch also resulted in more space for cyclists and had the effect of increasing cycling. The reverse effect has also been suggested, a review carried out in London reports that cycling levels fell across Kew bridge following the removal of a bus lane - this was despite a general increase in cycling level in the city generally. In addition, it is arguably easier, politically speaking, to argue for funding of joint facilities rather than the additional expense of both segregated cycling facilities and bus-only lanes. In some instances. bus lane proposals have run into vehement opposition from cyclists reps - a typical theme is the perceived generation of conflict due to the narrowing of other lanes already shared by cars/cyclists so as to create space for the bus lanes The TRL reports that cyclists and bus drivers tend to have low opinions of each otherThere have been reports in Dublin of conflict as cyclists choose to cycle in the bus lanes and a bus driver apparently expected them to use adjacent cycle tracks instead. In other cities the arrangements seem to work successfully with bus companies and cyclists' groups taking active steps to ensure that understanding is improved between the two groups of road users.
Cycle lanes and cycle tracks
The use of segregated cycle facilities such as cycle lanes and cycle tracks is often advocated as a means of promoting utility cycling. Roads or paths that are open to cyclists but not motorists can benefit cyclists where they provide links that are more convenient than the main road network, or help resolve obstacles. Examples include routes through pedestrian precincts etc. However, the use of such devices alongside, or within, existing roads is highly controversial both in terms of safety and cycling promotion. In terms of safety, separate cycle lanes or cycle tracks can seriously undermine safety if inappropriately designed or if used at inappropriate locations. Similarly, while it is possible to use separate facilities to promote cycling, it is also possible to use them for the opposite purpose: for removing priority from cyclists and giving it to motorists. Thus it is argued that the use and potential effects of segregated facilities for cyclists cannot be viewed in isolation from the underlying design, management and legal philosophies that govern the overall transportation infrastructure.
Trip-end facilities
Bicycle parking/storage arrangements
Bicycle parking at the Alewife subway station in Cambridge, Massachusetts, located at the intersection of three cycle paths.
Bicycle parking lot in Amsterdam.
Secure parking is argued to be a key factor influencing the decision to cycle.To be considered secure, the parking must be of a suitable design: allowing the bicycle to be locked via the frame. In addition, the bike parking must be located in a readily observable location permitting so-called passive security from passers-by. Weather protection is also desirable. As a rule, where cycling is being encouraged as an alternative to motoring, efforts are made to make bicycle parking more convenient and attractive to use than the equivalent car parking arrangements. This usually means providing a wide distribution of visible, well-signed, parking as close as possible to the entrances of the destinations being served. Storage rooms or bicycle lockers may also be provided. In some cases large concentrations of bike parking may be more appropriate. These storage facilities can sometimes be supervised and sometimes charge a fee. Examples include large bike parks at public transport interchanges such as railway, subway, tram or bus stations.
Conversely, at particular destinations, or in cultures, where cycling is seen as an unwelcome or inappropriate activity, bicycle parking may simply not be provided or else deliberately placed at awkward, out-of-sight, locations away from public view. In such cultural situations, cyclists may even be expressly forbidden from parking their bicycles at the most obvious and convenient locations. In April 2007, the authorities at the University of California's Santa Barbara campus started confiscating bicycles not parked at the allegedly inconvenient official bike racks
Other trip end facilities
Some people need to wear special clothes such as business suits or uniforms in their daily work. In some cases the nature of the cycling infrastructure and the prevailing weather conditions may make it very hard to both cycle and maintain the work clothes in a presentable condition. It is argued that such workers can be encouraged to cycle by providing lockers, changing rooms and shower facilities where they can change before starting work.
