#vmt draws

[444m777]

My boyfriend says I’m being way too hard on myself🥴I know in a few days I’ll look back at this one and say “hmm not bad girlie” I’m still in the early stages of my art lessons so again this is play time. I know once I understand and can apply the mechanics of drawing a face, I’ll look back at these drawings and really appreciate where I started😌 but for now let’s also ignore the hand… oh that handddddddd! The struggle was real!

[prismatic-skies]

The Elder From Outer Space

by Vanessa Moylan-Theodore

(2023)

[projectskybox]

me & my friend are trying to figure out what the fuck is up with the I'm Done. Goodbye video's mona section.

we've figured out that the sound that plays when eida hits delete and. summons (??) the error is friend_join.wav (link to the wiki, see in post also)

and while i was trying to figure out what the cut-off text in the editor says...

i noticed that only the first part is visibly different. the rest of the parts are the same text. i can't tell what it says, if it's another language that's something else, too. i don't know if this will be important, we can guess this is probably the 'DM Editor' & it uses the menu style of actual source engine tools (actbusy, commentary editor, foundry, particle editor, & source VMT editor)... looking at foundry due to the interconnecting engine being it's main function, which is a core part of the mystery here. i don't have any conclusion to draw, i'm just here to deliver a little bit of what we found. if you have any knowledge on what the editor / language / words they're using please reach out. thank you for reading

[sarenhale]

A quiet, relaxing moment my two ocs, Matias and Caleb! 

[44dagainagain]

The Making of Rectangular Portals

Download

The source is on GitHub: https://github.com/footballhead/rectport

Inspiration

I’m not quite sure but, trying to piece it back together, the inspiration came from two sources: ExitE and Portalized (both defunct). The rectangular portals looked cool and I wanted to make them.

EDIT: How could I forget Narbacular Drop?

DirectX 8 Customization

The computer I had several years ago, when it all started, was only capable of DirectX 8.1. It was relatively easy to replace the portals because (under DirectX 8) they are textured quads. Specifically:

materials/models/portals/portal-blue-color-dx8.vtf: blue portal

materials/models/portals/portal-orange-color-dx8.vtf: orange portal

materials/models/portals/portal-mask-dx8.vtf: stencil mask

Simplified, portal rendering happens in two steps:

The portal view is drawn, masked by the stencil mask texture.

The portal borders are drawn on top.

When the portal is closed, the portal view is completely black but it’s hidden by the portal texture. When the portal is open the portal texture starts using its alpha channel to reveal the now rendered portal view behind it.

Replace those three textures with your own and you’re good to go!

DirectX 9 Customization (Basic)

It turns out that DirectX 8 and DirectX 9 function totally differently. DirectX 9 uses the undocumented PortalRefract shader. It somehow knows the shape of the portal and combines that with a gradient and noise texture to dynamically produce the fire effect.

That does leave us with two basic customizations:

Tweak the color by modifying:

materials/models/portals/portal-blue-color.vtf

materials/models/portals/portal-orange-color.vtf

Tweak the effect by modifying:

materials/models/portals/noise-blur-256x256.vtf

This is rather disappointing. Is that it? How did they make those cool swirl or vine textures that were in the pre-release footage?

DirectX 9 Customization (Advanced)

Well, turns out they left the old shader in the code! And it’s in the released game! And you can use it!

A note on filename convention: the 1 variant (e.g. portal_1_anims.vmt) apples to the blue portal and the 2 variant (e.g. portal_2_anims.vmt) apples to the orange portal.

Here’s a file-by-file breakdown, relative to materials/models/portals/:

portal_1_anims.vmt and portal_2_anims.vmt

This controls the border. In retail it uses writez (I have no idea what that does). If you replace that with UnitGeneric then it draws a border hovering juuuust in front of the portal! We can use whatever texture we want.

I use a static texture, but nothing stops it from being animated.

portalstaticoverlay_1.vmt and portalstaticoverlay_2.vmt and  PortalStaticOverlay

This controls the background of the closed portal. In retail it uses the aforementioned PortalRefract shader. This is where the magic happens. If we use PortalStaticOverlay with then we can use an animated texture! I don’t actually know what all the fields do, but I can suss out the relevant ones.

