Template - Schedule Of Events - State And District: Fill & Download for Free

Well, this is a complicated multi-faceted issue which is also bit cluttered at multiple levels.The whole issue is blown out of proportion when Kerala Govt objected privatization of Trivandrum airport which was announced by Central Govt by handing over the airport operations to Adani Group.I will just give a brief background to the context for those who have no idea of its whole context and then to current context.Thiruvananthapuram International Airport is one of India’s oldest airports, much to the league of Delhi or Mumbai. It was established in 1932, the fourth airport facility after Juhu (Mumbai), Safdarjung (Delhi), Karachi, established as Royal Travancore Air Club as the Consort Prince- HH G. V. Raja (H.H The Queen’s husband) was quiet interested in flying and decided to start his own flying club to learn civil aviation.That year, JRD Tata started his airline- the famous Tata Air Services which started its first flight between Karachi to Mumbai, that impressed Travancore Govt and the Maharaja personally sent a mail to JRD Tata to consider flying to Trivandrum. So immediately JRD Tata made India’s first longest flight connecting Bombay to Trivandrum carrying mails meant for Royal Anchal (Travancore Post services). Also in 1935, Tata launched first commercial operations connecting Bombay to Trivandrum via Kannur (that time there was a small airport in Kannur), making it the first scheduled Domestic service in India (prior to that, all airline operations of Tata were Royal Air Mail services). This lead conversion of a small flying club to proper airport and Travancore Govt funded to make it into a proper airport, making it the first airport among Native Princely states of India (Kannur was then part of British India and no airport facility, rather just an airfield).The old ads of Tata Airlines (Air India) prior to 1947 highlighting its longest domestic flight in the countryTravancore govt acquired land for runway as well as bldg etc (there was an issue in Land that time, as aircrafts were prohibited to fly over Sree Padmanabhaswamy temple due to local traditions, so runway was constructed in such a way that air planes can bypass the city core when flying into Trivandrum). However the runway passes thro’ the royal road where the Lord’s Arattu (religious procession) would pass to reach the beach shore, but it was decided to halt all flight operations only on the Arattu days for the procession to use the traditional route (a tradition strictly followed today too). British Govt in Delhi didn’t spend a penny to fund this airport as Travancore wasn’t part of British India then.When Travancore merged with Indian Union in 1949, the airport land was handed over to the provincial state of Travancore-Cochin Govt. When Indian constitution was made in 1950, Civil Aviation became a Central Subject, hence the TC Govt handed over the airport and its land to Central Govt just like any other airports in the country.Now originally the airport land was limited airfield as it was located in thickly populated fishermen colony area (just close to Shankumugham Beach), which was okay for the aircrafts of 1940s-50s era. However when Jet flights came and much larger aircrafts started coming, the runway became insufficient and some more land were acquired by Kerala Govt and handed over to Central Govt to expand the runway. However the big push came in 1970s when Gulf migration started and people started migrating to Gulf countries in big way. In that era, India allowed international flights only from 4 airports- Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkatta. However as Malayalees started migrating to ME in larger numbers, state owned Air India started limited flights from Trivandrum to Sharjah and Riyadh via Mumbai towards end of 1970s. However soon these international flights became so lucrative for Air India. However due to presence of many Bombay based lobbies, the limited flights from Trivandrum to Gulf countries ceased by 1983, which caused a huge resentment among NRK community. Air India cited lack of runway space for larger flights as a reason and Kerala Govt responded by additional land acquisition on priority basis in 1985. The proactive approach of Kerala Govt addressing NRK concerns and apathy shown by AI in delaying direct flights, lead to a huge protests among NRK community and in 1987, there were intense protests in Bombay airport (where Malayalee Passengers arriving from Gulf would sit in the runway to disrupt flight operations) seeking Govt of India to grant direct International flights to Trivandrum.This finally forced India Govt to grant special permissions to allow direct International flights along with limited foreign flights (Air Lanka, Air Maldives and Gulf Air started towards end of 1980s along with Indian Airlines connecting to many Gulf countries. In meantime, IAAI also extended the runway to facililate much larger flights. And finally in 1991, Trivandrum became the first Non-Metro International Airport of India and the 5th International airport after Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai and Kolkatta. Ever since regular international flights both by domestic and foreign carriers started.In this time, there was huge protests for second airport in Kerala, which lead birth of Calicut Airport in 1992, where NRIs crowd-funded for an airport which AAI built it. And that also lead to demand for third airport- Kochi, which was functioning inside Navy’s INS Garuda Airport. But India Govt didn’t agree for a third airport citing no funds and Kerala Govt said that it can build its own airport in Kochi, if central govt gives permission. And with such a permission, Kerala Govt started embarking on a project inspired from Calicut experience of NRK crowdfunding, but eventually it lead to birth of CIAL (Cochin International Airport Limited), India’s first Public-Private Participation model airport. in 1999. Infact prior to CIAL, there was no such concept of PPP in aviation sector or most of the sectors in India. CIAL also became India’s first airport outside Govt of India’s ownership (outside AAI’s control) and the model was also unique. It was basically a permanent JV between Govt of Kerala, Banks and Private entrepreneurs as well as private individuals, not the concessionaire system as you find later PPP models like Bangalore or Delhi etc.And CIAL model worked. It became THE MOST SUCCESSFUL PPP story in Kerala and became a sort of template for Kerala Govt. This also later gave birth to another entity- the Kannur International Airport Limited- KIAL which also functions same way as CIAL.And this also lead to policy concept difference between Kerala and Central govt over the concept of PPP. According to Kerala, PPP is a permanent JV between State and Private party where state will also have an active role in day-to-day activities. In short, Kerala’s concept of PPP is state and private individuals forming a company and that company managing the facility. This is called JV model or BOO model (Build-Own-Operate)On the contrary Central Govt’s PPP concept is different. Central Govt proposes to give away a sector to a Private concessionaire who will own/manage/develop a facility for a certain period and give back to Center upon expiry of the term. This is called Concessionaire model which has multiple variants like BOT (Build-Operate-Transfer) or DBFOT (Design, Build-Finance-Operate-Transfer) or BOLT (Build-Operate-Lease-Transfer model) or LDOT model (Lease-Design-Operate-Transfer).The last 3 models, ie DBFOT, BOLT and LDOT models are common for private airports in India (barring CIAL and KIAL).These models are opposed by Kerala Govt in general (not very strongly, but more commonly). Kerala Govt and society