Oil Storm Infrastructure
Oil Storm Infrastructure
Is a 2005 television docudrama portraying a future oil-shortage crisis in the United States, precipitated by a hurricane destroying key parts of the United States' oil infrastructure. The program was an attempt to depict what would happen if the highly oil-dependent country was suddenly faced with gasoline costing upwards of $7 to $8 per gallon (as opposed to the national average of around $2 per gallon when the show first aired). Directed by James Erskine and written by Erskine and Caroline Levy, it originally aired on FX Networks on June 5, 2005, at 8 p.m. ET.
The crisis arises from a hurricane wiping out an important pipeline at Port Fourchon in Louisiana, a tanker collision closing a busy port, terrorist attacks and tension with Saudi Arabia over the oil trade, and other fictional events. The program followed several fictional people, being portrayed by actors, in various situations (a couple that owned a mom-and-pop gas station, stock market and oil analysts, government officials, etc.), and includes a substantial amount of human drama.
Detailed synopsis
The movie deals with the impact that a fictional Category 4 hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico would have if it hit New Orleans, destroyed large numbers of offshore oil rigs in the Gulf, and crippled the primary nerve center of the Gulf Coast petroleum industry at Port Fourchon, Louisiana. It shows how the effects of that disaster could have significant consequences throughout the United States, even in areas far removed from landfall.
While the loss of life and property in the storm is staggering, the greater impact is on the crippled energy industry. Due to the destruction at Port Fourchon and in the Gulf, oil prices skyrocket, and the U.S. government is forced to take immediate action to rebuild the Gulf's energy infrastructure. Once the storm passes, the government starts to rebuild the infrastructure at Port Fourchon (requiring a minimum of 8 months) and repair or replace damaged offshore rigs (requiring a similar amount of time). Also, shipping that would normally go to Port Fourchon is rerouted to the Port of Houston, and Houston's port facilities work around-the-clock at higher-than-usual throughput, with attendant higher risk of accident.
With widespread gas lines and prices over $3.00 per gallon, the U.S. persuades Saudi Arabia to increase its oil production by 1m barrels a day. The Saudi decision to aid America causes a backlash among a restive Muslim population already energized because of the U.S. intervention in Iraq. Local terrorists stage an attack on an upscale shopping mall in Riyadh which (after intervention by Saudi special forces) kills about 300 Americans associated with multinational oil companies. This attack leads the U.S. to send troops to Saudi Arabia. In the meantime, the oil crisis escalates when two large tankers collide in the narrow Houston Ship Channel, shutting down the Channel.
Once winter sets in, gas lines take a back seat to critical shortages of heating oil during a bitterly cold winter, with thousands dying in the cold. Some time after the Houston accident, on Christmas Eve, the same Saudi terrorists blow up sections of the mammoth Ras Tanura refinery complex, killing 142 U.S. soldiers who were protecting the Saudi oil infrastructure. With a government budget crisis due to military and economic pressures, farm spending is cut dramatically, leading to a subplot in which the social and political effects of this are explored. Oil prices reach $130 per barrel, and gas prices top $8 per gallon.
In the spring, the U.S. makes a deal with Russia to send 8m barrels of oil by tanker, but the oil companies involved subsequently make a deal with China, which, equally hungry for oil and with greater financial reserves, outbids the U.S. This leaves America in a state of chaos, as well leading to soul-searching on whether China has now become the world's economic superpower. The country considers fast-tracking development of alternative energy sources, but there is little that can be done in the short-term to alter an economy structurally dependent on cheap foreign oil. Later, the U.S. government, showing unexpected diplomatic skill, resurrects the Russian oil deal (by agreeing to a $16bn long-term investment in its oil industry), and the China-bound tankers change course to the U.S. The crisis finally eases a year after the hurricane, with Port Fourchon back onstream, with oil prices dropping from $130 per barrel to $77 per barrel and with gas prices just below $4 per gallon, but the country has been through a stress as great as the Stock Market Crash of 1929, and will never take cheap oil for granted again.