Here’s a template: https://github.com/footballhead/rectport/blob/master/rectport/materials/models/portals/portalstaticoverlay_1.vmt. Replace the following:

$staticblendtexture - The animated texture that you want to use for the background

$alphamasktexture - The mask to apply to the $staticblendtexture as the portal opens. In our case, it’s square so the portal opens like a rectangle.

The template is set up to do animations. You can change the frame rate by modifying animatedTextureFrameRate.

I made an animation with Synfig from a large, scrolling image. Each frame is exported as a separate image and reassembled using VTFEdit. I used muted colors because HDR tended to blow out the colors.

portal_refract_1.vmt and portal_refract_2.vmt

If you look closely at this earlier video I did, you can see something wrong:

As the portal opens, there’s an oval distortion pattern. The shape can’t be changed because it uses PortalRefract, but it can be disabled by commenting out the PortalOpenAmount and PortalStatic proxies.

portal_stencil_hole.vmt

This works as-is from retail.

Particle Effects

The particle effects were made for oval portals and don’t look good. The easiest way to get rid of them is to delete them using the Source Particle Editor. The fills the console with spam but eh, whatever.

The files are:

particles/portals.pcf

particles/portal_projectile.pcf 

Delete the following (I can’t remember which file these are in):

portal_1_edge

portal_2_edge

portal_1_success

portal_2_success

Putting it all together

All these files can be packaged into a VPK and put in  steamapps/common/portal/portal/custom/

But what about collision?

The portal collision mesh is already rectangular! Look:

Final Thoughts

I’d like to thank the following people for making this happen:

The teams behind Portalized and ExitE for giving me inspiration

Pelpix for uploading the old portal textures which I based this off of heavily.

The Portal: Project Beta team for making the old portal textures available, and for experimenting with the portal textures.

[captawesomesauce]

Thoughts at 7am...

I don’t know if the Urban Planning minor is going to work for me. I’m struggling here with something I’m having trouble explaining so pardon the word vomit.

I hate lies, bullshit, and groupthink.

I struggled with that in the EnviroSci classes, it’s even more prevalent in Urban Planning.

I find it abhorrent to my very core to listen to some of the bullshit being spewed, with no challenge, no diversity in thinking, and the presentation of “THIS IS RIGHT, THIS IS THE ONLY RIGHT” mentality.

Some examples are the push towards super dense high rises/walkability to go “green” and reduce carbon footprint and they tout all of these benefits and happy “my farts don’t stink, come smell my ass” papers they write themselves. Except, when you point out that people who live in these dense areas tend to be unhappier and quality of life issues and this and that, they react with shock and horror that you would dare question their all mighty wisdom! Didn’t you see the carbon offset numbers??? The pretty drawings??? Of course people will be happy because we’ll tell them to!

Reading through Curbed.LA is literally one of the most visceral bad experiences I have each day, as I read the comments and the op-eds, you have those who are passionately pro-development, fuck the people, and those who are passionately anti-development, also fuck the people. For example, the latest is attacking parking. Literally, there are articles saying we need to get rid of parking lots, that they’re the cause of the housing crisis because they waste space that could be turned into luxury condos! On the flip side, you have others who say, we need to get rid of parking, in order to force people to drive less, it’ll be greener! - uh. yeah. That’s great... their grand idea is to literally make life worse on people trying to go places to force them to use public transportation that is almost nonexistent here. I’ve read journals that promote removing all free parking, because that’ll make people question whether or not they want to drive there and that will reduce vehicle miles traveled! Which... is true, you can’t argue with the truthfullness of that statement, but at the same time, you’re honest to god plan is to once again, annoy the fuck out of people and make their lives miserable and make simple tasks annoying and difficult, just to achieve your goal... and they don’t see a problem with that.

Instead of working to make people’s lives better, simpler, and keep a high quality of life, they have 0 problems lowering quality of life in order to meet other metrics. .... That’s insane to me.

The biggest LIE that is told over and over is that Public transportation reduces VMT and traffic. This is such bullshit that it’s unfathomable that anyone in their right mind can say it and not be struck by lightning at the same time! Literally, anyone who says this, should be hit by a bolt from god! You hear it all the time, if we add more public transportation, it’ll decrease the traffic on roads and freeways, and it’ll be greener, and healthier and this and that.

It’s bullshit. It’s a flat out lie.