enlarge isn’t supportive for pure private enterprise culture, due to the adherence of Left-Socialist values in the society. Even though the society accepts that private entrepreneurs drives better growth, the society equally highlights the negative side of animalistic spirits of entrepreneurs which may harm larger social interests. So the public opinion is more towards PPP where govt equally have a role to play to control. Also there was a consensus among both alliances that, new projects can be in DBFOT/BOOT models considering the fact that Kerala Govt donot have enough money to invest and take a controlling stake, while existing entities if to privatize must be made in JV model only, with Govt having a major stake.Kerala’s experience with concessionaire system was always negative as concessionaire companies are always aimed to make maximum revenue within shortest period of time. So concessionaire models in NH development always ends up as a social issue in Kerala with numerous protests regularly happening at Thrissur Toll gate citing day light robbery in name of tolls. So as the first BOT project- the BOT Thommumpady Bridge in Kochi also became the biggest battle ground between citizens and the BOT Company citing excessive tolls. Due to all these, the social attitude where a private operator controls a govt facility for a specific period is always frowned upon.On the contrary there is a huge positive attitude towards JV approach where Kerala Govt holds a stake and huge voice within the directorial board in every major decision. CIAL is the best example for that as technically its a private airport with majority being private investment, but controlled by Govt (thro’ govt appointed MD). Since Kerala Govt has a huge voice in the directorial board, the accountability factor of govt towards public is equally protected. Another similar example is the Technopark-Infopark model where Kerala Govt owned IT Parks owns land and invite private entities to invest as co-developers instead of doing directly.In every way, Kerala society demands govt active participation in business entities. Thats why Kerala Govt is virtually present every sphere of Keralan Life from running grocery shops to airports.Now specific to TVM issueTrivandrum airport is owned by Govt of India under AAI, which runs in very typical Sarkari fashion. Despite of being the oldest airport in the state and one of the oldest in the country, hardly any major upgrades or facilities exist in the terminal. This becomes more severe when we compare Trivandrum Airport with Cochin or recently with Kannur, as latter are private airports under Kerala Govt.Over last one decade, Kerala Govt was actively pursuing the idea of take over remaining two airports (Trivandrum and Kozhikode) under its control. Govt has made enough lobbying with central govts to take over these airport after successful experience of managing CIAL and now KIAL. The govt actively pushed for closure of current Karipur airport (Kozhikode) by shifting the facility to Thiruvambady where a greenfield airport can be constructed for Kozhikode under CIAL model. However it didn’t work out much.Demand for airport at Thiruvambady hots upNew airport in Kozhikode: Govt orders feasibility studyIn terms of Trivandrum, the govt donot wanted the airport to shift from its current location as being the only airport in the state located within the Central business district or inside the downtown which is heavily patronized by govt officials, ministers, politicians etc apart from other passenger base.And that exactly is the problem with TRV. Trivandrum airport being its location inside the city, is always constrained by the space. Hardly there is any room for any expansion. And Kerala Govt knows that, its chance to take over TRV exists over this bargain chip, ie Land.In 2005, Central Govt requested Kerala govt for additional 50 acres of land for expansion as the airport terminals were reaching its saturation point. With no scope of acquiring land in the old terminal side (Shankumugham beach area), Kerala govt somehow acquired 23 acres of land in the opposite side (Chakka area) which is closer to NH 66 at a very premium price. But Kerala govt prior to handover made a demand to make the state as joint owner of Trivandrum airport, which then the central govt didn’t comply as there was no provision under AAI Act to have a state or any other party as co-owner in an AAI facility. But the then Manmohan Singh Govt made a public assurance that, in event of privatization or similar, the state will be given a stake in the SPV to be formed in lieu of the value of the land which the state has acquired for. And in this land, AAI constructed the current T2 facility meant for international travellers.Untill 2017, there was no active proposals of privatization of TRV airport and whenever any proposal comes, Kerala Govt used to make a claim as they believed they have a right to claim so for the land they provided twice which was acquired a very premium rate ( being inside the city center and the airport area is thickly populated zone). In meantime, even the current facility reached its saturation stage and urgently require minimum 18 Acres to expand both terminal and parallel taxiway.However the families around the airport were resisting any sort of acquisitions. In this context, Kerala Govt officially wrote to Central govt, if to provide any additional land, they must have a controlling stake in TRV airport as a company, where they can implement CIAL model.CIAL ModelIn CIAL land acquisition stage, there was heavy public opposition as the land was again a premium factor in Kerala. CIAL overcame thro’ innovative means, ie by announcing a wholesome very attractive compensation package.Announcing govt guaranteed jobs within CIAL to all families who lose the land. This means, every family who gave land to CIAL will get assured jobs within CIAL for minimum of 3 generations in accordance to one’s qualifications. This means any direct member of the victim family has the first right to claim for any job within CIAL from CEO to a peon position in accordance to vacancy and qualification. This sort of reservation was first of its kind in a corporate sector and since GOK has an active stake in CIAL, the govt guaranteed that CIAL will uphold this promise perpetually.Those families who lost their livelihood due to airport project in CIAL will be given a taxi car and badge to become official airport taxi driver. CIAL formed its own Taxi company- the CATS (Cochin Airport Taxi Society) where taxi drivers and CIAL have equal stake and CIAL will procure modern cars and provide to the taxi drivers at No-Interest basis (only principal amount need to pay back). They also have monopoly to take passengers from the airportCIAL assured to all erstwhile landowners that the company will provide subsidized utilities as part of its CSR to them and in last 20 years they kept the promise as CIAL provides subsidized electricity, water and even education to people of Nedumbassery locality (where the airport is located).CIAL also provided plots to those families whose houses were acquired in process of airport temple and constructed a colony for them- Vimana-nagaram or Airport city close to the airport gates as well as tied up with Federal Bank and Hudco to provide home loans at subsidized interest rates.These all measures are independent of standard GOK compensation. This was possible because CIAL was an autonomous company and can make such offers that GOK can’t do directly as latter is bound by rules and procedures.Due to this factor, LA was pretty easy in CIAL as most of the landowners can’t refuse such huge offers. This same model was used in Kannur airport project too.Kerala govt’s stand is that, to acquire more land in TRV, they need CIAL/KIAL