(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.

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

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: Baltimore Sun, New York Times & Wired)

The nation’s first all-electric car-sharing program debuted in Baltimore, Maryland this week. The nation’s first all-electric car-sharing program debuted Tuesday at the city’s Inner Harbor, with manufacturer Electrovaya hoping urban residents seeking to go green and curious tourists will take the concept for a spin.   Electrovaya Inc. is offering its Maya 300 for rent at the Maryland Science Center. The car can go up to 120 miles on one charge of its lithium-ion battery system, and it gets its juice from a regular 110-volt outlet.

The altcar car-sharing service has a fleet of 10 electric cars at the Maryland Science Center.  Ten cars will be available starting Wednesday through the new car-sharing Web site Altcar.org. A two-hour trip costs $29, with discounts for science center members. (Wired reports that the cars won’t be available to the public until Aug. 1). Signing up requires a $25 application fee to pay for the background check and a $50 membership fee.

This rental program gives Baltimore residents and tourists the opportunity to rent a five-door, five- passenger Maya-300 at the Maryland Science Center and drive it around the city.  The car makes little noise, provides dashboard gauges for battery life and temperature, and offers other conveniences of gas-powered cars.  Electrovaya’s battery technology is made possible by ExxonMobil Corp.’s battery separator film. The film, with lithium-ion batteries, allows for the units to operate at higher temperatures with a reduced risk of meltdown.

“This is an example of what science centers do best,” said Van Reiner, president and CEO of the science center. “We are showcasing new technology, and that’s what makes us so excited.”

The manufacturer calls the fleet of emission-free cars a “game changer” in urban transportation alternatives. Electrovaya CEO Sankar Das Gupta said that’s because the vehicle has the look and feel of a four-door, gas-powered sedan and should appeal to consumers who want to reduce oil dependence.

Das Gupta said he hopes to ink deals with larger fleet operators to scale up production of the Maya 300, which is currently manufactured in Michigan. He hopes to begin selling the vehicle to the general public within a year for about $25,000 apiece.

“Ultimately, in order to drop the price of electric cars, you have to generate large volumes,” explained Das Gupta, who said the lithium-ion battery his company makes constitutes 40-50 percent of the Maya 300’s cost.

In addition to manufacturing and selling the Maya 300, Electrovaya would supply major automakers lithium-ion batteries — which move lithium between an anode and cathode when charging and discharging. Das Gupta declined to say with whom he is discussing such an arrangement.

The Maya 300’s debut came as President Obama and his advisers dished out $8 billion in loans to Ford Motor Co., Nissan Motor Co. and Tesla Inc through DOE grants. “We have an historic opportunity to help ensure that the next generation of fuel-efficient cars and trucks are made in America,” Obama said.

More than 50 million new vehicles hit the world’s roads each year, and President Obama has set a goal of 1 million electric vehicles on U.S. roads by 2015.

Electrovaya’s Das Gupta is bullish on America’s — and the world’s — ability to achieve the Obama’s goal.

“We expect that within the next few years, one third of these vehicles will be electric,” he said.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: U.S. GAO)

The air cargo industry contributed over $37 billion to the U.S. economy in 2008 and provides government, businesses, and individuals with quick delivery of goods. Although part of an aviation system with an extraordinary safety record, there have been over 400 air cargo accidents and over 900 incidents since 1997, raising concerns about cargo safety.

GAO’s congressionally requested study addresses:

(1) recent trends in air cargo safety,

2) factors that have contributed to air cargo accidents,

(3) federal government and industry efforts to improve air cargo safety and experts’ views on the effectiveness of these efforts, and

(4) experts’ views on further improving air cargo safety.

To perform the study, GAO analyzed agency data, surveyed a panel of experts, reviewed industry and government documents, and interviewed industry and government officials. GAO also conducted site visits to Alaska, Ohio, and Texas.

From 1997 through 2008, 443 accidents involving cargo-only carriers occurred, including 93 fatal accidents. Total accidents declined 63 percent from a high of 62 in 1997 to 23 in 2008. Small cargo carriers were involved in the vast majority of the accidents–79 percent of all accidents and 96 percent of fatal accidents. Although accident rates for large cargo carriers fluctuated during this period, they were comparable to accident rates for large passenger carriers in 2007.

GAO could not calculate accident rates based on operations or miles traveled for small carriers because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does not collect the necessary data. Although several factors contributed to these air cargo accidents, our review of National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) data found that pilot performance was identified as a probable cause for about 80 percent of fatal and about 53 percent of non-fatal cargo accidents.

Furthermore, GAO’s analysis of NTSB reports for the 93 fatal accidents, using an FAA flight-risk checklist, identified three or more risk factors in 63 of the accidents. Risk factors included low pilot experience, winter weather, and nighttime operations. Alaska’s challenging operating conditions and remotely located populations who rely on air cargo are also a contributing factor. Many federal efforts to improve air cargo safety focus on large carriers.

