(Source: New York Times – Wheels Blog, Sec.  LaHood’s Fast Lane Blog, U.S. News and World Report)

First of all, it’s no longer Cash-for-Clunkers. The program is now called the Car Allowance Rebate System (C.A.R.S.).  The program, which President Obama signed into law on Thursday, pays consumers up to $4,500 in credit for trading in their cars or trucks for those that are more fuel efficient. The law allocates $1 billion for the program.

The incentive program begins within 30 days of today’s bill signing by the President. The final day for an eligible purchase or lease is November 1, 2009, or when DOT exhausts the funds set aside for the program, whichever occurs first. The credit is not retroactive prior to the start of the program and cannot be applied toward the purchase of used vehicles.

Of course, there are plenty of regulations to determine what vehicles qualify for the credit. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is overseeing the program, has put together this Web site to help consumers who would like to participate in the program.

Image Courtesy: USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood's Fast Lane Blog

Today, the Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood wrote on his blog: “This program helps consumers pay for new, more fuel-efficient vehicles when they trade in less fuel-efficient cars or trucks. Stimulating the automobile industry while improving the environment and reducing fuel consumption–these are outcomes the DOT is pleased to support.

Congress and the Obama Administration recognize this is an important time for the automobile industry. And, the CARS program will help boost car and truck sales. Moreover, since the auto industry has improved vehicle safety and reduced vehicle emissions over the years, we are also excited about a program that puts vehicles on the road that are safer, pollute less, and get more miles to the gallon than the vehicles they replace.

CARS will be implemented by DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). It’s a new responsibility this department welcomes; I know the folks in NHTSA stand ready to fulfill their new charge.  I encourage everyone to learn more about the program from the website, www.cars.gov, or call NHTSA’s Auto Hotline at 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236). ”

The C.A.R.S. rebate does not count on top of the trade-in value of your vehicle. In the F.A.Q. section of CARS.gov: “The law requires your trade-in vehicle to be destroyed. Therefore, the value you negotiate with the dealer for your trade-in vehicle is not likely to exceed its scrap value.”

An Important FYI item: N.H.T.S.A. warns consumers of unofficial C.A.R.S. Web sites that are now popping up, reports USA Today. “Some want a lot of personal information, and talk about consumers being able to pre-register,” said Eric Bolton, a N.H.T.S.A. spokesman. “Consumers don’t have to register for this program at all.”

For those of you who are contemplating the purchase of a new vehicle under this program, here is a wonderful guide put together by the U.S. News and World Report:

10 Things You Should Know About Cash for Clunkers Car Allowance Rebate System”

1. What’s the official definition of a clunker? A driveable car made within the last 25 years, with a fuel economy rating of no more than 18 mpg. To learn more about the combined city/highway fuel-economy of your car, check out the Car Allowance Rebate System site.

2. Here’s how the program works: you trade in your old car for cash towards the purchase of a new, more efficient one. The better the mileage of the new car , the more money you’ll get towards its purchase – either $3,500 or $4,500. Check out Jalponik’s handy chart to figure out how much you might be able to claim.  The minimum combined fuel economy of a new car purchased under the program must be at least 22 mpg, while new small trucks and SUVs have to get at least 18 mpg, and large trucks have to get 15 mpg. The old cars will be salvaged once they’re turned in.

3. Consumers should act fast. The bill provides vouchers for one million purchases, and the window of time is only fron July 1 to November 1. The bill will be revisited in the fall , and some changes may be made at that time.

4. The program will cost $4 billion. Funds will come from TARP.

5. Sorry, would-be entrepreneurs: it’s off-limits to buy an old car and “flip” it for the program – the car must have been insured by the same owner for at least one year before the trade.

6. The environmental idea behind the bill is that it takes old, inefficient vehicles off of the road. But some environmentalists are actually opposed to the bill because it takes functioning cars off of the road before their time is up, and does not permit the vouchers to go towards used vehicles, even if they are more fuel-efficient. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who sponsored an alternate bill stated that the current version undermines fuel efficiency standards and provides “handouts for Hummers.” On the other hand, some argue that higher fuel standards would disproportionately benefit foreign cars, denying American automakers their much-needed boost.

7. The economic incentive of the bill is to jump-start drowsy auto sales. According to Bloomberg, similar programs worldwide have raised auto sales 25 percent to 40 percent in Germany, 15 percent in China and 8 percent in France.

8. Even if it’s not designed entirely the way environmentalists had hoped, there are still green benefits. Says Treehugger: “One positive effect the bill could have, though, is simply to further advance the presence of ‘fuel efficiency’ as a reward term in the skeptical American consumer market. Yes, hybrids continue to sell, but not to 99 percent of the population. The bill could, albeit in a relatively minor way, serve to advance an attitude that places importance on fuel efficiency in the future.”

9. Cash for Clunkers is expected to have a great impact on the Hispanic community. That’s why the program is getting a celebrity endorsement from Dancing With The Stars’ Cristian de la Fuente and Ugly Betty’s Angelica Vale.

10. As always, buyer beware. It doesn’t make sense to trade in your vehicle unless its value is less than or equal to what you’d get in the program. Edmunds has identified a list of cars that are guaranteed to be worth less than the value of the voucher. You can find it here (PDF). Said ABC News Consumer Correspondent Elisabeth Leamy, “From a strictly consumer standpoint, the Cash for Clunkers program is not a great deal. Yes, if you are bent on buying brand new, you will save money. But the savings are nothing compared with how well you can do by buying a used car.”

(Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office)

Background

In 2008, GAO reported that 1,088 oil industry mergers occurred between 2000 and 2007. Given the potential for price effects, GAO recommended that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the agency with the authority to maintain petroleum industry competition, undertake more regular retrospective reviews of past petroleum industry mergers, and FTC said it would consider this recommendation. GAO was asked to conduct such a review of its own to determine how mergers and market concentration—a measure of the number and market shares of firms in a market—affected wholesale gasoline prices since 2000.

GAO examined the effects of mergers and market concentration using an economic model that ruled out the effects of many other factors. GAO consulted with a number of experts and used both public and private data in developing the model. GAO tested the model under a variety of assumptions to address some of its limitations. GAO also interviewed petroleum market participants.

Study Findings

Image Courtesy: GAO

GAO examined seven mergers that occurred since 2000—ranging in value and geography and for which there was available gasoline pricing data (see table)—and found three that were associated with statistically significant increases or decreases in wholesale gasoline prices. Specifically, GAO found that the mergers of Valero Energy with Ultramar Diamond Shamrock and Valero Energy with Premcor, which both involved the acquisition of refineries, were associated with estimated average price increases of about 1 cent per gallon each. In addition, GAO found that the merger of Phillips Petroleum with Conoco, which primarily involved the acquisition of oil exploration and production assets, was associated with an estimated average decrease in wholesale gasoline prices across cities affected by the merger of nearly 2 cents per gallon. This analysis provides an indicator of the impact that petroleum industry mergers can have on wholesale gasoline prices. Additional analysis would be needed to explain the price effects that GAO estimated.

GAO used two separate measures of market concentration, one which measured the number of sellers at wholesale gasoline terminals and another which measured the market share of refiners supplying gasoline to those sellers, and found that less concentrated markets were statistically significantly associated with lower gasoline prices. For example, for wholesale terminals with more sellers—i.e., terminals that were less concentrated—GAO estimated that prices were about 8 cents per gallon lower at terminals with 14 sellers than at terminals that had only 9 sellers. This result is consistent with the idea that markets with more sellers are likely to be more competitive, resulting in lower prices. Using the second measure of concentration, GAO similarly found a statistically significant association between prices and the level of refinery concentration, with less concentrated groups of refineries associated with lower prices.

GAO Recommendation

This study reinforces the need to review past petroleum industry mergers, and GAO continues to recommend that FTC conduct such reviews more regularly and develop risk-based guidelines to determine when to conduct them. FTC reviewed a draft of this report and supports GAO’s recommendation to conduct more reviews of past petroleum industry mergers.

Click here to download the full report.

White House Says Transportation System Overhaul Must Wait (Washington Post)

After rejecting criticism that it is taking on too much, the Obama administration has identified one area where ambitious reforms will have to wait: overhauling the nation’s aging, congested and carbon-emitting transportation system.

It became clear at a contentious Senate hearing yesterday that the half-trillion-dollar question is how to pay for the bill. The 18.4-cent federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993, and revenue from it falls increasingly short every year because of inflation and the shift to more fuel-efficient cars.

The White House and some of its Senate allies are letting it be known, though, that this is not a discussion they want to have now, in the middle of a recession and as Washington is consumed with battles over health care and energy. Also, polls show that Americans are growing anxious about government spending.

“President Obama does have a vision for transportation. It’s not something he’s going to ignore or turn a blind eye to at all,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told skeptical senators yesterday. “The timing is where we part company.”

Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.) is proposing that if the White House and the Senate will not consider a higher gas tax, then the bill could be paid for with a new tax on oil speculators.

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) said: “President Obama said to us during the campaign that we must have the fierce urgency of now. And that’s what Mr. Oberstar has done.”

Boxer agreed but said a gas tax increase now is not feasible. “I would tell you if you go out to the people of America and say that’s the solution, I don’t think they will buy it,” she said. “They’re struggling right now.”

Click here to read the entire article.

Boxer and Inhofe Agree: Transportation Policy Reform Can Wait (Streetsblog)

Green transportation advocates are pressing Congress to refuse any new spending that’s not tied to reform of the existing system — a call that influential senators in both parties ruled out today.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) joined Sen. Jim Inhofe (OK), the panel’s ranking GOPer, in endorsing another 18 months of the 2005 transportation bill.

The extension, Boxer said, should be “clean as it can be, clean as a whistle … not with these policy changes, because it will in fact jeopardize a quick passage of this extension.”

Boxer’s agreement to an extension free of policy reforms appears to be an acknowledgment that Inhofe and most other GOP senators would slow down approval of the short-term transportation measure. But she faced a lone critic today in Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), who challenged Boxer to back down from her opposition to raising the federal gas tax during an economic recession.

Voinovich reminded the Californian that she “is always talking about the environment; [drafting a new transportation bill] is going to have a huge impact on greenhouse gas emissions.” He suggested that senators “look at” the House transportation bill offered by Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN) and pitch the American public on an increase in the gas tax, which has remained static since 1993.

In fact, recent polling supports Voinovich’s argument, not Boxer’s. A survey released earlier this year by the advocacy group Building America’s Future found that 81 percent of Americans would pay more in federal taxes to support infrastructure investments.

But the alignment of Boxer and Inhofe, as well as Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) — whose Finance Committee must agree on a revenue source for the next transportation bill — in favor of a clean 18-month extension is enough to doom the House effort to pass a bill this year.

Click here to read the entire story.

