(Source: New York Times & Planetizen)

It was hailed as the solution to America’s infrastructure spending deficit, but the influx of private funds has come to halt along with the failure of banks and the huge investment from the Recovery Act. Plus, many schemes aroused taxpayers wrath.

Late last month plans to privatize “Alligator Alley,” a 78-mile stretch of Florida highway that connects Fort Lauderdale with Naples, collapsed when no bidders showed up. The failure has had a ripple effect — in Mississippi, state officials have pushed back the bidding schedule for a new 12-mile toll road.

Then there is the $1.2 billion privatization of 36,000 parking meters in Chicago. In the five months since the deal took effect, widespread complaints about poor service and rising parking rates have created a political firestorm for the Chicago City Council. Public opposition was so strong that on Wednesday the council approved a delay in voting on any future asset sales.

Chicago public officials have called the work of the private operator, Chicago Parking Meters L.L.C., “simply unacceptable.” For its part, the operator has apologized and announced it would delay price increases at the meters.

Proponents of public-to-private asset sales point to the $1.8 billion lease of the 7.8-mile Chicago Skyway in 2004 and the $3.8 billion raised by Indiana through a 75-year lease of its toll road in 2006 as successful pioneering efforts.

In Indiana, the money went to pay for a 10-year highway infrastructure program, and Gov. Mitch Daniels was re-elected last year promoting the lease, despite bumper stickers that read “Keep the Toll Road, Lease Mitch.”

The stimulus money, as well as other infrastructure money promised by Congress, has provided temporary relief for cash-poor municipalities. But this situation will not last forever.

(Source:  Autoblog & Detroit Free Press)

The U.S. House approved the “cash for clunkers” legislation earlier today, paving the way for consumers to snag up to $4,500 for trading in their older vehicles for new, more fuel efficient transport.

The bill, which passed 298-119, drew overwhelming support from automakers, local business groups and dealers who claimed the passage could boost sales – further aiding GM and Chrysler’s “reinvention” – during the economic downturn.

The House bill sets aside $4 billion to pay for electronic vouchers given to owners of older vehicles toward new models. With auto sales running at their lowest rate in four decades, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill could spur sales of about 625,000 vehicles; backers are hoping for 1 million.

The act “will shore up millions of jobs and stimulate local economies,” said Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio. “It will improve our environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”

The government’s interest in goosing the vehicle market extends to its ownership inGeneral Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, both of which are counting on a healthier U.S. market in the coming years for survival.

“The auto industry is going through a tremendous restructuring,” said Rep. Sander Levin, D-Royal Oak. “If there is not increased demand, that restructuring cannot succeed.”

Under the plan, owners of cars and trucks that get less than 18 m.p.g. could get a voucher of $3,500 to $4,500 for a new vehicle, depending on the mileage of the new model.

(Source:  AP via Yahoo)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Chrysler LLC’s sale to Fiat, turning down a last-ditch appeal by opponents that included consumer groups and three Indiana pension plans.

The court rejected a plea to block the sale of most of Chrysler’s assets to the Italian automaker. Chrysler, Fiat and the Obama administration had warned that the high court’s intervention could have scuttled the sale.

A federal appeals court in New York had earlier approved the sale, but gave opponents until Monday afternoon to try to get the Supreme Court to intervene.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ordered a temporary delay just before a 4 p.m. deadline on Monday. A little more than 24 hours later, the court freed the automakers to complete their deal.

The opponents include a trio of Indiana pension plans, consumer groups and individuals with product-related lawsuits.

The court issued a brief, unsigned opinion explaining its action. To obtain a delay, or stay, someone must show that at least four of the nine justices find that the issue raised is serious enough to warrant hearing a full appeal and that a majority of the court will conclude the lower court decision was wrong.

“The applicants have not carried that burden,” the court said.

Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock expressed disappointment with the decision and said options seem limited for opponents of the sale. “Obviously the supreme court of the land is the supreme court of the land,” Mourdock said. “The United States government has, I continue to believe, acted egregiously by taking away the traditional rights held by secured creditors.”

(Source:  The Auto Channel)

Edward E. Whitacre, Jr., former chairman and CEO of AT&T Inc., will become chairman of the New GM when the company is launched later this summer, GM’s interim Chairman Kent Kresa announced today. Kresa will continue to serve as interim chairman until the launch.

Whitacre, 67, was chairman and CEO of AT&T Inc. and its predecessor companies from 1990 to 2007. During his tenure, which began with Southwestern Bell, Whitacre led the company through a series of mergers and acquisitions–including that of AT&T in 2005–to create the nation’s largest provider of local, long distance and wireless services. He serves on the boards of ExxonMobil Corporation and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation and holds a degree in industrial engineering from Texas Technological University.

