(Source: Washington Examiner)

• Region encompasses Washington, DC; Northern Virginia; and Suburban Maryland — an area 6,000 square miles (15,500 square kilometres)

• The 4th largest population in the United States (6 million people); population expected to grow by 1/2 million by 2010

• Gross regional product (GRP) of $342 billion — 4th largest in the nation

• Led the United States in job growth over past 5 years — 270,000 jobs added from 2000 to 2005

• But still has a Metro system that does not allow for ubiquitous communications.

Metro riders will still hear silence on their phones even when Metro extends cell phone service in its underground rail system later this year.   

The transit agency plans to expand cell phone service to include more carriers in the 20 busiest rail stations by the fall — but it won’t extend into the adjacent subway tunnels yet. And it could remain a patchwork of service for up to three more years.

“We’re going to have a lot of very frustrated customers if they are going to be getting and losing signals going in and out of stations,” warned Peter Benjamin, a Metro board member who represents Maryland.

The problem stems partly from the requirement that forces the agency to add the service. In exchange for $1.5 billion in dedicated federal funding that Congress authorized last year, Metro is required to have cell phone service in the 20 busiest stations by October, then have it in all 47 underground stations by October 2010. Service throughout the entire system wouldn’t need to be finished until October 2012.

Metro’s board of directors agreed earlier in the spring to negotiate a $40 million contract with national carriers Sprint Nextel, AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless to fulfill the requirement.

(Source: Wheels Blog – New York Times)

There are bad work commutes. Then there are blood-boiling commutes that need to be vividly rehashed to unwitting co-workers, friends, anyone. Now there’s another option: The Washington-based nonprofit groupTransportation for America has launchedthis Web site as a home base for people who want (or need) to vent about their miserable trips to and from work.

(Source: USA Today & Image: Jalopnik)

As the American lawmakers are getting ready to pass the landmark “cash for clunkers” legislation, many of you are still left wondering what this legislation entails and how it will affect you.  The media chatter in the past has offered very little except that the legislation would provide federal vouchers of up to $4,500 for people to trade in their older vehicles for new ones that get better mileage.

Talk of the vouchers has kept some would-be new car and truck buyers on the sidelines, waiting to see whether they’d qualify for government help. So, for the moment, the idea is hurting sales. Based on interviews with lobbyists and congressional offices, the USA Today captured the details of this legislation in a nice Q & A format:

Image: Newsday

Q: What’s the idea behind “cash-for-clunkers”?

A: Supporters say it would replace older vehicles with new ones that use less fuel, are safer and pollute less. And it would give the struggling auto industry a sales boost.

Q: What’s the bill’s status?

A: It’s in a House committee and backed by the president. Senators from both parties are prepared to co-sponsor similar legislation as soon as this week.

Q: Sounds like a sure thing.

A: Not so. Environmental lobbyists, who don’t think it boosts fuel economy enough, might derail it or get it changed enough in the Senate that a compromise would take awhile.

Q: Any groups trying to keep it from being derailed?

A: You bet. Car companies, autoworkers, component suppliers and car dealers, among them. The House bill “will help jump-start auto sales and the U.S. economy, while also providing environmental benefits and increasing energy security,” says Ziad Ojakli, Ford Motor spokesman.

Q: What’s the price tag?

A: About $4 billion. The money is currently proposed to come from Energy Department funding included in the already enacted $787 billion economic stimulus package.

Q: If the House bill becomes law, how would it work?

A: The government would send up to $4,500 to the selling dealer on your behalf, if you:

1. Trade in a car that — this is a key point — has been registered and in use for at least a year, and has a federal combined city/highway fuel-economy rating of 18 or fewer miles per gallon.

2. Buy a new car, priced at $45,000 or less and rated at least 4 mpg better than the old one (gets a $3,500 voucher). If the new one gets at least 10 mpg better, you get the full $4,500.

Example: Trade that well-worn 1985 Chevrolet Impala V-8, rated 14 mpg, for a 2009 Impala V-8 rated 19 mpg and the government will kick in $3,500. Downsize to Chevy Cobalt (27 mpg) or even a larger Honda Accord (24 mpg) and get $4,500.

Mileage ratings back to 1985 are at www.fueleconomy.gov.

Q: What about trucks?

A: It’s more complicated.

For standard-duty models — most SUVs, vans and pickups:

1. The old one must be rated 18 mpg or less.

2. The new one must be at least 2 mpg better for $3,500 or at least 5 mpg better for $4,500.

For heavy-duties (6,000 to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating):

1. The old one must be rated 15 mpg or less.

2. The new one must be rated at least 1 mpg better for $3,500, or 2 mpg or more for $4,500.

Work trucks (8,500 to 10,000 lbs.) don’t have mpg ratings, so age is the criteria. The old one has to be a 2001 model or older. And only $3,500 is available.

