The TransportPolitic scoops more details on the Federal High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan

April 19, 2009 at 1:25 pm

(Source: The Transport Politic)

Proposal reveals a little – and a lot – about how the administration wants to proceed with its rail programs

As many of you commented in the previous, and unfortunately inadequate, post on the administration’s high-speed rail strategic plan, the report – though significant – doesn’t tell us all that much more about how the U.S. government will spend the $8 billion approved for fast rail by Congress in the stimulus bill. On the other hand, I want to point out that the administration never promised such information: for god’s sake – the states haven’t even submitted their proposals for the use of the funds yet! I think that our collective enthusiasm for rail projects may be getting a bit ahead of reality.

But I think the report’s basic outlines of the kinds of projects the federal government wants to fund with rail money are demonstrative of the administration’s seriousness in undertaking this project. By arguing that high-speed rail is most applicable for corridors between 100 and 600 miles in areas of moderate to high density, we can be assured that the government won’t be funding just any project with the limited funds available for rail. It’s good to know, in other words, that a line between El Paso and Phoenix isn’t going to get money over the connection between San Francisco and Los Angeles.

The report’s attempt to define different qualities of rail is also an admirable response to the fact that no one thus far has been able to come up with a concrete series of words that can be used to provide meaningful definitions of different types of rail services. I think there’s been a major problem in discussions about high-speed rail because of the lack of uniform agreement about what the term means, so it’s nice to have officially-sanctioned definitions. For the time being, I’ll attempt to incorporate them into the transport politic:

  • HSR-Express – 200-600 miles apart, more than 150 mph, dedicated rights-of-way.
  • HSR-Regional – 100-500 miles apart, 110-150 mph, some shared track with positive train control
  • Emerging HSR – 100-500 miles, with 90-110 mph speed service – developing the passenger rail market
  • Conventional Rail – 79-90 mph
  • IPR – Intercity passenger rail

Click here to read the entire article.

New report from Brookings Institute – “Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from Germany”

April 17, 2009 at 3:57 pm

(Source: The Brookings Institute)

To help improve the energy efficiency and overall environmental sustainability of the U.S. transportation system, we will need to adopt policies that foster changes in the way Americans travel. A new Brookings report “Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from Germany” finds that Germany may offer valuable lessons. Like the United States, Germany is a federal republic but it has taken impressive steps to improve transportation options, link transportation planning to land use, and advance other reforms – all while empowering metropolitan action.

Lessons for the United States:

Public policy can play a major role in reshaping America’s transportation system. The German experience offers five lessons to the United States for improving transportation sustainability through changes in travel behavior:

Get the Price Right in order to encourage the use of less polluting cars, driving at non-peak hours and more use of public transportation
Integrate Transit, Cycling, and Walking as Viable Alternatives to the Car, as a necessary measure to make any sort of car-restrictive measures publicly and politically feasible
Fully Coordinate and Integrate Planning for Land Use and Transportation to discourage car-dependent sprawl and promote transit-oriented development
Public Information and Education to Make Changes Feasible are essential in conveying the benefits of more sustainable policies and enforcing their results over the long term
Implement Policies in Stages with a Long Term Perspective because it takes considerable time to gather the necessary public and political support and to develop appropriate measures.

Click here to download the report.  Here is the read-only version of the report.

Bulging waistline a risk for obese wallets – United Airlines to Charge Obese Fliers Twice on Full Jets

April 17, 2009 at 11:04 am

(Source: Bloomberg & Guardian, UK; Photo: Daily Mail, UK)

  • Carrier received more than 700 complaints last year
  • Two-thirds of Americans are considered overweight
  • UA may boot obese fliers off full planes and charge them for two tickets on the next departure.

United Airlines, the third-largest U.S. carrier, may force some obese travelers to buy a second seat when flights are full and other passengers complain about being cramped.

The policy brings practices at UAL Corp.’s United in line with those at the other five biggest U.S. carriers including Delta Air Lines Inc. The rule took effect today after being adopted in January, said a United spokeswoman.

United passengers previously “had to share their seat with the oversized guest” on full planes, Urbanski said. Chicago- based United acted after receiving “hundreds” of public complaints each year, she said.

“It’s going to perpetuate that negative stigma that’s already associated with obesity,” said James Zervios, a spokesman for the Obesity Action Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group in Tampa, Florida. Airline seats already “could use a few extra inches of room on all sides,” he said.

