If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

At some point, it’s important that the transports and logistics industry ask some hard questions to our politicians. Every time we fuel our vehicles with gas, our wallets dry up and it’s getting scary.

What if all this time we’d been lied to? What if gas, or even hydrogen wasn’t our best alternative? What if some powerful people found happiness in enslaving you and your company to the fuel pumps?

Influent voices are now rising to explain, with abundant proof, that it would be a lot more productive and cost effective to use batteries, instead of hydrogen fuel, to power our vehicles.

Sadly for us all, though, it’s a lot more profitable for the apparently omnipotent petroleum industry to develop the hydrogen technology, despite the considerable dangers involved, than investing for the development of efficient batteries.

Why? Because hydrogen will keep us tied up to the pumps.

Again, it’s all about the money.

Would it be possible that we’re all spectators to a giant play resembling a global conspiracy to move us all from one dependency (fossil fuel) to another (hydrogen)?

Sony Pictures has launched, on June 28th 2006, in both Los Angeles and New York, an amazing documentary / movie titled “Who Killed the Electric Car?” that tackles this situation head-on. The movie should be available locally, in most cities, this summer — as a T&L Professional, you should probably see it.

You may ask yoursefl why you should sit at your local cineplex looking at a “documentary” for a few hours? It’s a good question but let’s start with a few facts. In 1996, not so long ago, electric cars began to pop up on California’s roads. They were quiet, fast (zippy, to be precise), produced no exhaust and basically ran without any gasoline… a dream on four wheels, right?

Ok, so why are electric cars on the way out?

What happened?

In the transports and logistics industry, it’s hard to imagine daily business without using fossil fuel but, in comparison, look at the rest of our lives.

We use batteries in toothbrushes, rasors, flashlights, remotes, wireless phones, portable devices and computers… nowadays, even the books we buy for our kids come with little battery powered sound systems that play music while they read!

I’ll admit we either have to recharge the batteries once in a while (or even change them) but overall, we’re getting decent performance.

Why can’t we use batteries in our vehicles, especially for shorter commutes?

Imagine the savings in the T&L industry if all short distances could be taken care of by electric vehicles. Nobody would want to switch back to fossil fuel or even hydrogen so why are we so passive and tolerant about those “alternatives” now?

The ongoing debate over how to fuel the many vehicles in our highly mobile society will not stop here but hopefull, by asking questions, T&L operators from around the world will keep an open mind about what the future may have in store.

Tags: electric cars, gm, mobile society, fossil fuel, hydrogen, no emissions, documentary

Possibly Related Posts:

• A new bridge for the Windsor-Detroit crossing
• Summer of 2008’s fuel prices outlook
• America’s gray-haired driver boom
• Environmentally-friendly bus projects
• Innovative solar alternative to power buildings

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

American rail links are quite useful if you plan on boarding these extensive networks to save on fuel while circumventing the urban gridlocks.

There are other smaller rail networks but these are the most widely used, across the United States:

• Metrolink - Premier regional rail system, including commuter and other passenger services, linking the Greater Los Angeles Area communities to employment and activity centers.
• Coaster - North San Diego County transit authority.
• Sounder - Created by the Washington state legislature to build a mass transit system that connects regional employment and population centers in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties, in the Seattle and Bellevue areas.
• Virginia Railway Express (VRE) - Connecting major Northern Virgina cities like Fairfax to the bustling Washington DC downtown.
• Metra - Northeast Illinois’ commuter rail system connecting Chicago to most neighboring communities.
• Trinity Railway Express - Commuter rail service between Fort Worth and Dallas.
• Caltrain - Serving the San Francisco and San Jose areas.
• Alaska Railroad - Alaska’s unique railroad system which is also heavily geared towards tourism.
• Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) - Vital commuter link between the growing city of Gary, Indiana and it’s huge neighbor, Chicago.
• West Coast Express - Providing service to the communities of the Northeast sector, this is Vancouver’s efficient commuter rail service.
• Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) - Californian rail transit authority serving many cities, namely Stockton, Fremont, Pleasanton, Livermore, San Jose and Santa Clara.

Millions of commuters use these train services daily but let’s not forget about the commercial transporters who will appreciate the fact that commuters aren’t the only ones appreciating the rail system. In fact, the intermodal offerings (truck loads easily transfered to train cargo and then back to truck loadable units) are constantly expanding to make a more diversified use of the rails.

Heavy loads aren’t really an issue when using the mighty rail so if you’re looking to move freight around the major US metro areas, you should your local train transit provider about the intermodal possibilities.

Tags: train, commuters, rail networks, transit authorities, us metro areas

Possibly Related Posts:

• The richest airlines
• A new bridge for the Windsor-Detroit crossing
• Summer of 2008’s fuel prices outlook
• Are the airlines offering the same “great service” to all passengers?
• America’s gray-haired driver boom

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Trade using surface transportation between the United States and its North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partners Canada and Mexico was 14.8% higher in March 2006 than in March 2005, reaching $68.2 billion, the highest monthly level ever recorded, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (Table 1).

BTS, a part of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), reported that total North American surface transportation trade rose 14.1% in March from February (Table 2). Month-to-month changes can be affected by seasonal variations and other factors.