Q: Is it worth it for $4,500?

A: The assumption is that the people most likely to use the program would trade in cars worth less than $4,500. Thus, while not necessarily clunkers, most would be at least 8 years old.

Q: Can I combine these incentives with other offers?

A: Yes. For instance, you could trade for a hybrid and get the voucher, claim the hybrid tax credit and get dealer or manufacturer discounts. You also could deduct the sales tax, if any, on your next federal tax return.

Q: Would I ever see the $3,500 or $4,500?

A: No. It’s an electronic transfer from the government to the dealer. Dealers want to be sure the amount can be counted as cash from the buyer, which would help buyers get credit because they’re financing less.

Q: What does the dealer do with my trade-in?

A: Gives it to a salvage operator. The engine, transmission and some other parts must be destroyed so they can’t be reused. The idea is to cull fuel-thirsty, polluting drivetrains. Operators can resell other parts, however.

Q: What’s to keep me from buying a junkyard car for a few hundred bucks, getting it barely running and trading it?

A: The one-year-in-service requirement noted earlier. Lawmakers wanted to exclude the revival of so-called junkyard dogs, because they’ve already been taken off the road.

Q: What do I get if I recently bought a car that would have qualified?

A: The bill contemplates making the incentives retroactive to March 30, but it’s unclear how to find and junk cars that were traded in that long ago. Some might already be back on the road, driven by new owners.

Q: What’s wrong with environmentalists’ idea that the new car or truck should get much better fuel economy than the House bill currently requires?

A: Opponents say the environmentalists’ fuel-economy improvement thresholds are so high that foreign brands benefit disproportionately, because their lineups tend now to have more small, fuel-efficient vehicles.

But the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy complained in a statement criticizing the House bill that the proposal as it stands now is way too lenient.

The council charged that the bill “aims primarily to clear Detroit’s unsold inventory from the storage lots,” rather than to seriously cut fuel use.

Q: How soon could this become law?

A: Depends on how much critics can sway the Senate, and to what piece of legislation this “fleet modernization” bill is attached.

If it becomes part of a larger bill that’s likely to get lots of debate, it could take awhile. If it’s attached to urgent, must-pass legislation, such as an appropriation bill, it could move quickly to the president’s desk.

A current plan is to add the program as an amendment to climate change legislation now being considered.

As proposed, it would be in effect for just one year.

(Source: Detroit Free Press & Image: Jalopnik)

WASHINGTON — Congress appeared ready Wednesday to move forward on a bill to pay people to surrender their old gas-guzzlers for new, fuel-efficient models — but the auto industry hasn’t decided what it wants out of the program.

While backers of a cash-for-clunkers plan announced a deal earlier this month, the final bill has yet to be crafted because of a last-minute dispute between foreign and domestic automakers over incentives for leasing. Environmental groups aren’t thrilled with the compromise, saying it is weighted too heavily toward truck buyers.

But with House and Senate leaders, along with President Barack Obama, voicing support, industry officials say they are hopeful a bill that will boost a lethargic market for new vehicles will get through Congress in weeks. Backers say the compromise would cost about $4 billion — paid for by money from the economic stimulus plan passed earlier this year — and could boost sales by 1.3 million vehicles over a year, according to industry officials.

Owners of cars and trucks that get less than 18 m.p.g. could get a voucher of $3,500 to $4,500 for a new vehicle, depending on the mileage of the new model, but no trade-in value because the vehicles would be scrapped.

“This is a jobs bill that helps the environment,” said Ziad Ojakli, Ford’s group vice president for governmental affairs.

The plan does have several hurdles that will keep some potential buyers on the sidelines. The clunker being traded in has to be kept off the road — meaning it will have no trade-in value beyond the voucher. Far more trucks on the road will qualify for the vouchers than cars: even 15 years ago, only five models of midsize sedans managed just 18 m.p.g.

And while the compromise among U.S. House members was unveiled earlier this month, the actual bill will be kept under wraps until it is introduced with the House Democrats’ plan to control carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade system, expected no later than Monday.

Although cash-for-clunkers programs in other nations have been motivated by environmental goals to improve the mileage of vehicles on the road, environmental groups are lukewarm about the U.S. compromise.

(Source: BBC)

The need for speed is not normally a selling point for commuters who buy electric vehicles. But it could be.

And you better believe it – this bike moves.

“You can accelerate faster than any car,” says Neal Saiki, who invented the electric motorcycle.