model where the company has to assure the locality of these benefits, so that they will give up the land. Its impossible for Kerala Govt to pay ridiculous/astronomical land prices (market value). Thats why Kerala Govt press for its stake in Trivandrum airport, so that it can use that to give offers indirectly and procure land.However, there was no positive response from Central Govt on that in 2017.But instead the GOI came up with open tendering in 2018 for privatizing TRV under LDO model. However the biggest game changer was GOI modified the terms.In standard privatization model, it was more of fixed lease value to be paid to AAI during the concession period as done in Mumbai or Delhi models. But in the new plan, GOI made it per passenger based revenue sharing model, ie an amount to be paid AAI depending upon passengers patronizing it which was highly unusual. And also the clause of previous experience in Airport construction and management was removed. This lead to allegation that, these changes were made to help those cronies which were closely associated with NDA govt.Kerala govt objected to Trivandrum’s Privatization as such, rather claimed that center must handover the airport to State lead SPV directly (with a central stake too) and there is no need of tendering, if its an inter-govt transfer. But centre didn’t agree and after intense lobbying, central govt allowed State to participate in the tendering process and gave First rights of refusal (if within 10% range).Kerala govt also formed a SPV- TIAL and flouted a global tender for a private investor which brought Frankfurt Airport and some other companies into potential partnership. However many sources clearly indicate that GOI has pre-fixed Adani for gaining these airports, thus most of the companies which were supposed to form TIAL were doubtful to invest. So the condition was, let Kerala Govt alone procure the operational rights for Trivandrum and once it gains, TIAL will be formed with other partners.Trivandrum international airport: Going gets tough for state bid11 companies evince interest in Trivandrum airportWhen tenders were opened Adani became the highest quoting a ridiculous figure of Rs 168 per passenger (to be paid to AAI), while KSIDC (representing the GOK) quoted Rs 135 per passenger, whereas most of other established players like GMR etc quoting less than 100.This means, Adani has to get back atleast double the amount, if they have to pay 168 Rs to AAI per passenger, which means the passenger expenditure at TRV will be of ridiculous level.And interesting, ADANI quoted similar ridiculous extraordinary pricing for all other airports that went for bidding. This has pushed Kerala Govt to reassure that its a pre-fixated deal between Modi govt and Adani (as everyone in India knows both Modi is closely associated with Adani) and the govt refused to accept it. It became a huge issue with entire Airport staff (including BJP’s own unions inside the airport) opposing Adani to take over the airport and interestingly every party including BJP Kerala officially opposing it. Moreover it was in Jan 2019 which was prior to elections of 2019 and BJP can’t antagonize ordinary people in Trivandrum with the image of selling national properties for Adani (as there was a chance for BJP to win from Trivandrum). So that time, many BJP leaders from Kerala went and met Suresh Prabhu (the-then Civil Aviation minister) seeking to reconsider the tender decision for TRV. Pinarayi Vijayan also met Modi to reconsider and even offered him the same price which Adani is offering (Rs 168) to get the airport under GOK control.BJP Trivandrum District President- Adv S Suresh launching the protest meet lead by BMS Airport Trade union to protest against Adani taking over Airport in Jan 2019.V Muraleedharan in 2018 wrote a detailed FB post the importance of keeping TRV under state control and not to hand over to Adani or any private entrepreneurs. The same Muraleendaran supporting privatization nowThus this became a prestige issue for Kerala Govt and the state govt said, in no manner it will allow the state’s premier airport to go to Adani. As per Pinarayi Vijayan and many other ministers, they got an assurances from Modi that, final decision will be made only after taking the state in full confidence.A case was filed by GOK in Kerala High Court against this (the original case was dismissed by High Court, but restored by Supreme Court of India and now in front of HC about the validity of Adani’s tendering to the airport).In 2020, the current Civil Aviation Minister made an assurance to Parilament that no decision was made over Trivandrum’s privatization as the matter is sub-judice now.And contrary to the Minister’s claim, last day, Central govt cleared Adani’s right to hold all the 6 airports, despite of the fact, the airport issue is still pending before Kerala High court.This once again re-ignited the matter and Kerala Govt vowed, it will NOT cooperate with the decision. If Kerala Govt refuse to cooperate, then the whole TRV airport will be jeopardized as it has reached its saturation point and without land acquisition, the airport operations will be severely affected.Further the airport has issue with road access to its facility from the highway and Kerala Govt can effectively block plans of new flyover/ramps etc which will complicate passenger convenience to the facility. In addition, the airport unions (including BJP ones) are opposed to the Adani, which means they can easily lockdown the airport operations effectively.Pinarayi’s letter to PM Modi after the all Party meet announcing absolute non-cooperation for any private party take over in TRV and request for reconsideration of leasing to AdaniAlready the people around the airport announced, they will not give up their land for land acquisitions if Adani takes over the airport (as they won’t get CIAL like benefits) and if state govt halts any land acquisition process, it means every expansion plans will stop.Land owners to back out of offerAs of now, every political party in Kerala barring BJP is opposed Adani taking over Trivandrum airport and the govt of Kerala got a consent from all opposition parties for any harsh steps to prevent Adani taking over airport. As state elections are approaching, this shall likely to be a major political issue too in Trivandrum as privatizing a national property like TRV has created a sense of distrust element. For traditional Trivandrumites, the airport is seen as Sree Padmanabha’s property as the airport is situated the lord’s procession road and handing over his property to an outsider also invokes negative feeling against BJP (they are trying to reduce that anger by making a counter argument that CPM is trying to gain the airport to prevent Sree Padmanabha’s annual processions to enter into the facility).Overall, among the commoners of Trivandrum, this became a huge issue and LDF sees its a potential tool to outsmart growing fortunes of BJP in Trivandrum district.Pinarayi dares Modi to send Adani. But can Kerala seriously defy Centre's airport authority?State cooperation necessary to run TVM airport smoothly: Pinarayi during all-party meetThe other side of the storyAs I mentioned, it has both political and social factors for Kerala Govt to oppose.But there is also a group of supporters to Adani’s take over apart from hardcore BJP cadres (who support just out of political compulsions). These supporters are mostly young Techie community of Technopark as well as group of Trivandrum based entrepreneurs and investors.For a long time, they were pained seeing the pathetic state of Trivandrum airport under AAI and their pains increase when they see how Cochin Airport is progressing rapidly. So they want privatization of the airport at any cost. In South India, almost all