TransportGooru

(Source: Greenwire @ New York Times)

According to a Center for Public Integrity report released yesterday, there are nearly 1,800 special interest groups lobbying Congress on the transportation bill, ranging from local officials and planning agencies to real estate companies, construction firms and universities. In the first half of this year, the groups employed more than 2,000 lobbyists and spent an estimated total of $45 million on their transportation lobbying.

The road to reforming the nation’s transportation systems looks to be a long and winding one.

Once lawmakers decide when to move forward with the sweeping overhauls they promise, they will need to find a way to pay for it. And once that difficult task is accomplished, the debate will only grow more complicated.

Many in the transportation community agree the next multi-year surface transportation bill needs to significantly boost federal funding for the nation’s roads, rails and bridges. But the consensus soon begins to crumble when the issue turns to how to pay for the overhaul — with lawmakers loath to tell Americans they will need to foot the bill and the rest of the transportation community agreeing that is the only option to pay for it (E&E Daily, Sept. 15).

But even off the Hill, where key players agree massive reform is needed to make the system more performance-based and effective, there is no consensus on exactly what that new system would look like and what those performance goals should be.

Many of the goals discussed at the invitation-only event are conflicting by nature. The usual suspects include the funding ratio for highways and transit systems, and the rate of return that individual states see from taxes they pay to finance the nation’s road and rail work.

Robert Atkinson, who chaired one of two congressionally created blue ribbon panels to examine transportation investment needs, said his panel, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, did not even broach the subject of where the increased investment should be spent in its report.

According to government estimates, the transportation sector accounts for roughly a third of U.S. carbon emissions, and Democrats have vowed to recast the nation’s roads and rails in a “greener” light.

But many state highway departments that had previously voiced support for the new environmental focus are now worrying that the emissions goals may grow overly ambitious and threaten to deliver another blow to both the economy and their efforts to repair and replace crumbling roads and bridges (Greenwire, Aug. 27)

Congress must also decide whether or not to welcome the private sector into the transportation field by giving firms long-term leases on public roads and bridges, effectively turning public infrastructure into a private product.

Click here to read the entire article.  For those wondering what is in the minds of our lawmakers drafting the reauthorization bill, here is congressman Oberstar’s handwritten scrap-paper version (pulled right from the House T&I Committee website, which has a lot of interesting materials to read on this subject).  Though it is not very detailed, it offers a general sensing of the direction he is taking (e.g., consolidating the existing behemoth (108 programs) into 4 categories to simplify the mgmt. structure, adding Office of Livability & Office of Expedited Project Delivery to the FHWA, etc.)

(Source: Yonah Freemark @ The Transport Politic)

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

Image Courtesy: Yonah Freemark @ The Transport Politic

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

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

Click here to read the entire article.

Image Courtesy: USDOT

(Source: USDOT Press Release)

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced the agenda  for the Distracted Driving Summit on Tuesday (shown below), September 30 and Wednesday, October 1. Over 200 safety experts, researchers, elected officials and members of the public will gather in Washington, D.C. to share their experiences, provide feedback and develop recommendations for reducing the growing safety risk that distracted driving is imposing on our nation’s roads.

The Distracted Driving Summit will bring together respected leaders from around the country for interactive sessions on the extent and impact of the problem, current research, regulations, best practices and other key topics. The two day Summit will feature five panels – on data, research, technology, policy, and outreach – with a range of experts discussing each topic.

• The Summit will begin with a context setting panel where participants will examine the scope of the issue and the various distractions that exist, followed by a panel that will review currently available research.
• Day one wraps up with an examination of distractions caused by technology and efforts made to assess and reduce negative effects caused by current and planned devices. Panelists will also consider technology that can prevent the consequences of driver distraction.
• Day two features a review of legislative and regulatory approaches for dealing with distracted driving; evaluations of the impact of such measures; and enforcement issues. Members of Congress and their staff will also have the opportunity to contribute to the discussion.
• Day two concludes with a discussion with teens about their experiences with distracted driving followed by an examination of various public awareness initiatives and research regarding the effectiveness of these efforts.

To accommodate the strong response, the Summit will be available live by webcast and members of the public will be given the opportunity to submit questions online for each individual panel discussion. The complete agenda and additional information about the Summit can be found at http://www.rita.dot.gov/distracted_driving_Summit/ .  Also, you can follow the latest developments via twitter @ distractdriving

————————————————————————————————————————————

Distracted Driving Summit
September 30 – October 1, 2009
Renaissance Hotel, 999 9th Street NW, Washington, DC

Agenda Is Subject to Change

Wednesday, September 30

DOT Welcome and Summit Opening
Peter Appel, Administrator
Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Opening Address
Ray LaHood, U.S. Secretary of Transportation

Panel: Driver Distractions and Inattention – Definitions and Data
A context-setting panel on the definition of distracted driving (what it is and what it is not), data on the extent of the issue, the types of distractions across surface modes of transportation.