The previous monthly high was $64.0 billion in October 2005. Surface transportation consists largely of freight movements by truck, rail and pipeline. About 90% of U.S. trade by value with Canada and Mexico moves on land.

Total North American surface transportation trade value in March was up 35.8% compared to March 2001, and up 100.5% compared to March 1996, a period of 10 years (Table 3). Imports in March were up 114.6% compared to March 1996, while exports were up 84.8%.

U.S. Surface Transportation Trade with Canada

U.S.–Canada surface transportation trade totaled $44.0 billion in March, up 11.4% compared to March 2005 (Table 4). The value of imports carried by truck was 8.6% higher in March 2006 than March 2005 while the value of exports carried by truck was 13.3% higher.

Michigan led all states in surface trade with Canada in March with $6.7 billion (Table 5).

U.S. Surface Transportation Trade with Mexico

U.S. – Mexico surface transportation trade totaled $24.2 billion in March, up 21.5% compared to March 2005 (Table 6). The value of imports carried by truck was 18.1% higher in March 2006 than March 2005 while the value of exports carried by truck was 21.9% higher.

Texas led all states in surface trade with Mexico in March with $7.7 billion (Table 7).

The Transborder Freight Dataset is a special extract of the official U.S. foreign trade statistics. The data are tabulated for BTS monthly by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Foreign Trade Division. March transborder numbers include data received by BTS as of May 15.

Tags: surface trade, canada, mexico, usa, foreign trade, statistics, transborder, bts

Possibly Related Posts:

• A new bridge for the Windsor-Detroit crossing
• Summer of 2008’s fuel prices outlook
• America’s gray-haired driver boom
• The truth about electric cars - on the big screen
• International investment in US airlines proposal

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The United Kingdom’s Department for Transport has today published National Statistics on freight traffic handled at UK ports in 2005.

These provisional port statistics for 2005 show that:

• Total freight traffic rose by 8.5 million tonnes (Mt) to 581.6 Mt in 2005, 1.5 per cent up on 2004;
• Inwards traffic rose by 9.7 Mt to 352.1 Mt, whilst outwards traffic fell by 1.2 Mt to 229.4 Mt;
• Freight traffic through the 52 major UK ports totalled 565.8 Mt, up 7.6 Mt on 2004. This represented 97 per cent of total UK port freight traffic in 2005;
• Grimsby and Immingham maintained its position as the UK’s leading port in 2005 with 58.1 Mt (0.4 Mt up on 2004), followed by Tees and Hartlepool with 55.8 Mt (up 2.0 Mt) and London with 53.8 Mt (up 0.6 Mt);

The top ten ports in 2005, in terms of tonnage, were as follows:

Tags: uk, ports, port statistics, europe, navigation, shipping, london, liverpool, freight traffic

Possibly Related Posts:

• Summer of 2008’s fuel prices outlook

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

A revised international investment proposal released today by the U.S. Department of Transportation would strengthen requirements initially proposed last November concerning U.S. citizens’ control of all safety, security and national defense obligations of domestic airlines while allowing international investors to make decisions on commercial matters involving U.S. airline management.

The supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking issued by the Department reflects comments provided on the November, 2005 proposal from consumers, airlines, aviation personnel and other interested groups. That proposal would make it easier for U.S. airlines to raise money, restructure their businesses and form strategic partnerships and alliances by allowing international investors more say in some aspects of airline operations such as scheduling and marketing.

The supplemental proposal issued today would make clear that U.S. citizens who are members of a domestic airline’s board or the voting shareholders, must retain the authority to revoke decision-making authority that international investors may acquire. For example, domestic board members might decide to revoke international investors’ decision-making authority over scheduling and fleet composition if they felt that those decisions were not in their airlines’ best interests. The new provision would make clear that U.S. citizens remain in “actual control” of the airline, as required by statute.

In addition, the revised proposal would strengthen the original proposal’s requirement that U.S. citizens have full control over all policies and implementation relating to safety, security and national defense airlift commitments. The new proposal would specifically prevent international investors from having the ability to hire, fire or control the budgets of senior airline managers with direct responsibility for safety, security and national defense airlift commitments.

As with the original version, the revised proposal would only apply to international investors from countries that have Open-Skies aviation agreements with the United States and allow similar investments by American citizens in their domestic airlines.

Here’s a partial list of US domestic airliners targeted, directly or not, by this proposal:

• Alaska Air
• Aloha Air
• America West Airlines
• American Airlines
• Continental Airlines
• Delta Air Lines
• Hawaiian Airlines
• Northwest Airlines
• Pacific Coastal Airlines
• Southwest Airlines
• United Airlines
• US Airways
• WestJet Airlines
• World Airways

The Department is seeking additional comment for another sixty days to allow for all interested groups to comment on the revised proposal.

Tags: airlines, investments, us, dot, proposal, safety, security, national defense, citizens

Possibly Related Posts:

• The richest airlines
• A new bridge for the Windsor-Detroit crossing
• Summer of 2008’s fuel prices outlook
• Are the airlines offering the same “great service” to all passengers?
• Surface trade with Canada and Mexico reached a monthly record high in March 2006

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!