The six other members of the current board will most likely retire no later than the approval of the sale of GM assets to the new entity. A selection process is currently underway for four more directors to serve on the board of the New GM. In addition, the Canadian government and the new UAW Voluntary Employee Benefit Association (VEBA) will each nominate one director, bringing the total number of New GM directors to 13.

Click  here to read the entire article.

Road Pricing Beyond the Technology

Sunday 20 September, 2009 @ 9.00 – 17.00

Radisson SAS Royal Viking Hotel, Vasagatan 1 SE-101 24 Stockholm, Sweden

PRELIMINARY PROGRAMME

(As of 4 June, 2009; Subject to Change)

Road Pricing is an economic instrument that can be part of a package of measures to address overall mobility. This is not a seminar about the technology of road pricing but about strategic objectives, policy, monitoring, measuring and managing of road pricing schemes which are the core values of IBEC. Be prepared for frank discussions!

The benefits of pricing include the immediate traffic impacts but also the economic and social benefits that effective pricing can generate. Of course these benefits vary widely depending on the type and scale of pricing. Systems that provide a « guaranteed » level of service, such as those that involve some form of variable pricing should help business and individual travellers to solve a key transportation problem of the 21st Century – reliability. Then, there are the environmental concerns; to what extent does road pricing provide a useful contribution to greenhouse gas reduction? But, it’s all got to be implemented, and road pricing has a public image problem to address also.

Key Issues

● What are the economic benefits of road pricing and how can they be measured?

● Can road pricing provide large scale and long-term economic stimulus for a 21st Century economy?

● How should we inform and consult with stakeholders?

● What about social equity – do we understand the social distribution of costs and benefits?

● How should we manage politics and public expectations?

● Are HOT lanes a step in the right direction or a dangerous distraction?

● What have we learned from current efforts at implementation?

● Where have real benefits been delivered and what have we learned from the failures?

Time Schedule

9:00 Welcome

9:15 Session 1: What each region is doing in Road Pricing

This session will provide an international survey of Road Pricing policies and activities from around the world. More than being descriptive, each speaker will put developments into context by explaining transport objectives and how pricing is seen as a tool to address the transport challenges faced.

Chaired and coordinated by Alan Stevens, TRL, UK

10:45 Break

11:00 Session 2: Deployment challenges in relation to Stakeholders

Public acceptance is crucial for road pricing success. In this session, experts from the Road Pricing community will describe the challenges of informing and consulting stakeholders, particularly transport users, about the benefits of pricing.

Coordinated by Jane Lappin, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, USA and Amy Ellen Polk, Citizant, Inc., USA

12:30 Buffet Lunch at the Fisk restaurant

13:15 Session 3: Evaluation challenges

This session will consist of presentations and discussion of Road Pricing deployment and evaluation challenges and how can these challenges be overcome. This will include a wide range of issues and all workshop attendees are invited to participate in the lively discussion that is anticipated.

Chaired and coordinated by Steve Morello, Egis Projects, France

14:45 Break

15:15 Session 4: Business case for society

This session will tackle the broad macro view of the economic and other benefits to society of road pricing and how we can tell if we are doing a “good job”.

Chaired by Kevin Borras, Thinking Highways, UK – Coordinated by Dick Mudge, Delcan, Inc., USA

16:45 Wrap-up

17:00 End of seminar

Registration Fee and Payment:

Fee: € 75 incl. taxes (approx. SEK 793 based on 5 May, 2009 exchange rates on www.xe.com).  It includes seminar materials, 3 coffee breaks and lunch at the venue restaurant.

For registration and other related event information, please contact:

Odile PIGNIER – Harmonised Events – Email: odile@harmonised-events.com

Tel: +33 (0)2 41 54 76 30 – Fax: +33 (0)2 85 52 00 08

Find more information @: www.ibec-its.org

(Source: Streetsblog & Rotor.com)

The House is poised this week to take up the so-called “cash for clunkers” bill, which aims to boost the slumping U.S. auto market by giving out tax credits of $3,500 and up to anyone who trades in a gas-guzzling car for a more efficient model.

With the Senate Majority Leader threatening to make Senators work five days a week to speed up work on legislative priorities, lawmakers expect to finish a war supplemental bill this week that would include a provision for cash for clunkers and then Congress will turn its attention to healthcare and climate change legislation.

House Democrats must settle the issue of whether to include in the war supplemental a provision that would give car buyers a voucher worth up to $4,500 for trading gas-guzzlers for more fuel-efficient vehicles.  There is tremendous bipartisan support for this proposal, especially with the recent bankruptcy of General Motors.