Moderator:       Victor Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration

Speaker:           Dr. John D. Lee, Professor, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Speaker:           Kristin Backstrom, Senior Manager, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
Speaker:           John Inglish, General Manager, Utah Transit Authority
Speaker:           Bruce Magladry, Director, Office of Highway Safety, National Transportation Safety Board

Panel: Research Results – How Risky is Distracted Driving?

This panel session will review what various research – experimental research, industry self reporting, collision studies, and observational studies– tell us about the nature of the problem of distracted driving.

Moderator:       Rose McMurray, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Speaker:           Dr. Ann Dellinger, Lead, Motor Vehicle Injury Prevention Team,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center of  Injury Prevention and Control
Speaker:           Dr. Tom Dingus, Director, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
Speaker:           Dr. William Horrey, Chair, Surface Transportation Technical Group,
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society and Research Scientist,
Center for Behavioral Sciences, Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety
Speaker:           Dr. Key Dismukes, Chief Scientist, Human Systems Integration
Division, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center

Panel: Technology and Distracted Driving
This panel will focus on distractions caused by technology and on efforts that have been made (or are needed) to assess and reduce the negative impact of distractions caused by current and planned devices.  It will also consider technology that can prevent the consequences of distraction.

Moderator:       Peter Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Speaker:           Dr. David Eby, Research Associate Professor and Head, Social
and Behavioral Analysis, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute
Speaker:           Rob Strassburger, Vice President, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
Speaker:           Steve Largent, President and Chief Executive Officer, International Association
for Wireless Telecommunications Industry
Speaker:           Michael Petricone, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Consumer Electronics Association
Speaker:           Rod MacKenzie, Chief Technology Officer and Vice President of
Programs, Intelligent Transportation Society of America

Thursday, October 1

Congressional Presentation

Panel: Legislation, Regulation and Enforcement of Distracted Driving
This panel session will review legislative and regulatory approaches for addressing distracted driving; evaluations of the impact of such measures; enforcement issues; and public attitudes towards the issue.

Moderator:       Peter Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration

Speaker:           John D’Amico, Representative, Illinois General Assembly
Speaker:           Bruce Starr, Senator, Oregon Senate and Executive Committee Member of the National Conference
of State Legislatures
Speaker:           Steve Farley, Representative, Arizona House of Representatives
Speaker:           Major David Salmon, Director, Traffic Services Division, New York State Police
Speaker:           Vernon Betkey, Chairman, Governors Highway Safety Association
and Director of the Maryland Highway Safety Office

Youth Program

Panel: Public Awareness and Education
This panel will review initiatives to increase public awareness of safety issues such as distracted driving, and will review research regarding the effectiveness of such efforts.

Moderator: Ron Medford, Acting Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Speaker:           Sandy Spavone, Executive Director, National Organization for Youth Safety
Speaker:           Chuck Hurley, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer,  Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Speaker:           Ann Shoket, Editor-in-Chief, Seventeen Magazine
Speaker:           Janet Froetscher, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Safety Council
Speaker:           Dr. Adrian Lund, President, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Secretary LaHood
Closing Remarks and Action Plan

(Source: New York Times)

The Obama administration issued proposed rules on Tuesday that impose the first nationwide limits on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and that require American cars and light truck fleet to meet a fuel efficiency standard of 35.5 miles a gallon by 2016.

The government projects that the regulations will raise car and truck prices by an average of $1,100, but that drivers will save $3,000 over the life of the vehicle in lower fuel bills. Officials also said the new program, which is to take effect in 2012, would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by nearly a billion tons and cut oil consumption by 1.8 billion barrels from 2012 to 2016.

The 1,227-page regulation will go through a 60-day public comment period before it is completed early next year.

(Source: Wall Street Journal)

Today’s WSJ had a nice article about the Korean Automaker, explaining what makes it a successful car in the US.   Worth a read..

….The leading Korean car company’s name rhymes with the first day of the week, as in “Hyundai, Bloody Hyundai.” Which is pretty much what the company’s competitors are saying to themselves these days about Hyundai’s remarkable success over the past few years.

Last year Hyundai’s global sales bucked the industry’s decline and rose 5% to 4.2 million cars and trucks. Even in the U.S., the world’s most competitive car market, Hyundai’s sales rose 0.8% in the first eight months of this year, while Ford’s sales dropped 25% in the same period and GM’s plunged 35%. The major Japanese auto makers suffered declines between 25% and 30%.

Hyundai’s success stems from a sustained corporate effort at reinvention—the very same word General Motors is using to describe its mission these days. The Hyundai story should provide GM with a road map.

For years, Hyundai enjoyed a protected home market in Korea. This ensured its prosperity there, but the lack of competition meant the company didn’t develop the product quality or consistency to compete effectively in international markets. The result: Hyundai’s initial U.S. success in 1986 was undercut quickly by quality problems.

A decade ago, Hyundai acquired Kia, a victim of a mid-1990s shakeout in the Korean auto industry. It also established a new quality-control division charged with boosting reliability by emulating Toyota’s vaunted manufacturing methods. To allay lingering concerns over quality, Hyundai put warranties of 10 years or 100,000 miles on vehicles sold in America.