Real-world events partly anticipated by the film
Hurricane Katrina
The events of Hurricane Katrina, its economic impact and the ensuing price increases nearly parallel some of the events in the movie. However, the damage to US oil infrastructure is less severe than in the film, and the lack of the compounding events (shutdown of Port of Houston, loss of some of Saudi Arabia's supply) means the consequences of Katrina are much less than of the fictional Julia. However, especially given the coincidence of dates (in the film, Julia strikes in early September 2005), the similarity of the early impact of the two storms has been noted.
On August 28, 2005, Hurricane Katrina was on a direct path to hit Port Fourchon and New Orleans. Many of the initial scenes of Hurricane Julia were playing out in real life with Hurricane Katrina, such as the mandatory evacuation of New Orleans, the opening of the Superdome, and the changing of traffic to contraflow. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina did not directly hit Port Fourchon but across Barataria Bay at Buras, but nonetheless some oil rigs were damaged. Saudi Arabia agreed to increase oil production to help.
On August 30, 2005, many gas stations raised prices by a considerable amount putting most of America over $3.00/gallon, as shown in the movie. On September 1, 2005, gas stations throughout the country began to run out of fuel due to worries of mass shortages. Some stations in Atlanta, Georgia sold gas at nearly $6/gallon. Most of this was due to panic buying, as noted in the film, rather than physical shortage. Subsequently, as the extent of the damage became clearer, prices eased.
Automotive layoffs
Both Ford and GM announced layoffs and plant closings in late 2005 and early 2006. However, while one reason for the layoffs was increased gasoline prices, it was not the sole reason for the layoffs (e.g. incompetent management). In addition, the layoffs were on a much smaller scale than the ones shown in the film.
Attacks on Saudi refineries
In the film, al-Qaeda makes a terrorist attack on the oil facilities at Ras Tanura. On February 24, 2006 al-Qaeda attacked the nearby facility at Abqaiq, though no damage was inflicted on the facilities themselves.
Electrical power industry Infrastructure
The electrical power industry provides the production and delivery of electrical power (electrical energy), often known as power, or electricity, in sufficient quantities to areas that need electricity through a grid. Many households and businesses need access to electricity, especially in developed nations, the demand being scarcer in developing nations. Demand for electricity is derived from the requirement for electricity in order to operate domestic appliances, office equipment, industrial machinery and provide sufficient energy for both domestic and commercial lighting, heating, cooking and industrial processes. Because of this aspect of the industry, it is viewed as a public utility as infrastructure.
The electrical power industry is commonly split up into four processes. These are electricity generation such as a power station, electric power transmission, electricity distribution and electricity retailing. In many countries, electric power companies own the whole infrastructure from generating stations to transmission and distribution infrastructure. For this reason, electric power is viewed as a natural monopoly. The industry is generally heavily regulated, often with price controls and is frequently government-owned and operated. The nature and state of market reform of the electricity market often determines whether electric companies are able to be involved in just some of these processes without having to own the entire infrastructure, or citizens choose which components of infrastructure to patronise. In countries where electricity provision is deregulated, end-users of electricity may opt for more costly green electricity.
Transmission lines in Lund, Sweden
Generation
All forms of electricity generation have positive and negative aspects. Technology will probably eventually declare the most preferred forms, but in a market economy, the options with less overall costs generally will be chosen above other sources. It is not clear yet which form can best meet the necessary energy demands or which process can best solve the demand for electricity. There are indications that renewable energy and distributed generation are becoming more viable in economic terms. A diverse mix of generation sources reduces the risks of electricity price spikes.
History
Power lines in Suffolk England in twilight
Transmission lines in Romania Of which the nearest is a Phase Transposition Tower
Although electricity had been known to be produced as a result of the chemical reactions that take place in an electrolytic cell since Alessandro Volta developed the voltaic pile in 1800, its production by this means was, and still is, expensive. In 1831, Michael Faraday devised a machine that generated electricity from rotary motion, but it took almost 50 years for the technology to reach a commercially viable stage. In 1878, in the US, Thomas Edison developed and sold a commercially viable replacement for gas lighting and heating using locally generated and distributed direct current electricity.