Voinovich: Business Buy-in Can Get a New Transportation Bill Done (Streetsblog)

Getting business interests to work on methods for funding a long-term transportation bill can help shift the political climate, he told Streetsblog Capitol Hill today after Senate environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) vowed to continue searching for revenue raisers that can pay for massive new legislation.

“Right now, the president is frankly worried about health care, climate change, a lot of other things [and may have said] ‘see, I don’t need another thing on my plate,'” Voinovich said.

But, he added, the White House would likely come around if the private sector — which has “been heretofore reluctant … to step up” — is willing to shoulder some of the extra tax burden needed to pay for increased infrastructure investment.

The senator suggested pushing for a transportation funding extension shorter than 18 months, “to put the pressure on to get this thing done by next year.” In response, Basso would say only that “we’re supportive of the Oberstar [House] bill moving forward.”

Click here to read the entire article.

Congressman Peter DeFazio: Make Wall Street A**holes Foot The Bill For Infrastructure (The Infrastructurist)

Politicians agree that we need to invest in our transportation infrastructure, but ask any of them how we should pay for it and you’re likely to endure an uncomfortable silence. The problem is so bad that it seems to have derailed the new transportation bill until 2011.

There is at least one guy willing to offer a serious proposal though. Instead of taxing drivers more at the pump, says Peter DeFazio, why not make those finance guys that we all hate so much pay for it?

Specifically, the Democratic congressman from Oregon wants to impose a small tax–0.02%–on oil futures contracts.

From his office: “A transaction tax on crude oil securities will close the gap in funding a twenty-first century transportation system while lowering the price of oil. This is a win/win,” DeFazio said. “If we put off this transportation authorization, we will push off needed reform. Every day we wait people will sit in traffic instead of spending time with their families, every day people are not as safe as they could be because of our crumbling infrastructure, every day our economy suffers when our products sit in traffic jams. My proposal will not cost consumers one cent but will substantially increase our investment in our transportation infrastructure.”

The only trick will be selling it. That shouldn’t be hard with the right name. “The Oil Speculator Tax,” perhaps?

*We’re using “Wall Street” generically here, btw — a lot of oil trading occurs on Chicago Mercantile

Click here to read the entire article.

Senator Boxer is Right: There is No Consensus in Congress on Funding (The Transport Politic)

Today at a hearing on the reauthorization of the transportation bill, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) made it quite clear that Congressman James Oberstar’s (D-MN) proposed legislation won’t make it through the Senate over the next few months. Ms. Boxer’s testimony indicated that she’d push for a no-changes “clean” extension of SAFETEA-LU over the next 18 months, as proposed by Secretary of Transportation of Ray LaHood. More serious reforms will have to wait. This means fewer than hoped for funds for transit and high-speed rail, as well as no substantive improvements in the manner in which federal dollars are distributed.

Congress’ problems are two fold: it has too many other projects on the near horizon and it has no consensus, even along partisan lines, on how to fund a major expansion in transportation funding. Today’s fuel tax, which provides the primary source of revenue for the Trust Fund, is out of cash and cannot fund the nation’s transportation needs alone. A relatively simple extension of SAFETEA-LU, bolstered by an infusion of general fund dollars into the Highway Trust Fund, is the easiest answer.

Mr. Oberstar has been adamant in his desire to push forward the next transportation bill now, but this hearing made clear that the Senate is not going to play along. Ms. Boxer is chair of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and her position will effectively block Mr. Oberstar’s bill even if that legislation passes in the House. Without the support of the White House, Mr. Oberstar is loosing ground. His inability to pinpoint a stable funding source is similarly problematic.

What hasn’t been suggested, but that which I will continue to bring up, is a simple abandonment of the idea that transportation must be sponsored by its “users.” We are all beneficiaries of a strong transportation network, and filling the Trust Fund mostly with general fund sources is a viable and long-term solution that would require none of the shenanigans that currently deteriorate efforts to raise the gas tax or impose a VMT. Whether now or in 18 months, we’re going to need something better than today’s non-proposals from Ms. Boxer.

Click here to read the entire article.

Transportation Bill Is Dead As A Doornail For 2009 Because Nobody Can Figure Out How To Pay For It (The Infrastructurist)

Over the past week or so, there has been a pretend drama in Washington about whether we’ll be getting a giant new transportation bill in 2009. The prospect is exiciting, of course, because in addition to $500 billion in loot that would be handed out, the bill would offers tantalizing opportunities for bureaucratic and policy reform.

On Monday, perhaps the most active and powerful Congressional player in these matters, Jim Oberstar, released his long-awaited draft version of the bill and, along with his committee-mates, vowed to push forward and get it passed into law by the end of September.

Oddly, that came on the heels of the Secretary of Transportation–a man who speaks for the president–requesting that it be kicked back to 2011 and that Congress craft an 18 month extension of the present legislation to cover the country’s needs in the meantime. Clash of the titans?

Now, at a hearing today in the Senate, Barbara Boxer pretty much closed the door on the idea the bill might happen this year. As chair of the Environment and Public Works committee, she would play a leading role in sheparding the bill through the upper house. And she’s saying unequivocally that the new bill will have to wait for 2011.

She gave a very clear reason: “It’s not because we [in the Senate] have a full plate”–dealing with healthcare, climate, and financial reforms–”it’s because we have no consensus on how to fund the new bill.”