capital cities (Bangalore, Hyderabad and Chennai to some extend) has world class airports, but Trivandrum ended up with a shit-hole like TRV airport only because of AAI. So they believe, only a private entrepreneur can change fortunes of their city.And current Trivandrum MP Shashi Tharoor is an active supporter of this group. He along with this community were launching many initiatives to make Trivandrum, a city equal to Bangalore or Hyderabad. One of their famous campaigns is #MoveToTrivandrum highlights their passion to make their city great. The upcoming Vizhinjam Seaport is one great hope for this community to see Trivandrum moving out of its traditional laid back attitude and becoming a major commercial city (Trivandrum since its inception was always an administrative city and never had anything of commercial city status in past)As Vizhinjam Seaport is built by Adani group, in partnership with GOK (GOK has a policy that they allow concessionaires for new projects), this community believes, if airport also comes under Adani, it creates a huge synergy.Shashi Tharoor in 2019, made it clear to public, he will support any private investor- X Y or Z as long as Trivandrum airport is privatized. So even now, he repeat his stance, he supports TRV’s privatization irrespective what KPCC says. He said, while he don’t support Adani’s ridiculous pricing, he says he sees no other alternative for TRV at the momentTharoor’s interview in 2019 that he will support any private investor to take over TrivandrumMost of the supporters are technocrats/business investors from TRV feels, TRV is no where in the aviation race when compared to Kochi or even the much recent Kannur, only because its under AAI. And they want Adani to invest as it shall be a clear success story (because central govt will do any extend to support Adani’s business) which will help Trivandrum to grow more better, projecting these success stories.Apart from this, they fear, the hard attitude of the state against Adani may send wrong signals that state is opposed to private entrepreneurs (in reality its not, as state itself is trying to bring international players). The argument is simple. If there is a pure Private player without state stake, many in Trivandrum aspire their airport may be of league of BLR or BOM or HYD or DEL where GMR/GVK invested so much and made radical changes unlike CIAL model which is always known as Common Man’s Airport etc with lesser investment. The show-off factor values so much in Trivandrum social culture, so an ultra huge-gold plated airport definitely has a boasting value as one sees in BOM or HYD etc.Regulator looks into airport cost inflationAnd thats the exact point where Kerala Govt and others oppose. They feel, just like how GMR/GVK gold plated their private airports for charging so much from the passengers, the same will be done in TRV too.Kerala air passengers traditionally NRKs who were mostly middle class or lower class strata. For them affordability matters a lot, rather than paying premium for airport facilities. Its for this reason, the Users Fee in airport is always a controversial subject in Kerala.If one looks, CIAL was the first airport in the country to bring the concept of Users Fee way back in 2000. But it also became the first airport in the country to ROLL BACK the Users fee concept in 2006 as public was opposed paying huge amount to use a facility. Today CIAL remains the only private airport in India without an user fee (BLR charges 308 Rs while untill recently HYD used to charge 1700 Rs)Bengaluru airport hikes user fee by a massive 120%This is Not the Way to Privatise AirportsKerala Govt fears that if a private operator like Adani, by quoting such ridiculous pricing, ends up huge user fee in TRV, it shall be a major issue for Kerala society. Unlike other states where airports were seen more as a Middle class/upper class facility, in Kerala, airports are always part of every class in the society and affordability of airport is a key political topic too.So both sides have equal points to highlight and argue. The final result, probably only time can tell.In my opinion, I would choose CIAL/KIAL model anyday as Kerala society is not same as Gujarat society or Karnataka society etc. We cannot accept a full fledged private investment without state control/stake etc and in event of so, it shall be a perfect recipe for failure. I don’t wish to see bad stories from Kerala’s civil aviation.Why Kerala is up in arms over Adani Group bagging bid to run Trivandrum airportAdani Group may have to wait to take over Thiruvananthapuram airportTough road ahead for Adani to take over Trivandrum airportCPM to send two lakh emails to PM Modi opposing Thiruvananthapuram airport privatisation

First up is dealing with the "fiscal cliff," a mix of scheduled spending cuts and expiring tax cuts. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office believes that, if unaddressed, the fiscal cliff could lead to a recession.This graph from the Washington Post's Wonkblog shows the CBO's estimates of the effect of the cuts on the deficit and on the GDP (a measure of economic productivity):It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Both sides want to cut the deficit (with some exceptions among Democrats), but Democrats generally want greater revenue and to protect spending while Republicans want to cut spending and keep tax cuts. Wrapped up in this issue is the debt ceiling, which needs to be raised so that the US doesn't default on its debt (as it almost did during the 2011 debt-ceiling crisis). The impending cuts will force Congress to deal with the cliff, but it's always possible that they could kick the can down the road again, as they did in the 2010 lame duck session.In addition to the fiscal cliff, both sides, but Republicans in particular, want to reform the tax code, potentially getting rid of many deductions and lowering the corporate tax rate. Obama and Boehner pursued a "grand bargain" on the deficit during the last Congress, and we could see a major reform of the tax code, either as part of the fiscal cliff deal or after it.After dealing with the fiscal cliff, Obama will likely re-shuffle his Cabinet. Cabinet appointees require confirmation by the Senate; confirmation takes sixty votes, while Democrats currently control 55 seats. There could be changes in all four of the most important Cabinet posts: Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney General. Obama could be looking for a new Chief of Staff as well if his current Chief of Staff becomes the Treasury Secretary as some think likely. New appointments could also be made for OMB Director, FBI Director, Energy Secretary, Transportation Secretary, Commerce Secretary, Interior Secretary, EPA Administrator, and numerous other positions.Next on the list could be immigration reform. The DREAM Act, which provides a path to citizenship for certain illegal immigrants, could serve as the template for a Democratic proposal for immigration reform. After the blowout win by President Obama among Hispanics, Republicans could be eager to make a comeback among the voter bloc. Obama won 71% of the Hispanic vote. Conservatives have twice taken down immigration reform bills, so there's no guarantee that a bill could get through the Republican-controlled House, or even the Democratic-controlled Senate. But the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, at least seems wants a deal.Obama may exert some effort on federal courts as well. Like the Cabinet, judicial appointments require 60 senate votes. There are currently 82 vacancies in appellate and district courts; while talking about lower courts may seem boring, these judges can be extremely influential, because the Supreme Court doesn't (and can't) hear every case. Speaking of the Supreme