(Source: AP via Yahoo; Freep & Photo Courtesy: TOBY TALBOT/Associated Press via Free)

The Obama administration promised on Friday that the financially strapped “cash for clunkers” program will be good at least through the day.

Less than four days after launching a popular cash-for-clunkers program, the Obama administration warned Congress the plan already had burned through its $950-million budget, setting off a rush for more money while leaving thousands of dealers and consumers in the lurch.

A White House official told the Free Press late Thursday that all valid deals made under the program so far would be honored, saying it had not been suspended. But administration sources could not say what car buyers hoping to trade their clunker for a new vehicle should do today.

The House is set to adjourn today for a monthlong recess, but Michigan lawmakers and administration officials were pushing for an emergency infusion of cash today. A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said any request would be “quickly reviewed.”

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said he got the word from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood as members of the Ohio and Michigancongressional delegations huddled on Capitol Hill to discuss ways to keep the popular program going.

“Beyond Friday,” Levin said, “depends on whether the administration can find some money.”

One participant in the meeting said they were examining possible funding sources and whether there were any glitches in the computer system. The participant, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talk, said they were also studying how many dealers had enrolled in the system.

Through Wednesday afternoon, more than 23,000 dealer franchises were participating, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The administration dispatched Brian Deese, a top adviser to the Treasury’s auto task force, to the Hill meeting.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said about 40,000 new vehicles had been purchased through the program but dealers estimate another 200,000 vehicles have been sold in transactions that have not yet been completed through the program.

Earl Stewart, who owns a Toyota dealership in North Palm Beach, Fla., said the changing messages on the program has created confusion among his customers and his staff. Stewart’s accounting department also could only enter about a dozen of the 47 sales he made into the government Web site set up to handle the transactions, leaving him wondering if he will get refunded for the remaining vouchers.

Click here to read the entire article.

Breaking News Update:

The Detroit Free Press reports that the U.S. House will vote on $2 billion in additional funding for the cash-for-clunkers program this afternoon.

Michigan lawmakers huddled in the Capitol this morning with a White House official discussing ways to get the cash-for-clunkers program under control. The program is still under way, they said.

While the Obama administration said the plan was not suspended, it doesn’t know how many deals have been made under the program and whether the $950 million available to the plan is enough to cover the deals already made.

The administration may consider whether money from the economic stimulus plan can be diverted to the program.

Click here to read the  update.

The report evaluates incremental reductions in U.S. carbon emissions that could occur within the transportation sector as a result of a variety of transportation- and land use-related actions and strategies to minimize auto use. The report finds that land use strategies will produce the most emission reductions of all 50 strategies analyzed by the report.

Focusing solely on energy-efficient vehicles and cleaner fuels will not address the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, according to this recent report. A key finding indicates that the U.S. could cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by as much as 24 percent by 2050, without road pricing strategies, through changes to current transportation systems and operations, travel behavior, land use patterns and regulatory strategies.

With pricing measures such as pay-as-you-go drive insurance, direct fees for vehicle miles traveled, carbon pricing or increased gasoline tax, GHG emissions reductions could be as high as 41 to 52 percent.

The research, prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc., focuses on strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled and improve the efficiency of the transportation network. Land use is one of nine categories of strategies considered by Moving Cooler, along with transportation pricing and taxes, public transportation improvements, non-motorized transport such as walking and biking, regulations to moderate vehicle use and speed, intelligent systems, expanded highway capacity and more efficient freight movement. The effectiveness of each strategy in cutting greenhouse gas emissions is measured against a baseline that represents current trends.

Moving Cooler outlines a number of bundled strategies for discouraging travel in personal vehicles:

• create more transportation -efficient land use patterns
• encourage greater levels of walking and bicycling as alternatives to driving
• support ride-sharing, car-sharing, and other efficient commuting strategies
• subsidize public transportation fares, expanded routes and new infrastructure
• improve intelligent transportation systems to make better use of the existing capacity and encourage more efficient driving
• expand capacity and relieve bottlenecks to reduce congestion

But none of these steps will be as effective as establishing “strong economy-wide pricing measures.” For example, adding $0.60 to the price of a gallon of gasoline, starting in 2015 and increasing to $1.25 per gallon in 2050 could result in a 17 percent reduction of GHG in 2050, according to the study. If we introduced a fee similar to current European fuel taxes, starting at $2.40 a gallon in 2015 and jumping to $5.00 a gallon in 2050, we could see a 28 percent reduction in 2050. (These fees presumably would be added to the market price for gasoline.)

