TransportGooru.com is proud to share this insightful presentation on market-based road pricing in the U.S. prepared by Mr. Glenn Havinoviski, a long time supporter of TransportGooru.com, for his recent discussion with the Public Policy program students at George Washington University in Washington, DC.

When Glenn updated his status message on LinkedIn after the classroom discussion, TransportGooru jumped on the opportunity to get a glimpse of his briefing material prepared for the class and wrote to him seeking permission to publish the briefing materials.  Glenn graciously agreed to share this excellent presentation and sent along a PDF version (shown in the PDF viewer below).   Please feel free to leave your comments/questions in the “Comments” section below and they will be brought to Glenn’s attention right away.   Thanks for sharing the presentation, Glenn.

About Glenn Havinoviski: Glenn currently serves as an Associate Vice President (Transportation Systems) at Iteris in Sterling, VA and is a registered PE.   Until recently, he was an Associate Vice President and ITS Group Director for HNTB Corporation in the Arlington, Virginia office. His 27 years of experience (25 in consulting, 2 in the public sector) include serving as both a practice builder and a practice leader, providing project management and technical leadership for ITS and traffic management projects in the US and abroad.Glenn N. Havinoviski, PE joined Iteris in Sterling, VA on July 6 as Associate VP, Transportation Systems, after serving as Associate Vice President and ITS Group Director for HNTB Corporation in the Arlington, Virginia office. His 27 years of experience (25 in consulting, 2 in the public sector) include serving as both a practice builder and a practice leader, providing project management and technical leadership for ITS and traffic management projects in the US and abroad.

(Source: Times Online, UK & Wired)

Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich has a rather curious new addition built in to his latest oversized yacht. The 557-foot boat Eclipse, the price tag of which has almost doubled since original plans were drawn to almost $1.2 billion, set sail this week with a slew of show-off features, from two helipads, two swimming pools and six-foot movie screens in all guest cabins, to a mini-submarine and missile-proof windows to combat piracy.

It might not seem like somebody with such ostentatious tastes would crave privacy, but along with these expensive toys, Ambramovich has installed an anti-paparazzi “shield”. Lasers sweep the surroundings and when they detect a CCD, they fire a bolt of light right at the camera to obliterate any photograph. According to the Times, these don’t run all the time, so friends and guests should still be able to grab snaps. Instead, they will be activated when guards spot the scourge of professional photography, paparazzi, loitering nearby.

The high-tech system on Eclipse, a mega-yacht measuring up to 557ft, relies on lasers to block any digital camera lenses nearby.  Infrared lasers detect the electronic light sensors in nearby cameras, known as charge-coupled devices. When the system detects such a device, it fires a focused beam of light at the camera, disrupting its ability to record a digital image.   The beams can also be activated manually by security guards if they spot a photographer loitering.

The ThyssenKrupp-built boat, which has reportedly more than doubled in cost to £724m since it was commissioned three years ago, glided out of port in Hamburg last week on its maiden voyage. On board were 150 engineers and maritime experts who will put it through its paces over 10 days. One witness described the boat as “a great white castle on water”.

The yacht — the fourth in Abramovich’s private fleet — drips luxury. It boasts two helipads, two swimming pools — the larger of which doubles up as a dance floor when drained — and 6ft-wide home cinema screens in all 24 guest cabins.

Mindful of a rise in piracy on the high seas, the yacht has a hull and windows capable of withstanding a missile attack and a mini-submarine for emergencies. Once it leaves the Blohm + Voss German shipyard, it will be fitted with a missile defence system in France.

The Sunday Times Rich List reported that last week Abramovich has splashed out £55m on a 70-acre estate on the Caribbean island of St Barthélemy. The exclusive retreat looks out onto Gouverneur Bay, where the oligarch will be able to moor his new yacht.

More details on Times (via Wired).

(Source: AASHTO)

On September 8, ten states shared the national spotlight, as AAA, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced the top ten finalists in the2009 America’s Transportation Awards competition.

(Source: NPR’s Talk of the Nation)

This evening I was listening to an interesting piece (click here to listen to the audio) on NPR’s Talk of the Nation hosted by Neal Conan.  The program’s guest was Chris Steiner, author of this book: $20 Per Gallon: How the Inevitable Rise in the Price of Gasoline Will Change Our Lives for the Better, who says our lives would be a lot happier and healthier if gas prices rose into the double digits.