Court, it's plausible that Obama could appoint up to four Supreme Court justices in his second term. Two of the more liberal judges are 79 and 74 years old, respectively. Two of the more conservative judges are both 76. It seems unlikely that either of the conservative judges would voluntarily let Obama appoint their replacement, but you never know. Supreme Court justices serve for life, so they can only leave by death, retirement, or impeachment by Congress (but impeachment is extremely unlikely). Obama's appointments could have a huge impact on issues like abortion, campaign finance, the balance between federal and state power (esp. regarding the Commerce Clause), guns, euthanasia, gay marriage and gay rights, affirmative action, separation of church and state, voting (e.g. Bush v. Gore), eminent domain, the war on terror, free speech, and numerous other issues.Obama will also spend much of his term implementing policies that he passed in his first term, specifically the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Obama will also likely finish the scheduled withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in 2014. Many of Obamacare's provisions won't take effect until 2014, like the individual mandate, state exchanges, prohibitions against discriminating against those with pre-existing medical conditions, and numerous other provisions.Obama could also pursue major trade deals. The Obama Administration is currently negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership with Vietnam, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Peru, Chile, Canada, Mexico, Singapore, and Brunei. The administration is also pursuing a free trade deal with the EU. Obama could also look to press for a resumption of the Doha Round, a multilateral negotiation aimed at reducing tariffs worldwide. Obama will also likely pursue trade normalization with Russia, which recently joined the WTO.Obama will likely have to deal with various foreign policy issues. China, which is currently undergoing its own leadership elections, is of course important, especially in the wake of Obama's stated goal of "rebalancing" towards the Asia-Pacific region. Europe, which is mired in a debt crisis, is also important. And then there's the Middle East, which is still dealing with the aftermath of the Arab Spring. The civil war in Syria and the conflicts in Mali, Sudan, Congo, Uganda, and Somalia are important issues, as is Iran's continuing pursuit of nuclear weapons (which could perhaps result in even tougher Iran sanctions) and North Korea's nuclear program. And of course, there's the perennial issue of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Obama also can't ignore rising countries like India and Brazil, old allies like Japan, potentially emerging democracies like Myanmar, and troublesome countries like Russia. More than any other area, foreign policy often involves reacting to unexpected events, so Obama's foreign policy actions can be difficult to predict. Obama could also return to focusing on nuclear non-proliferation, a priority that can be seen in the passage of New START, which promised to reduce nuclear weapons in the US and Russia. Other priorities could be passing the Law of the Sea Treaty and a U.N. arms trade treaty.Obama is also likely to focus on manufacturing growth, STEM and college education, the environment (including, perhaps, a Carbon tax) alternative energy sources, infrastructure (potentially an infrastructure Bank), cybersecurity, and energy efficiency. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, which passed the Democratic-controlled House in the 111th Congress, could serve as a starting point for Obama in regards to energy and the environment. Obama talked about many of these issues in his interview with the Des Moines Register.We could also see action regarding Postal Reform, a Farm bill, online poker, the European Union Airline Emission Trading Scheme, re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, benefits for same-sex partners of federal workers, an online sales tax, China's alleged currency manipulation, and other issues like Housing Policy. Obama could also press for passage of the American Jobs Act or other legislation aimed at lowering unemployment. We're also likely to see the issue of civil liberties come up, since certain provisions (like wiretapping) of the Patriot Act expire in 2015.National Journal wrote a series of articles about what Obama might do in his second term. You can read them here:What to Expect on the Economy in Obama's Second Term

A lot of laws are old and outdated. What’s one law you think needs to be changed or added?There is one law I can think of.I was pulled over for a traffic ticket.When you get pulled over, they always ask for three things.Drivers licenseRegistrationProof of Financial Responsibilities (aka Car insurance card)The CA Highway patrol asked me for all three things but on the Registration, I had a copied one and not the original. He demanded the “original” not the copy. I said you don’t need the original. We went back and forth like this 3 times. Then, His “smart-ass” response was, “I’ll just write you a ticket for that also”. I said, “fine do it.”He pulled me over for crossing the double yellow lines, into the carpool HOV lane. I had another passenger so we met the criteria for 2 or more people plus my car was a brand new 2018 Nissan LEAF EV which was allowed in the carpool lane even with 1 person because it’s an EV.Anyway, Well he walked back to his CHP motorcycle and was there for the longest time searching for the code in his CVC (California Vehicle Code) book to write me up. He couldn’t find it so when he came back I only received the ticket for crossing the two double lines.Well, I have a J.D. law degree and one of my skills is to help people fight traffic tickets.So I wrote up my complaint. My argument was as follows.See LA is in Cal-Trans District 7. San Francisco is in Cal-trans District 11. Orange County (OC) is in Cal-trans District 12.In San Fran and OC Cal-Trans permits you to go in and out of the carpool HOV lane anywhere. In LA you can only enter / exit at the broken lines, not the solid double lines.My argument was I had just left OC and entered LA and there was no marker to show where each county line ended and was delineated. Thus I was free to enter the carpool lane since I believed I was still in OC territory. I also said I had a 2nd passenger, my 15-year-old son, AND my car was an approved EV that could travel in the carpool HOV lane even if I was by myself.The traffic court bought my argument and the ticket was dismissed.==============================================Okay here’s the tricky part on where the law is “outdated” and should be removed.It was the part where he insisted I had to have the original registration in the car, in my car instead of a copy.I researched and showed the court that that law was invented in the days “BEFORE” or “PRIOR” to computers in police units and “BEFORE” or “PRIOR” to they had CB radios in police units and before they had copiers or XEROX copy machines.So, back then the police had to see an ORIGINAL registration.My argument to the court was this COP / CA HIGHWAY PATROL was corrupt and wanted to write me a BOGUS ticket on top of the carpool lane violation for not having ORIGINAL registration in my car.I stated to the court that my car had not one, not two, but THREE car video cameras that caught everything he did and everything he said. I had TWO video cameras facing forward, and ONE facing the rear.So my video cameras caught him walk back, get his VC Vehicle codebook and look through it for a good 10–12 minutes before he gave up and never wrote me for the 2nd ticket infraction.My video camera’s audio also caught him lying and saying the ORIGINAL