(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: Yonah Freemark @ The Transport Politic)

Projects in Georgia, Pennsylvania get millions; Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and Baltimore still waiting to hear.

Image Courtesy: Yonah Freemark @ The Transport Politic

One clear demonstration of the United States’ lack of coherent national transportation policy objectives is its approach to funding magnetic levitation train projects. Rather than making a decision about what to fund, the Congress occasionally appropriates a relatively small pot of money, then the DOT distributes cash for planning studies. Nothing ever gets off the ground.  That, at least, is how it has worked since 1999, when the DOT first awarded $12 million in planning funds to seven proposed projects in California, Nevada, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. By 2001, the agency announced it would pick either a line between Baltimore and Washington or one connecting Pittsburgh and its suburbs for almost $1 billion in construction dollars, eventually deciding on the latter. By 2005, however, all funds had been cut off by an uncommitted congress, despite the fact that $62 million had already been distributed; meanwhile, states and municipalities had contributed virtually nothing to the projects. Maglev seemed dead.

The news this month that Atlanta and Pittsburgh have received more planning funds — $14 million for the former and $28 million for the latter — and that other projects funded back in 1999 may once again get appropriations in the coming days seems like a continuation of this destructive cycle. If so, these dollars are nothing more than a waste of money, because there is little chance that funds for actual construction will ever appear. Yet the Congress devoted $90 million maglev two years ago, knowing that actually getting big-budget funds for the projects’ completion from Washington would be almost impossible. Nor has there ever been a concerted effort by either Congress or the Department of Transportation to show why maglev projects should be funded at all.

Click here to read the entire article.

(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: New York Times; Mail Online; Heavy Lift)

For hundreds of years, mariners have dreamed of an Arctic shortcut that would allow them to speed trade between Asia and the West. Two German ships are poised to complete that transit for the first time, aided by the retreat of Arctic ice that scientists have linked to global warming.

The ships started their voyage in South Korea in late July and will begin the last leg of the trip this week, leaving a Siberian port for Rotterdam in the Netherlands carrying 3,500 tons of construction materials.

Russian ships have long moved goods along the country’s sprawling Arctic coastline. And two tankers, one Finnish and the other Latvian, hauled fuel between Russian ports using the route, which is variously called the Northern Sea Route or the Northeast Passage.

But commercial ships have always been thwarted by the dangerous pack ice, as have those attempting the more famous Northwest Passage between the Atlantic and the Pacific over the top of Canada.   The Northeast Passage has been frozen solid for centuries, but as global warming pushed back the ice, Russia made repeated attempts to get ships through in the last 20 years.

The Bremen-based project and heavy lift shipping company, Beluga Shipping,succeeded in sending two merchant vessels – Beluga Fraternity and Beluga Foresight –  through the formerly impenetrable Northeast Passage from Asia to Europe.

Image Courtesy: New York Times via Mail Online - The fabled Northeast Passage

Both vessels had set sail in July from Ulsan in South Korea, to enter the Northern Sea Route via the inspection point at Vladivostok in order to deliver their project cargoes further into the region than any other merchant vessel had been able to do before. Now, 44 cargo modules with single weights of 200 tons or more have been discharged offshore onto barges using the ship’s onboard cranes for on-transport to Surgut.

The two ships will now head to Rotterdam via Murmansk to unload the remaining 3,500 freight tons of construction parts packed in wooden boxes.

During the passage through the East Siberian Sea, the Sannikov Strait and the Vilkizki Strait, the Beluga vessels followed in a little convoy behind Russian Atomflot-ice breakers 50 Let Pobedy and Rossia. Small icebergs, icefields and iceblocks were safely negotiated.

Lawson W. Brigham, a professor of geography at the University of Fairbanks who led the writing of an international report on Arctic commerce, the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, confirmed that the passage of the two German ships appeared to be the first true commercial transit of the entire Northeast Passage from Asia to the West.

He credited Beluga for taking on both the summertime Arctic waters, which still pose threats despite the recent sea-ice retreats, and Russian red tape, a maze of permits and regulations.  “This may be as much of a test run for the bureaucracy as for the ice,” said Dr. Brigham, an oceanographer who is a former Coast Guard icebreaker captain.

(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.

(Source: Times of India; Bloomberg)

Image Courtesy: Apture

India exported a total of 2,30,000 cars, vans, SUVs and trucks between January and July 2009, a growth of 18% even as China’s exports tumbled 60% in the same period to 1,65,000 units.

The Indian domestic market may be just 19% of China’s — which has overtaken the US to become the world’s largest — but the ‘Made In India’ tag, especially on small cars, has clearly acquired a global cachet, helping auto exports grow even as other countries suffered a slump.

Industry experts pointed out that India scores due to its liberal investment policies and high quality manufacturing which stems from its growing prowess in research and development.

India’s biggest advantage is its edge in small cars and the way companies — including global giants — are using the market for selling, as well as developing, new compact models.

Suzuki Motor Corp.,Hyundai Motor Co., and Nissan Motor Co. are making India a hub for overseas sales of minicars as incentives lift demand for smaller, fuel-efficient autos. Helped by cheaper labor and a surging local market, India this year overtook China in auto exports and is challenging Thailand and South Korea as an alternative production center in Asia.

“There is a worldwide shift toward fuel-efficient, compact cars,” said Jayesh Shroff, who helps manage about $7 billion of assets including carmaker shares at SBI Asset Management Co. in Mumbai. “This offers a huge potential for India and it can emerge as a leader in the small car segment.”

“There is a worldwide shift toward fuel-efficient, compact cars,” said Jayesh Shroff, who helps manage about $7 billion of assets including carmaker shares at SBI Asset Management Co. in Mumbai. “This offers a huge potential for India and it can emerge as a leader in the small car segment.”

In contrast, China’s exports slumped 60 percent to 164,800 between January and July, according to government data. Vehicles produced in Thailand for export declined 43 percent to 263,768, according to the Thai Automotive Club.

Besides the attraction of serving a market where three of four cars bought are compacts, automakers will favor India to set up an export base as China requires companies to form local joint ventures and India doesn’t, said Ashvin Chotai, London- based managing director of Intelligence Automotive Asia Ltd.

Small cars will account for 95 percent of the 690,000 passenger vehicles India will export in 2015, according to Tim Armstrong, Paris-based director of IHS Global Insight Inc. In 2016, India may share the top slot with Japan as the world’s biggest small car producer, building as many as 3 million units.

Indian labor costs are about 10 percent of that in the U.S. and Europe and raw material costs in the nation are lower by 11 percent, according to Puneet Gupta, an analyst at CSM Worldwide Inc., an industry consultant. Developing a car from the design stage in India may take $225 million to $250 million, while in Europe it may be $400 million.

Click here to read more.

(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.