Image Courtesy: NPR

Last year, gas prices soared over four dollars a gallon and Americans responded by driving a hundred billion fewer miles than the year before. Right now, at $2.50 a gallon or so, things seem back to normal. But writer Christopher Steiner argues that’s a delusion. He thinks we need to prepare for life at six, 10, even 20 dollars a gallon, prices which will change a lot more than our driving habits. They will transform what we eat, where we live, and how we view the world. And while there will be losers, he believes the airline industry will largely disappear, for example, for the most part, he asserts our lives will be better.

The following excerpt from his book paints a scary (and also good) picture:  Many people, quite understandably, don’t consider the implications of expensive gasoline so grand. The fact remains that the price of oil will inevitably rise, however. Two simple factors are responsible: first, we’re running out of oil (albeit slowly) and second, world demand will continue to rise for decades. We use six barrels of oil for every one we find. Half of the world’s petroleum comes from 3% of its oil fields — and those fields are old. The average age of the world’s 14 largest oil fields: 50 years, the exact age when most fields’ productions start an irreversible ebb. On the demand side, consider this: There are 1 billion people on the globe living what would be considered an American-style life, including ourselves. By 2040, that number will triple. The world’s burgeoning middle class will demand oil and it will get oil. Steady price increases are academic. Economics 101: Supply down, Demand up = higher prices.

The changes to our society will begin at $6 per gallon and continue on from there, affecting things far beyond the kinds of cars we drive and how often we drive them. America’s obesity rate will fall. Mass transit will spread across the country. Plane graveyards will overflow. We’ll lose the option to cheaply travel by plane, but high-speed train networks will slowly snake state to state. Disneyworld will lock its gates, Las Vegas’ strip will shrink to half its size. Our air will be cleaner. Cities like Detroit, St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Milwaukee will revive at $12 per gallon, their streets rife with commerce, people and stores. The exurbs of America, where we’ve poured so much of our wealth during the last several decades, will atrophy, destroying the equity of those who held fast. Wal-Mart will go bankrupt at $14 per gallon and manufacturing jobs will return to the U.S. en masse. When gas reaches $16 per gallon, Michael Pollan will get the food world he lobbies for in The Omnivore’s Dilemma.

Recently, NY Times has also reviewed Mr. Steiner’s work.  Writing about this NY Times review on his blog, Mr. Steiner says ” The Times neither praised the book nor panned it. The review proceeded as cautious and as neutral as would seem possible, with a bit of skepticism tossed in. It was reviewed in the Business Section, however, not in Styles or Books, so that may explain the stern pragmatism of the reviewer.”

Here is an excerpt from NY Times review:  “The book’s arguments are sometimes overstated in hyperbolic prose. In the chapter about the end of the airline industry as we know it, it says that some companies will be “permanently torpedoed” by high gas prices. It warns that a “giant herd of people” will lose their jobs. And it says that our grandchildren will “undoubtedly gawp in awe” when we recount our childhood trips to Disneyland. Well, that’s something to look forward to in our old age.”

If you are one of  those people who have already read his book, let us know what do you think.  Worth a buy??

Click here to read the entire transcript from this interview.

(Source: Greenwire @ New York Times)

According to a Center for Public Integrity report released yesterday, there are nearly 1,800 special interest groups lobbying Congress on the transportation bill, ranging from local officials and planning agencies to real estate companies, construction firms and universities. In the first half of this year, the groups employed more than 2,000 lobbyists and spent an estimated total of $45 million on their transportation lobbying.

The road to reforming the nation’s transportation systems looks to be a long and winding one.

Once lawmakers decide when to move forward with the sweeping overhauls they promise, they will need to find a way to pay for it. And once that difficult task is accomplished, the debate will only grow more complicated.

Many in the transportation community agree the next multi-year surface transportation bill needs to significantly boost federal funding for the nation’s roads, rails and bridges. But the consensus soon begins to crumble when the issue turns to how to pay for the overhaul — with lawmakers loath to tell Americans they will need to foot the bill and the rest of the transportation community agreeing that is the only option to pay for it (E&E Daily, Sept. 15).

But even off the Hill, where key players agree massive reform is needed to make the system more performance-based and effective, there is no consensus on exactly what that new system would look like and what those performance goals should be.

Many of the goals discussed at the invitation-only event are conflicting by nature. The usual suspects include the funding ratio for highways and transit systems, and the rate of return that individual states see from taxes they pay to finance the nation’s road and rail work.

Robert Atkinson, who chaired one of two congressionally created blue ribbon panels to examine transportation investment needs, said his panel, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, did not even broach the subject of where the increased investment should be spent in its report.

According to government estimates, the transportation sector accounts for roughly a third of U.S. carbon emissions, and Democrats have vowed to recast the nation’s roads and rails in a “greener” light.

