vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Boundary Layer Ingestion Propulsion | Glenn Research Center | NASA
On today’s jet aircraft, the engines are typically located away from the aircraft’s body to avoid ingesting the layer of slower flowing air that develops along the aircraft’s surfaces, called the boundary layer. The new propulsor design, meaning the inlet and the fan, is embedded in the aircraft body at the back of the fuselage and ingests the slower boundary layer air flow, using it to generate the thrust needed to propel the aircraft through its mission. Using the slower boundary layer air means the engines do not have to work as hard, so their fuel consumption goes down. At the same time, the drag on the aircraft itself is reduced, since the engines “ingested” part of that drag, so the overall fuel efficiency of the aircraft is better and less thrust is needed by the aircraft to fly at the same speed. This means the overall aircraft efficiency is higher and less fuel is needed to complete the flight.
It sounds like a simple design change, but it’s actually quite challenging. Boundary layer air flow is highly distorted, and that distortion affects the way the fan performs and operates. These new designs require a stronger fan. These new propulsor designs require a specialized inlet to help straighten out the swirling flow before it gets to the fan, and a stronger, more durable fan to resist the constant pounding be applied by the flow distortion.
To address these challenges, NASA Glenn is testing a new Boundary Layer Ingesting Inlet / Distortion Tolerant Fan propulsor in its high-speed 8’ x 6’ Wind Tunnel. Designed by United Technologies Research Center with research assistance provided research conducted by Virginia Polytechnic and State University, and with funding from NASA, the rugged boundary layer ingesting (BLI) inlet-fan combination is the first of its kind ever to be tested.

This animation shows an engine inlet and fan ingesting boundary layer air in a wind tunnel.
Credits: NASA
Analytical studies have shown that boundary layer ingesting propulsors have the potential to improve aircraft fuel efficiency. The highly experimental tests required years of preparation. Many industry, NASA and academic experts contributed to the design and analysis of the propulsor.
2001 Budget Analysis: P&I, Part 5b
Although
information on the proficiency of entering students is critical to the Legislature's ability to hold all segments of public education
accountable, UC is the only higher education segment that has historically assessed and reported on the preparedness of all entering
students.
Community Colleges Should Assess and Annually Report on the Proficiency of All Entering Students. As noted earlier,
the community colleges do not routinely or uniformly assess students for proficiency in basic reading, writing, and mathematics.
Many community college faculty we interviewed, however, were discouraged by the large number of their students who lacked
basic academic skills and were thus, unable to succeed in college-level courses. Campuses could better assist students in identifying
which courses best meet their needs by more systematically assessing their level of academic preparedness. Equally important,
campuses should report on the proportion of all entering students who are unprepared for college-level reading, writing, and
mathematics, and the community college Chancellor's Office should report systemwide figures on unpreparedness.
The CSU Should Also Assess and Annually Report on the Proficiency of All Students—Including Specially Admitted
Students. Unlike UC, which has reported the Subject A pass rates of all entering students—both regular and special admits—since
1978, CSU did not provide the Legislature with any systemwide information on its unprepared students until fall 1999. The CSU is
now making efforts to report the EPT and ELM pass rates of regularly admitted students at each of its campuses. In its new annual
accountability reports, CSU also plans to report the proportion of unprepared regularly admitted students who complete remedial
coursework and reenroll one year later. Although these recent efforts are laudable, CSU still is not reporting any comparable
information for its specially admitted students. Given these students are likely to be in greatest need of precollegiate services, the
Legislature should require CSU to report on their entering level of proficiency.
The CSU and UC Should Assess and Annually Report on Proficiency of All Transfer Students. Whereas CSU and UC
require first-time freshmen to demonstrate through testing that they are proficient in basic skills, they do not require transfer students
to take comparable proficiency exams.
Family Relations Courthouse: Sacramento Superior Court

300 - Indigent Defense Program
313 - Family Law Support Services
314 - Juvenile Dependency / Juvenile Dependency Appeals
316 - Juvenile Dependency Records
317 - Administration Conference Room
318 - Administration

Interpreters

	Interpreter services are available for all hearings and trials. To request an
	interpreter for Family Law matters, please contact the court at (916) 875-2620.
	To request an interpreter for Probate matters, please contact the court at
	(916) 875-3400.

Nearby Services

	The following services are available in or near the William R. Ridgeway Family 
	Relations Courthouse:

Copy Machines - Available in Rooms 101, 113, and 11; $0.25 per page. The
	money box at the copier accepts nickels, dimes, quarters, $1.00 and $5.00 bills. No credit or debit cards are accepted.
Vending Machines - Vending machines and a snack area are located on the first floor in room 115.
Public Telephones - Located on the first floor.
Banking Services - An office of the Golden 1 Credit 
	Union is located at 7770 College Town Drive.
Nearby Restaurants - Folsom Boulevard, two blocks north of WRRFRC, has many restaurants in all price 
	ranges.