registration was required and not a copy.Years back I had taken a Traffic school class, and it was being taught by a who else? A California Highway Patrol officer. He taught classes to make extra side money.And he taught us, NEVER, NEVER EVER put the original registration in your car. Just make a copy.The reason is “if your car gets towed”. You need the ORIGINAL Registration to get your car out of the Tow Yard or Storage yard. THEY or THAT TOW Facility will “not” take a copy of the Registration only the Original.So now whenever I renew my tags and my wife’s, I always put the tag on the car license plates, then make a photocopy of the registration and put the copy in our 3 cars.I told the court all this.Then I further told the court that back in the day they didn’t have copiers, CB radios, and car or motorcycle computers.PLUS, PLUS, PLUS, he could CLEARLY SEE, that my car was BRAND SPANKING NEW, NEW, NEW. I just just bought the car on March 10th of 2018. It was a 2018 NISSAN LEAF EV. I got the ticket in April of 2018. The very next month.So he (the CHP) COULD clearly see my tags were brand new, then why would he even need to see my registration? Except to harass me and give me a hard time.Furthermore, he could have any time called it in to dispatch to verify it.Note: Also in California, we have had something called TBWD; that’s Trial-By-Written-Declaration; that means you write up your arguments (aka type it up on a computer) as a Trial Pleading or a Brief; albiet they call it your “Declaration” and submit your “verbal arguments on paper”.That’s what I did; that’s what I do for the people I help with traffic tickets. Here’s another Quora answer I gave on how-to-do-that on Trial type Pleading template or format paper available in Microsoft Word or Word Perfect.Stanley Hutchinson's answer to I got a ticket for going 45 mph in a 35 mph when the speed limit was just about to change to 45 mph. Should I just pay the fine or take it to court?Also here is an actual excerpt from my TBWD on this case that I submitted to the court; with all pertinent identifiers removed. Enjoy! I copied and pasted it so all the Indentations are messed up. But read it for the Content. I put a lot of time into these TBWD.“SUPERIOR COURT of CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF LOS ANGELESEL MONTE COURTHOUSE11234 VALLEY BLVD.EL MONTE, CA 91731RE: Citation # HQxxxxDefendant: John Doe | Case: Citation #HQxxxx1vs. California Highway Patrol (CRANE #20988) (name illegible on citation) || Motion for Subpoena: CR-125/JV-525| Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum (order to attend court or| provide documents (Facts not in evidence)| Motion for Pitchess SB1421| Motion to Compel an answer| Motion to Dismiss| Motion to Impeach for Perjury (CA PC141)DECLARATION OF JOHN DOEI, John Doe, declare as follows:1. I am the Defendant in this above-entitled matter. I makeThis declaration in support of my contention that I was wrongfully cited for VC21655. I have personal knowledge of the facts of the matters stated herein.On said day and date of the said citation, 1:05 pm Wednesday 04-14-18. I was wrongfully ticketed by CA Highway Patrol, where this corrupt California Highway patrol officer CRANE (name illegible on citation) cited the driver of the vehicle under VC21655.MOTION FOR SUBPOENA of FACTS to be Entered into Evidence (ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE)Under the 5th Amendment, I am not under any duty to testify nor provide any neither culpable nor exculpable evidence for the prosecution for this “Strict Liability” citation.I am “Presumed Not Guilty”. Motion to dismiss the ticket is entered.The prosecution has the burden of proof and the prosecution must meet this burden beyond a “reasonable doubt”, not me. I have the right to confront my accuser (Crane) and examined under Direct examination or cross-examined. (Exhibit A. Attachment form CR-125/JV-525.)CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE LAWCA EVIDENCE CODE 115. Except where otherwise provided by law the burden of proof shall be by the preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Here the accuser is the CA State Government witness California Highway Patrol officer Crane (Crane). Motion for Production and subpoena are entered (supra.)(infra.). (EXHIBIT A. Attachment form CR-125/JV-525.)CALIFORNIA CAL TRABS DISTRICTS 12 Orange County and DISTRICTS 4 Alameda Counties HOV rulesCalifornia Highway Patrol’s ARE aware or should be aware that Caltrans Tran Districts 4 and 12 permit ingress and egress from the HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) aka Carpool lanes at any point. EXHIBIT B (copy of citation)2003 California Vehicle Code (CVC) Visit the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) website, see Appendix A-7 and A-8: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vctoc.htm. Most of the HOV related vehicle code sections are located in Division 11 of the CVC.♦ Section 21460 Double Lines♦ Section 21654 Slow-Moving Vehicles♦ Section 21655 Designated Lanes for Certain Vehicles♦ Section 21655.3 Permanent High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes♦ Section 21655.5 Exclusive- or Preferential- Use Lane for High-OccupancyVehicles♦ Section 21655.5(b) Mass Transit and Para Transit Vehicles may use HOV lanes regardless of occupancy♦ Section 21655.6 Approval of Joint Transportation Planning Agency or CTC♦ Section 21655.7 Use of Highway: Public Mass Transit Guideway♦ Section 21655.8(a) Entering or Exiting Preferential- Use Lanes♦ Section 21655.9 HOV Lanes: Use by Ultra-Low Emission Vehicles♦ Section 21714 Three-Wheeled Vehicles: Operation in HOV Lanes♦ Section 22364 Lane Speed Limits♦ Section 22406 Maximum Speed for Designated VehiclesUNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – 14th AMENDMENTUnder the 14th Amendment Right to Due Process and Right of Confrontation. A defendant has no duty to testify, nor any duty to provide Exculpatory evidence where there is a presumption of a negative. That negative is a presumption of ‘not guilty’.Also, under the 14th amendment, I have a right to confront any accuser herein Government witness(s) and demand proof and evidence to meet the burden of proof of what evidence the Government witness has against the defendant.Where there is a failure to provide such evidence to corroborate the allegations by the Government witness a motion to dismiss must be granted by the court for lack of evidence to prosecute. That Motion to dismiss is hereby entered in the interest of justice where the California Highway Patrol office fails to provide the requested motion for production underCR-125/JV-525 Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum (order to attend court or provide documents (Facts not in evidence) as ordered by the Subpoena.)In the interest of justice Motion to Dismiss is hereby entered.QUESTIONS FOR THE TRIAL COURT COMMISSIONERVC 21655The definition of law enforcement includes VC21655–Section 21655 Designated Lanes for Certain Vehicles Allows the Department of Transportation or local authorities to designate specific lanes for vehicles required to drive at reduced speeds. Requires vehicles driving at reduced speeds to use the farthest right lanes.My vehicle is a 2018 Nissan LEAF Electric Vehicle (EV) not a hybrid, But rather a FULL EV. Thus I am permitted to travel in the HOV lane. Furthermore, on that date, I had a passenger in the front seat of my vehicle making my car “ELIGIBLE” to be in the HOV lane. This evidence is self-evident on the citation itself as it lists the Year, Make, and Model of my Nissan LEAF EV.A complaint was also filed with CA Highway Patrol HQ in Sacramento vs. CRANE. (EXHIBIT D) for this violation.MOTION TO IMPEACH FOR PERJURY (CA PC141)Motion for CRANE to be Impeached and charged with