Here is a look at some of the transportation headlines gathered by us and the Metro Library. The full list of headlines is posted on the library’s blog.

State Legislative Analyst says bullet train funding plan doesn’t comply with law (L.A. Times)

The report from the state opines that the California High-Speed Rail Authority can’t use bond money on an initial $6-billion, 130-mile segment in the San Joaquin Valley because the segment only includes track and not the electrical systems, stations or trains needed to make that segment usable. The Authority argues otherwise, saying it can sell bonds under state law. Hmm.

Amtrak announces wi-fi on three California routes (Amtrak)

Some news from earlier this week worth re-visiting: free wi-fi is now provided to passengers on Pacific Surfliner trains between San Diego and San Luis Obispo, as well as the Bakersfield-Sacramento and San Jose-Sacramento lines. Amtrak says research shows that free wi-fi is a major incentive for people to take the train — I believe it. Amtrak already had 14 lines with free-wifi — but all but one of those was on the East Coast.

Teens want phones, not cars (Forbes)

Forty-six percent of teens surveyed said they prefer internet access on a cell phone over access to a car. The reason: with the internet access they can virtually go anywhere at anytime. Similar studies have found the same thing. Looks like Amtrak is paying attention.

The Revkin collection in the ClimateGate e-mail release (New York Times Dot Earth blog)

For those interested in the issue of climate change, the media and politics, this is a fascinating post. The gist of it: emails to and from NYT blogger and former reporter Andrew Revkin were included in the two batches of email correspondence involving scientists at the University of East Anglia in England. The release led to the so-called ClimateGate scandal that alleged that climate scientists were manipulating data to make the case that global warming was real. In this post, Revkin provides answers to a reporter asking about his emails and whether he was biased toward the argument that climate change is real. My two cents: Revkin’s coverage has been excellent and appropriately skeptical of all sides of the debate.