Interactive Map to the Courthouse

Public Transportation

	Information on public transportation options in and around the Sacramento area:

Sacramento Regional Transit - external link
Yolo County Transportation District - external link
Roseville Transit - external link
Elk Grove Transit Services (E-Tran) - external link
Amtrak - external link


	A free shuttle operates from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday between the Power Inn Light
	Rail Station and the William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse.


	Granite Park Shuttle

Driving Directions
From the Bay Area and points west


	Take the Interstate 80 freeway to Highway 50 eastbound (toward Lake Tahoe). 
	Exit at the Howe Avenue/Power Inn Road exit. Turn right onto southbound 
	Power Inn Road. Turn left at the Ramona Road stoplight. Parking is 
	available at the rear of the building.
FEMA: NOMA Infrastructure Projects
Some examples of police and fire stations are:

the FBI office,
Louisiana state police offices,
parish sheriff offices,
local police headquarters, and
all fire stations.

PA funding covers only repair and reconstruction of permanent facilities and cannot be used toward short-term facilities or temporary police stations.

Permanent Schools
  A permanent school is an educational institution where learning takes place. In Louisiana, schools are governed by school boards that are administered at a parish or state level. PA funding does not cover trailers or temporary facilities that house students during the reconstruction of the schools or temporary facilities that house students in the case of overcrowding.
 

 

Utilities and Wastewater Treatment Plants
 Some examples of these facilities are:

power generation facilities,
sewage collection and treatment facilities,
water treatment and delivery systems, and
telephone and utility infrastructure.

 
 
 
 
 
 

Download Plug-in
Some of the links on this page require a plug-in to view them. Links to the plug-ins are available below.
 Excel

Last Modified: Friday, 02-Nov-2007 10:01:03 EDT

Home
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Important Notices
FOIA
No FEAR Act Data
USA.gov
DHS

FEMA 500 C Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20472Disaster Assistance: (800) 621-FEMA, TTY (800) 462-7585
2001 Budget Analysis Special Transportation Programs (2640)
We recommend that the Legislature reexamine the state's role in providing operating assistance for public transit and
how State Transit Assistance fits into that role.
Current State Role. Currently, the state approaches funding for public transit from two directions. On one side, state funding in
general adheres to the policy established by Chapter 622, Statutes of 1997 (SB 45, Kopp). Under that legislation, local and
regional transportation, including public transit, is considered a local and regional responsibility, while the state is responsible for
interregional transportation. Consequently, the majority of state funds allocated for mass transportation is for intercity rail projects
that improve mobility on passenger rail among regions of the state. Commuter and local public transit service is considered a
regional and local matter.
However, with the passage of TCRP, the Legislature and Governor sponsored a substantial investment in public transportation
systems throughout the state totaling $2.8 billion over six years (2001-02 through 2005-06). The large majority of these
investments are for regional and local public transit.
Recommendation. Given the diminishing role of STA on the one hand, and the state's encouragement for public transit systems to
expand services as indicated by TCRP on the other, as well as the projected gap in transit operators' funding, we recommend that
the Legislature reexamine (1) the state's role in providing operating assistance for public transportation and (2) how STA fits into
that role.
Four Options for STA 
We provide four options for shaping the future of State Transit Assistance (STA)—maintain the status quo,
substantially expand the size of the program, sunset STA, or target STA funds at more specific goals. 
With respect to STA, we offer four options for legislative consideration. These options include: maintain the status quo, substantially
increase STA funding, sunset STA, or target STA at more specific goals. The appropriate option would depend on the Legislature's
priorities and policy decision regarding the state's role in providing financial assistance for transit services.
Maintain Status Quo.
2001 Budget Analysis Special Transportation Programs (2640)
2001 Budget Analysis Special Transportation Programs (2640)

Legislative Analyst's Office
Analysis of the 2001-02 Budget Bill


Special Transportation Programs (2640) 
State Transit Assistance 
The State Transit Assistance (STA) program is one of the state's primary sources of financial support for public transportation. The
program will provide approximately $111.8 million to over 100 transit operators statewide in 2000-01, largely to support public
transportation operating costs. For 2001-02, the budget proposes $189.2 million for STA, an increase of 69 percent over the
current year.
In the following sections, we review:

How the STA program is funded and how funds are distributed to transit operators.
How the program operates in practice and how funds are utilized by transit operators.
Recommendations and options for legislative consideration.