“Oberstar wants to raise the gas tax,” she said, then noted it would have to go up by a dime just meet the current shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund. She took a spin through the math of how much it would have to go up to cover the new investment he proposed in the bill. And while she neither she or her witnesses stated an exact figure, it would probably be 25 cents or so more. (The tax now stands at 18 cents per gallon.)

Click here to read the entire article.

U.S. must boost gas tax, transportation expert says (Baltimore Sun)

The executive director of an influential group representing top transportation officials from around the country told a Greater Baltimore Committee summit Thursday that it is time for the United States to “grow up” and increase the federal tax on gasoline and other motor fuels.

John Horsley, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, warned that without new revenue, the U.S. transportation infrastructure faces a grim future.

“We’re in the soup,” Horsley warned the gathering of Baltimore business leaders, transportation officials and civic activists.

Horsley, whose organization represents state transportation secretaries and other top officials, noted that the 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax has remained level since the early 1990s and that the national highway trust fund is heading for depletion in August.

Horsley noted that two recent bipartisan commissions created by Congress concluded that federal fuel taxes must increase. One backed a rise of 25 to 40 cents; the other urged an increase of 10 cents a gallon on gasoline and 15 cents on diesel.

Those recommendations were opposed by the Bush administration, and President Barack Obama has ruled out any increase in gas taxes during the recession.

But Horsley said Thursday that a 10-cent increase in the gas tax amounts to “less than 60 bucks” a year for the typical driver.

Without new revenue, Horsley said, Congress must transfer $5 billion to $7 billion to replenish the highway trust fund during the current fiscal year or watch as road projects grind to a halt. He said $8 billion to $10 billion would be needed for the fiscal year that begins in October.

Obama and others have called for passage of an 18-month stopgap funding measure, saying that Congress has its plate full with health care, energy and other issues.

Click here to read the entire article.

Rep. John Mica on the transportation bill (PBS Blueprint America)

The proposed transportation bill calls for $450 billion in federal funding, which is a 57 percent increase over the $286.5 billion bill approved in 2005.

The following is an interview with Rep. John Mica (R., FL), ranking minority member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, about the recent developments of the transportation bill:

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: The current highway authorization expires at the end of September. So what exactly is expiring?

REP. JOHN MICA: Every six years Congress adopts a federal authorization for highways, which outlines transportation policy, projects, and funding distributions for the whole country.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Right now, however, the Obama Administration wants to delay authorization.

REP. MICA: We’re on the verge of a transportation meltdown. The Administration has proposed an 18-month extension of both the highway authorization bill and the highway trust fund. That will require, depending on how long it is extended, between $8 and $15 billion.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: But, typically, the transportation bill is not authorized every six years – it’s generally extended.

REP. MICA: Right. I think the last time we tried to authorize it we had 13 extensions.

BLUEPRINT AMERICA: Are you opposed to this 18-month extension by the Obama Administration?

REP. MICA: Well, I think that it would be better to go ahead with the transportation bill Rep. (Jim) Oberstar has introduced. We have been working on the bill for some time.

Still, I think we take that bill as the starter. The problem you’ve got with an 18-month extension is that it puts many of the major infrastructure projects on hold. The 18-month extension is a job killer. It gives you a temporary relief with the highway trust fund, but because you don’t have projects approved and policy and funding mechanisms in place for the future, it ends up killing jobs and delaying decisions on projects across the country. For example, there are 6, 800 project requests in the House bill alone – all of these would go on hold.

Click here to read the entire interview.

(Source: GAO)

The Highway Account within the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is the principal means for funding federal highway programs. Administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) within the Department of Transportation (DOT), it channels about $33 billion in highway user excise taxes annually to states for highway and related spending.

Estimated outlays from the Highway Account under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) exceeded estimated receipts throughout the authorization period—fiscal years 2005 through 2009. Furthermore, actual account receipts were lower than had been estimated and the account balance dropped more rapidly than anticipated, approaching zero in August, 2008. Congress subsequently approved legislation in September 2008 to appropriate $8 billion from the General Fund of the Treasury to replenish the account. Agency officials anticipate the account will reach a critical stage again before the end of fiscal year 2009, and estimate that about $15 billion will be needed to ensure account solvency through the end of fiscal year 2010.

This report summarizes GAO’s past work on:

• The collection and distribution process for the Highway Account of the HTF,
• Options for improving long-term sustainability of the HTF, and
• Mechanisms to help manage Highway Account solvency.

Image Courtesy: GAO

The collection and distribution of funds through the Highway Account is a complex process. Collection involves Treasury receiving excise taxes from business entities, estimating how much should be allocated to the Highway Account, and adjusting the estimated allocation several months later after actual tax receipts are certified. Distribution begins with a multi-year authorization act that provides contract authority and establishes annual funding levels.

DOT apportions the contract authority to the states and divides the funding level among federal highway programs and states. DOT then obligates funds for projects and reimburses states as projects are completed. Improving long-term sustainability is one of GAO’s key principles for restructuring existing transportation programs, and GAO has reported on options for improving sustainability:

• Improve the efficiency of current facilities,
• Alter existing sources of revenue,
• Ensure users are paying fully for benefits, and
• Supplement existing revenue sources, such as through enhanced private-sector participation.

Each of these options has different merits and challenges, and will likely involve trade-offs among different policy goals. Improving existing mechanisms intended to help maintain Highway Account solvency could help DOT better manage the account balance. For example, statutory mechanisms designed to make annual adjustments to the Highway Account have been so modified over time–particularly through changes in SAFETEA-LU–that they either are no longer relevant or are limited in effectiveness. Furthermore, monitoring indicators that could signal sudden changes in revenues could help DOT better anticipate changes in the account balance and communicate with stakeholders on the account’s status.