Urbanski said obese passengers on United will be reassigned to a pair of empty seats and won’t be charged for an extra ticket on flights that aren’t full. Travelers must be able to put the arm rest between seats down to its normal position and buckle a seat belt with one extension belt, she said. 

United spokeswoman Robin Urbanski said the policy applies to passengers who cannot buckle up with a single seatbelt extender or lower the armrests or who infringe on their neighbours.

Zervios of the Obesity Action Coalition said cramped airline cabins cause many disruptions.

“What if the person in front of me puts back their seat and encroaches into my space, or if the person next to me has a puffy coat or leaves their light on when I want to take a nap?” he said. “We need to keep in mind that it’s just a form of transportation from Point A to Point B.”

U.S. Obesity Rate

About 34 percent of Americans are obese, double the rate from 30 years ago, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only one state, Colorado, has an obesity rate of less than 20 percent.

“I don’t happen to be overly wide but I am tall, and as far as I’m concerned I’d like to charge the guy in front of me every time he reclines his seat into my knees,” he said. ‚”There are a lot of dimensions to this problem.”

Obesity is defined as having a “body mass index,” a measure of body fat based on height and weight, of 30 or more. Using that calculation, a person who is 5 feet 9 inches tall (175 centimeters) and weighs at least 203 pounds (92 kilograms) would be considered obese, according to the CDC.

But aviation industry analyst and consultant Robert Mann said it remains unclear how aggressively flight attendants will implement it.

United spokeswoman Robin Janikowski said the policy applies to passengers who cannot buckle up with a single seatbelt extender or lower the armrests or who infringe on their neighbours.

Note: TransportGooru would like to point the readers to a legal battle in Canada on this issue.  Click here to read all about it.

EPA Considers Higher Ethanol Mix for Gasoline

April 17, 2009 at 12:11 am

(Source: Wall Street Journal)

Allowing 15% Gasoline Blends Would Help Industry, but Poses Car-Warranty Issue

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has opened the door to allowing higher mixes of ethanol in gasoline, a potential boon to farmers and the struggling ethanol industry, but opposed by auto makers whose consumer warranties typically are tied to the current EPA standard.

The agency Thursday said it is seeking comment on whether to allow ordinary gasoline to consist of as much as 15% ethanol, an additive that has been heavily promoted by farm states. For decades, the EPA has allowed gasoline to include up to 10% ethanol.

The EPA’s move came in response to a petition filed last month by the trade group Growth Energy to allow motor fuel ethanol blends of as much as 15%, citing an Energy Department study that found “no operability or driveability issues” with blends as high as 20% ethanol.

Corn is loaded into a truck at a farm in Valley Springs, S.D. Higher percentages of ethanol mixed into gasoline would be a boon to farmers. About one quarter of all corn produced in the U.S. is used to make the fuel additive.

Corn is loaded into a truck at a farm in Valley Springs, S.D. Higher percentages of ethanol mixed into gasoline would be a boon to farmers. About one quarter of all corn produced in the U.S. is used to make the fuel additive.

Most car warranties, however, have followed the 10% standard, which means consumers who use blends with greater than 10% ethanol could get stuck paying the bills if there’s damage to fuel lines or other components unless auto makers agree to shoulder the costs.

Auto makers offer so-called flex-fuel vehicles designed to accept up to 85% ethanol fuels. But many current and older model cars aren’t designed for ethanol concentrations above 10%.

Alan Adler, a spokesman for General MotorsCorp., said if the EPA allows higher ethanol blends “we want to be sure that we’re not on the hook for vehicles” that end up having problems with higher blends.

Earlier this year Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. recalled 214,500 Lexus vehicles sold in the U.S. that were vulnerable to corrosion problems in their fuel-delivery pipes when some ethanol fuels were used.

Pushing against the auto industry’s objections are farmers, investors in ethanol-fuel start-ups, big agricultural commodities companies and some environmental groups that argue the U.S. would be better off substituting home-grown biofuels for foreign oil.

Click here to read the entire article.

Eco-Motorists Slow Down, Coast, for Big Mileage Gains, but Their Strategies Might Drive Others on the Road Crazy

April 16, 2009 at 11:49 pm

(Source: Wall Street Journal)

Efficient Drivers Cut Emissions, but Stir Up Hot Air

Cruising around this desert metropolis in her four-door pickup truck, Morgan Dresser doesn’t look like an environmental trendsetter.