“You’ve got all kinds of power, and it is totally quiet. I think it is a lot like flying.”

Image Courtesy: The Motor Report

A gentle turn of the throttle and the force of the lithium-ion battery pack is transferred directly to the back wheel, sending the bike rocketing down London’s Kings Road.

The experience is vastly different from the ride of a conventional bike. There is no clutch and no need to change gears. Turning the throttle instantly delivers powerful torque, along with just enough chain rattle to remind you that this is still a motorcycle.

Change the software settings, explains Mr Saiki, founder and chief technology officer of Zero Motorcycles, and the bike will deliver zero to 50mph in just five seconds.  While still at college in California, he designed the world’s first helicopter powered by a human.

The invention eventually helped him become a designer of “high altitude research vehicles” for US space agency Nasa, a job he left to start building motorcycles.

“What we’ve done here is to combine the world’s smallest, lightest battery pack with a revolutionary 28 pound (12 kilogramme) frame,” says Mr Saiki, who invented the battery himself and designed the frame from aircraft grade aluminium.

Enough, perhaps, to convince thrill-seeking commuters, though at an expected price of some £8,000 in the UK and a maximum range of 60 miles per charge, the bike may struggle to attract people away from established motorcycle communities.

Zero Motorcycles is pitching the bike as an environmentally friendly alternative to conventional motorcycles.

In terms of fuel economy, there is probably not that much in it, since motorcycles tend not to be all that thirsty in the first place.

But when it comes to emissions it is a clear winner, the company insists, even in countries with coal-fired power stations.

“Although there is some pollution associated with the production of electricity, a Zero motorcycle produces less than an eighth of the CO2 pollution per mile at the power plant than a petrol-powered motorcycle,” Zero declares.  In the video below, you can hear about the Zero S from Neal Saiki himself as he walks through various aspects of its innovative  design & cutting edge technology.  

 It is a claim the conventional bike makers will find hard to refute, not least since they tend not to publish any CO2 figures at all.

Many commuters will be more interested in data on battery charging times, though.

Zero says a four-hour charge using an ordinary household socket will cost six pence and deliver 60 miles of motoring, and Mr Saiki insists the battery pack should be able to deliver such performance for about five years.

“You charge it in the morning and it’ll be ready for lunch,” he says.

“It would cost you $30 (£20) to go from California to New York,” observes Zero’s PR man.

Though allow for the frequent recharging, and the journey would take a long, long time.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Washington Examiner & Washington Post)

A car-sharing program intended to save Montgomery County money has ended up costing $1,300 per hour of driving.

REPORT: GAZ confirms interest in Opel…GM is said to prefer a single bidder, in the guise of Fiat, while Germany was recently said to prefer Magna’s proposal because of promises to keep production in Germany. If, however, GAZ’s real desire is to increase its Russian production abilities, if it were to take a larger stake in Opel than Magna, there will undoubtedly be conflicts to reso…

…According to GM‘s Britta Gross, future versions of the Chevy Volt are expected to have this capability.There are a few possibilities presented by Gross that GM could use to allow the Volt to communicate with utility companies, including its own OnStar technology and, in the future, embedded chips using the Zigbee protocol that could wirelessly c…

2010 Opel Astra: Cruze, Volt Get A German Brother [New Cars]

(Source: TheTrucker.com & AP)

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood took exception to an Associated Press articlethat reported that counties suffering the most from job losses stand to receive the least help from President Barack Obama’s plan to spend billions of stimulus dollars on roads and bridges, an Associated Press analysis has found.  Although the intent of the money is to put people back to work, AP’s review of more than 5,500 planned transportation projects nationwide reveals that states are planning to spend the stimulus in communities where jobless rates are already lower.

Image Courtesy: AP - U.S. map shows amount of stimulus funds announced for transportation, by county

Altogether, the government is set to spend 50 percent more per person in areas with the lowest unemployment than it will in communities with the highest.

“At the DOT, we have $48 billion to rebuild roads, bridges, highways, airport runways, ports and transit projects,” LaHood wrote. “And we have already signed off on transportation projects in all 50 states. Just 12 weeks after President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law, we have approved 2,800 road projects and another 300 airport projects.”

LaHood said that amounted to over $10 billion “out the door and countless Americans going back to work.”

By this summer, LaHood wrote, Americans won’t be able to drive down the street without seeing people working at good-paying jobs.

He attributed those jobs to the Recovery Act money.

“Unfortunately, the AP’s analysis is misguided,” LaHood said. “Its reporters looked at 5,500 transportation projects from state lists and concluded that the transportation money is going to counties with low unemployment. But until the states make a request and the experts at the DOT certify that a project meets the criteria for Recovery dollars, those lists are not the final word.