DOT is acting on recommendations GAO made in February, 2009 to help improve solvency mechanisms and communication with stakeholders.

Click here to download the entire report.

(Source: Times Online, UK)

At last, specialist cycle clothing that does not make me look like I am wearing fancy dress

Two types of bicycle clothing: (left) Bspoke Holborn men's cycling jacket and (right) the cycle suit tailored by Russell Howarth from Dashing Tweeds. Photograph: PR (Image via Times Online, UK)

Cyclists world over had the problem with finding comfortable clothes that don’t make you look like an alien of a figure hugging ballerina and now the good folks at Transport for London have finally decided to take matters into their own hands.  An article by Peter Robins, that appeard on the TIMES UK-Ethical Living blog discussed this new solution offered by the Brits.  Here I present you some key sections of this wonderful article:

“Boris Johnson has made me a jacket. Or possibly it was Ken Livingstone. Whichever it was, they also made me some trousers, and one of those half-zipped semi-cardigan whatsits – I have yet to actually try those. Truly, if you want to understand the politics, in several senses, of what to wear on a bicycle these days, there are few better starting points than the Bspoke clothing range.

The Bspoke range, supported and to some extent pushed into existence by Transport for London, is designed to look like normal clothing while behaving like specialist cycle clothing. That’s not a need you might normally expect to concern a branch of the government, but it is a real need.

Cycling is not kind to normal clothes. Chains and saddles can do very bad things to trousers – wheels, I’m told, can do even worse things to skirts – and pedals have a way of hammering soles. Although a standard-paced pootle is not nearly as strenuous as non-cyclists might think, a hot day or a dash to an appointment can quickly fill a shirt with sweat. While you may need rain protection, you also need peripheral vision, so anything with a hood becomes an encumbrance.

On the other hand, cycling clothes are not kind to normal humans. All that close fitting – even if you avoid Lycra – and all those violent high-visibility colours will make you look, at best, like a Star Trek version of a building contractor. The cuts, in many cases, only seem entirely natural when you are hunched and pumping. Pockets, where they occur at all, are in weird places and either constricted or sack-like. What’s more, conspicuous cycle clothes turn you into an unambiguous, single-purposed cyclist, impossible for a passer-by or an irritated lorry driver to picture in any more sympathetic context.

All that could be tolerable for sport or leisure biking somewhere quiet, but not so much on a city street, and not if you’re going into an office – in the case of some designs, not even if you’re walking through an office to find somewhere to change. Not, in other words, if you want to incorporate a bike into your life as a regular mode of transport. And that is the point at which it becomes clear why TfL should have become interested in making jackets.

TfL, of course, is not the only organisation trying to liberate cyclists from Lycra; it has become quite a fashionable exercise. Many of the best publicised efforts, however –Dashing Tweeds’ designs, the Tweed Run, Rapha’s bewildering £3,500 men’s bicycle suit – draw on cycling’s turn-of-last-century heritage to self-consciously spectacular effect. They reject a 1960s sci-fi costume for a steampunk one. Dressing up as an Edwardian ninja, or for that matter as a bicycle messenger, does not strike me as being profoundly different from dressing up as part of the peloton. True, the clothes are not so repulsively unflattering, but it still feels like fancy dress. I don’t want to be in fancy dress.

Click here to read the entire article.  Oh, and don’t forget to register your comments after reading.

TransportGooru Musings: My exploration into the TfL website for information on Bspoke found the following: “bspoke is a versatile clothing collection that performs within an urban environment and yet has a timeless fashion for day/work wear.  Supported by Transport for London’s bike to work programme the bspoke team has designed two separate year round collections for men and women. Clothes combine performance fabrics with innovative detailing to make sure your daily commute is a safe and comfortable one.  However it is the attention to contemporary styling and silhouettes’ that makes bspoke unique amongst other leisure or sporting specific clothing.”

Hmm..Though I am not sure whether our American parliamentarians (rather Congressmen – for those who don’t know what the term Parliament means) would give some money to the USDOT for designing some sleek clothing for bikers in the upcoming transportation reauthorization bill,  I am positive that some of them avid bikers (like Rep. Oberstar & Rep. Bleumenauer) wouldn’t mind sporting such a sleek clothing line while biking around the US Capitol Building, sending a strong(but expensive) message promoting bicycling.  Now, that would be worth spending!

(Source:  New York Times – Wheels Blog)

There has been a lot of talk this year about American cars. Bailout money has gone to companies with the goal of preserving the jobs of Americans who make American cars. Legislators have debated cash-for-clunker bills that would provide incentives for buying new American cars. Foreign investments have been scrutinized to see whether they would further the goal of producing more American cars.

So what’s an American car?

In today’s economy, propped up by global investments and free-trade zones, it isn’t so easy to tell. As Cheryl Jensen points out in her introduction to ournew interactive resource detailing where cars and trucks are made in North America, “Which is the more American product, a Honda Accord built by Ohioans for a company with its headquarters in Japan, or a Ford Fusion built in Mexico for a corporation that is based in Michigan?”

Indeed, under the North American Free Trade Agreement, vehicles built in Canada and Mexico can be considered “domestic.” So don’t tell your flag-waving super-patriot neighbor that his Chevy Impala, the one with the “Buy American” bumper sticker, came from Ontario.