But many state highway departments that had previously voiced support for the new environmental focus are now worrying that the emissions goals may grow overly ambitious and threaten to deliver another blow to both the economy and their efforts to repair and replace crumbling roads and bridges (Greenwire, Aug. 27)

Congress must also decide whether or not to welcome the private sector into the transportation field by giving firms long-term leases on public roads and bridges, effectively turning public infrastructure into a private product.

Click here to read the entire article.  For those wondering what is in the minds of our lawmakers drafting the reauthorization bill, here is congressman Oberstar’s handwritten scrap-paper version (pulled right from the House T&I Committee website, which has a lot of interesting materials to read on this subject).  Though it is not very detailed, it offers a general sensing of the direction he is taking (e.g., consolidating the existing behemoth (108 programs) into 4 categories to simplify the mgmt. structure, adding Office of Livability & Office of Expedited Project Delivery to the FHWA, etc.)

(Source: New York Times)

The Obama administration issued proposed rules on Tuesday that impose the first nationwide limits on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and that require American cars and light truck fleet to meet a fuel efficiency standard of 35.5 miles a gallon by 2016.

The government projects that the regulations will raise car and truck prices by an average of $1,100, but that drivers will save $3,000 over the life of the vehicle in lower fuel bills. Officials also said the new program, which is to take effect in 2012, would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by nearly a billion tons and cut oil consumption by 1.8 billion barrels from 2012 to 2016.

The 1,227-page regulation will go through a 60-day public comment period before it is completed early next year.

(Source: Wall Street Journal)

Today’s WSJ had a nice article about the Korean Automaker, explaining what makes it a successful car in the US.   Worth a read..

….The leading Korean car company’s name rhymes with the first day of the week, as in “Hyundai, Bloody Hyundai.” Which is pretty much what the company’s competitors are saying to themselves these days about Hyundai’s remarkable success over the past few years.

Last year Hyundai’s global sales bucked the industry’s decline and rose 5% to 4.2 million cars and trucks. Even in the U.S., the world’s most competitive car market, Hyundai’s sales rose 0.8% in the first eight months of this year, while Ford’s sales dropped 25% in the same period and GM’s plunged 35%. The major Japanese auto makers suffered declines between 25% and 30%.

Hyundai’s success stems from a sustained corporate effort at reinvention—the very same word General Motors is using to describe its mission these days. The Hyundai story should provide GM with a road map.

For years, Hyundai enjoyed a protected home market in Korea. This ensured its prosperity there, but the lack of competition meant the company didn’t develop the product quality or consistency to compete effectively in international markets. The result: Hyundai’s initial U.S. success in 1986 was undercut quickly by quality problems.

A decade ago, Hyundai acquired Kia, a victim of a mid-1990s shakeout in the Korean auto industry. It also established a new quality-control division charged with boosting reliability by emulating Toyota’s vaunted manufacturing methods. To allay lingering concerns over quality, Hyundai put warranties of 10 years or 100,000 miles on vehicles sold in America.

Their campaign began to show results, and the big breakthrough came in 2004, when Hyundai tied Honda for second place in the prestigious J.D. Power & Co. Initial Quality Survey. Also that year, Hyundai completed its first U.S. assembly plant, near Montgomery, Ala.

On the marketing front, last January the Hyundai division launched an innovative “Assurance Program” in the U.S.: Buyers return their cars if they lose their job within a year after their purchase. The offer generated buzz and resonated with the public, as Hyundai’s recent U.S. sales results demonstrate, even though buyers have turned in fewer than 50 cars under the program, which continues through year-end.

…..Both U.S. companies will have to make their marketing more relevant. Hyundai’s 10-year warranties and the “Assurance Program” succeeded because they addressed specific customer concerns—the former about the brand’s reliability, the latter about the economic environment…….

Click here to read the entire article.

(Sources contributing to this hybrid report: Marketwatch; Associated Press Washington Post; &  CNN)

President Barack Obama signed an order on Friday to impose the special punitive tariffs for three years, the White House announced.   The action is the first major trade enforcement action of his presidency and comes less than two weeks before a high-profile summit of the leaders of the Group of 20 nations, including China.

It is the first time the U.S. government has imposed special “safeguard” provisions to protect a U.S. industry from Chinese competition..

“The president decided to remedy the clear disruption to the U.S. tire industry based on the facts and the law in this case,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement.

Obama had until this coming Thursday to accept, reject or modify a U.S. International Trade Commission ruling that a rising tide of Chinese tires into the U.S. hurts American producers. The United Steelworkers blames the increase for the loss of thousands of American jobs.