The likely passage of Sutton’s bill this week could be bad news for a stronger “cash for clunkers” plan that’s being promoted by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who displayed welcome candor last month in calling the Sutton plan “the auto industry’s version” of “cash for clunkers” and “unacceptable” to American drivers.

Feinstein’s proposal would require drivers to achieve a 25 percent fuel-efficiency increase before receiving a tax credit for ditching their clunkers. But Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) is pushing for a trade-in tax credit that’s very similar to Sutton’s — truck owners would only have to increase their fuel efficiency by 2 miles per gallon to be eligible.

Feinstein’s proposal would require drivers to achieve a 25 percent fuel-efficiency increase before receiving a tax credit for ditching their clunkers. But Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D) is pushing for a trade-in tax credit that’s very similar to Sutton’s — truck owners would only have to increase their fuel efficiency by 2 miles per gallon to be eligible.

(Source:  Foreign Policy Magazine)

Cartoon Courtesy: Slate Magazine

Outside a small group of nihilists and committed free marketeers who’d have let General Motors go under, no matter the price, few question the necessity of the Obama administration’s plan for the once great American company’s reorganization in bankruptcy. But as a U.S. taxpayer, and therefore one of GM’s brand-new owners, I have my doubts about our ability to manage this new property. Yes, GM’s previous owners proved unable to run a competitive car company in a global marketplace, but is the U.S. government really the best one to transform it? Already, the particulars of the Chapter 11 arrangement lead me to fear that the same sort of internal politics, unthinking nationalism, and generalized aversion to engineering risk that have hobbled GM for decades will continue to haunt its new incarnation.

One place where you won’t hear for-attribution criticism of the “new” General Motors these days is GM headquarters. Perforce they are obligated to display their gratitude with the unfailing enthusiasm that a $50 billion-plus investment in a failing business minimally entitles its benefactors to expect in return. Although the collegial tone of the new rapprochement comes 50 years late, it is heartening nonetheless to see American industry finally welcome Washington’s involvement in matters like safety, fuel economy, and emissions regulation.

Even Robert “Maximum Bob” Lutz, GM’s outgoing product czar and vice chairman, and a fierce critic of government meddling from the “give me back my bullets” wing of Detroit’s old school, has experienced an astonishing change of heart, at the ripe age of 77. Speaking to a gathering of journalists in Motor City the other week, Lutz unhinged every jaw in the house when he shared his thoughts on how the White House automotive task force ought to become a permanent fixture. Of the unprecedented government-industry collaboration the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies begat, Lutz, an ex-Marine attack pilot and near-libertarian known for making his daily commute in a decommissioned Czech jet fighter, quipped: “Jeez, it only took 30 years for somebody to finally figure [government-industry partnership] out.”

Er, right. Thirty years and a couple of epochal bankruptcies.

Questions about the government’s intentions for the new GM Lite already abound. Notably, what will and what should the company’s policies be, now that it is controlled (in theory) by and for the benefit of U.S. taxpayers, who own 60 percent of its shares?

Will GM be underwritten so as to lead the market in the direction of fuel saving and new technologies? Or will it trim its sails and attempt to get by on its sometimes-profitable religion of pickup trucks and SUVs, perhaps ones that get slightly better mileage? GM is still tooled up to build them.

Ever since the 1920s, when GM’s Alfred P. Sloan introduced the precepts of what came to be known as Sloanism — a car for every purse and purpose — a good day at a car dealership was one when you sold someone “more car than they need.” Automobile marketing often appeals to man’s baser emotions. Greed, lust, and envy come to mind, as do excessive horsepower and other costly and unnecessary options that have been larded on to new cars to boost profits for longer than any of us have been alive. So, you can’t help wondering, has the U.S. government entered the business of encouraging people to live out their most insane automotive dreams? Will it labor to create demand for automobiles when and where there is no need, as generations of car companies have done before it?

And where do GM’s new taxpayer/shareholders stand on the matter of outsourcing work to Mexico or South Korea or China or anywhere else, as the old GM did whenever it got the chance? Will Chevy production lines in places like Toluca and Silao, Mexico, come home to the USA? The old GM went in for cheap overseas labor. Has the government now entered the business of using taxpayer money to export jobs? Is this the change we need?

Myriad practical and philosophical quandaries aside, one vital series of questions about the “new” GM — which brands will be kept, sold, or terminated — has already been answered. Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, GMC, Australia’s Holden, and South Korea’s Daewoo are to be spared. To be sold: Saturn, Hummer, and Sweden’s Saab are available outright, and operating control of GM’s German division, Opel, is to be sacrificed in a deal brokered by the German government outside U.S. bankruptcy proceedings. For the scrap heap: Pontiac, the venerable division that once claimed to “build excitement.” In limbo: Opel’s English sister brand, Vauxhall.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source:  Time)

The International Air Transport Association (IATA), which represents 230 airlines worldwide, increased its loss estimate from the $4.7 billion it forecast in March, reflecting a “rapidly deteriorating revenue environment.”