Moving Cooler points out that economy-wide pricing measures — such as an increase in the gasoline tax, carbon pricing, and pay-as-you-drive insurance – would produce the most significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, due to the likelihood of substantial shifts in driving behavior mandated by the high costs. However, outside of these pricing measures, the land use strategies produce the most emission reductions of any of the other strategies analyzed. Moreover, the costs of implementing such changes in development patterns are offset by the substantial savings in the cost of vehicle ownership and maintenance, the report adds.

The study’s authors say these pricing measures would have two effects: to cut back on vehicle miles traveled and to accelerate implementation and purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles—like hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and electric cars.

Moving Cooler cites multiple benefits derived from combining concentrated, mixed-use land development strategies and non-motorized transportation strategies to reduce auto dependency: “The combined effect of more compact land use, improved transit service and improved bicycle and pedestrian conditions would be to improve mobility by non-automobile modes…Increased opportunities for walking and biking will lead to improvements in public health, and exercise and activity levels increase. Finally, denser development can lead to energy and greenhouse gas savings through decreased building use, in addition to transportation efficiencies.”

Click here to read the Executive Summary or here to download the the entire report in PDF.

Sponsored by URISA and the National Center for Transit Research (NCTR)

URISA and the University of South Florida’s National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) are pleased to announce a new partnership to present the 2009 GIS in Transit Conference, taking place Hilton Bayfront in the waterfront district of downtown St. Petersburg, Florida, November 16-18, 2009.

The Conference Committee has organized an educational program based upon the abstracts submitted through a Call for Participation. Abstracts were submitted within these general topic categories: Applications, Tools, Data, and Management & Policy.

Preliminary Conference Schedule

Monday, November 16, 2009

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Registration

Early Rate (if Registered by October 5, 2009)

• Full Registration:
  URISA Member – $275
  Non-Member – $300

Regular Rate (if registered after October 5, 2009)

• Full Registration:
  URISA Member – $350
  Non-Members – $375

Pre-Conference Workshops: $195

Conference Sponsors

The National Center for Transit Research (NCTR) is located at the Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida.  NCTR strives to make public transportation and alternative forms of transportation, including managed lanes, safe, effective, efficient, desirable, and secure. The goals of NCTR are: to minimize traffic congestion, maximize mobility options, promote safety and security, improve the environment, and enhance community sustainability. This will be accomplished by conducting applied and advanced research, energetically disseminating the results, and expanding the workforce of transportation professionals through education and training to address the challenges and opportunities of the future.  The National Transit GIS Conference is one of the many efforts by NCTR to forward its goals.  For more about NCTR please visit: www.nctr.usf.edu.

The 2009 GIS in Transit Conference is proudly endorsed by:

For more information, please visit: http://www.urisa.org/gis_transit

(Source: BBC)

A crop area the size of the USA would be needed to biofuel all the world’s cars and alternatives, such as electricity, exist for them, it added.

Instead, it said the EU should fund research into using plant-based fuel for aviation to help cut emissions.

Sceptics say some biofuels create more carbon than they save and push up the price of food for the poor.

Most biofuels are derived from crops such as corn, sugarcane and rapeseed.

Commuters Go Head to Head in Battle of the Bikes

Unlike natural selection, though, we have a choice over which species to become. But have I made the best choice, or are my wheels just stuck in a rut? I decided to find out by mocking up an average commute and holding a “tribal commuter race”, to see who could get from door to desk quickest.

The contestants: road-bike racer; fixed-gear rider, mountain biker, hybrid commuter and granny-bike dawdler.

As soon as they set off it was clear who was going to arrive first. Fixed-gear rider sprinted away at the head of a fast pack, with road-bike racer in close and streamlined pursuit. Not far behind was hybrid commuter – slowed slightly by his panniers and upright seating position, but keen to compete.

Separated by a widening gap was mountain biker, whose bouncy suspension and wide, knobbly tires were a significant disadvantage. Granny-bike dawdler, equipped with baguette-carrying wicker basket, brought up the rear – but didn’t seem to mind one bit.

The slower tribes made up some time when road-bike racer’s skinny, slick tyres succumbed to some gravel in a shortcut through a park. Palms bloodied and confidence shaken, he failed to recover his initial advantage. Fixed-gear rider seized this opportunity to extend the lead, hopping red lights as he went.

A few miles later and everyone crossed the finish line in varying states of disarray. Fixed-gear rider was first, but sweaty enough to star in a Lynx commercial; hybrid commuter next and only slightly less moist. Last place on the podium went to road-bike racer, who was in need of a shower and a trip to the office first aid box before starting his working day.

