The Senate voted 78 to 21, early on Dec. 10, to approve a bill that authorizes navigation, flood control and drinking water projects. That sent the measure to President Obama to sign into law.
The House had passed the bill 360-61 on Dec. 8 and sent it to the Senate.
What was previously called the Water Resources Development Act had been recast in the final House-Senate conference version as the Water Infrastructure Improvements Act for the Nation, or WIIN Act. It also includes authorizating of funding to deal with the drinking water crisis in Flint, Mich.
For marine traffic, it authorizes more and deeper federal dredging of seaport harbors plus some inland waterway projects that support barge freight operations.
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster, R-Pa., said the WIIN Act includes regional improvements such as “long-overdue upgrades” at some locks and dams on the upper Ohio River, but that “they also provide significant national economic benefits. An efficient transportation network is what makes our economy run, and ensuring America’s water infrastructure is brought into the 21st century will grow the economy, strengthen our competitiveness, and create jobs.”
A number of state departments of transportation directly or indirectly support their states’ ocean or inland freight-handling marine ports, and so would be affected by the bill. In addition, the measure’s flood projects often can help protect highways and other surface transportation infrastructure that state DOTs directly manage.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ Board of Directors had recently passed a resolution calling on the current Congress to complete the water projects legislation, saying that it “authorizes critical projects and establishes water resource policy for the nation’s ports, waterways and marine system.”
Originally published aashtojournal.org
Carnegie Mellon University will receive $14 million over the next five years from the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) to establish a new National University Transportation Center (UTC).
The UTC, which will be named Mobility21, will focus on safely and efficiently improving the mobility of people and goods in the 21st century by investigating and deploying novel technologies, incentives, policies, and training programs.
Mobility21 is a partnership between the College of Engineering and The Heinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy. It contributes to initiatives in both Colleges and the university in smart transportation and smart city research and education.
Transportation costs are the second largest expense for U.S. households. On average, we spend more than 40 hours stuck in traffic each year, and congestion costs are estimated to be $121 billion. Truck congestion alone wastes $27 billion in time and fuel, annually.
To address mobility challenges that span multiple modes of transportation, the College of Engineering and its consortium partners, including the Community College of Allegheny Country, University of Pennsylvania, and Ohio State University, will explore: smart city technologies; connected and autonomous vehicles; improved transportation access to disadvantaged neighborhoods; multi-modal traveling; assistive technologies for people with disabilities; data modeling for monitoring traffic control systems; and regional planning to establish priorities and aid transportation deployment.
“This significant award from the U.S. Department of Transportation recognizes Carnegie Mellon’s national and global leadership in the computational technologies that are revolutionizing transportation. Building on the real-world experience and expertise we have established with other CMU initiatives such as Metro21 and Traffic21, this cross-disciplinary effort, led by our College of Engineering, will rely on innovative research from across Carnegie Mellon to develop and deploy solutions that will fuel our economy, keep our nation’s drivers safe, and deliver efficient and reliable transportation,” says Farnam Jahanian, provost and chief academic officer of Carnegie Mellon.
Raj Rajkumar, the George Westinghouse Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Robotics at Carnegie Mellon, will lead Mobility21. Rajkumar, who has earned global recognition for autonomous vehicle research, is also the co-director of the GM-CMU Connected and Autonomous Driving Collaborative Research Laboratory.
“Carnegie Mellon’s research has helped establish Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania as a national hub for developing safe automated vehicles and has attracted technology companies to Pennsylvania,” says Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) Secretary Leslie S. Richards.
PennDOT is one of a number of partners that Mobility21 will tap to deploy projects. Deployment partners will help identify real-world transportation needs, aid technology licensing and commercialization, and provide venues for testing technologies.
“Pittsburgh is a testbed for deploying new technologies that can connect communities and provide access to new opportunities. With the City and Carnegie Mellon working together, residents throughout the city will have safer, faster, and more reliable commutes,” says Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto.
Mobility21 has received much support from Pennsylvania’s government leaders because of the impact the center will make in the state and beyond.
“I’m very pleased that the Department of Transportation has awarded Carnegie Mellon another grant to continue the great research it’s doing to improve our region and nation’s transportation infrastructure. Cutting-edge research like this is what attracts industry leaders like Google and Uber to Pittsburgh and expands our local economy. That’s why I was happy to spearhead a Congressional letter of support for CMU’s grant application,” says Rep. Mike Doyle.
“The research that Carnegie Mellon will undertake will help tackle the nation’s transportation problems by finding ways to improve safety, upgrade infrastructure, and ensure that the best new technologies come from American companies,” says Sen. Bob Casey.