To help cut through some of this confusion, we’ve put together an interactive map that lists every model built in the United States (with separate lists for Canada and Mexico). If you click the model name, you’ll see where it was assembled, whether that plant is unionized and whether the engines and transmissions are from the U.S. as well.

This information, gathered by Ms. Jensen, is up to date as of this weekend, but will of course be changing as automakers like G.M. close more plants, eliminate some models and shift production around. The Times will work to keep this resource up to date in the coming months.

If you’ve ever wondered where that car came from, now you can know.

Click here to read the entire article.

July 29, 2009

8:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.

Embassy Suites DC Convetion Center

900 10th Street NW

Washington, DC 20011

Register HERE for this Forum

On July 29, 2009, at the Embassy Suites DC Convention Center, Washington, DC, The Infrastructure Security Partnership (TISP) hosts its Summer Forum on Enhancing Infrastructure Resilience through Planned Investment Strategies with a focus on the Transportation and Energy CI/KR Sectors. Resilience is more than a buzzword used to describe the strength of community. When considering the subject of infrastructure protection, we ignore many other crucial aspects of securing the nation and its critical infrastructure. Infrastructure resilience addresses the development and implementation of exercised measures and policies to reduce the disaster and devastation impacts of all types of hazards to manageable effects that can be quickly overcome. Investment strategies that take into consideration the reduction of risk, stabilization of the work force, improved efficiencies (such as improvements to the road and rail transportation system that result in faster cargo supply chains), redundancy, business continuity and quick recovery from a catastrophic event will realize significant returns to stakeholders and investors. Infrastructure operations, safety, maintenance, protection and resiliency are so closely intertwined in today’s world that they must all be part of any investment strategy if it is to be cost-effective and long-lasting.

Facilitating public and private sector discourse regarding investment strategies for infrastructure resilience is essential to the TISP mission to lead collaborative effort that advances the practice and policies of infrastructure security and resiliency. We will bring together decision makers, policy analysts, and experts in transportation and energy infrastructure resilience and planning. This forum is designed to encourage audience participation, with a morning discussion of cross-sector topics and with two afternoon breakout sessions (one for transportation and the other for energy sectors).

The issues and recommendations identified by the Forum will be documented and distributed via a summary report to of all participating organizations and an article published in the TISP e-Newsletter and shared with infrastructure resilience stakeholders.

Registration Rates

TISP Dues-paying Members: $75.00

Public Agency Rate: $75.00

TISP Partners (non-paying members): $100.00

Hotel Location and Directions

Embassy Suites DC Convention Center

900 10th Street NW

Washington, DC 20011

202-719-1423

Map and Directions

Register HERE for this Event.

For more information about TISP and this Forum, contact Mr. Bill Anderson, 703-549-3800 Ext 170. For assistance in registering for this Forum contact Carie Losinski, SAME Online Registration Specialist, at 703-549-3800, Ext. 154.

(Source: Autoblog, Washington Post,  Detroit Free Press, AFP via Google)

Image Courtesy: Jalopnik

Clears Senate

After narrowly surviving an attempt by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. to strip it from a war-spending bill, the Cash for Clunkers program passed the Senate yesterday evening. Well, the $106 billion war-spending bill passed the Senate on a 91-5 vote, but the $1 billion scrapping program earlier survived Sen. Gregg’s attempt to have it removed and thus passed, as well. Now the bill makes its way to President Obama, who is expected to sign the bill into law, after which the U.S. Transportation Department reportedly has one month to figure out how the Cash for Clunkers program will be run. Since Congress reduced funding for the program from $4 billion to just $1 billion, it’s expected that the money will run out long before the program is scheduled to end on November 1.

“We are gratified that the Congress delivered on this administration priority, and President Obama looks forward to signing it into law,” according to an administration statement.

Details, Details, Details,

Vehicles purchased after July 1 will be eligible for the refund vouchers worth as much as $4,500 to turn in gas guzzlers and buy new cars that are more fuel efficient.

The agency in charge of administering the program, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, will work out all the details within 30 days of enactment, according to Rae Tyson, spokesman for NHTSA.

Congress predicts this will result in the sale of about 250,000 new vehicles. The funding is good only until Nov. 1 and could run out before that. In that case, the voucher pro gram — unless Congress ap propriates more — would end.

Consumers would be able to start using the vouchers as soon as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finalizes the rules — a process that must conclude within 30 days of the president’s approval.

Under the program, trade-in vehicles, 1984 models or newer, must have average fuel economy of no more than 18 miles per gallon. And the new car or truck must get better gas mileage than the one that was scrapped.

The payoff grows depending on the difference in the fuel efficiencies of the old and new cars. For instance, a new car getting at least 4 more miles per gallon than the old car will be eligible for a $3,500 voucher. A new car getting at least 10 more miles per gallon would get a $4,500 voucher.

To guarantee vehicles are actually roadworthy — and not just sitting on cinder blocks — trade-ins must be registered and insured to the same owner for at least a year.

Kudos & Pats in the Backs

Image Courtesy: Apture

Cash for clunkers proponents in Congress said the subsidies will spur sales.”The simple fact is that we need to get Americans into car showrooms and this is the bill that will do it,” said Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., in a statement.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said the program will boost jobs in auto states. “This program will provide an economic stimulus at a time when hardworking families need it most,” Stabenow said in a statement.