The cities with the most robust, useful, and most used public transportation systems, such as New York and Chicago.... STILL have insane traffic!

I am a huge believer and proponent of public transportation, I absolutely loved the Chicago system and especially the Washington DC subway. I am a big fan of being able to not drive places, and just hop on, hop off, and get to almost anywhere you need to go!

Just don’t lie! Increasing public transportation does not reduce traffic, does not reduce congestion, does not this or that. It DOES make peoples lives better and increases quality of life though and that’s a huge plus in my book.

By why lie?

And man, they hate it when you point out the fact that they’re lying with actual facts and studies and research showing that their talking points are bullshit.

Ugh.

[444m777]

Really proud of myself for sticking it out with this one. I struggled with the right nostril for so long🙃 I think this is my second favorite of all the drawings I’ve done so far. This is my 9th drawing of him.

Giving myself I think till the end of the year to do like a “look back” at past drawings. Not saying I’d improve immensely by then but I’ll have more to show and I think I’ll be drawing more full body too.

My boyfriend asked me to draw the dangerous album and I looked at him like ARE YOU SMOKING ROCKS!?

Babes I’m not even drawing faces the way actual artists start out drawing faces. Like the dangerous album is gonna look really dangerous by the time I’m done💀😂😅 but futureeeee me will definitely consider tackling that one

[prismatic-skies]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Vanessa Theodore (@prismatic_skies_vt)

[araleenstatham-blog]

Can self-driving cars really make cities safer?

Autonomous vehicles could save thousands of lives per year. Should the U.S. let them be tested on public streets?

From ushering in an era of decreased car ownership, to narrowing streets and eliminating parking lots, autonomous vehicles promise to dramatically reshape our cities.

But after an Uber-operated self-driving vehicle struck and killed 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg, who was crossing the street with her bike in Tempe, Arizona on March 18, 2018, there are more questions than ever about the safety of this technology, especially as these vehicles are being tested more frequently on public streets.

Some argue the safety record for self-driving cars isn't proven, and that it's unclear whether or not enough testing miles have been driven in real-life conditions. Other safety advocates go further, and say that driverless cars are introducing a new problem to cities, when cities should instead be focusing on improving transit and encouraging walking and biking instead.

Contentions aside, the autonomous revolution is already here, although some cities will see its impacts sooner than others. From Las Vegas, where a Navya self-driving minibus scoots slowly along a downtown street, to General Motors' Cruise ride-hailing service in San Francisco with backup humans in the driver's seat, to Waymo's family-focused Chandler, Arizona–based pilot program that uses no human operators in its Chrysler Pacifica minivans at all, the country is accelerating towards a driverless future.

While the U.S. government has historically been confident in autonomous vehicles' ability to end the epidemic of traffic deaths on our streets, there are plenty of concerns from opponents of self-driving cars that are making cities think twice before welcoming them to their streets.

Farrells and WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff

Self-driving vehicles may be poised to deliver a future of safer, greener streets for all, but testing the vehicles on today's streets is a concern.

Are autonomous vehicles safe?

In 2009, Google launched its self-driving project focusing on saving lives and serving people with disabilities. In a 2014 video, Google showed blind and elderly riders climbing into its custom-designed autonomous vehicles, part of the company's plan to “improve road safety and help lots of people who can't drive.”

Although there were several self-driving projects in the country at the time, many being developed by government agencies or university labs, Google's project differentiated itself by being public-facing. The goal was not to build cars-although Google did build its own testing prototypes-but to create a self-driving service that would help regular people get around.

Google began testing its vehicles on public streets the very same year the project launched. With the reorganization of Google into its new parent company Alphabet, the self-driving program became its own entity, Waymo. Almost a decade later, Waymo remains the clear leader for safe self-driving miles on U.S. streets.

According to Waymo's monthly reports, its vehicles have been in two dozen crashes, only one of which was the fault of the Waymo's vehicle. In that crash, which was in 2016, a Waymo vehicle bumped a bus while going 2 miles per hour. On May 4, 2018, one of Waymo's minivans was involved in a crash with minor injuries in Chandler, Arizona while in autonomous mode, but police said Waymo's van was not the “violator vehicle.”