Their campaign began to show results, and the big breakthrough came in 2004, when Hyundai tied Honda for second place in the prestigious J.D. Power & Co. Initial Quality Survey. Also that year, Hyundai completed its first U.S. assembly plant, near Montgomery, Ala.

On the marketing front, last January the Hyundai division launched an innovative “Assurance Program” in the U.S.: Buyers return their cars if they lose their job within a year after their purchase. The offer generated buzz and resonated with the public, as Hyundai’s recent U.S. sales results demonstrate, even though buyers have turned in fewer than 50 cars under the program, which continues through year-end.

…..Both U.S. companies will have to make their marketing more relevant. Hyundai’s 10-year warranties and the “Assurance Program” succeeded because they addressed specific customer concerns—the former about the brand’s reliability, the latter about the economic environment…….

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: FHWA Office of Planning, Environment and Realty)

(Sources contributing to this hybrid report: Marketwatch; Associated Press Washington Post; &  CNN)

President Barack Obama signed an order on Friday to impose the special punitive tariffs for three years, the White House announced.   The action is the first major trade enforcement action of his presidency and comes less than two weeks before a high-profile summit of the leaders of the Group of 20 nations, including China.

It is the first time the U.S. government has imposed special “safeguard” provisions to protect a U.S. industry from Chinese competition..

“The president decided to remedy the clear disruption to the U.S. tire industry based on the facts and the law in this case,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement.

Obama had until this coming Thursday to accept, reject or modify a U.S. International Trade Commission ruling that a rising tide of Chinese tires into the U.S. hurts American producers. The United Steelworkers blames the increase for the loss of thousands of American jobs.

The federal trade panel recommended a 55 percent tariff in the first year, 45 percent in the second year and 35 percent in the third year. Obama settled on 35 percent the first year, 30 percent in the second and 25 percent in the third, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. The tariff would be on top of the current 4% tariff. The tariffs will take effect in 15 days.

U.S. imports of Chinese tires have risen from 14.6 million in 2004 to 46 million last year, accounting for about one-sixth of the U.S. market. Four U.S. tire plants have closed in the past two years, and more than 5,000 workers have lost their jobs.

President Barack Obama’s decision to impose trade penalties on Chinese tires has infuriated Beijing at a time when the U.S. badly needs Chinese help on climate change, nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea and the global economy.

The decision comes as U.S. officials are working with the Chinese and other nations to plan an economic summit in Pittsburgh on Sept. 24-25 of the 20 leading rich and developing nations. China will be a major presence at the meeting, and the United States will be eager to show it supports free trade.

Governments around the world have suggested the U.S. talks tough against protectionism only when its own industries are not threatened. U.S. rhetoric on free trade also has been questioned because of a “Buy American” provision in the U.S. stimulus package.

China condemned the White House’s announcement late Friday as protectionist and said it violated global trade rules. At home, the punitive tariffs on all car and light truck tires coming into the U.S. from China may placate union supporters who are important to the president’s health care push.

Chen Deming, China’s minister of commerce, said the penalties would hurt relations with the U.S. A ministry statement said Obama had “compromised to the political pressure of the U.S. domestic trade protectionism.”  “The Chinese government will continue to uphold the legitimate interests of China’s domestic industry and has the right to take corresponding measures,” Deming said.

For the Chinese government, the tire dispute threatens an economic relationship crucial to China’s economic growth. There was speculation before the decision that new tariffs could produce public pressure on Beijing to retaliate, potentially leading to a trade war.  Chinese leaders have in the past expressed displeasure about a possible tire tariff.

“We hope the U.S. government will refrain from taking action, for the long-term healthy and stable development of U.S.-Chinese relations,” Fu Ziying, China’s vice commerce minister, told local media in August.

China’s Ministry of Commerce said in a statement early Saturday that the move violated WTO rules. “China strongly opposes this serious act of trade protectionism by the U.S,” the ministry said, according to the Associated Press.

China agreed to the provision while negotiating to join the World Trade Organization, but until Friday the general “safeguard” provisions of the law had never been invoked.  Critics warned that if the general “safeguard,” which expires in four years, was never used to protect American workers from Chinese imports, then political support for free trade would be eroded.

“Since China joined the WTO, American workers have not been assured that the government would defend them against unfair trade,” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said.  The tariff, which will take effect Sept. 26, represents the first such case under the law for Obama, and his decision has been highly anticipated.

During the campaign, he had pledged to “crack down on China” and “work to ensure that China is no longer given a free pass to undermine U.S. workers,” as his Web site put it.

The tariff’s detractors said higher tire prices could lead some consumers to wait longer before replacing tires, creating a safety risk. Moreover, they said, the tariff won’t result in more jobs. Tires will simply come in from other low-cost countries, they say, and U.S. manufacturers, keep making their cheaper tires in China.

“U.S. tire manufacturers years ago decided to move production of low end tires off-shore,” said David Spooner, a lawyer representing the Chinese tire industry. “Frankly, a temporary tariff is not going to get them to change their business plan.”

Click here to read the entire article.