 “Basically, their (the Associated Press’) work amounts to nothing more than an academic exercise.”

For people who are out of work and at risk of losing their jobs, this construction work is a godsend, LaHood said he believed.

“Sadly, unemployed workers can be found all over our nation in these difficult economic times — even in counties that don’t have the highest unemployment rates,” the secretary wrote

“Governmental boundaries are often arbitrary, and workers know that,” LaHood noted. “People who work construction jobs often drive to wherever they can find work in a metropolitan area or region. Our idea is to drive down unemployment, period.”

LaHood said he told Brett Blackledge, the Associated Press writer who authored the story, about a recent trip he took to New Hampshire for a groundbreaking on highway 101.

“I shook hands with men and women who are going back to work thanks to the Recovery Act,” LaHood said. ”One man told me that he drives all over New England for construction jobs. Another said he is the father of four children and was unemployed until this project began. Now that he has this job, he will be commuting from Wolfeboro.

“Unfortunately, Brett didn’t think it was worth quoting me when I told him that the point of the program is to put people to work. And that’s something I’m proud of.”

(Source: Transportation for America)

With Congress preparing to write the bill that will determine the next six years of transportation spending, Transportation for America yesterday released a detailed plan to restructure the nation’s transportation program in order to build a smart, safe and clean transportation system that provides real choices to all Americans.

Image Courtesy: Transportation for America @Flickr

If our platform, released in February, lays out the vision and goals for America’s transportation system, then the Transportation for AmericaBlueprint contains the detailed directions for getting there.

The Route to Reform: Blueprint for a 21st Century Federal Transportation Program will serve as T4 America’s proposal for the policies and financing structures necessary to achieve real transformational change in America’s transportation system. (We’ll be highlighting and explaining pieces of the Blueprint here over the coming weeks — it’s a lot to digest at once.)

In the blueprint, Transportation for America recommends Congress include four critical reforms in the upcoming transportation authorization bill:

1. Articulate a National Vision, Objectives, and Performance Targets for the national transportation program and hold state and local transportation agencies accountable for demonstrable progress toward goals including safety, efficiency, environment, health and equity.
2. Restructure and consolidate federal programs for greater modal integration, with a focus on completing the second half of the national transportation system, providing more transportation options for all Americans and creating seamless transportation systems that meet the unique needs and connect metropolitan regions, small towns, and rural areas.
3. Empower states, regions, and cities with direct transportation funding and greater flexibility to select projects, using carrots and sticks to incentivize wise transportation investments and in return require demonstrated performance on meeting national objectives.
4. Reform how we pay for the transportation system and create a Unified Transportation Trust Fund that would achieve balanced allocations of federal funds in a portfolio of rail, freight, highway, public transportation, and non-motorized transportation investment

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell — a co-chair of the Build America’s Future campaign and one of the leading voices calling for a renewed transportation system – gave the event’s keynote speech in the same committee where the transportation bill will be written and considered first by Chairman Oberstar’s House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Gov. Rendell was followed by a panel that included James Corless, director of the Transportation for America Campaign; Elaine Clegg, Co-Executive Director of Idaho Smart Growth and and city council member in Boise; Astrid Glynn, former Commissioner of the New York State Department of Transportation; Andrew Cotugno, the director of planning for Metro in Portland, Oregon; andRonald Kilcoyne, the General Manager/CEO of Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.

“This report couldn’t be more correct when it says this is a once in a lifetime opportunity,” Gov. Rendell said.

“If we don’t take advantage of this opportunity…nothing will change, and we’ll just bump along, funding some good projects almost by accident, some mediocre projects and some terrible projects. We won’t have national policy, we won’t move the ball forward, and we won’t do something that will improve our economic competitiveness – we’ll just keep moving along the way we’ve been moving along, and not solving any problems.”

(Source: The Infrastructurist)

Many of you heard through the grapevine (from Congress), particularly, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar — that the new transportation bill would be passed this year. Oberstar even offered September 30 as a target date. Sen Mark Warner (D, Va.) is now saying he’s “not sure” that the estimated $500 billion authorization will happen until next year. According to a story by Terry Kivlan in CongressDaily, Warner thinks that “Congress might have too many big-ticket items on its agenda this year to take on a transportation package.” Speaking at an infrastructure-focused conference hosted by the Departments of Transportation and the Department of Commerce, the senator remarked: “I’m not sure you are going to see a full transportation bill put out this year.”

He’s specifically worried about funding availability in light the fact that revenue from the gas tax, which pays for highway and transit programs, is no longer sufficient to cover outlays.  He called this the “elephant in the room” with respect to infrastructure funding.