Perjury under PC141.AB 1909, Lopez. Falsifying evidence. Approved by Governor on September 30, 2016. Filed with Secretary of state on September 30, 2016.SECTION 1. Section 141 of the Penal Code is amended to read:141 (b) A peace officer who knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and wrongfully alters, modifies, plants, places, manufactures, conceals, or moves any physical matter, digital image, or video recording, with the specific intent that the action will result in a person being charged with a crime or with the specific intent that the physical matter, digital image, or video recording will be concealed or destroyed, or fraudulently represented as the original evidence upon a trial, proceeding, or inquiry, is guilty of a felony punishable by two, three, or five years in the state prison.Submitting a traffic citation for prosecution without evidence and without corroborating evidence satisfies this statute signed into law by Governor Brown on September 30th, 2016, and filed with the Secretary of State effective immediately on the same said date September 30th, 2016.On the said date of this citation Defendant, Doe was traveling from Orange County via SR57 freeway HOV lane northbound and Transitioned to SR60 freeway HOV lane Westbound. The defendant was traveling in an Eligible EV vehicle and had a passenger THUS was qualified to enter the SR60 HOV westbound.Orange county district 12 permits entry of HOV lanes “anywhere”. And there is no marker to show where the Orange county line and Los Angeles County line separate.Defendant Doe was wrongfully cited.While stopped Defendant produced:1. A current and valid CA DL# Cxxxxxxx2. A current and valid Registration on a brand new 2018 Nissan LEAF EV. (only 1 month old from the date of purchase)3. A current and valid “proof of financial responsibility” aka “proof of insurance” via 21st Century insurances.4. These are ‘not’ disputed facts.However, corrupt CHP patrolman CRANE, refused to accept the Current and valid registration saying it was a copy, and not an original and he was going to issue me a citation for not having the original IN ADDITION to the VC21655.I verbally disputed that CRANE WAS INCORRECT. The law only requires valid registration. It does not specify the original or a copy.FACTS:FACTS: Defendant was informed by another CHP that the Original Registration should never be kept with the car.FACTS: There is no law that requires the Original Registration should be kept with the car.REASON: If and where the vehicle ever gets “towed” the tow yard will require the “original registration” to get the vehicle out of impound.Vehicle License FeesAn annual license fee is "imposed for the privilege of operating [a vehicle] upon the public highways in this state...." (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 10751.)[6] The amount of this fee "shall be a sum equal to 2 percent of the market value of the vehicle as determined by the [DMV]." (§ 10752.)As originally enacted in the year 1941, section 10753 directed the DMV annually to "compile and publish a list showing the market values... of each class 768*768 of the vehicle subject to the license fee...." (Stats. 1941, ch. 40, § 1, pp. 605-606.) Upon registration, the DMV would use the information in this "rate book" to assign to the vehicle a classification code from which its market value would be determined for the year of the sale and all subsequent years, regardless of any change in ownership. The DMV did not differentiate between vehicles originally sold within California and those originally sold outside the state.In year 1948, section 10753 was amended to require the DMV to determine the market value of vehicles "upon the basis of California delivered prices as established by the manufacturers or distributors in their selling agreements with authorized dealers as of the time the particular make and year model is first offered for sale in California...." (Stats. 1948, ch. 26, § 2, p. 129.) Manufacturers informed the DMV of the "delivered price" on each model, and the DMV entered this information in its rate book. Using a method described in section 10753.2 (enacted in 1948), the market value of each vehicle was determined from this "delivered price" according to a depreciation schedule set forth in the statute.[7] As before, the same classification code was assigned to the vehicle and the same tax was imposed, whether the vehicle was purchased in California or elsewhere.The DMV, however, urged the Legislature to alter the method for determining the vehicle license fee, because manufacturers objected to supplying information regarding prices, thereby causing delays at the beginning of each model year in updating the rate book. In the year 1967, the Legislature amended section 10753 to require the DMV to determine the market value of vehicles by reference to "California suggested base price" (§ 10753, subd. (a)), which was defined as "the retail price of the vehicle suggested by the manufacturer ... as reflected on the price listing affixed to the vehicle pursuant to the Federal Automobile Information Disclosure Act of 1958...." (§ 10753, subd. (g), as amended by Stats. 1967, ch. 435, § 1, pp. 1647-1648.) The "price listing" is commonly referred to as the "sticker price" of the vehicle.[8] Section 10753 defined California suggested base price to include "destination charge[s]" and the cost of statutorily required 769*769 "emission control devices," but not the cost of factory-installed "accessor[ies]" or "optional equipment."[9] (§ 10753, subd. (g).) The statute further provided: "In the event the [DMV] is unable to ascertain California suggested base price as herein defined ..., the [DMV] shall determine the market value upon the basis of the cost price to the purchaser of the vehicle as evidenced by a certificate of cost...." (§ 10753, subd. (c).)The years stated in the citation supra. Are respectively:1941, 1948, 1958, 1967.These were years “before” the invention of police vehicle radios and computers.Thus on April 14th, 2018, CRANE could clearly see defendants' tags and license plates were brand new and barely 1 month old and CRANE could have also used his radio and motorcycle mobile computer to ascertain the valid and current registration of the defendants brand new NISSAN LEAF EV Vehicle. My vehicle was brand new, purchased on March 10th, 2018, about 1 month and 4 days prior to April 14th, 2018.Yet, on the pretense of ‘not’ having the “original” registration in my car CRANE THREATENED AND INTIMIDATED defendant with an additional citation for not having that original registration.Defendant and passenger observed CRANE walk back to his vehicle and look through the CA VC book for 15 minutes. But he failed to find that code to cite the defendant. When CRANE returned there was no mention of the “failure to have registration” on the citation.Further corroborating evidence the defendant has. Defendants 2018 NISSAN LEAF has not 1, not 2 but 3 audio/video cameras installed for his safety.Two of these cameras face forward and one camera faces to the rear.All three cameras recorded audio and video interaction between Defendant and CRANE. These audio/videos can be produced at trial-de-novo to Impeach CRANE on the Motions stated herein and below.MOTIONS:Motion to Impeach this CRANE for “obstruction of justice” the defendant also has a right to justice.Motion to Impeach this CRANE for “conspiracy” to falsify charges.Motion to Impeach this CRANE for “perjury” PC 118.1 for misquoting the law and threats to falsely issue a citation under color of authority.Motion for Pitchess rule to disclose any other dishonesty or corruption by CRANE to be presented to the court for adjudication. Under SB1421 permitting discovery of Law Enforcement personnel files.Motion to Impeach under Penal Code Section 141 as amended by AB 1909 on 9-30-2016. Signed into law by then-Governor Jerry Brown and recorded immediately by CA State Secretary. (see Citation below)California Penal Code Section 141CA Penal Code § 141 (2017)(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), a person who knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and wrongfully alters, modifies, plants, places, manufactures, conceals, or moves any physical matter, digital image, or video recording, with the specific intent that the action will result in a person being charged with a crime or with the specific intent that the physical matter will be wrongfully produced as genuine or true upon a trial, proceeding, or inquiry, is guilty of a misdemeanor.