Recently, though, the 26-year-old did something revolutionary. She began “eco-driving” — a technique that combines a racecar driver’s skill with the proverbial grandmother’s pace. By learning to drive all over again, Ms. Dresser estimates she has boosted her truck’s fuel economy to 21 miles per gallon from 15, a jump of 40% that surpasses the mileage advertised by its manufacturer, Toyota Motor Corp. With that shift in behavior, she has done more to curb oil consumption than most people zooming around in the latest hybrid cars.

“Who would have thought a truck could get good gas mileage?” she says. “It’s possible with any vehicle, big or small.”

A new technique to curb fuel consumption is on the rise: “eco-driving.” Eco-driving teaches drivers not to slam the gas pedal and brakes, but rather, learn how to maintain a more constant speed. Jeffrey Ball reports. 

Even without futuristic technologies, drivers can achieve eye-popping fuel economy in their current cars with nothing fancier than their brains and some lighter feet. The idea is to maintain momentum much as on a leisurely bicycle ride: accelerating only gradually, coasting whenever possible and constantly adjusting speed to minimize the need to stop.

The challenge will be to get Americans, who love the open throttle as much as the open road, to ease up instead of variously slamming on the gas and the brakes. In the meantime, as early eco-drivers lower their own emissions, they are certain to raise some hot air from the impatient drivers around them.

 “I’ve been honked at. I’ve been flipped off. I’ve been yelled at: ‘Grandma!'” says Ms. Dresser, a former back-country firefighter. “I just laugh.”Trials in Europe, Japan and the U.S. are finding that drivers commonly improve their fuel economy upwards of 20% after deploying a handful of eco-driving techniques. Among them: Driving more slowly on highways, shifting gears earlier in cities and shutting off the engine rather than idling at long stops.

Click here to read the entire article.

GM calls for plug-in vehicle standards, says Standards Necessary for Consumer Acceptance of Electric Vehicles

April 16, 2009 at 7:55 pm

(Source: Autobloggreen & GM Fast Lane)
One of the factors that has helped to make cars so ubiquitous over the past century is standards. By standardizing things like fuel fillers, inflation nozzles on tires, 12V power sockets and countless other elements, automakers have been able make owning and operating a car much more practical. After all, if you had to drive around to 20 different gas stations to find one with a nozzle that fits your tank, it would be a real nuisance to drive. Most of those industry standards are defined by committees of the Society of Automotive Engineers. One of the standards currently being worked on is SAE J1772 which will define standard connectors for plug-in vehicles.  GM’s Fast Lane blog notes “with SAE J1772™, we’re defining what a common electric vehicle conductive charging system architecture will look like for all major automakers in North America, but more importantly, we’re working to resolve general physical, electrical and performance requirements so these systems can be manufactured for safe public use.

Through SAE, our industry is working together to answer fundamental questions about plug-in electric vehicles such as battery electrochemistry, optimal battery-size and state of charge, and lifecycle among other issues, but zeroing in on the ergonomics, safety and performance of the charging interface is one of the most basic ways we can help build consumer confidence in plug-ins.

Think about it, if you have no reservations or confusion about charging your vehicle, you’re probably going to be more likely to drive one. Drivers shouldn’t have to worry about electromagnetic compatibility, emission and immunity when they need to plug-in – that’s what engineers like me get paid to do.”

Convenience is King – You can take the train to work, but your office is still a mile away from the station. Might as well drive, right? How we can solve the last-mile problem?

April 16, 2009 at 7:28 pm

(Source: Good Magazine)

A couple of months after the presidential election, and a couple of weeks after Barack Obama signed his stimulus bill, the giddiness among transport advocates was enough to induce a contact high: $8 billion for high-speed trains, and another $8.4 billion for mass transit! They were excited for good reason: For years, the country has starved for any attempt to develop green transit, and finally we had the money.

But what if most mass transit is doomed to fail? It isn’t the mere lack of trains and subways that keep people in their cars. It’s what urban planners call the first- and last-mile problem. You know it, intuitively. Let’s say you’d like to commute on public transit. But if you live in a suburb—and ever since 2000, over half of Americans do—it’s unlikely that you live close enough to a station to walk. The same problem arises once you get to your destination: You probably don’t work anywhere near the closest bus or train station. So even if public transit is available, commuters often stay in their cars because the alternative—the hassle of driving, then riding, then getting to your final destination—is inconvenient, if not totally impossible. “Denser areas don’t have these same problems,” says Susan Shaheen, who heads the Innovative Mobility Research group at the University of California, Berkeley. “The problem is really about land use in the United States.”