The world's first public electricity supply was provided in late 1881, when the streets of the Surrey town of Godalming in the UK were lit with electric light. This system was powered from a water wheel on the River Wey, which drove a Siemens alternator that supplied a number of arc lamps within the town. This supply scheme also provided electricity to a number of shops and premises.
Coincident with this, in early 1882, Edison opened the world’s first steam-powered electricity generating station at Holborn Viaduct in London, where he had entered into an agreement with the City Corporation for a period of three months to provide street lighting. In time he had supplied a number of local consumers with electric light. The method of supply was direct current (DC).
It was later on in the year in September 1882 that Edison opened the Pearl Street Power Station in New York City and again it was a DC supply. It was for this reason that the generation was close to or on the consumer's premises as Edison had no means of voltage conversion. The voltage chosen for any electrical system is a compromise. Increasing the voltage reduces the current and therefore reduces resistive losses in the cable. Unfortunately it increases the danger from direct contact and also increases the required insulation thickness. Furthermore some load types were difficult or impossible to make for higher voltages.
Additionally, Robert Hammond, in December 1881, demonstrated the new electric light in the Sussex town of Brighton in the UK for a trial period. The ensuing success of this installation enabled Hammond to put this venture on both a commercial and legal footing, as a number of shop owners wanted to use the new electric light. Thus the Hammond Electricity Supply Co. was launched. Whilst the Godalming and Holborn Viaduct Schemes closed after a few years the Brighton Scheme continued on, and supply was in 1887 made available for 24 hours per day.
Nikola Tesla, who had worked for Edison for a short time and appreciated the electrical theory in a way that Edison did not, devised an alternative system using alternating current. Tesla realised that while doubling the voltage would halve the current and reduce losses by three-quarters, only an alternating current system allowed the transformation between voltage levels in different parts of the system. This allowed efficient high voltages for distribution where their risks could easily be mitigated by good design while still allowing fairly safe voltages to be supplied to the loads. He went on to develop the overall theory of his system, devising theoretical and practical alternatives for all of the direct current appliances then in use, and patented his novel ideas in 1887, in thirty separate patents.
High tension line in Montreal, Canada
In 1888, Tesla's work came to the attention of George Westinghouse, who owned a patent for a type of transformer that could deal with high power and was easy to make. Westinghouse had been operating an alternating current lighting plant in Great Barrington, Massachusetts since 1886. While Westinghouse's system could use Edison's lights and had heaters, it did not have a motor. With Tesla and his patents, Westinghouse built a power system for a gold mine in Telluride, Colorado in 1891, with a water driven 100 horsepower (75 kW) generator powering a 100 horsepower (75 kW) motor over a 2.5-mile (4 km) power line. Almarian Decker finally invented the whole system of three-phase power generating in Redlands, California in 1893. Then, in a deal with General Electric, which Edison had been forced to sell, Westinghouse's company went on to construct a power station at the Niagara Falls, with three 5,000 horsepower (3.7 MW) Tesla generators supplying electricity to an aluminium smelter at Niagara and the town of Buffalo 22 miles (35 km) away. The Niagara power station commenced operation on April 20, 1895.
Tesla's alternating current system remains the primary means of delivering electrical energy to consumers throughout the world. While high-voltage direct current (HVDC) is increasingly being used to transmit large quantities of electricity over long distances or to connect adjacent asynchronous power systems, the bulk of electricity generation, transmission, distribution and retailing takes place using alternating current.
Market reform
There has been a movement towards separating the monopoly parts of the industry, such as transmission and distribution sectors from the contestable sectors of generation and retailing across the world. This has occurred prominently since the reform of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales in 1990. In some countries, wholesale electricity markets operate, with generators and retailers trading electricity in a similar manner to shares and currency.