Air cargo experts that GAO surveyed ranked FAA’s voluntary disclosure programs–in which participating carriers voluntarily disclose safety events to FAA–as the most effective effort to improve air cargo, but two of the three main voluntary disclosure programs are used typically by large carriers. Several industry initiatives, however, focus on carriers with smaller aircraft, such as the Medallion Foundation, which has improved small aircraft safety in Alaska through training and safety audits.

The two actions experts cited most often to further improve air cargo safety were installing better technology on cargo aircraft to provide additional tools to pilots and collecting data to track small cargo carrier operations. Using flight risk checklists can also help pilots assess the accumulated risk factors associated with some cargo flights.

Recommendations:

• To help FAA improve the data on and the safety of air cargo operations, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FAA Administrator to gather comprehensive and accurate data on all part 135 cargo operations to gain a better understanding of air cargo accident rates and better target safety initiatives. This can be done by separating out cargo activity in FAA’s annual survey of aircraft owners or by requiring all part 135 cargo carriers to report operational data as part 121 carriers currently do.
• To help FAA improve the data on and the safety of air cargo operations, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FAA Administrator to promote the increased use of safety programs by small (feeder and ad hoc) cargo carriers that use the principles underpinning SMS and voluntary self-disclosure programs.
• To help FAA improve the data on and the safety of air cargo operations, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FAA Administrator to evaluate the likelihood that cargo incidents could be precursors to accidents and, if FAA determines they are, create a process for capturing incidents that would allow in-depth analysis of incidents to identify accident precursors related to specific carriers, locations, operations, and equipment.
• To help FAA improve the data on and the safety of air cargo operations, the Secretary of Transportation should direct the FAA Administrator to create incentives for cargo carriers to use flight risk assessment checklists in their daily operations, including tailoring a sample flight risk assessment checklist for part 135 cargo carriers.

Click here to read/download the entire report (60 Pages).

(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.

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: Jalopnik & Oregon Live, Car and Driver & CNBC)

If you use a cell phone, chances are you’re aware of “text messaging”—brief messages limited to 160 characters that can be sent or received on all modern mobile phones.  Texting, also known as SMS (for short message service), is on the rise, up from 9.8 billion messages a month in December ’05 to 110.4 billion in December ’08. Undoubtedly, more than a few of those messages are being sent by people driving cars. Is texting while driving a dangerous idea?

The boys fromCarandDriver spent time determining just how bad it really is versus, say, drunk driving. Turns out drunk driving‘s safer. Here’s why.  Drivers distracted by texting are four times slower to brake to avoid a collision than those driving under the influence.  (The results in a nutshell:  Unimpaired: .54 seconds to brake; Legally drunk: add 4 feet; Reading e-mail: add 36 feet; Sending a text: add 70 feet.  If are somene who has a lot of time to spare, continue reading the test details and the explanation of the test results conducted in different scenarios.)

The testers wired a Racelogic VBOX III data logger to the test vehicle (in this case a Honda Pilot) to record vehicle speed via the VBOX’s GPS antenna and brake-pedal position and steering angle via the Pilot’s OBD II port. The testers then wired a red light to the windshield to play the role of brake lights from an imaginary car ahead of the Pilot. When the red light lit up, the driver’s supposed to hit the brakes.    Each trial, one with a younger test candidate (Jordan Brown) and using an iPhone, the other with old man (Eddie Alterman) and a Samsung Alias, would have the driver respond five times to the light, and the slowest reaction time — the time between activation of the light and driver hitting the brakes — was dropped.

The results from the first test scenario involving the younger driver are as follows:

• The younger driver’s  baseline reaction time at 35 mph of 0.45 second worsened to 0.57 while reading a text, improved to 0.52 while writing a text, and returned almost to the baseline while impaired by alcohol, at 0.46. At 70 mph, his baseline reaction was 0.39 second, while the reading (0.50), texting (0.48), and drinking (0.50) numbers were similar. But the averages don’t tell the whole story.
• Looking at the younger driver’s slowest reaction time at 35 mph, he traveled an extra 21 feet (more than a car length) before hitting the brakes while reading and went 16 feet longer while texting. At 70 mph, a vehicle travels 103 feet every second, and older driver’s worst reaction time while reading at that speed put him about 30 feet (31 while typing) farther down the road versus 15 feet while drunk.

The results from the 2nd test scenario involving the older driver are as follows:

• While reading a text and driving at 35 mph, the older driver’s average baseline reaction time of 0.57 second nearly tripled, to 1.44 seconds. While texting, his response time was 1.36 seconds. These figures correspond to an extra 45 and 41 feet, respectively, before hitting the brakes. His reaction time after drinking averaged 0.64 second and, by comparison, added only seven feet.
• The results at 70 mph were similar:  The older response time while reading a text was 0.35 second longer than his base performance of 0.56 second, and writing a text added 0.68 second to his reaction time. But his intoxicated number increased only 0.04 second over the base score, to a total of 0.60 second.