(b) A peace officer who knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and wrongfully alters, modifies, plants, places, manufactures, conceals, or moves any physical matter, digital image, or video recording, with the specific intent that the action will result in a person being charged with a crime or with the specific intent that the physical matter, digital image, or video recording will be concealed or destroyed, or fraudulently represented as the original evidence upon a trial, proceeding, or inquiry, is guilty of a felony punishable by two, three, or five years in the state prison.(c) A prosecuting attorney who intentionally and in bad faith alters, modifies, or withholds any physical matter, digital image, video recording, or relevant exculpatory material or information, knowing that it is relevant and material to the outcome of the case, with the specific intent that the physical matter, digital image, video recording, or relevant exculpatory material or information will be concealed or destroyed, or fraudulently represented as the original evidence upon a trial, proceeding, or inquiry, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for 16 months, or two or three years.(d) This section does not preclude prosecution under both this section and any other law.(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 879, Sec. 1. (AB 1909) Effective January 1, 2017.)MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE FOR THE TRIAL COURT COMMISSIONERWhere the Commissioner fails to honor these arguments and finds the defendant guilty of this illegal traffic infraction, Objection is hereby entered for purposes of Appeal. Motion to show cause is hereby entered. Defendant Doe request written explanation for cause for purposes of Appeal.MOTION TO SHOW BASIS or PRECEDENT FOR THE TRIAL COURT COMMISSIONERWhere the Commissioner fails to honor these arguments and finds the defendant guilty of this illegal traffic infraction, Motion to show Basis or Precedent that supersedes the citations quoted in arguments herein - is hereby entered. Otherwise, Objection is hereby entered for purposes of Appeal. Defendant Doe requests a written explanation for Basis for purposes of Appeal.CONCLUSIONNotwithstanding and for all the arguments and reasons stated above and incorporated by reference; I, therefore contend there is more than reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and veracity of the citation and the government record as argued and cited here in.. There reasonable doubt for the reasons, and case law and statutes as cited for dismissing the ticket. In the interest of Justice, I respectfully request that the said citation herein against DEFENDANT DOE be dismissed and the Motion to Dismiss be granted.I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing statements are true and correct.Sincerely,JOHN DOEExecuted at:9545 Main StAll American City, CA 90001Dated: January 24th, 2019_________________JOHN DOEAPPENDIX A:http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/tm/docs/HOV_Guidelines-English-Edition-Jan2018.pdf♦ HOV Guidelines, 2016 English Edition Appendix A♦ 7 ADDITIONAL HOV INFORMATIONCalifornia Vehicle Code sections relating to HOV lanes: To view the 2003 California Vehicle Code (CVC), visit the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) website: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vctoc.htm .Most of the HOV related vehicle code sections summarized below are located in Division 11 of the CVC. Section titles in BOLD indicate official title names as shown in the CVC. The section title in the regular font was included for clarity in describing the HOV related issue.Section 21460 Double Lines The purpose of the solid-white single line on the inside of the double yellow lines on buffered HOV lanes is to permit vehicles to legally drive to the left of the double yellow lines as defined in the provisions of this section. Section 21654 Slow-Moving Vehicles This section requires vehicles, such as those with 3-or-more-axles or vehicles with trailers as defined in Section 22406, to use the farthest right freeway lanes. Therefore, these vehicles cannot use the HOV lanes. Section 21655 Designated Lanes for Certain Vehicles Allows the Department of Transportation or local authorities to designate specific lanes for vehicles required to drive at reduced speeds. Requires vehicles driving at reduced speeds to use the farthest right lanes.Section 21655.3 Permanent High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes After 1/1/87, but before 12/31/87 all permanently designated HOV lanes operating 24 hours a day shall be separated from general use highway lanes by a minimum 4 feet wide buffer.Section 21655.5 Exclusive- or Preferential- Use lanes for High-Occupancy Vehicles Allows the Department of Transportation and local authorities to designate specific lanes for HOV preferential use upon completion of competent engineering estimates made of the effects of the lanes on safety, congestion, and highway capacity.Section 21655.5(b) Mass transit and Para Transit Vehicles Enactment of SB 236 on January 1, 1998, permits mass Transit vehicles to use the HOV lanes without meeting the occupancy requirement. Enactment of AB 2582 on January 1, 2003, permits clearly marked para Transit vehicles to use the HOV lanes without meeting the occupancy requirement. This section also requires that HOV lane-use comply with posted signs designating the minimum occupancy requirement.Section 21655.6 Approval of Transportation Planning Agency or County Transportation Commission Requires the Department of Transportation to have the approval of the county Transportation commission prior to establishing new HOV lanes.Section 21655.7 Use of Highway: Public Mass Transit Guideway Allows for any portion of a highway to be designated for exclusive public mass Transit use.Section 21655.8(a) Entering or Exiting Preferential-Use Lanes A citation for violation of the provisions of this section, commonly called a buffer violation, carry a minimum fine of $271. APPENDIX A♦ HOV Guidelines, 2016 English Edition Appendix A♦ 8Section 21655.9 HOV Lanes: Use by Ultra – Low Emission Vehicles Website for list of vehicles that meet federal requirements and qualify as ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEV) and super ultra-low-emission vehicles (SULEV) in Assembly Bill 71, enacted July 1, 2000: California Air Resources BoardSection 21714 Three-Wheeled Vehicles: Operation in HOV Lanes Prohibits three-wheeled vehicles from using the HOV lanes.Section 22364 Lane Speed Limits Allows the Department of Transportation to post the appropriate speed for designated lanes.Section 22406 Maximum Speed for Designated Vehicles By definition in this section, trucks with three or more axles, or vehicles with trailers, are not allowed to use the HOV lanes because they cannot drive the maximum legal speed limit posted on HOV lanes in California. Provisions ofSection 21654 (above) then apply.If you like this answer, feel free to look at some of my other interesting answers.