Is a 2005 television docudrama portraying a future oil-shortage crisis in the United States, precipitated by a hurricane destroying key parts of the United States' oil infrastructure. The program was an attempt to depict what would happen if the highly oil-dependent country was suddenly faced with gasoline costing upwards of $7 to $8 per gallon (as opposed to the national average of around $2 per gallon when the show first aired). Directed by James Erskine and written by Erskine and Caroline Levy, it originally aired on FX Networks on June 5, 2005, at 8 p.m. ET.
The crisis arises from a hurricane wiping out an important pipeline at Port Fourchon in Louisiana, a tanker collision closing a busy port, terrorist attacks and tension with Saudi Arabia over the oil trade, and other fictional events. The program followed several fictional people, being portrayed by actors, in various situations (a couple that owned a mom-and-pop gas station, stock market and oil analysts, government officials, etc.), and includes a substantial amount of human drama.
Detailed synopsis
The movie deals with the impact that a fictional Category 4 hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico would have if it hit New Orleans, destroyed large numbers of offshore oil rigs in the Gulf, and crippled the primary nerve center of the Gulf Coast petroleum industry at Port Fourchon, Louisiana. It shows how the effects of that disaster could have significant consequences throughout the United States, even in areas far removed from landfall.
While the loss of life and property in the storm is staggering, the greater impact is on the crippled energy industry. Due to the destruction at Port Fourchon and in the Gulf, oil prices skyrocket, and the U.S. government is forced to take immediate action to rebuild the Gulf's energy infrastructure. Once the storm passes, the government starts to rebuild the infrastructure at Port Fourchon (requiring a minimum of 8 months) and repair or replace damaged offshore rigs (requiring a similar amount of time). Also, shipping that would normally go to Port Fourchon is rerouted to the Port of Houston, and Houston's port facilities work around-the-clock at higher-than-usual throughput, with attendant higher risk of accident.
With widespread gas lines and prices over $3.00 per gallon, the U.S. persuades Saudi Arabia to increase its oil production by 1m barrels a day. The Saudi decision to aid America causes a backlash among a restive Muslim population already energized because of the U.S. intervention in Iraq. Local terrorists stage an attack on an upscale shopping mall in Riyadh which (after intervention by Saudi special forces) kills about 300 Americans associated with multinational oil companies. This attack leads the U.S. to send troops to Saudi Arabia. In the meantime, the oil crisis escalates when two large tankers collide in the narrow Houston Ship Channel, shutting down the Channel.
Once winter sets in, gas lines take a back seat to critical shortages of heating oil during a bitterly cold winter, with thousands dying in the cold. Some time after the Houston accident, on Christmas Eve, the same Saudi terrorists blow up sections of the mammoth Ras Tanura refinery complex, killing 142 U.S. soldiers who were protecting the Saudi oil infrastructure. With a government budget crisis due to military and economic pressures, farm spending is cut dramatically, leading to a subplot in which the social and political effects of this are explored. Oil prices reach $130 per barrel, and gas prices top $8 per gallon.
In the spring, the U.S. makes a deal with Russia to send 8m barrels of oil by tanker, but the oil companies involved subsequently make a deal with China, which, equally hungry for oil and with greater financial reserves, outbids the U.S. This leaves America in a state of chaos, as well leading to soul-searching on whether China has now become the world's economic superpower. The country considers fast-tracking development of alternative energy sources, but there is little that can be done in the short-term to alter an economy structurally dependent on cheap foreign oil. Later, the U.S. government, showing unexpected diplomatic skill, resurrects the Russian oil deal (by agreeing to a $16bn long-term investment in its oil industry), and the China-bound tankers change course to the U.S. The crisis finally eases a year after the hurricane, with Port Fourchon back onstream, with oil prices dropping from $130 per barrel to $77 per barrel and with gas prices just below $4 per gallon, but the country has been through a stress as great as the Stock Market Crash of 1929, and will never take cheap oil for granted again.