Just a handful of minutes behind came mountain biker, who may have won had the course involved any sudden descents through woodland, but on the day arrived late and panting. Mere moments later came a grinning granny-bike dawdler, pulling up at the finish line slowly, but as fresh as a daisy.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: TreeHugger, Guardian, UK; Image Courtesy: Guardian –  Cyclists wearing different outfits in London Photograph: Graham Turner/ Antonio Olmos/Guardian/ Observer)

(Source: USAToday & The Hindu)

The much-awaited Nano hit the roads on Friday with Mumbai resident Ashok Raghunath Vichare becoming the first owner of the world’s cheapest car from the stable of the Tatas.

“I hope that the Tata Nano will bring motoring pleasure to those who will be buying their first car as also those who currently own a car but want a modern, contemporary and emission-friendly city car,” Tata Motors Chairman Ratan Tata said after handing over the key of the first Nano to Mr. Vichare here. Tata, a Cornell University-trained architect, decided to develop Nano when he saw an entire Indian family riding on a scooter. Bloomberg says almost seven motorcycles are sold for every car in India, a nation of 1.1 billion people. Car sales in India may triple to 3 million units annually by 2015, according to a government forecast.

Mr. Vichare has bought a Tata Nano LX (lunar silver), the top-end model.

With Tata handing over the top-end model to Mr. Vichare, the delivery process of the first one lakh cars have started, which would be completed by March next year.

Vichare went for the more upscale LX version. It is his first car.The cheapest Nano retails for 123,360 rupees — or $2,531. Splurgers can spend up to $3,536 to pack the car with such luxury as cupholders and air conditioning, Bloomberg News reports.

Nano is expected to come to the U.S. in a couple years, owner Tata Motors has indicated. Don’t expect to see one on the freeway: at 624 cubic centimeters, the engine is smaller than those found on many motorcycles. Safety in crash? Not as bad as you’d expect, if early crash test results in Europe hold up. Tata already has a huge backlog of orders for Nano:

Tata, which owns Jaguar and Land Rover after buying them from Ford, has 206,703 orders. That’s more than double its initial sales plan. The company chose the first 100,000 customers through a lottery. It will take a year of production to catch up to the backlog.

Nano was commercially launched on March 23 this year. It has received 2.06 lakh bookings. Tata Motors has already selected over 1.55 lakh customers for delivering the car, of which the first one lakh cars are price-protected.

The company would roll out the Nanos from its Pantnagar facility, which has an annual capacity of 50,000 units. The car would also be produced from the company’s Sanand unit in Gujarat once its goes on stream.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: GAO)

What GAO found:

Click here to download the entire PDF report.

(Source: Wired)

Image via Apture

The electrification of the automobile has been called the auto industry’s “moon shot,” an analogy that works because of both the technology involved and the cost to develop it. Automakers are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the effort with no promise that it will lead to affordable battery-powered vehicles anytime soon — or any guarantee people will buy them once they’re available.

All of the major automakers are racing to put EVs in showrooms as early as next year, and they’re spending money like sailors on shore leave to do it. General Motors has spent about $1 billion developing the Chevrolet Volt. Chrysler wants to invest $448 million in its electric vehicle program to build cars like the Circuit, pictured above at the Los Angeles Auto Show. Elon Musk’s personal investment in Tesla Motors tops $75 million.

The Apollo program cost more than $100 billion in today’s dollars, and as Ron Cogan, founder and editor of Green Car Journal and greencar.com notes, there was no imperative to produce a reasonably priced consumer product. Not so with electric vehicles – the whole point is to sell cars. The Obama Administration is betting heavily on the technology, having recently approved almost $8 billion to help automakers retoolfactories to produce EVs and other fuel-efficient vehicles. Another $16 billion will be doled out next year.

“What people overlook is that accomplishing ‘big picture’ programs like Apollo require accepting the concept of unlimited spending to achieve the mission,” Cogan says. “Current levels of unprecedented federal spending notwithstanding, electric cars are not an exclusive answer to future transportation challenges and consumers will not be willing to buy them at all costs.”

Early adopters and hardcore EV advocates will gladly pay that much, but will the rest of us pay $15,000 to $25,000 more for a car that runs on electricity? Cogan doesn’t think so and says EVs should be considered mid- to long-term solutions until automakers — and the battery makers they rely upon — can bring costs down to a level competitive with vehicles propelled by internal combustion.

Until then, he says, more efficient gasoline cars, clean diesel vehicles and hybrids will comprise the majority of cars sold even as EVs become an increasingly common sight in showrooms.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: Tree Hugger)

Trivia: New York’s is also the only subway in the world to run 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Image courtesy: TreeHugger

Our friends at Treehugger have put together a great, easy to understand compilation of subway/metro train fares for a handful of major cities around the world, with a promise to update the list in the near future.  The article takes a stab at comparing the New York Subway system fares against the rest and goes on to analyze What Makes a Subway Fare Fair? and Why is New York City Raising the Subway Fare? Makes for quite an interesting read.

Click here to read the entire article.