The federal trade panel recommended a 55 percent tariff in the first year, 45 percent in the second year and 35 percent in the third year. Obama settled on 35 percent the first year, 30 percent in the second and 25 percent in the third, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. The tariff would be on top of the current 4% tariff. The tariffs will take effect in 15 days.

U.S. imports of Chinese tires have risen from 14.6 million in 2004 to 46 million last year, accounting for about one-sixth of the U.S. market. Four U.S. tire plants have closed in the past two years, and more than 5,000 workers have lost their jobs.

President Barack Obama’s decision to impose trade penalties on Chinese tires has infuriated Beijing at a time when the U.S. badly needs Chinese help on climate change, nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea and the global economy.

The decision comes as U.S. officials are working with the Chinese and other nations to plan an economic summit in Pittsburgh on Sept. 24-25 of the 20 leading rich and developing nations. China will be a major presence at the meeting, and the United States will be eager to show it supports free trade.

Governments around the world have suggested the U.S. talks tough against protectionism only when its own industries are not threatened. U.S. rhetoric on free trade also has been questioned because of a “Buy American” provision in the U.S. stimulus package.

China condemned the White House’s announcement late Friday as protectionist and said it violated global trade rules. At home, the punitive tariffs on all car and light truck tires coming into the U.S. from China may placate union supporters who are important to the president’s health care push.

Chen Deming, China’s minister of commerce, said the penalties would hurt relations with the U.S. A ministry statement said Obama had “compromised to the political pressure of the U.S. domestic trade protectionism.”  “The Chinese government will continue to uphold the legitimate interests of China’s domestic industry and has the right to take corresponding measures,” Deming said.

For the Chinese government, the tire dispute threatens an economic relationship crucial to China’s economic growth. There was speculation before the decision that new tariffs could produce public pressure on Beijing to retaliate, potentially leading to a trade war.  Chinese leaders have in the past expressed displeasure about a possible tire tariff.

“We hope the U.S. government will refrain from taking action, for the long-term healthy and stable development of U.S.-Chinese relations,” Fu Ziying, China’s vice commerce minister, told local media in August.

China’s Ministry of Commerce said in a statement early Saturday that the move violated WTO rules. “China strongly opposes this serious act of trade protectionism by the U.S,” the ministry said, according to the Associated Press.

China agreed to the provision while negotiating to join the World Trade Organization, but until Friday the general “safeguard” provisions of the law had never been invoked.  Critics warned that if the general “safeguard,” which expires in four years, was never used to protect American workers from Chinese imports, then political support for free trade would be eroded.

“Since China joined the WTO, American workers have not been assured that the government would defend them against unfair trade,” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said.  The tariff, which will take effect Sept. 26, represents the first such case under the law for Obama, and his decision has been highly anticipated.

During the campaign, he had pledged to “crack down on China” and “work to ensure that China is no longer given a free pass to undermine U.S. workers,” as his Web site put it.

The tariff’s detractors said higher tire prices could lead some consumers to wait longer before replacing tires, creating a safety risk. Moreover, they said, the tariff won’t result in more jobs. Tires will simply come in from other low-cost countries, they say, and U.S. manufacturers, keep making their cheaper tires in China.

“U.S. tire manufacturers years ago decided to move production of low end tires off-shore,” said David Spooner, a lawyer representing the Chinese tire industry. “Frankly, a temporary tariff is not going to get them to change their business plan.”

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Mail Online, UK)

Today the Daily Mail demands action against the menace of cowboy wheel clampers.

The industry rakes in almost £1billion a year from motorists parked on private land and has been described as ‘legalised mugging’.

Clampers routinely charge £500 penalties, tow away cars, prey on the vulnerable and are often paid on commission, encouraging them to immobilise as many vehicles as possible. But despite the extraordinary power they wield, those working on private land in England and Wales are completely unregulated and their victims have no right of independent appeal.

The Mail, supported by motoring groups and MPs, is calling for an end to this unfairness by bringing the law for parking on private land in line with that for public roads, including the introduction of a maximum limit for penalties.

Image Courtesy: Mail Online - Suggested legislative changes to curb the growing clamping problem

Experts say the major flaw in the current regime is that the company which issued the penalty in the first place is allowed to act as judge and jury in the case – unlike on public roads, where an appeal can be made to an independent tribunal.

The clampers can charge whatever they like and are even allowed to exploit the Government’s supposedly confidential DVLA database to find drivers’ names and addresses at £2.50 a time.

It has led to clamping becoming a boom industry. Between March 2008 and April 2009, the number of licensed clampers rocketed by a staggering 58 per cent – from 1,200 to 1,900.

Instead, when ministers publish their clamping Bill later this year, the Mail calls for the legislation to include:

• An independent tribunal to hear appeals by motorists who are clamped on private land.