“Mobility21 will actively bridge the bold ideas of its research team to meet the pressing needs of our increasingly congested transportation system. The benefits of infrastructure investments can be multiplied with the infusion of innovative technologies and forward-looking policies. We therefore look forward to working closely with institutions in the public, private, and non-profit sectors,” adds Rajkumar, who also directs Metro21, Carnegie Mellon’s Smart and Connected City Initiative.
Mobility21 is the second national UTC located at Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh. The university is also home to the Technologies for Safe and Efficient Transportation National UTC on Safety, which was established in 2013 to develop and deploy technologies for safe and efficient transportation pertaining to in-vehicle technologies, infrastructure technologies, human-vehicle interactions, mobility/data analytics, and policy.
The Mobility21 grant is one of five National UTC grants that were awarded in 2016 to advance research and education programs that address transportation challenges facing our nation. Funding for the UTC is authorized by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, or the FAST Act.
Originally published at engineering.cmu.edu
From reverse engineering a robot, to solving the mystery of how Santa makes all those deliveries in a single night, to some gift wrapping tips from Rube Goldberg, we’ve got the holiday engineering spirit and the gift of knowledge all wrapped up for you.
Failure and transparency are calls to action in the tech industry. So why are they holding back with diversity?
This story reflects the views of this author, but not necessarily the editorial position of Fast Company.
“As you know, Mrs. Bellis,” my second-grade teacher definitely did not tell my mother, “your son has been struggling in school this marking period, so we’ve decided we aren’t going to share his report card. We’ll wait until he’s managed to bring his grades up before telling you what they are.”
That’s pretty much the logic Twitter and Pinterest are sharing with the publicthis week. According to a Wall Street Journal report, both companies are “delaying” the release of their latest diversity data until later this month—16 months after their last updates came out.
Isn’t failure . . . a rallying cry in Silicon Valley—a call to action, not a reason to add more time to the clock?
And while we won’t know how much progress they’ve made until then, there’s ample reason to suspect it’ll be disappointing. Both companies’ next reports are expected to shift toward laying out new hiring objectives rather than (just) sharing demographic figures on race and gender.
That change comes in an industry where progress on improving the representation of women and people of color has all but stalled. 2014 saw a big push to expand transparency around diversity data in the tech sector, with Tracy Chou, formerly a Pinterest engineer and currently of the advocacy group Project Include, helping to lead that charge. As she tells the Journal’s Georgia Wells today, though, “There’s starting to be a shift in the conversation: We can’t just put the diversity data out there.” Instead, she says the question is becoming, “What can we do to move the data in the right direction?”
Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive. The whole point of releasing diversity data—regularly—is to keep that conversation going in the first place. When an ambitious plan to improve its internal diversity largely face-planted by last year, Pinterest was forced to rethink its efforts, hiring a new diversity chief to lead them.
So was Intel, whose $300-million diversity initiative in 2015 has led to only incremental change in the company’s workforce in the 18 months since it launched. Facebook and Google’s parent company Alphabet haven’t made significant improvements either, the Journal notes. That’s despite initiatives that include hiring underrepresented minorities as interns and appointing executives to lead further inclusion efforts.
But isn’t failure (and transparency around it) a rallying cry in Silicon Valley—a call to action, not a reason to add more time to the clock? The way to sustain the energy, urgency, and seriousness around the toughest challenges isn’t to let well over a year go by before sharing more information on them. Nor is it by moving the goal posts when that information isn’t positive. A shift in hiring and recruiting strategy may be called for, as Chou suggests. And it’s true, as Pinterest’s diversity chief, Candice Morgan, points out in the Journal story: The most effective game-plan may take (much) longer than 12 months to show results of any kind—good or bad, mixed or middling.
Transparency is both a means for accomplishing a goal and an end in itself.
Tech insiders should be more comfortable than most with making long-term investments, confident that today’s tepid update obscures tomorrow’s monster ROI. There’s not a VC out there who’d tell a startup that they’d just dumped a bunch of money into: “Take your time and hit me up whenever you’re finally cash-positive, no need to keep me posted in the meantime!” Transparency is both a means for accomplishing a goal and an end in itself.
Especially now. There’s a lot we don’t know, for instance, about how President-elect Donald Trump will lead over the next four years, because there’s a lot we don’t know about his taxes and his plans for managing his businesses, among other things.
One thing we do know is the makeup of Trump’s economic team—which is all men, most of them white and many of them billionaires. Multiple studies have already shown that you can’t properly critique what you don’t know, and you can’t make it better, either. At least not before it’s done some damage.
[Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images]
Orignally published at fastcompany.com
DESPITE ADVANCES IN digital technology, the structural engineering syllabus has remained largely unchanged for close to a century. A degree still entails becoming an expert in things like load, leveling, tension, and stress—and students are expected to learn hand-drafting and model construction. But Brazilian architect Márcio Sequeira de Oliveira thought there was a better (and better-looking) way for wannabe-engineers to grok structural mechanics.
He calls his solution Mola. It’s the first structural modeling kit you’ll want to snap a selfie with, regardless of your major. Its sleek, sproingy parts beg to be played with and the subtle design belies the serious engineering concepts it so beautifully illustrates.
Sequeira created the first Mola kit back in 2014, after spending nearly a decade on the design process. The challenge, he says, was creating the simplest model possible with the smallest number of parts as possible while still allowing it to simulate the widest variety of structural systems possible. When he released it via Brazilian crowdfunding platform Catarse, it became the website’s most successful campaign ever. People in 50 countries bought more than 4,000 kits.
Now the company is back with the Mola 2—an expanded version with even more room to flex your creativity muscles. The big revelation? Adjustable-length, spring-loaded bars that can get longer or shorter with just a twist. Plus, you don’t have to take apart the structure to change it up. Mola 2 lets you simulate all sorts of structures–from grids and bridges to columns and cross-beamed forts. There are even plans to replicate more famous landmarks, like the cork-screwing Art Tower Mito in Japan and Buckminster Fuller’s Dymaxion House.
“We dream of seeing the Mola System being used all around the world in every university and in every architecture or engineering office,” Sequeira says. But he’s also been pleasantly surprised with other ways people are using it, from high school physics teachers to kids peeling themselves away from screen time.
Originally published at Wired.com
The wall-climbing Geckobot
Geckobots are robots that mimic the moves of a real gecko. They can even climb up walls and windows. But the best part is you assemble and wire it yourself.
The toy from Thames & Kosmos includes a battery-powered motor that triggers the robot’s legs to move back and forth. Meanwhile, an air suction system allows it to walk vertically up and down smooth surfaces like glass, plastic and whiteboards.
Originally published at CNN.com
Picture this: You’re at a park, on a walk, with a baby. A friendly middle-aged man approaches you and tells you your stroller could be really dangerous.
You might think this man is crazy. But maybe not if you knew he’s the nation’s product safety chief.
“I couldn’t live with myself if I walked away and it turned out that that child was harmed when I could’ve just said something,” Elliot Kaye says. His voice is soft-spoken and his worldview seems to fluctuate between pride in saving lives and the unease of someone who has seen many things go wrong in unexpected ways. “You can’t help it; you just automatically see the hazards.”
Kaye is the chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It’s an agency that indeed typically gets the spotlight when things go wrong — when furniture topplesover toddlers, when window blinds strangle children, or, more recently, when smartphones explode.
And to many, the CPSC is the recall agency. But considering how tiny it is, its mission is vast. With the exception of cars, food, medications and a few other things, for thousands of products we buy and assume someone’s made sure are safe — cribs, lawn mowers, toasters, power tools, washing machines, office chairs — that someone is the CPSC.
A major category under CPSC’s scrutiny is electronics. And increasingly in recent years, there’s been the matter of batteries. They’ve overheated or caught fire in laptops, baby monitors, flashlights and, of course, those electric “hoverboard” scooters and Samsung’s Galaxy Note 7 phones.
Lithium-ion batteries are a known troublemaker — and a subject of numerous standards and international regulations. But the incidents keep cropping up.
“This is the way standards normally work,” Kaye says. “They identify a problem that is probably not a problem that needs to be solved in the future, and they’re really good at making sure that thing never happens again, but then new problems have developed.”
In October, Kaye introduced a new initiative to help the agency get a broader understanding of the battery industry and how to prevent rather than resolve hazards.
But then came the election and its unexpected result. Under President Donald Trump in 2017, Kaye is expected to step down as chairman to become a commissioner. “My hope is now with the election and potential leadership change here, that that work is not scuttled,” Kaye says.
In order to tighten the gender gap in certain male-dominated science, technology, engineering and math fields, educators must develop a more inviting culture, according to a study published in the October issue of Psychological Bulletin.
The study, “Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others?” draws on previous works on STEM gender gaps to account for the specific gap in computer science, engineering and physics fields.
The study’s authors, University of Washington’s Sapna Cheryan, Lily Jiang and Sianna Ziegler and Ohio State’s Amanda Montoya, knew that more boys preferred these fields than girls, but wanted to understand why. Previous research, they say, tried to write the gender gap off as individual preferences and abilities, factors they found to be insignificant.
While the number of women in biology, chemistry and math have increased in recent years, the gap has widened in computer science and persists in engineering and physics fields. Echoed by the 2016 U.S. News/Raytheon STEM Index, the research reveals that the academic culture of these fields is more masculine, which deters high school girls from enrolling in the often-optional courses.