GM said it had decided to keep 60 of the more than 1,000 dealers with whom it had sought to terminate agreements. The reversals were made after the automaker corrected financial information that was used to evaluate which stores to keep.  Dealers applauded the Senate’s action yesterday, and some got additional good news.  John McEleney, chairman of the National Automobile Dealers Association, hailed the measure, saying it “will boost consumer confidence, get the economy going again and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Congress is giving consumers a strong incentive to replace their older vehicles with new, more fuel efficient cars and trucks.”

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said “The program is an important step forward for America. “It provides incentives for consumers to buy new, more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, providing a boost to the auto industry and protecting jobs, while limiting fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions.”

The legislation comes with number-one US automaker General Motors in bankruptcy and Chrysler emerging from court protection under a government-backed alliance with Italy’s Fiat in the face of plunging auto sales.

Cash for Clunkers Update from Europe (Channel 4 via Autobloggreen)

Several other countries, such as China and Italy, have offered similar trade-in vouchers. And lawmakers point to the success of Germany’s program as indication that vouchers can turn dismal auto sales around.  At the end of the program’s first month, sales in Germany were up 21 percent from a year before. During the same period, U.S. sales slumped 41 percent. Now,  a leading provider of automotive data and intelligence says the European motor industry is showing signs of recovery following the introduction of scrappage schemes on the continent.  According to a new study by Jato Dynamics, the European automotive market may be rebounding ever so slightly from its alarming lows of early 2009.

Though new car purchases are down by just over 13 percent year-on-year, there was actually a mild 2.4 percent improvement in May over April. The German market is now 39.7% up on May 2008 – a 20.3% improvement over last month’s figures. France, meanwhile, is up 11.8% over the figures for April.  “If Germany provides a template for the other markets where scrappage schemes have been introduced, we may be at the very beginning of a period of recovery in Europe. It’s far too early to know what the sustained effects of the incentives will be, but at a time when the industry needs to see some rays of hope, it’s encouraging to witness some improvement ” says David Di Girolamo, Head of Jato Consult. Interestingly, small, fuel efficient hatchbacks are performing better than the rest of the market, which is thought to be due to the various scrapping schemes in Europe.

The US market has steadied somewhat from lows earlier this year but the sales pace in May remained 33.7 percent below that of one year ago.  Let’s hope the American consumers will follow their European counterparts in boosting the vehicle market> Eeven if it is only a liitle, the market can use any push to build its recovery.

(Source: Washington Post & Reuters)

General Motors executives will now fly commercial.

Image Courtesy: Autoblog

In a move that reflects the leaner company GM is seeking to become, the automaker on Thursday sought approval from a federal bankruptcy judge to terminate leases for all seven of its corporate aircraft, plus a hangar at a Detroit airport. Facing no objections, Judge Robert Gerber granted the request during a hearing in a Lower Manhattan courtroom that lasted less than 10 minutes.

“The new GM will have no jets — we’re all flying Delta,” GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson said in an interview.

The planes are leased from a division of General Electric and include five mid-range Gulfstream G350 business jets and two ultra-long Gulfstream GV jets, according to court documents.

Then-GM chief executive G. Richard Wagoner Jr. had been assailed by lawmakers at a hearing in November when he and other auto executives flew to Washington on private jets to ask for government funds. In March, Wagoner was pushed out by the Obama administration, which has pumped billions of dollars into GM and Chrysler.

In a recent court filing, GM said it was exercising “sound business judgment” in seeking to end the contracts. “The leases are not necessary or valuable to [GM’s] business activities,” the automaker said in the filing.

Corporate America has long argued that using private jets is a safety precaution and a way to maximize busy executives’ time by allowing them to avoid delays at crowded airports.

Chrysler also recently terminated its two aircraft leases. A spokesman for Ford, the only one of the Big Three Detroit automakers that hasn’t taken taxpayer funds, said the company is seeking to sell its five jets, which have been grounded since late last year. Ford’s chairman and chief executive have been chartering flights on an as-needed basis, the company said.

Click here to read the entire article.

Kingfisher Airlines of India promised passengers the royal treatment — flight attendants so comely they were called “flying models,” full meals even on short flights and curbside valets to carry their bags.

Image Courtesy: Apture - Kingfisher's Vijay Mallya

But how the mighty have fallen.

Short of cash and unable to pay its bills, the company has had to take on debt from India’s government-owned banks, pledge assets in exchange for loan guarantees, postpone delivery of new planes and search for a foreign investor.   Most symbolic, perhaps, instead of starting nonstop flights from India to California — as envisioned by the company’s flamboyant founder, Vijay Mallya — the airline last added a route from Calcutta to Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh.

Known as the “King of Good Times,” Mr. Mallya pursues a lavish lifestyle that includes a collection of hundreds of sports cars and a villa on the French Riviera. He built Kingfisher as a “premium” airline and, when passenger numbers were growing, placed big orders for planes, including five of the A380 superjumbo jets from Airbus, even though Kingfisher had never turned a profit.

Kingfisher lost 10.5 billion rupees, or $219 million, in the nine months that ended in December, the most recent figures available. India’s other large private airline, Jet Airways, reported a slight profit for the first quarter of this year, in part because of one-time tax credits. Kingfisher still owes $100 million to oil companies for jet fuel it bought in 2008, Mr. Mallya said. Those payments will be made by November.

Sorry State of India’s Aviation Business

Airlines around the world are suffering as businesses and individuals cut back on travel, but in India, by some measures, they are suffering more. And analysts say that in the months to come, Kingfisher, one of India’s top domestic carriers and one of the country’s most recognized brands, may be in for more pain than any other airline here.