Real-world events partly anticipated by the film
Hurricane Katrina
The events of Hurricane Katrina, its economic impact and the ensuing price increases nearly parallel some of the events in the movie. However, the damage to US oil infrastructure is less severe than in the film, and the lack of the compounding events (shutdown of Port of Houston, loss of some of Saudi Arabia's supply) means the consequences of Katrina are much less than of the fictional Julia. However, especially given the coincidence of dates (in the film, Julia strikes in early September 2005), the similarity of the early impact of the two storms has been noted.
On August 28, 2005, Hurricane Katrina was on a direct path to hit Port Fourchon and New Orleans. Many of the initial scenes of Hurricane Julia were playing out in real life with Hurricane Katrina, such as the mandatory evacuation of New Orleans, the opening of the Superdome, and the changing of traffic to contraflow. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina did not directly hit Port Fourchon but across Barataria Bay at Buras, but nonetheless some oil rigs were damaged. Saudi Arabia agreed to increase oil production to help.
On August 30, 2005, many gas stations raised prices by a considerable amount putting most of America over $3.00/gallon, as shown in the movie. On September 1, 2005, gas stations throughout the country began to run out of fuel due to worries of mass shortages. Some stations in Atlanta, Georgia sold gas at nearly $6/gallon. Most of this was due to panic buying, as noted in the film, rather than physical shortage. Subsequently, as the extent of the damage became clearer, prices eased.
Automotive layoffs
Both Ford and GM announced layoffs and plant closings in late 2005 and early 2006. However, while one reason for the layoffs was increased gasoline prices, it was not the sole reason for the layoffs (e.g. incompetent management). In addition, the layoffs were on a much smaller scale than the ones shown in the film.
Attacks on Saudi refineries
In the film, al-Qaeda makes a terrorist attack on the oil facilities at Ras Tanura. On February 24, 2006 al-Qaeda attacked the nearby facility at Abqaiq, though no damage was inflicted on the facilities themselves.
Electrical power industry Infrastructure
The electrical power industry provides the production and delivery of electrical power (electrical energy), often known as power, or electricity, in sufficient quantities to areas that need electricity through a grid. Many households and businesses need access to electricity, especially in developed nations, the demand being scarcer in developing nations. Demand for electricity is derived from the requirement for electricity in order to operate domestic appliances, office equipment, industrial machinery and provide sufficient energy for both domestic and commercial lighting, heating, cooking and industrial processes. Because of this aspect of the industry, it is viewed as a public utility as infrastructure.
The electrical power industry is commonly split up into four processes. These are electricity generation such as a power station, electric power transmission, electricity distribution and electricity retailing. In many countries, electric power companies own the whole infrastructure from generating stations to transmission and distribution infrastructure. For this reason, electric power is viewed as a natural monopoly. The industry is generally heavily regulated, often with price controls and is frequently government-owned and operated. The nature and state of market reform of the electricity market often determines whether electric companies are able to be involved in just some of these processes without having to own the entire infrastructure, or citizens choose which components of infrastructure to patronise. In countries where electricity provision is deregulated, end-users of electricity may opt for more costly green electricity.
Transmission lines in Lund, Sweden
Generation
All forms of electricity generation have positive and negative aspects. Technology will probably eventually declare the most preferred forms, but in a market economy, the options with less overall costs generally will be chosen above other sources. It is not clear yet which form can best meet the necessary energy demands or which process can best solve the demand for electricity. There are indications that renewable energy and distributed generation are becoming more viable in economic terms. A diverse mix of generation sources reduces the risks of electricity price spikes.
History
Power lines in Suffolk England in twilight
Transmission lines in Romania Of which the nearest is a Phase Transposition Tower
Although electricity had been known to be produced as a result of the chemical reactions that take place in an electrolytic cell since Alessandro Volta developed the voltaic pile in 1800, its production by this means was, and still is, expensive. In 1831, Michael Faraday devised a machine that generated electricity from rotary motion, but it took almost 50 years for the technology to reach a commercially viable stage. In 1878, in the US, Thomas Edison developed and sold a commercially viable replacement for gas lighting and heating using locally generated and distributed direct current electricity.