Purpose and Priorities of STA 
Established by the Transportation Development Act, current law specifies the purpose of the State Transit Assistance
program to be similar to the act's other programs—to provide financial operating and capital acquisition assistance to
transit operators.
Law Specifies Four Priorities for Use of STA Funds. The Transportation Development Act of 1971 (TDA) established two
sources of funds that provide substantial support for public transportation services statewide—the Local Transportation Fund (LTF)
and the Public Transportation Account (PTA). Under LTF, counties receive revenues from a one-quarter percent sales tax on all
goods statewide for transportation purposes. These funds can be used for transit planning, construction and operations, as well as
for local streets and roads after transit needs are met. The STA program is funded from PTA revenues. State law specifies the
purpose of the STA program to be the same as the use of LTF money—to provide financial assistance for public transportation
service, including funding for transit planning, operations, and capital acquisition projects. The act also enumerated four priorities for
the use of STA funds, which include:

Offsetting reductions in federal operating assistance.
Assisting with increases in the cost of fuel.
Enhancing existing public transportation services.
Meeting high-priority regional public transportation needs.

How STA Is Funded and Distributed
2001 Budget Analysis Special Transportation Programs (2640)
substantially expand the size of the program, sunset STA, or target STA funds at more specific goals. 
With respect to STA, we offer four options for legislative consideration. These options include: maintain the status quo, substantially
increase STA funding, sunset STA, or target STA at more specific goals. The appropriate option would depend on the Legislature's
priorities and policy decision regarding the state's role in providing financial assistance for transit services.
Maintain Status Quo. One component of TCRP provides an increase in funds to PTA and, ultimately, to the STA program. In
2001-02, the Department of Finance projects STA revenues to be about $89 million more than the 1999-00 appropriation.
However, relative to growing operating costs, this increase will not provide substantive additional assistance to California's transit
operators. Furthermore, TCRP sunsets in 2005-06 and the current sales tax revenues diverted to PTA will revert to the General
Fund at that time.
Therefore, under current practice, STA will continue to be a small program relative to both the size of other transit revenue sources
and to the growing costs associated with providing public transportation. The program will play a diminishing role in terms of its
importance as a state program to assist with transit operating costs. Consequently, the state will have little leverage in shaping or
guiding the provision of public transit service through STA.
Substantially Increase STA Funding. When considering potential alterations to STA, one option would be to provide a
substantial increase in revenues. For example, according to the New York State Department of Transportation, the State of New
York distributes over $1.6 billion annually to over 130 transit operators statewide primarily through the State Mass Transportation
Operating Assistance program. Funds are disbursed to individual operators utilizing a per-passenger and per-vehicle-mile formula.
If the Legislature wants to encourage continued expansion of public transit as an alternative mode of transportation, it may want to
consider significantly increasing STA funding for operating assistance to operators.
Potential fund sources for an augmentation include increasing STA's share of PTA revenues or an additional transfer of General
Fund monies.
Office of the Patient Advocate - State of California


Health Insurance and Public Coverage


 Local Assistance Resources
 
 
 
 
 


 Statewide Assistance Resources
 
 
 
 
 

Back to Top

Accessibility Certification

Conditions of Use

Privacy Policy

Website Help


 Copyright © 


 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 









 State of California 


OPA is moving! We are pleased to announce that the Office of the Patient Advocate is now part of the new Center for Data Insights and Innovation.

We remain dedicated to providing Californians with data to help them make informed decisions about their health care.

OPA’s products will be available through this website until they are moved to CDII’s website.

