I am experimenting with several new driving techniques that fall under the general description of hypermiling to reduce my consumption of gasoline. (see my original column and a subsequent blog post). In August, I saved $49.16 when compared to my gas mileage under my old driving style. Not bad, but quite bit lower than the $103.50 I saved in July. I see three reasons for this:

1. I drove less than normal in August because of an out-of-town vacation. So I only filled my gas tank three times. That might seem like an odd rationale. But I’m calculating my hypermiling savings based on how far I drive on a tank of gas, not on how often I don’t drive or how many days I can go before filling my gas tank.

2. Gas prices are substantially lower than in July. I figure my savings based on actual pump prices for each tank of gas, so naturally, spending less on each gallon that I buy automatically leads to lower savings.

3. My gas consumption actually was up a little. In July, I reached almost 45 miles per gallon (compared to 38 mpg under my previous driving style). In August, my average was closer to 42 mpg. I’ve noticed I’m driving a little faster than when I first started hypermiling, and speed really lowers the average. And traffic congestion really picked up on Valley freeways in the last two weeks of August, so I’m encountering more speed-up/slow-down/almost-stop situations. Other hypermilers say constant changes in acceleration also eats into gas mileage.

For September, I’m focusing on keeping my foot off the gas pedal a little more, and I’m experimenting with travel routes and departure times to see if I can deal with congestion better.

MARTIN SHULTZ 

   In an example of mind-boggling micro-management, the folks behind the proposed statewide 1-cent sales tax hike for transportation turned away more than 18,200 petition signatures and a check for $27,000 from central Arizona homebuilders association, Capitol Media Services reported Monday.
   The TIME coalition apparently is trying to hold the homebuilders to the original deal they struck with Gov. Janet Napolitano to provide the campaign $100,000 in cash, in exchange for the initiative not including any new impact fees or special taxes on building construction.
   The homebuilder association apparently thought the TIME Coalition could use help gathering more signatures, since the campaign only started May 8 and has to deliver at least 153,365 valid signatures by Thursday’s deadline. (And a general rule of thumb is a initiative campaign should collect at least 25 percent more signatures than the minimum required to safely qualify for the ballot.)
   But the TIME Coalition wants all of the money, not help with signatures.
   “We’re still waiting,” coalition treasurer and APS uber-lobbyist Martin Shultz told Capitol Media Services.
   It’s a clear reflection of how Napolitano wants complete control of her proposals, regardless of who else might be involved. Does that mean she’ll take the blame if the TIME coalition doesn’t manage to make the November ballot? Somehow, I doubt it.
Update:
   The TIME campaign says Wednesday it has submitted more than 250,000 signatures to put this initiative on the November ballot. Those signatures still need to be verified. But it looks like the coalition didn’t need any help from the homebuilders after all.

Gov. Janet Napolitano (second from right) along with ADOT director Victor Mendez help to open a stretch of the Santan Freeway in 2005. (Found at azgovernor.gov)

Tribune writer Dennis Welch has a hot story about Gov. Janet Napolitano cutting a secret deal with Arizona’s biggest homebuilder group to provide $100,000 for an initiative campaign to raise the state sales tax for transportation projects.

The coalition behind the initiative, Transportation and Infrastructure Moving AZ’s Economy, previously had claimed that making growth pay for itself would be essential to any successful statewide transportation plan. Now we know why no such funding mechanism was included in the actual proposal when the campaign to collect initiative signatures was launched Tuesday.

Napolitano was willingly to protect homebuilders, who will benefit heavily from additional transportation construction, in exchange for their cash to get this campaign underway even as the state struggles with a multi-billion budget shortfall.

President Bush and Transportation Secretary Mary Peters (courtesy of the White House Web site)

U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters soon will be out of a job if the International Brotherhood of Teamsters has anything to say about it.

The Teamsters have launched a media and lobbying campaign asking Congress to “fire Mary Peters” over President Bush’s plan to allow a limited number of Mexican tractor-trailers to deliver goods anywhere in the U.S. under a year-long pilot program. Peters is the former director of the Arizona Department of Transportation who is considered to be a possible candidate for governor in 2010.

The Mexican truck pilot program is the Bush administration’s latest attempt to carry out a requirement of NAFTA to allow U.S. and Mexican commercial semi-trucks to travel freely in both countries. Without the treaty, industrial and agricultural goods moving between countries must be unloaded from the home country’s deliver truck at a border port of entry and moved into a truck from the country where the goods are headed. This increases costs and reduces trade between the U.S. and Mexico.

While NAFTA was negotiated and signed by President Clinton, Democrats have been heavily urged by unions such as the Teamsters to undermine the delivery truck exchange provisions. Unions fear that Mexican truck drivers working for cheaper wages will steal jobs from U.S. drivers, ignoring the fact that increased trade should mean more work for everyone involved.

The unions’ complaints were largely ignored until Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and the actual effective date of the delivery truck exchange came into sight. First, Congress sought to impede the treaty by requiring Mexican trucks and drivers to comply with all safety and environmental regulations that apply to U.S. trucks. That’s when Peters announced this pilot program a year ago to demonstrate Mexican trucks can pass U.S. inspections and comply with the law.

The unions didn’t relent, so in December a provision was snuck into a spending bill to deny any funding for the pilot program.

The Transportation Department has parsed the bill’s language and decided it doesn’t actually apply, despite what Congress intended. So the pilot program continues.

And the Teamsters now are trying to use public pressure to force Peters to back down or to lose her job. The campaign is something of a publicity stunt, as Congress can’t “fire” Peters, only Bush has that authority.

But we’ll see if the Teamsters can prompt Congress to take further action to thwart this provision of NAFTA.