Kingfisher’s troubles present a cautionary tale for investors and suppliers eager to do business in one of the few major economies still experiencing significant growth. Even as incomes and consumption continue to rise in India, success is not guaranteed — nor is a smooth ride.

Of the $9 billion that the International Air Transport Association estimates the global airline industry will lose in 2009, nearly a quarter will be lost by Indian airlines, which fly just 2 percent of the world’s passengers.

For India’s private airlines, “the next six to nine months are about survival,” said Kapil Arora, a partner with Ernst & Young’s aviation practice. To make it, they will have to cut costs relentlessly in marketing, technology and payroll, he said.

Even that may not be enough. After resisting for years, the Indian government is considering letting foreign airlines take a 25 percent stake in Indian carriers. But the rest of the world’s airlines are short of cash as well. “It’s going to take active government involvement” to keep India’s airlines in business, Mr. Arora said.

Image Courtesy: Extra Mirchi - A Kingfisher Promise

In an e-mail interview, Mr. Mallya brushed off suggestions that the company was struggling for survival. It will turn a profit in the next fiscal year, he said, and a $500 million loan, recently arranged by the State Bank of India and sold to an alliance of banks, is sufficient to keep the company going this year.

If that’s not enough, Mallya wants to proceed with his fleet expansion plans. Miranda Mills, vice president at Airbus, said the manufacturer had been in regular conversation with its Indian customers and was not worried about any of Kingfisher’s orders, including those for the A380.  “We work a long-term game,” Ms. Mills said. In the airline business, companies do not place an “order for the next year or two and then change your business model totally,” she said.

Unfortunately, that is just what the Indian government is encouraging airlines to do. “Individual customers have been thoroughly pampered all these years,” Praful Patel, the Indian civil aviation minister, said. Airlines need to redefine their business model, he said, and emulate no-frills carriers that are close to breaking even, like IndiGo and SpiceJet.

Indian airlines grew too much, too quickly during the recent boom, analysts say. At its zenith, the industry was adding six planes a month, when there was demand for only half that number, according to the New Delhi office of the Center for Asia Pacific Aviation, a consulting and research firm. To gain market share and attract customers who may never have flown before, airlines were pricing tickets way below cost.

Adding to their problems, Jet and Kingfisher made expensive acquisitions in 2007 — Jet Airways bought Air Sahara and Kingfisher Airlines bought Air Deccan. Analysts say that the airlines paid too much for the acquisitions and have taken too long to absorb the operations they acquired.

Next, surging fuel prices forced up ticket prices just as the global slowdown cut business and leisure travel. To make things worse, Indian airlines face much higher fixed costs than carriers in many other countries, like fuel taxes that can be five times the global average.

In India, “the big boys today have huge debts, massive fleets, are confronted with a marked slowdown in domestic and on the international side,” said Kapil Kaul, chief executive for the Center for Asia Pacific Aviation in India. And, he said, “there are virtually no funds available.”

While Mr. Patel, the civil aviation minister, would not comment on individual airlines, he did say that the government would not block further consolidation or prevent a carrier from closing. Many airlines should have been better prepared, he added. “Some of these guys in the best days didn’t go big time to the markets and raise money,” he said.

But the latest Indian Government statistics show the country’s domestic passenger market shrunk 11% in May. The civil aviation minstry statement says India’s airlines carried 3.9 million passengers, up from 3.3 million passengers carried in April.  Kingfisher retained the number one position it assumed in April, carrying 1 million passengers for 26% marketshare. Characteristically, Mr. Mallya is undeterred. Kingfisher Airlines “enjoys business from both” low-fare and premium passengers, he said, “which is one of the reasons why Kingfisher Airlines flew more than a million passengers in May 2009.”  But recent attritition of the top management team indicate there maybe some cause for concern.  Ramki Sundaram, executive vice-president at Kingfisher Airlines Ltd and former chief executive officer of Deccan Aviation Ltd, has resigned. Sundaram has been an investment banker in the aviation industry for at least a decade. He was instrumental in structuring aircraft sales and lease-back deals for Deccan Aviation, which ran Air Deccan, the country’s first low-fare airline, till it was acquired by and later merged with Kingfisher Airlines. Kingfisher Airlines’ vice-president, operations, D.D. Gandhi, one of the carrier’s first employees, left the company earlier in June.  Gandhi had joined Kingfisher in 2005 after a year with Deccan Aviation to head the airline’s domestic and international expansion.

To stem the tide, last week, Kingfisher hiked its fuel surcharge on tickets by 400 rupees across both long and short haul domestic routes. The company is reportedly looking to rollover around Rs 800 crore of its short term debt. It is also learnt to be finalizing the paper work for borrowing an additional Rs 1,500 crore from Indian public sector banks.  Kingfisher has also started exploring other ways to increase the traffic on its network. As of June 1, Kingfisher joined the Global Explorer, which features all members of the oneworld® alliance and some selected other airlines, which offers round-the-world fares. Members of oneworld alliance and some other non-member airlines which are part of the Global Explorer programme will now be able to offer fares for the Indian domestic network. Members of oneworld alliance serve five points in India but the addition of Kingfisher Airlines’ domestic network from today expands that to a further 62 getaways across the country. This is the first time an Indian domestic network is being offered for round-the-world fare programme.

(Source: New York Times, LiveMint.com, TravelbizMonitor)