The world's first public electricity supply was provided in late 1881, when the streets of the Surrey town of Godalming in the UK were lit with electric light. This system was powered from a water wheel on the River Wey, which drove a Siemens alternator that supplied a number of arc lamps within the town. This supply scheme also provided electricity to a number of shops and premises.
Coincident with this, in early 1882, Edison opened the world’s first steam-powered electricity generating station at Holborn Viaduct in London, where he had entered into an agreement with the City Corporation for a period of three months to provide street lighting. In time he had supplied a number of local consumers with electric light. The method of supply was direct current (DC).
It was later on in the year in September 1882 that Edison opened the Pearl Street Power Station in New York City and again it was a DC supply. It was for this reason that the generation was close to or on the consumer's premises as Edison had no means of voltage conversion. The voltage chosen for any electrical system is a compromise. Increasing the voltage reduces the current and therefore reduces resistive losses in the cable. Unfortunately it increases the danger from direct contact and also increases the required insulation thickness. Furthermore some load types were difficult or impossible to make for higher voltages.
Additionally, Robert Hammond, in December 1881, demonstrated the new electric light in the Sussex town of Brighton in the UK for a trial period. The ensuing success of this installation enabled Hammond to put this venture on both a commercial and legal footing, as a number of shop owners wanted to use the new electric light. Thus the Hammond Electricity Supply Co. was launched. Whilst the Godalming and Holborn Viaduct Schemes closed after a few years the Brighton Scheme continued on, and supply was in 1887 made available for 24 hours per day.
Nikola Tesla, who had worked for Edison for a short time and appreciated the electrical theory in a way that Edison did not, devised an alternative system using alternating current. Tesla realised that while doubling the voltage would halve the current and reduce losses by three-quarters, only an alternating current system allowed the transformation between voltage levels in different parts of the system. This allowed efficient high voltages for distribution where their risks could easily be mitigated by good design while still allowing fairly safe voltages to be supplied to the loads. He went on to develop the overall theory of his system, devising theoretical and practical alternatives for all of the direct current appliances then in use, and patented his novel ideas in 1887, in thirty separate patents.
High tension line in Montreal, Canada
In 1888, Tesla's work came to the attention of George Westinghouse, who owned a patent for a type of transformer that could deal with high power and was easy to make. Westinghouse had been operating an alternating current lighting plant in Great Barrington, Massachusetts since 1886. While Westinghouse's system could use Edison's lights and had heaters, it did not have a motor. With Tesla and his patents, Westinghouse built a power system for a gold mine in Telluride, Colorado in 1891, with a water driven 100 horsepower (75 kW) generator powering a 100 horsepower (75 kW) motor over a 2.5-mile (4 km) power line. Almarian Decker finally invented the whole system of three-phase power generating in Redlands, California in 1893. Then, in a deal with General Electric, which Edison had been forced to sell, Westinghouse's company went on to construct a power station at the Niagara Falls, with three 5,000 horsepower (3.7 MW) Tesla generators supplying electricity to an aluminium smelter at Niagara and the town of Buffalo 22 miles (35 km) away. The Niagara power station commenced operation on April 20, 1895.
Tesla's alternating current system remains the primary means of delivering electrical energy to consumers throughout the world. While high-voltage direct current (HVDC) is increasingly being used to transmit large quantities of electricity over long distances or to connect adjacent asynchronous power systems, the bulk of electricity generation, transmission, distribution and retailing takes place using alternating current.
Market reform
There has been a movement towards separating the monopoly parts of the industry, such as transmission and distribution sectors from the contestable sectors of generation and retailing across the world. This has occurred prominently since the reform of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales in 1990. In some countries, wholesale electricity markets operate, with generators and retailers trading electricity in a similar manner to shares and currency.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)