It sounds nearly impossible to fix: Our suburbs won’t soon disappear, even if some are withering in the present housing decline. But here’s the good news: For the first time in three decades, solving the last-mile problem seems just within reach, owing to vehicle fleets and ingenious ride-sharing schemes that lean on mobile computing, social networks, and smart urban planning. “To make public transit viable, you have it make it just as easy as getting in a car,” says Shaheen. “It can be done.”

The challenge, according to Dan Sturges, the founder of Intrago Mobility, which creates vehicle-sharing technology, is that “no one’s yet putting these innovations together as a system, and the public doesn’t understand the broader problem. But if implemented all together, the things being invented now will make owning a personal car into a joke.” The enemy is really the car’s unequaled convenience; commuters need multiple, equally easy choices before they’ll give up the steering wheel. Several such choices are in the works.

“Right-Size” Fleets

Zipcar—which is now being copied by Hertz and U-Haul—is a godsend for city dwellers who only occasionally need a car. But it can also be used to solve the last-mile problem, when linked with public transit. “We’re at the tip of the iceberg with those systems,” says Sturges. However, for many commutes, a car is overkill. What if the closest bus is just a mile and a half away? A “right-sized” vehicle, suited to your particular last-leg commuting need, is ideal. These might be anything from a Segway (dorky as it may be) to an electric bike or a high-powered electric golf cart. But the vehicles themselves aren’t the solution, since commutes can change every day (say you’re visiting a client one day, and eating lunch at your desk the next).

Click here to read the entire article.

PBS Blueprint America’s The No 13Line Blog: Reauthorization 2009: The Year of Transportation

April 16, 2009 at 7:16 pm

 (Source: PBS Blueprint America’s The No 13Line Blog)

This is our year. Infrastructure is no longer just a word thrown about by policy wonks and engineers. The public, and more importantly politicians, have made public works, especially transportation, a front and center issue. The White House brings a fresh outlook on transportation policy and land use decisions – US Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has recently announced his “2-foot NM” rule which would require all business trips by US DOT workers of less than two miles to be made on two feet. Already, President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (known to most as the Stimulus Package) provided approximately $46 billion directly to transportation and much of that to green transportation. And, just as we’re beginning to put that money to use, we’re also beginning to launch into high gear on the reauthorization of the Federal Transportation Bill. The reauthorization will provide a longer-term strategy for building up an innovative, sustainable transportation policy.

The 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETY-LU), the current authorization of federal transportation policy included $287 billion in approved funding and expires on September 30, 2009. We strongly urge legislators to act quickly on reauthorization to avoid further injuring our financially-strapped transportation system. They must also “think big” (say $500+ million big) and think wisely and efficiently.

The new administration clearly talks a good game when it comes to sustainable transport; reauthorization is the perfect opportunity to “walk the talk.” But, it’s not just a matter of money – transportation investments can be constructive, or destructive, to our nation’s resources. Poor funding decisions can also increase our dependence on foreign oil which affects, in turn, foreign policy. Where and how we spend is key to a sagacious program. In short, we must rely less on cars and trucks and more on rail and bus. We must live closer to where we work and be able to walk, bike or take transit there. We must end our culture of “consuming a gallon of gas to buy a gallon of milk.”

We were pleasantly surprised to find $8 billion in the stimulus bill for high-speed rail. Reauthorization should quintuple that number to spark at least five and maybe 10 high-speed rail corridors. It should be noted that China is spending over $1 trillion on high-speed rail, the largest public works project in the world next to President Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System. Our goal is to make rail between large cities competitive with air travel for short-haul trips of less than 500 miles. This would reduce our carbon footprint and increase efficiency at overloaded airports. The United States rail system should also be strengthened to accommodate a much larger share of freight traffic. Rail is more energy-efficient than trucks and one freight train can potentially remove 200 trucks from the highway system.