Now there are dozens of autonomous vehicle companies testing on U.S. streets. As of February 2018, Waymo had logged five million self-driven miles, making it the leader for self-driven miles on U.S. streets. Over the next few months, Waymo's fleet began driving about 25,000 self-driven miles per day, or one million miles per month. In July 2018, Waymo hit another major milestone of eight million self-driven miles as its new electric Jaguar I-Paces vehicle hit the streets.

The next most experienced companies, Uber and GM Cruise, are still several million miles behind Waymo. That doesn't include miles driven in the semi-autonomous modes that many cars now offer, like Tesla's Autopilot, which are more driver-assistance systems than true self-driving vehicles.

In the last few years, the greatest strides taken in the self-driving industry have been by ride-hailing companies, who are devoting an exceptional amount of time and money to develop their own proprietary technologies and, in many cases, giving members of the public rides in their vehicles. In 2017, Lyft's CEO predicted that within five years, all their vehicles will be autonomous. At a press conference in March 2018, where Waymo's CEO John Krafcik announced its ride-hailing program, Krafcik claimed that the company will be making at least one million trips per day by 2020.

Can autonomous cars drive better than humans?

The biggest safety advantage to an autonomous vehicle is that a robot is not a human-it is programmed to obey all the rules of the road, won't speed, and can't be distracted by a text message flickering onto a phone. And, hypothetically at least, AVs can also detect what humans can't-especially at night or in low-light conditions-and react more quickly to avoid a collision.

AVs are laden with sensors and software that work together to build a complete picture of the road. One key technology for AVs is LIDAR, or a “light-detecting and ranging” sensor. Using millions of lasers, LIDAR draws a real-time, 3D image of the environment around the vehicle. In addition to LIDAR, radar sensors can measure the size and speed of moving objects. And high-definition cameras can actually read signs and signals. As the car is traveling, it cross-references all this data with GPS technology that situates the vehicle within a city and helps to plan its route.

In addition to the sensors and maps, AVs run software programs which make real-time decisions about how the car will navigate relative to other vehicles, humans, or objects in the road. Engineers can run the cars through simulations, but the software also needs to learn from actual driving situations. This is why real-world testing on public roads is so important.

But how AV companies gather that information has led to greater concerns about how autonomous vehicles can detect and avoid vulnerable road users, like cyclists and pedestrians, but also people who move slowly and more erratically through streets, like seniors and children. Waymo, for example, claims its software has been explicitly programmed to recognize cyclists. A video that Waymo released in 2016 (back when it was still part of Google) shows how one of its vehicles detected and stopped for a wrong-way cyclist coming around a corner at night.

According to a May 2018 report from The Information, Uber's vehicle did detect Herzberg before its fatal Tempe crash, but the system made a decision not to swerve. “The car's sensors detected the pedestrian, who was crossing the street with a bicycle, but Uber's software decided it didn't need to react right away.” A preliminary report by the National Transportation Safety Board confirmed that Uber's system detected Herzberg six seconds before the crash and did not brake until 1.3 seconds before impact.

The role of human “backup drivers” as part of AV testing has also come into question after Tempe police documents obtained by Gizmodo showed that driver Rafaela Vasquez was streaming a video on her phone at the time of the fatal crash. “The driver in this case could have reacted and brought the vehicle to a stop 42.61 feet prior to the pedestrian,” reads the report, which calls the crash “entirely avoidable.”

Uber's self-driving unit Arizona announced it was closing down on May 23, 2018. In July, Uber eliminated 100 self-driving positions in Pittsburgh and San Francisco.

Self-driving companies also put their vehicles through endless tests using simulated city streets. Many traditional automakers use a facility named M City in Ann Arbor, Michigan, but the larger self-driving companies have built their own fake cities specifically to test interactions with humans who are not in vehicles. Waymo's fake city, named Castle, even has a shed full of props-like tricycles-that might be used by people on streets so that Waymo's engineers can learn how to identify them.

After Uber's fatal crash, Toyota built a new facility to test its vehicles' responses to “edge cases”-extreme situations too dangerous to test on public streets.

M City

USDOT has been testing autonomous technology at the M City facility for many years.

Will eliminating human drivers reduce traffic deaths?

50 years ago, the U.S.'s rate of traffic deaths was higher than they are now-in 1980, generally considered to be the deadliest year on U.S. streets, over 50,000 people were killed. With safety features like airbags added to vehicles, stricter seat belt laws, and campaigns that stigmatized drunk driving, the rate of deaths went down significantly.

