(Source:  Mint.com via Autoblog)

Ever wondered what’s the state of the american auto industry? Over the past several months we came across several reports of the ailing American autopia, including those with horrific financial reports, Government bailout in billions, mergers and acquisitions that changed the auto industry landscape worldwide, the glorious performance of American automakers during the short lived Cash for Clunkers boost, etc.  Along the way, there were few attempts to depict the ever-changing amoebic state of the auto industry from a 30,000ft level, in an easy to understand format.  But so far (what little I have read), nothing comes close to what the brilliant folks at Mint.com have done.

Image Courtesy: Mint.com - Click the image to see an enlarged version

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and we’d add that the above graph is tantamount to an engaging novella. It charts the massive brand exodus among the Detroit contingent, which looks like a quadruple reverse drawn up on the telestrator by John Madden. If that isn’t sobering enough, the text below shows just how much Detroit automakers have shrunk since 2006. Overall, attrition at Ford, GM and Chrysler accounts for an astonishing 144,600 workers in only three years. No wonder Michigan has the highest unemployment rate in the nation. The chart also gives a brief look at the up-and-coming members of the US auto industry, including Tesla, BYD, Tata and Smart, along with a quick blurb about the future of each of the automakers represented.

TranspotGooru Musings:    The only glitch that I spotted in the above graph is the introductory line on the blurb about Chinese Automaker BYD – “Recently bought by Warren Buffet….”  Actually, the company is publicly traded, and its major shareholder is Wang Chuan-Fu who started BYD (the letters are the initials of the company’s Chinese name).  Mr. Buffet’s Bekshire Hathaway has invested $232 Million  thus far and is consider to expand its investment further. Berkshire Hathaway first tried to buy 25% of BYD, but Wang turned down the offer. He wanted to be in business with Buffett – to enhance his brand and open doors in the U.S., he says – but he would not let go of more than 10% of BYD’s stock.

(Source: Time; Autoblog)

With 690,000 vehicles sentenced to one final gargle of sodium silicate, thanks to the now-defunct Cash for Clunkers program, demolition-derby drivers seem to have been left holding the short end of the driveshaft. What the government seems to have forgotten is that many cars, hobbling and sputtering as they near death, prefer to make one final trip to the local county fair (assuming they escape a 24 Hours of LeMons team). There, stripped of glass and with fuel tanks moved safely inward, the clunkers die an honorable death smashed gloriously to pieces in front of large (and often well-hydrated), cheering crowds.

There’s at least one group of people who are happy Cash for Clunkers is over: demolition-derby drivers. Participants in these events, in which drivers smash into one another until there’s only one engine left running, don’t enjoy the sight of old cars going out of commission without making a pit stop at the county fairground. “Obama is an anti-demo-derby guy,” says Tory Schutte, head of the Demolition Derby Drivers Association. “He’s targeting the cars we’ve been using.”

There’s at least one group of people who are happy Cash for Clunkers is over: demolition-derby drivers. Participants in these events, in which drivers smash into one another until there’s only one engine left running, don’t enjoy the sight of old cars going out of commission without making a pit stop at the county fairground. “Obama is an anti-demo-derby guy,” says Tory Schutte, head of the Demolition Derby Drivers Association. “He’s targeting the cars we’ve been using.”

There are an estimated 3,500 derbies in the U.S. each year, and they tend to be the main attraction at county fairs, where attendance has hit record highs in many places this summer. “It’s been a stellar year for fairs across the country,” confirms Marla Calico, spokesperson for the International Association of Fairs & Expositions.

(Source:  The Transport Politic)

It would be nice to imagine effective mass transit connections at high-speed terminals, but they are not necessary to build ridership. Rather, we should focus on concentrating high-intensity development in station-area zones.

As the debate over spending on high-speed rail evolves into a full-fledged argument, opponents have focused in on the matter of connectivity to dispute the notion that U.S. railways would attract enough riders. American cities suffer from inadequate transit, and the thinking goes that people would as a result continue to choose auto and air travel even if high-speed trains provided excellent intercity service. The conclusion of this line of reasoning is that the government should invest in urban transit before it moves on to high-speed rail, though it should be noted that many of the same people fighting rail on these grounds have previously stated their opposition to spending on public transportation.

I discussed the basic fallacy in this argument last week — namely, that intercity and urban travel markets are different and that we have a responsibility to invest in both; we cannot simply abandon efforts to improve the ability of people to move between cities. But the point raised by rail opponents deserves to be adequately addressed. Will rail find riders even if no transit is available in the environs of stations? Should we invest in a travel mode that has been successful in densely developed regions in Europe or Asia when the U.S. is so sprawled out?

National Public Radio broadcast a sob story from a woman who traveled on Amtrak from Greensboro to Raleigh, North Carolina, only to find what she claimed was “no” bus service at the arrival station, requiring her to walk “along broken pavement on a street without a sidewalk” and then wait 15 minutes for public transportation. She stated that this process was so difficult that she would probably drive the next time she took the trip because of the difficulty of the end of the commute. The story’s conclusion was that the woman’s situation exemplified the state of transit in many cities and that future rail ridership might be hampered by these problems.