Although there has been growing signs of a bottoming out of the recession, IATA said the industry was severely hit in the first quarter with 50 major airlines reporting losses of more than $3 billion. Weak consumer confidence, high business inventories and rising oil prices pose headwinds for future recovery, the association said during a two-day global aviation conference in Kuala Lumpur.

Revenues are expected to decline by $80 billion — an unprecedented 15% from a year ago — to $448 billion this year, and the weakness will persist into 2010, it said.

“There is no modern precedent for today’s economic meltdown. The ground has shifted. Our industry has been shaken. This is the most difficult situation that the industry has faced,” said IATA Chief Executive Giovanni Bisignani. The Geneva-based association also revised its estimated loss for last year to $10.4 billion from $8.5 billion previously.

It said passenger traffic for 2009 is expected to contract by 8% from a year ago to 2.06 billion travelers. Cargo demand will decline by 17% and some 100,000 jobs worldwide are at risk, it said.

The association expects the industry fuel bill to shrink by $59 billion, or 36%, to $106 billion this year, accounting for 23% of operating costs with an average oil price of $56 a barrel. But crude oil prices have rallied in recent weeks, breaching the $70 a barrel level on Friday on hopes of economic recovery.

IATA said carriers in all regions were expected to report losses, with Asia-Pacific to be the hardest hit amid a sharp slowdown in its three key markets — Japan, China and India. The region’s carriers are expected to post losses of $3.3 billion, worse than the previous forecast of $1.7 billion but better than the $3.9 billion losses last year.

North American carriers are expected to lose $1 billion, far better than its $5.1 billion losses in 2008, thanks to early capacity cuts and limited hedging by U.S. airlines.

(Source: Autoblog & Autoweek)

Americans may have the opportunity to welcome the Tata Nano to their shores in just over two years, according to a confirmation from David Good, a U.S. rep for the Indian automaker. Before it arrives, Tata assures that the ultra-cheap compact with a base price of just $2500 will be configured to meet all emission and crash standards. If successful, we could see see versions of the Indian microcars running on biofuel and diesel.  This begs the question whether the price point will continue to stay around $2500 even after meeting such stringent safety and emissions requirements? Probably not! It is safe to say that the price would be a little less than $5000  – the expected price of the Euro version.

But who will distribute the teensy Tatas? Well, that’s up in the air right now. A brand-new dealer network for the brand has been discussed. Another option would be selling the Nano through Jaguar and Land Rover dealerships — the Indian automaker owns both, after all.  But this option seems highly unlikely,  according to Stuart Schorr, a spokesman for Jaguar Land Rover, who dismissed the rumours.

A larger European version is slated to debut in 2011, and has an upgraded engine that could get 67 mpg. That car is still expected to come in at less than $5,000.  Tata would be the second Indian company with cars on U.S. streets. Global Vehicles U.S.A. Inc. of suburban Atlanta plans to introduce pickups made by Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. later this year.

(Source: Greenbang, Alpha Galileo & Green Car Congress)

Data: Gerbens-Leenes et al via Green Car Congress

The ‘water footprint’ of bioenergy, i.e. the amount of water required to cultivate crops for biomass, is much greater than for other forms of energy. The generation of bioelectricity is significantly more water-efficient in the end, however – by a factor of two – than the production of biofuel. By establishing the water footprint for thirteen crops, researchers at the University of Twente were able to make an informed choice of a specific crop and production region. They published their results in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) of 2 June.

The researchers found, for example, that it takes an average of 14,000 litres of water to produce one litre of biodiesel from rapeseed or soya. However, the water footprint for rapeseed in Western Europe is significantly smaller than in Asia. For soya, India has a large water footprint, while the figures for countries such as Italy and Paraguay are more favourable. In the generation of bioelectricity, too, there are big differences between the crops: sugar beet has by far the smallest water footprint – jatropha is 10 times less water-efficient. For the production of bioethanol, sugar beet is again by far the favourite: one litre of bioethanol made from sugar beet takes 1,400 litres of water, as against 2,500 litres for sugarcane, which is widely cultivated  in Brazil.  A new report from Novozymes describes how Brazil could produce up to 8 billion liters (2.1 billion gallons US) of biofuel from sugarcane residues (bagasse) by 2020, representing additional export revenue for Brazil of up to US$4 billion. In Brazil, the proportion of bioethanol used in transport fuel is already at 50%; by comparison, the proportion is 7% in the US, 2% in China, and 1% in Europe, according to Novozymes.