But over the last few years, the U.S. has seen a slight increase in traffic deaths again. Additionally, pedestrian fatalities increased by 27 percent over the last decade, while all other traffic fatalities decreased by 14 percent. There isn't agreement for why these deaths are increasing, but some experts believe that this is because Americans are driving more-overall vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) reached an all-time high in 2017.

Using USDOT's claim that 94 percent of crashes are caused by human error, it seems like a fairly obvious way to reduce crashes is to reduce the number of humans behind the wheel. But it's not just the number of human drivers that should be reduced, the U.S. could also reduce the number of cars on roads to prevent fatalities-and autonomous vehicles can help do that, too.

The real safety promise of autonomous vehicles is the fact these vehicles can be be summoned on-demand, routed more efficiently, and easily shared-meaning not just the overall number of single-passenger cars on streets will decline but the number of single-passenger trips will be reduced, meaning a reduction in overall miles traveled.

In addition, cities can use automated vehicles to tackle ambitious on-demand transit projects, like a proposed initiative to integrate shared self-driving vehicles into the public transit fleet. If cities can launch these kind of “microtransit” systems that serve as a first-mile/last-mile solution to help get more people to fixed-route public transportation, that will also mean fewer people in cars and more people on safer modes of transit.

Without having to make room for so many cars, city streets can be narrowed, making even more room for pedestrians and bikes to safely navigate cities. In this way, autonomous vehicles have a great role to play as part of a Vision Zero strategy, which most major U.S. cities have implemented in order to eliminate traffic deaths.

NACTO

A typical U.S. roadway remade as a safe, accessible street filled with autonomous technology, from shared taxibots to self-driving buses, from NACTO's Blueprint for Autonomous Urbanism.

But aren't human-driven cars safer now, too?

While residents of only a few cities can summon an AV on-demand right now, the truth is that much of the safety tech powering self-driving cars is making its way into today's cars. Sophisticated collision-avoidance systems, for example, which can stop a vehicle if an object or person are detected in its path, are already being incorporated into new cars and buses.

This is why the way the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) tests those kinds of safety innovations is also changing. Until recently, all safety standards were based on historical crash data, meaning the government had to track years and years of roadway incidents (and, in many cases, deaths) before making an official recommendation. Now, technology is advancing so quickly that there's not enough time to test every new idea for a decade. The government knows it needs to be more nimble.

In fact, that's what happened for a recent USDOT recommendation that all cars be equipped with vehicle-to-vehicle communication (V2V), a tool which allows cars to “talk” to each other. This recommendation was fast-tracked in 2015 by U.S. transportation secretary Anthony Foxx after detailed simulations and modeling showed that the benefits were obvious-there was no need to spend years collecting historical data.

The same type of recommendation might be made for an aspect of autonomous tech. Once a clear safety benefit has been proven across the self-driving industry, a specific feature might become standard on all vehicles.

Keolis

An 8-person autonomous shuttle by Navya travels a route at a speed of 15 mph in Downtown Las Vegas.

Where are self-driving cars being tested?

About half of U.S. states allow testing of autonomous vehicles on public roads, but regulations for each state vary widely. The majority of testing is focused in a handful of states: Arizona, California, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

California remains the busiest hub for the AV industry: There are currently 52 companies testing self-driving technology on the state's streets. It's also one of the most heavily regulated markets: California's Department of Motor Vehicles requires companies to file for a permit and submit annual reports that include the number of miles driven and any crashes.

While it's not necessarily used as a safety metric, one performance standard that helps to illustrate how technology is improving is tracking the number of times per self-driving mile that a human driver has to take over, which is called a “disengagement.” California DMV records demonstrate that as self-driving programs log more on-road experience, they see fewer and fewer disengagements. Waymo, for example, now sees one disengagement per every 5,600 miles driven.

Other states don't require as much documentation as California-and they're not necessarily required to make any information public. Arizona, for example, approved AV testing on public roads in 2016 without notifying its residents, and didn't require any reports from companies, although after Uber's fatal crash, that will likely change.

AP Photo/Jared Wickerham

Hills, snow, quirky local driving customs, and loose state regulations are some of the reasons Uber started testing its self-driving program in Pittsburgh.

Does the federal government regulate autonomous vehicles?