An overwhelmingly masculine environment is one that conveys a stronger sense of belonging for males and increases the interest, participation and performance of boys to the detriment of girls, according to Cheryan.
The study defines masculine culture as an environment that fosters “stereotypes of the field that are incompatible with the way that many women see themselves, negative stereotypes and perceived bias, and few role models for women.”
The stereotypical image of a computer scientist, engineer or physicist doesn’t line up with how many girls see themselves or their interests, the report says. These factors contribute to why women and girls don’t feel comfortable in some STEM fields.
Cheryan says when she was in high school in the 1990s, a friend warned her that a mandatory computer science class was extremely difficult and that only boys who were gamers and coded for fun were successful in the course.
“We already had strong stereotypes of computer scientists being those boys – I guess now you’d call them hackers – the stereotype that they like science fiction and are a little socially awkward,” she says. “There was nothing that made us girls feel like we were welcome. Many of us got As in the class, but many of the girls said they didn’t feel like there was a place for us in that field.”
When Cheryan returned for a 20-year high school reunion, she noticed that of her small class, about half of the men worked in computer science, but only one of the women did.
“We’re still using science, we’re just not doing it in the fields that are the most lucrative and most high status,” she said. “But if you can be a doctor, you can be a computer scientist.”
While the gender gap in STEM has received more attention in recent years, the “boys’ club” image of many of the fields still exists. In 1984, 37 percent of computer science majors were women, but by 2014 that number had dropped to 18 percent, according to a recent study from Accenture and Girls Who Code. To combat the decline, educators must encourage girls to pursue computer science in middle and high school, according to the study.
TechGirlz, a Pennsylvania-based nonprofit dedicated to reducing the gender gap in technology fields, focuses specifically on fostering middle school girls’ interest in the sector. Founder Tracey Welson-Rossman says the environment is often less welcoming for girls and isn’t tailored to meet their interests. Girls become more interested when they feel a sense of community and have female role models in the technology sphere, she says.
“The anecdotal actually does match up to what research is showing,” Welson-Rossman says. “One, there’s not a lot of classes [available], two, it’s not interesting to the girls, the way that it’s being taught. And we hear this again and again and again that it’s boring, that they’re the only girls in the class.”
According to Cheryan, pop culture jokes and classroom decorations have an affect on who is interested in a course. The study reveals that when high school classrooms were either decorated with “Star Trek” posters and video games or not decorated at all, girls were less interested than boys in taking the course. Girls’ interest only matched boys’ when posters of art and nature replace what the study calls “geeky” decor, but boys’ interest was not negatively impacted by the classroom environment.
Cheryan and her team also had computer science majors present themselves in a stereotypically “nerdy” way, wearing “I code therefore I am” shirts and referencing a science TV show and then again wearing plain clothes and referencing “The Office.” Girls expressed more interest in computer science upon their interactions with the non-stereotypical coder.
That isn’t to say all girls are turned off by “geek culture,” or that all boys are attracted to it. Balancing traditionally masculine and feminine decorations and references simply helps narrow the gap between the genders and promote a more inclusive environment, the study found.
“It’s not that every man and every woman can relate to the stereotype,” Cheryan says. “And it’s not that the stereotype is bad; there are just more women who think, ‘It’s just not me and it doesn’t reflect my values and my interests.'”
Welson-Rossman says the actual coursework in technology classes needs to change to better fit girls’ interests as well. Girls prefer learning about technology to solve real-world problems rather than more general, theory-based learning about technology.
TechGirlz runs free workshops aimed at broadening girls’ views of technology. Workshop instructors complete hands-on projects with middle school-age girls and show them how technology can be applied to nearly every profession. After each session, Welson-Rossman says about 80 percent of attendees say they are more open to pursuing a career in technology.
“How are we getting them interested in the get-go and how are we retaining that interest?” Welson-Rossman says. “We believe if we keep presenting it the way it’s being presented in the schools, that it’s just not going to be how they want to learn. We want to ignite a love of technology in these middle school girls.”
At the University of Washington, the computer science department has tried to create a more gender-inclusive environment over the last 10 years and has seen a boost in the number of women earning computer science degrees. In 2013, 29 percent of those degrees were granted to women – almost twice the national average.
Other factors that contribute to the gender gap in computer science, engineering and physics are the insufficient early experience provided to girls in middle and high school, the lack of role models and a difference in self-efficacy between men and women.
“Really what I’m trying to do is not say we need to kick the ‘Dungeons and Dragons’ boys out or make them do worse,” Cheryan says. “We need to broaden the image of the field, and make it more accessible, and say you can be that or you can interested in art or something else.”