Leave behind for a moment the fact that the bus she took stopped literally one block away from the station, that it runs every 10 to 15 minutes throughout the day, that is it free, and that it serves Downtown Raleigh’s major museums the poor lady was hoping to visit with her nephew. The bus would qualify as good transit service in most American cities, so the woman’s experience may be more a reflection of the city’s bad signage and her limited experience in riding the bus than some systematic problem in transit provision.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Time)

Time.com has featured the plight of an airline passenger, whose problems with the airline (Delta) started with a lost bag duringa  recent trip.  The efforts of the passenger and his multiple attempts to get reunited with his lost baggage are not so uncommon for many travelers.   Thousands of passenger go through similar ordeals and experience the agony of poor service and outdated operational systems, sucking up hours of their day(s), while waiting for airlines to do something to solve their problem. But what makes tihs Time.com story unique is the fact that the passenger in question happens to be a reporter and had a chance to air this miserable handling of the problem by Delta staff on a reputed platform.  It is appalling to see what a passenger has to endure,  that too when he is not the one who caused the problem in the first place.  What’s more pathetic is the fact that the Delta spokeswoman seems to be clueless about what reporting mechanisms are in place for her company to receive a customer’s complaint.  Shame on you, Delta!

Image Courtesy: Apture

Here are some excerpts from the Time.com article:

This is not a story about lost luggage. It’s a story about who to call at the airlines when you feel you’ve been mistreated. The answer, increasingly, is no one.

But it starts with a lost bag — the black duffel Delta Airlines lost on my recent trip from Kansas City to New York City after a nightmarish day of travel: a canceled flight on a perfectly clear morning; a cumbersome rerouting through Atlanta; arrival at LaGuardia after 6 p.m., more than five hours late. When my bag failed to show up, I faced yet another missed connection: to the bus I needed to catch for the two-hour ride to my final destination. So rather than wait in line at the lost-luggage counter, I took a phone number to call in the report later. Which I did — only to be told sternly that lost-baggage reports cannot be taken over the phone, only in person at the airport.

This seemed patently unreasonable. Delta had put me through a lot of trouble: canceling a flight, adding five hours of flying time to my day, losing my luggage. All I asked was the same courtesy accorded any passenger whose bag was lost by the airline: its return free of charge. But after three calls to the baggage folks, the best I could do was get the bag tracked (it eventually made it to LaGuardia). I was told that I had to either pick it up myself at the airport or pay a hefty delivery charge. Three times I asked for a supervisor to whom I could make an appeal. Three times I was told the person I was talking to was a supervisor. (Big labor news: at Delta Airlines, everyone is a boss!) Finally, I asked for a customer-service number so I could lodge a complaint. That’s when I found out how the airlines really feel about customer service: Delta no longer has such a number. An unhappy passenger’s only recourse is to go to the website and write an e-mail.

I spent half an hour filling out the online form, sent off an e-mail and got this response: “We are sorry but this service is unavailable at this time. Please try again later.” I managed to send the e-mail on a second try the next day. Still, I wanted a live human being to hear my case sooner. I called the main reservations line and wheedled a number at Delta’s corporate headquarters in Atlanta. But that only elicited a brusque gentleman who quickly swatted away my complaint. “That is Delta Airlines policy,” he said. “You just don’t like the policy.”Actually, airlines break their own policies all the time. Indeed, one of the few redeeming features of dealing with airlines is that, if you’re persistent and persuasive enough, you can usually find a representative willing to find you a seat on that sold-out flight, waive a change fee, ease your outrage by upgrading you to first class or give you a free meal voucher. When my flight was canceled, Delta waived the usual $15 fee on checked luggage. It’s actually smart business; even small gestures go a long way toward defusing consumer wrath.

At least, that’s the way it used to be. The major carriers have, quietly, made it steadily more difficult to air your complaints to a live human being. “The airlines don’t want to talk to their customers,” says John Tschohl, a consultant to businesses on customer service. American Airlines stopped taking customer complaints by phone several years ago, according to a spokesperson; putting the complaint in writing, he insisted, is more efficient. United used to have a customer-support number but dropped it “some months ago,” according to a reservations agent. (A corporate spokesperson didn’t return several phone calls asking for confirmation.) Even the few airlines that still have customer-service numbers, like Continental and Southwest, tuck them away deep within their websites, where only the truly obsessive can find them.

A Delta spokeswoman seemed perplexed by the whole question. First she said simply, “We direct customers to our e-mail.” After more checking, she reported that Delta does have a customer-care option on its toll-free number. When I couldn’t find it, she checked once more and clarified: the customer-care line is found on Delta’s main corporate phone number — but that number is not publicized and “it is not suggested” that customers call it. A representative at that number said they do not take customer complaints and directed me to the website.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: NPR)

Today, NPR had an interesting coverage of DC’s newest addition to its growing biking infrastructure.  Just outside Washington, D.C.’s central train station, construction is under way on a sleek, modern, glass-and-metal bike garage. Here is the audio snippet (via Apture):

“Some people say it’s a half-football or a shell,” says Mazen Soueidan, the project manager. “It has four sides [with] scalloped shells that overlap.”

Once completed, the Bikestation will hold 130 bikes, lockers and a small shop for repairs. Located next to the Metro subway exit at Union Station, the system will provide secure bike storage for commuters who want to cycle through Washington once they arrive from “feeder” cities like Baltimore.

Image courtesy: The City Fix DC

Of course, part of the appeal of bicycling is convenience — you can lock a bike to pretty much anything.

But if you lock your bike to a parking meter, you might come back to find it’s missing a seat or wheels, or it’s just gone. Soueidan says theft was an issue even while building the bike garage.

Set to open in October, the Bikestation will require either an annual membership or a daily usage fee.

Paine says introducing the system to Washington is part of a larger shift toward “dispelling the notion that the car is an essential part of our daily lifestyle.”

John Ciccarelli of Bicycle Solutions in San Mateo, Calif., agrees. “What’s growing is acceptance that the bicycle is a mode of transportation as well as recreation,” he said.

Image Courtesy: NPR - Levered arms inside the bike garage allow bicycles to be stored one on top of the other.

Click here to read the entire article.