In 2016, the U.S. government released its long-awaited rules on self-driving vehicles. The Department of Transportation's 116-page document lists many benefits for bringing technology to market, among them improved sustainability, productivity, and accessibility. But the USDOT report's central promise is that autonomy will pave the way for policies that dramatically improve road safety.

Even President Obama made the case for safety in an op-ed that heralded the dawn of the new driverless age:

Right now, too many people die on our roads-35,200 last year alone-with 94 percent of those the result of human error or choice. Automated vehicles have the potential to save tens of thousands of lives each year. And right now, for too many senior citizens and Americans with disabilities, driving isn't an option. Automated vehicles could change their lives.

In order to get cities across the country to start thinking about using autonomy to solve transportation problems, USDOT hosted the Smart City Challenge in 2016, which awarded $40 million to Columbus, Ohio, to develop a fleet of autonomous transit vehicles. As a result of the challenge, the 70 cities that competed now have blueprints for how to introduce AV tech to their transportation planning.

Under the Trump administration, much of the legislation proposed has been centered around exemptions for automakers and increasing the number of AVs allowed to operate on U.S. streets. In fact, in September 2017, USDOT and NHTSA issued updated AV guidelines, which carried an even lighter regulatory touch, after industry leaders expressed concerns about regulation at the federal level stifling innovation.

In addition to the 2017 policy statement, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao held preliminary hearings about autonomous vehicles where she affirmed the government would not play a heavy-handed role. “The market will decide what is the most effective solution,” she said. However, the aggressive development of V2V-which experts agree can work to make human-driven cars much safer as autonomous technology comes to market-has not been made a priority during her leadership.

The Verge

Tesla's Autopilot feature, one of many driver-assist features which allow control of the vehicle to switch from human to computer, can distract drivers or give them a false sense of security.

What's the difference between semi-autonomous and fully autonomous?

There's one safety debate that continues to divide the self-driving industry: Some automakers are still pushing for versions of vehicles which allow control to pass from human to computer, offering drivers the ability to toggle between semi-autonomous and fully autonomous modes.

Two fatal Tesla crashes-one in 2016 and one in 2018-that occurred while the drivers were using the vehicle's Autopilot feature illustrated the dangers of a semi-autonomous mode. As the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) noted in its report of the 2016 crash, semi-autonomous systems give “far more leeway to the driver to divert his attention to something other than driving.”

Fully autonomous is the official policy recommendation from the Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, a lobbying group that wants cars to eventually phase out steering wheels and let the software take over, 100 percent of the time. This completely eliminates the potential for human error. General Motors is planning to make cars without steering wheels by 2019.

In 2018, Waymo began conducting fully autonomous testing in Arizona without a human safety driver. California now allows fully autonomous testing as well. But especially after the Uber crash, San Francisco bike advocates worry that the tech isn't powerful enough to see cyclists. The California Bicycle Coalition started a petition to stop fully autonomous vehicles from being tested on California streets.

At least for the near future, even fully autonomous vehicles will still have to contend with the mistakes of human drivers. To truly make self-driving technology the safest it can be, all the vehicles on the road should be fully autonomous-not just programmed to obey the rules of the road, but also to communicate with each other.

In 2017, National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) created a Blueprint for Autonomous Urbanism, which encourages cities to deploy fully autonomous vehicles that travel no faster than 25 mph as a tool for making streets safer, “with mandatory yielding to people outside of vehicles.”

From new street designs to accessibility guidelines to a focus on data sharing, NACTO's policy document provides the most detailed AV recommendations for U.S. urban transportation planners. To plot the safest path forward for self-driving vehicles-and for cities to reap the many other environmental and social benefits of the technology-AVs should provide shared rides in regulated fleets, integrate with existing transit, and operate in a way that prioritizes a city's most vulnerable humans above all users of the streets.

[infrausa]

Rising Traffic Volumes Reaffirm the Need for Infrastructure Investment: FHWA

This year, Americans drove 1.58 TRILLION miles in just 6 months - more from @IBTTA:

Originally posted on the blog of the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association (IBTTA) Written by Bill Cramer, Communications Director, IBTTA The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) isn’t pulling any punches with the conclusion it draws from the latest figures for U.S. traffic volumes, which show “a streak of steadily increasing vehicle miles travelled (VMT) that began in 2011.”…