Current transportation policy allocates much of its funding to Departments of Transportation (DOTs). But as most DOTs are run at the state, rather than at the city level, the objective of the DOT is generally to efficiently move people between cities. And besides the rail initiatives discussed above, this typically means investment in highway infrastructure. Very few cities actually have their own DOTs. However, approximately 80 percent of Americans currently live in metropolitan areas. Therefore, there should be a much greater emphasis on providing funding for efficiently moving people within cities. But even the city DOTs that do exist are bound within the physical city limits. The new transportation bill should establish funding and authority at the regional level to ensure that all metropolitan areas modernize across city borders to incorporate the full range of transportation modes. Further, each regional transportation planning entity should be required to establish a clear statement of objectives and be accountable.

Click here to read the entire post.

President Obama unveils his vision for high-speed rail in America and makes a compelling argument

April 16, 2009 at 1:03 pm

 (Source: USDOT, Infrastructurist; YouTube)

President Barack Obama, along with Vice President Biden and Secretary LaHood, announced a new U.S. push today to transform travel in America, creating high-speed rail lines from city to city, reducing dependence on cars and planes and spurring economic development.

The President released a strategic plan outlining his vision for high speed rail in America. The plan identifies $8 billion provided in the ARRA and $1 billion a year for five years requested in the federal budget as a down payment to jump-start a potential world-class passenger rail system and sets the direction of transportation policy for the future. The strategic plan will be followed by detailed guidance for state and local applicants. By late summer, the Federal Railroad Administration will begin awarding the first round of grants.

President Obama didn’t dance around the issues that American policticans usually bypass to avoid embarassment.  In an impressively candid and blunt assessment,  the President made a compelling argument for the need to invest in High-speed Rail.   Pointing to how other economies around the world, with a specific reference to France,  Pres. Obama reiterated the advantages of investing in HSR and how it can reviatlize the economy while offering a great alternative to our current transportation woes.

The Infrastructurist summaries this nicely: ” In fact, he (President Obama) doesn’t pull any punches in saying that rail is a *better* way to travel than car or plane. It’s “faster, easier, and cheaper than building more freeways.” And he conjures the appeal of travel from city center to city center without having to dash out to far-flung airports — “no sitting on the tarmac, no lost luggage, no taking off your shoes.” And: “High-speed rail is long-overdue, and this plan lets American travelers know that they are not doomed to a future of long lines at the airports or jammed cars on the highways.”

Additional funding for long-term planning and development is expected from legislation authorizing federal surface transportation programs.

The report formalizes the identification of ten high-speed rail corridors as potential recipients of federal funding. Those lines are: California, Pacific Northwest, South Central, Gulf Coast, Chicago Hub Network, Florida, Southeast, Keystone, Empire and Northern New England. Also, opportunities exist for the Northeast Corridor from Washington to Boston to compete for funds to improve the nation’s only existing high-speed rail service.

President Obama’s vision for high-speed rail mirrors that of President Eisenhower, the father of the Interstate highway system, which revolutionized the way Americans traveled. Now, high-speed rail has the potential to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, lower harmful carbon emissions, foster new economic development and give travelers more choices when it comes to moving around the country.

“My high-speed rail proposal will lead to innovations that change the way we travel in America. We must start developing clean, energy-efficient transportation that will define our regions for centuries to come,” said President Obama. “A major new high-speed rail line will generate many thousands of construction jobs over several years, as well as permanent jobs for rail employees and increased economic activity in the destinations these trains serve. High-speed rail is long-overdue, and this plan lets American travelers know that they are not doomed to a future of long lines at the airports or jammed cars on the highways.”

“Today, we see clearly how Recovery Act funds and the Department of Transportation are building the platform for a brighter economic future – they’re creating jobs and making life better for communities everywhere,” said Vice President Biden. “Everyone knows railways are the best way to connect communities to each other, and as a daily rail commuter for over 35 years, this announcement is near and dear to my heart. Investing in a high-speed rail system will lower our dependence on foreign oil and the bill for a tank of gas; loosen the congestion suffocating our highways and skyways; and significantly reduce the damage we do to our planet.”

Ten major corridors are being identified for potential high-speed rail projects:

California Corridor (Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego)
Pacific Northwest Corridor (Eugene, Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver BC)
South Central Corridor (Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Dallas/Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Little Rock)
Gulf Coast Corridor (Houston, New Orleans, , Mobile, Birmingham, Atlanta)
Chicago Hub Network (Chicago, Milwaukee, Twin Cities, St. Louis, Kansas City, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Louisville,)
Florida Corridor( (Orlando, Tampa, Miami)
Southeast Corridor ((Washington, Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta, Macon, Columbia, , Savannah, Jacksonville)
Keystone Corridor ((Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh)
Empire Corridor ((New York City, Albany, Buffalo)
Northern New England Corridor ((Boston, Montreal, Portland, Springfield, New Haven, Albany)

 

Time examines the “Cash for Clunkers” initiative: A Deal to Help Detroit — and the Planet?