Read More
2001 Budget Analysis: P&I, Part 5b
information for its specially admitted students. Given these students are likely to be in greatest need of precollegiate services, the
Legislature should require CSU to report on their entering level of proficiency.
The CSU and UC Should Assess and Annually Report on Proficiency of All Transfer Students. Whereas CSU and UC
require first-time freshmen to demonstrate through testing that they are proficient in basic skills, they do not require transfer students
to take comparable proficiency exams. Transfer students only need to have passed the appropriate community college courses to
be able to enroll in upper division CSU and UC courses. The reason CSU and UC treat first-time freshmen and transfer students so
differently is unclear. The universities say they require first-time freshmen to demonstrate proficiency by passing placement exams
because the content of college preparatory courses varies considerably among high schools and high school grades mask real
discrepancies in skill levels. Based upon interviews with CSU and UC faculty, the content of college transferable courses and the
standards used in determining community college grades are also likely to vary substantially across campuses, making it difficult for
faculty to place transfer students appropriately without more objective assessment tools. Our interviews with transfer students
reinforced the faculty's claims. Transfer students also stated that their community college coursework did not always prepare them
for rigorous upper division CSU and UC courses, and some students believed they were poorly served by being inappropriately
placed into CSU and UC courses. Consequently, we recommend that CSU and UC work with community colleges to develop
methods for assessing transfer students before they transfer and annually report on the proficiency of all transfer students.
The CSU San Diego Already Requires Transfer Students to Demonstrate Proficiency. Of all CSU and UC campuses,
CSU San Diego is the only one that currently requires transfer students to demonstrate proficiency in basic skills. The San Diego
campus requires transfer students to pass its Transfer Writing Proficiency exam and Transfer Mathematics Proficiency exam—both
of which were developed by the campus. Transfer students who do not pass the tests receive remedial training and then must retake
and pass the tests before they can enroll in upper division writing and mathematics courses. (Transfer students who have not passed
2001-02 Budget Analysis: Department of Information Technology
prepare a FSR with an associated budget request or the department can use the state's Workgroup Computing Policy (WCP).
The state developed the WCP in the 1980s in an effort to allow departments to redirect savings in departmental operating
equipment and expense funds to purchase office automation systems. The state's WCP requires that each department develop its
own policy that ensures PC compatibility, describes planning and management strategies, and ensures proper oversight and risk
mitigation.
Current Policy Seems to Work Well for Acquiring Systems. Since the initiation of the state's WCP, office automation systems
have become common place in the state and have probably improved departments' overall internal operations in such areas as
reducing the need for typing pools and allowing staff to share documents.
Current Policy Does Not Address Periodic Replacement and Upgrades. The current policy, however, does not address the
need to plan and budget for periodic replacement or upgrades to these systems. We have seen evidence of this planning and budget
deficiency during the reviews of the state's Year 2000 (Y2K) funding requests. Several departments had to request funds to replace
outdated PCs so they could use the Y2K compliant software. In this year's budget proposal, there are a number of similar
"replacement" requests summarized in Figure 2 to upgrade office automation systems.
Policy Needed Requiring Departments to Budget for Equipment Replacements. We have no concerns with the merits of
these particular proposals. We do, however, see a need for the state to update its current policies to require departmental planning
and budget adjustments for the periodic replacement and upgrades of their PC-based office automation systems. For this reason,
we recommend the adoption of the following supplemental report language for DOIT and Department of Finance (DOF):
The Department of Information Technology and Department of Finance shall by September 1, 2001 issue policies requiring
departments to plan and budget for the periodic replacement and upgrades of personal computer-based office automation systems.
The policies should include recommended replacement and upgrade schedules and budgeting guidelines for the funding of these
replacement and upgrade activities.

 Figure 2
 2001-02 Proposals to Replace or Upgrade
Departmental Office Automation Systems 
 (In Thousands)
The 2024-25 Budget: Broadband Infrastructure at May Revision
First, there is no funding set aside at May Revision for said
augmentation, which means any additional funding would require
higher-than-projected revenues or lower-than-projected expenditures to
materialize in 2024‑25. While it is at least possible additional funding
could become available, it is also possible (as we discuss later in the
post) the Legislature might want to use that funding for another
purpose.
Lack of Information About Standalone California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Construction
Projects. Second, there is still a lack of information
about the standalone Caltrans construction projects that are currently
funded, let alone additional construction projects that would be funded
by this augmentation. Moreover, the administration is considering
additional changes to these projects that could impact whether they, in
fact, require construction (or could be joint-built, leased, and/or
purchased). Changes in the delivery, length, and location of these
projects (among other possible changes) necessitate that more
information be shared with the Legislature.
Proposed JLBC Notification Process Limits Legislative
Oversight. Third, a General Fund augmentation of this
magnitude being reviewed and approved with only 30-day written
notification of the JLBC limits legislative oversight. In addition to
the short time frame the JLBC would have to review the request, the
language also assumes any additional funding available for the
augmentation would be prioritized by the Legislature for middle-mile
network implementation. Given the variety of General Fund solutions
already passed as part of the 2024‑25 budget process, as well as the
myriad currently under consideration at May Revision, it is quite likely
the additional funding could be prioritized by the Legislature for other
purposes.

Last-Mile Project and LLRF Changes
Reasonable… In our analysis of the broadband
infrastructure proposals in the Governor’s January budget, we
recommended that the Legislature consider additional reductions in
last-mile project funding and in the LLRF to address the serious budget
problem in 2024‑25 and significant future budget deficits in 2025‑26 and