• Maximum penalties for infringements on private land to be brought in line with those on private road.

• A ban on towing away a vehicle unless it is posing a danger, blocking access or has been abandoned.

• Prohibition of offering incentives to private clampers, based on how many motorists are issued with penalty charges.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Green Car Congress)

Daimler AG and leading energy companies signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in Berlin, with the participation of the German Minister of Transport, Wolfgang Tiefensee, to evaluate and expand the setup of a hydrogen infrastructure in Germany to support the series production of fuel cell electric vehicles. In addition to Daimler, partners in the “H2 Mobility” initiative include EnBW, Linde, OMV, Shell, Total, Vattenfall and the NOW GmbH (National Organization Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology). The project is open for other interested partners.

The H2 Mobility launch comes one day after leading automakers signed a Letter of Understanding regarding the commercialization and series production of fuel cell electric vehicles from 2015 onward. Noting the importance of a hydrogen infrastructure with sufficient density, the automakers—Daimler, Ford, GM/Opel, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Renault Nissan Alliance, and Toyota—in that LoU strongly supported building up a hydrogen infrastructure in Europe, with Germany as regional starting point, among other global starting points. (Earlier post.)

The H2 Mobility partners noted that significant progress has been made in Germany in recent years with the development of hydrogen based technologies in the mobility sector, marking the country as a potential start-market in the context of a broader European perspective.

The German government is also developing a plan to provide financial incentives starting in 2012 to support the production and sale of 100,000 electric cars annually. The plan envisages around one million electric cars on German roads by 2020. (Earlier post.)

Germany already has a leading position regarding the hydrogen infrastructure in Europe, with initial hydrogen centers having been established in urban agglomerations such as Berlin and Hamburg. Seven of the current thirty hydrogen fueling stations in Germany are integrated into public gas stations. Already five to ten hydrogen fuelling stations can secure a first supply in a major city. The partnership envisions connecting those urban agglomerations with supply corridors on main arteries to establish the essential prerequisites for nationwide development.

A fleet of 40 hydrogen vehicles is part of the Clean Energy Partnership (CEP) in Berlin and Hamburg. The CEP is aiming to demonstrate the suitability for daily use of hydrogen as an alternative fuel for vehicles and to test the infrastructure of hydrogen fuelling stations.

Since 1994, Daimler has invested more than €1 billion (US$1.5 billion) in the development of fuel cells. With more than 100 test vehicles and more than 4.5 million kilometers of test runs in total, Daimler has one of the largest fuel-cell vehicle fleets of passenger cars and buses worldwide.

Click here to read the entire article.

TransportGooru Musings: Germany is not the only European nation that has showed some love for hydrogen vehicles.   Norway is the other frontrunner in the hydrogen fuel economy and has made noteworthy investments (learn about Norway’s initiatives in building a hydrogen refueling infrastructure here).  As more nations are exploring the possibilities of hydrogen fuel vehicles in the future, the United States seem to think the other way.   The funding for hydrogen fuel vehicles has been cut down significantly in past years and that has put the program on life support.

If I wear my “forecaster” hat for a minute, I see in the near future a big jump in the number of electric hybrid vehicles flooding the market.   The long range perspective is a bit more of a mix – both hydrogen and electric vehicles equally mixed.  Now, this short term projection is causing a bit of a concern for some due to the fact that the current battery technology is not the best to sustain our energy needs for uninterrupted transportation. Some of them battery research is evolving  in directions that can eat up some of teh precious mineral reserves.  For example, the Lithium reserves in Bolivia (supposedly the largest in the world) would become the equivalent of today’s oil and the battery manufacturers might inadvertantly create a new monster in their quest for batteries that can hold charger for an extended period of time.  We do not want to create another OPEC that meddles with the price of our minerals market.   I read somewhere that China has already banned the export of some precious minerals which are used in battery reserach and has clearly shown its interest in siphoning off these resources for its domestic markets.  At some point in time we may need an alternative to our current Lithium ion battery tech and the only other tech that is promisingly clean and relatively cheaper is hydrogen.  That said, we can continue to argue about the economics and cost/benefits of H2 Vehicle vs Electric vehicle tech, but such arguments become pointless when we consider the cost of social problems (such as war/fight over natural resources, etc).   To avoid getting trapped into another mono-fuel model (i.e., electric or electric-hybrid, which anyway doesn’t fully fit into his mono-fuel model) like we are locked in now, the Government of United States should continue to invest in developing a viable hydrogen fuel technology that can equally compete with electric or electric-hybrid vehicles in terms of afforadability and efficiency.