April 16, 2009 at 12:08 am

 (Source: Time)

A Lot Full of Old Clunkers For Sale

It’s no secret that one of the biggest reasons the U.S. auto industry is teetering on collapse is that, quite simply, Americans have stopped buying cars. U.S. auto sales were down 37% in March from 2008, the latest in a nearly unbroken year-and-a-half streak of falling sales. And if the cratered economy is the main culprit behind backed-up inventory at U.S. car dealers, another is that American automakers have failed to produce the more fuel-efficient vehicles that gas-price-conscious car buyers are beginning to demand. As a result, the U.S. still sends hundreds of billions of dollars overseas for oil — and adds ever more greenhouse-gas pollution into the atmosphere. 

Now what if there were a way to tackle both these problems with one policy: to stimulate demand for American cars while making the U.S. auto fleet cleaner, greener and more efficient? It sounds like the kind of slick two-for-one pitch you might hear from a used-car salesman, but that’s exactly what proponents of a “cash for clunkers” program are promising.

In its broad outlines, the prospective policy — for which a number of proposals have been put forward in Congress — would offer Americans cash rebates of up to several thousand dollars if they traded in an old, inefficient car for a new, greener one. The ailing U.S. automakers would receive a shot in the arm — potentially worth up to 2 million additional sales a year — while polluting cars would be taken off the road and replaced with more efficient ones. (All cash-for-clunkers programs require the old cars to be scrapped rather than resold.) “There are significant environmental advantages and substantive benefits for the auto sector,” says Benjamin Goldstein, a policy analyst for left-leaning think tank the Center for American Progress. “This goes right for the source of the problem, for vehicles sales and for oil use.”

But is cash-for-clunkers really two-for-one? That depends. There are currently two main bills in the House and Senate, which, according to greens, are not created equal. One, sponsored by Democratic Ohio Representative Betty Sutton, allows any car from model year 2000 or earlier to be traded in, without any restriction on fuel economy. In return, car buyers will get $4,000 if they buy a new U.S. car that gets a minimum mileage of 27 m.p.g. and $5,000 if they buy a U.S. car with at least 30 m.p.g. Crucially, the new cars have to be made in the U.S. — foreign brands can qualify, but only if they’re manufactured on U.S. soil, which would disqualify super-efficient vehicles like Toyota’s Prius hybrid, made only in Japan.

Whichever bill is chosen — and others are being circulated as well — a successful cash-for-clunkers program wouldn’t be cheap. Germany’s program may end up costing the government some $6 billion, three times the initial price tag. Since Obama has said that money for the cash-for-clunkers program needs to come out of existing stimulus spending, that might take some creative accounting. But a cash-for-clunkers program, whatever its environmental benefits, would provide the government with a way to aid the domestic auto industry without giving Detroit any more direct handouts. “There’s a lot of justifiable taxpayer reluctance to keep helping the auto industry,” says Goldstein of the Center for American Progress. “Politically this is a viable alternative to sending them additional loan money.”

Click here to read the rest of this article.

Note:  Below is a list of articles on this issue, previously published on TransportGooru.  This compilation of articles offer an insight into state of various “Cash for Clunkers” style programs implemented (or currently being debated) across the globe (Germany, UK, etc,). Stay plugged in to TransportGooru for more on this topic in the days to come.

 Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save (CARS) Act revives “Cash for Clunkers” scrapping plan in U.S

Germany plans to extend Abwrackprämie aka “Environmental Bonus”

The bickering starts over the implementation of the Cash for Clunkers legislation

Obama Favors “Cash for Clunkers”

Germany increases subsidy to 5 Billion Euros, tripling incentives for its “Cash for Clunker” (Abwrackprämie) program

Britain mulls implementation of “Cash for Clunkers” scheme to boost ailing auto sales 

Where the US stands in pushing “Cash for Clunkers”- Four bills in Congress; Details Needed

Goodbye, Gas Guzzlers? – Washington Post editorial analyses the keys to succesful implementation of US’ Cash for Clunkers” initiative