Well, do you know what’s happening in the real world?  According to one industry study, still, 20 percent of drivers regularly send texts or e-mails on the road.  Governments at all levels (State, Local and Federal) are combating the texting meance with a legal and PR campaigns.  As of now, 14 states have banned driving while using handheld cell phones and a bunch of them are expected to join the bandwagon. in teh near future (Oregon is reportedly on the verge of enacting a ban).  Click here to watch a video of this story that appeared in this morning’s Today’s show.

(Source: Wired)

A company that provides communications systems to law enforcement agencies around the world has developed a black box similar to those used in aircraft to record crash data in cars.

The Smart Black Box by KCI Communications sticks to your windshield and uses a built-in camera, GPS unit and G-force shock sensor to document accidents. The info could come in handy when trying to determine fault or explain to your insurance company just what happened when you crunched your car.  KCI says the GPS unit will record the time and location of an accident and document your speed and direction of travel. The company says that could be useful when trying to prove that red light you ran was actually yellow or in cases where you dispute the reading on a cop’s radar.

The Smart Black Box costs about $300 and constantly records video footage on a loop as you drive. Should the shock sensor detect an accident, the device saves the 15 seconds prior to impact and the 5 seconds afterward. The footage is saved to a SD Card, like that found in your digital camera, making it accessible on a home computer.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Daily Mail, UK & The Internet Patrol.com)

Candid Camera: Google Street View captures moment muggers prepared to pounce on teenage victim

Dutch police have arrested two brothers on suspicion of robbery after their alleged victim spotted a picture of them following him on Google’s Street View.

The boy, 14, was mugged last September after two men dragged him of his bike in Groningen, 110 miles north-east of Amsterdam.

His attackers got away with around £140 and his mobile phone. Police were at first unable to track down the suspects.

But the victim contacted them in March after seeing what he believed to be an image of himself and the two men on Street View.

Officers got in touch with Google for the original picture because the people’s faces were blurred.  The company complied, and a robbery squad detective immediately recognised one of the brothers.

Prosecutors will now decide whether to charge the suspects, whose identities were not released.  Click here to read the entire Daily Mail article.

While this story has a happy ending (except for the twins), it does cause one to wonder just how far we are moving towards a big brother state.

Take, for example, this photo caught by the Google Street View camera:

Now, perhaps this is a cat burgler. Or perhaps it’s someone who locked themselves out of their house. Or someone just practicing their climbing skills.

If there are burglaries going on in the area, however, what do you think the odds are that this man is going to get hauled in for questioning?

That said, I think that the first big law suit – which could win – over invasion of privacy with respect to Google Earth, will be when a philandering spouse is caught by the other spouse because they happen to see a picture of the philanderer with their paramour on Google Earth, and a messy (and costly) divorce ensues. Or maybe when a wonderful birthday surprise is ruined because the intended giftee accidentally sees the person purchasing the gift during a moment of serendipitous Google Earth browsing.

Since it was launched in 2007, Street View has expanded to more than 100 cities worldwide.

But it has drawn complaints from individuals and institutions that have been photographed, including the Pentagon, which barred Google from photographing U.S. military bases for the application.

Mapping North Korean Railways Using Google Earth

An article that appeard on Wired about Google’s hallmark mapping software, Google Earth,  reiterates the above notion that such technologies can aid the big brother, not just on surface of the earth but also do that from miles above the earth.

For all the saber-rattling North Korea has been doing, precious little is known about daily life in the isolated nation. Even a railway map is close to classified information.

A doctoral student at George Mason University is using satellite images to get a closer look at a historically secretive country. North Korea is once again in the news because of its growing nuclear threat and the imprisoning of two American journalists. By closely examining Google Earth and corroborating physical evidence of infrastructure with reports from visitors and defectors, Curtis Melvin has assembled a workable map of North Korean railways — not to mention hidden palaces and outdoor food markets. The Google Earth overlays are available at his blog, North Korean Economy Watch.

“I am confident I’ve mapped over 90 percent of the system above ground,” Melvin told Wired.com. “There are probably still railway lines in low-resolution areas that I have not been able to find. Additionally, there are likely underground passages that I am unable to map, and the size of these I cannot guess.”

Since Kim Jong-Il is reportedly terrified of flying, Dear Leader travels on a luxurious private train that carries him between “on-the-spot-guidance opportunities.” That’s one thing for which we don’t blame him, considering the state of national airline Air Koryo. According to Melvin, there are special train tracks that carry VIPs to oases of luxury in the impoverished nation. “Several elite compounds have private train stations,” he said. “We can follow the railway lines through the security perimeters and into the elite compounds.”

Melvin has even managed to dig up some dirt on the inscrutable Pyongyang Metro — that’s the system’s Puhung station in the photo. Far from a Potemkin public transit system, the parts of the metro hidden from tourists seem to be less impressive but still functioning. “I have seen a couple of official pictures of other stations. They are much more spartan than the two shown to tourists,” Melvin said.

Click here to read the entire Wired Autopia article.

(Source: Times Online, UK)

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

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!