(Source: Streetsblog)

Ultimately, SAFETEA-LU’s greatest failing may have been its failure to articulate a truly multi-modal vision for the nation’s surface transportation network. Essentially a continuation of 1950s-era policies, it repeated the same-old same-old about a need to complete the Interstate highway program, directing billions of dollars to state DOTs to pour asphalt and expand roadways. Nowhere did the legislation suggest a need to adapt to a future in which American dependence on automobiles and fossil fuels must be dramatically reduced. That’s the challenge faced by Congress today.

Less of this...

 Transportation funding from Washington has been heavily weighted toward highway spending ever since President Eisenhower first proposed the Interstate Highway Act in 1956. SAFETEA-LU, 2005’s federal transportation bill, was no exception. It provided $244.1 billionover five years, its revenues raised by the federal gas tax and directed to the Highway Trust Fund, which has both highway and mass transit accounts. $40 billion a year went to highways, most of which was used to expand and upgrade the Interstate highway system; some $10 billion went annually to mass transit.

The $10 billion in public transportation funds is distributed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for a variety of uses. The FTA administers the urban areas program, which allocates money to metropolitan areas for transit system capital expenses, as well as a rural areas program that helps states pay for rural transit. SAFETEA-LU also included a fixed-guideways formula, aimed at keeping mostly older rail transit systems like those in Chicago or Boston in working condition. Finally, the New Starts/Small Starts program allowed the FTA to fund competitive grants for major capacity expansion such as new subway or bus rapid transit lines.

More of this...

 SAFETEA-LU provided for $40 billion in annual funding from the highway account, the traditional federal source for financing Interstate highways. But under the law, money from the account could actually be spent on more than just roads. Roughly $6.5 billion per year was allocated to the “Surface Transportation Program.” States were allowed to use this money to fund transit and “bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways.” The “Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program” — about $1.7 billion a year — went to projects likely to reduce pollution, and specifically forbade funding “a project which will result in the construction of new capacity available to single occupant vehicles.”

There’s one problem, though. The federal government may allow such funds to be spent on non-auto uses, but that’s rarely the case.

That’s because, while each metropolitan area has a federally-mandated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) whose role is to establish priorities for transportation investments, state departments of transportation have ultimate discretion over how national highway funds are used. The inevitable consequence? Asphalt-happy DOTs usually choose to invest highway funds in roads, even when MPOs advocate for improved transit or bikeways. According to Transportation for America, only five states — California, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia — have taken advantage of the flexibility of these funds. The rest have spent the vast majority on auto infrastructure.

What’s more, SAFETEA-LU made it easy for states to build roads and hard for them to build transit projects. While funds for new roads were simply distributed to states based on a formula, new transit lines had to undergo the rigorous New Starts process — competing with other projects from all over the country — before winning a share of federal dollars. There was no such required audit for road projects.

(Source: New York Times)

Union leaders said Sunday that they had reached an agreement with Chrysler that meets federal requirements for the automaker to receive more financing.

The deal includes Fiat, the Italian automaker with which Chrysler was ordered by the government to form an alliance before Thursday.

Neither the United Automobile Workers union nor the company released details of the tentative agreement, which would modify the union’s 2007 contract and reduce the amount of money Chrysler must pay into a new health fund for retirees.

Image: New York Times

The union plans to have its 26,000 Chrysler workers vote on the deal by Wednesday.

Chrysler said the agreement, reached during marathon negotiations over the weekend, satisfied the requirements laid out by the Obama administration for a deal by an April 30 deadline.

Even with the agreement, Chrysler is expected to seek Chapter 11 protection, in a case mapped out by the government in advance, including safeguards meant to protect worker benefits, people with knowledge of the company’s plans said Sunday night.

A new company would be set up with the best assets of Chrysler, these people said. Fiat of Italy would own 20 percent to 35 percent of the new Chrysler, they said, with the government also holding a stake. Some of the equity in the new company would also be given to Chrysler’s creditors as repayment.

These people spoke on condition of anonymity because the deals had not been finalized.

The Treasury Department has also reached an agreement with Daimler of Germany, the former owner of Chrysler, to settle tax and other claims left over from its sale of Chrysler in 2007 to Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity firm.

In order to persuade the union to back the sale to Cerberus, Daimler agreed to pay $1 billion to Chrysler if the company’s pension plans were terminated in a subsequent bankruptcy filing. Details of the Treasury’s deal with Daimler were not available.

Last week, the union reached an agreement in principle with the administration and Chrysler that would protect workers’ pensions in the event of a bankruptcy filing and provide for a change in the financing of a health care trust set up in 2007.

Click here to read the entire article.

ALGIERS (AFP) – OPEC wants to see oil prices rising to more than 70 dollars a barrel, the oil cartel’s secretary general Abdalla El-Badri said Sunday.

 “The price of 50 dollars is not enough to cover investment costs for the future,” El-Badri told reporters in Algiers.

(Source: CNN) 

Pontiac owners around the United States are feeling nostalgic amid reports that cash-strapped General Motors will end one of its most coveted brands.

 Pontiac models, such as the 1969 GTO, helped usher in the era of the muscle cars, enthusiasts say.

Jean Lindsay of western New York fondly recalls the muscle cars in her family’s driveway: Two 1967 GTOs.

“I had two brothers, and they each had one of these cars,” she said. “The GTO represented the suburban culture of its time, heavily laden with root beer and plain beer.”

“Those were the days of Bob’s Big Boy [hamburger restaurant], when girls wore skates. Back then we pleasantly wasted gas looking for fun. It was a social thing.”

Debuting in 1964, the Pontiac GTO is widely regarded as the original muscle car. It was a risky model in that it featured a big-block engine in an intermediate-size frame.

The GTO’s success not only buoyed GM but helped jumpstart the high-performance market for Detroit’s Big Three automakers — and ushered in the era of the vehicle as status symbol.

“It was a chick magnet, for God’s sake. Even from a girl’s standpoint,” Lindsay said.

Pontiac’s other emblematic performance car, the Firebird Trans Am, featured the outline of a firebird on the hood — the whole hood. It enjoyed a rise in popularity and brisk sales after being featured in the “Smokey and the Bandit” movie franchise beginning in the late 1970s.

But like even the most sturdy odometer, the numbers, years ago, had begun to work against Detroit.

In February, GM announced the end of the Saturn and Hummer lines while casting a ray of hope for Pontiac enthusiasts by saying that the brand would survive but be scaled back to a niche product.

But as a potential bankruptcy filing looms on June 1, the automaker has reportedly studied closing down the Pontiac brand. In the midst of pressure from the Obama administration to present a restructuring plan that shows the company’s long-term viability, the automaker recently released a statement to downplay fears that brands Americans have patronized for generations are on the chopping block.

“General Motors has not announced any changes to its long-term viability plan or to the future status of any of its brands,” the automaker said Friday in a statement on its Web site.

Click here to read the entire article.

(Source: CNN; TreeHugger; Jalopnik ; Autoblog ; AutoblogGreen)

Chrysler reaches key Canada labor accord Tentative agreement, aimed at cutting costs and keeping automaker out of bankruptcy, to be presented to workers for ratification.

 Time running out on Chrysler  The embattled automaker has one week to reach deals with Fiat, unions and banks, raising doubts it can avoid bankruptcy and a shutdown. 

Fox Car Report Live: Ford Fiesta, Chrysler Bankruptcy [Official Car Pundit Drinking Game] …imaginary Chryslers on conservative cable channel website. [Fox Car Report Live]

(SSource: Reuters via CNN)

Tentative agreement, aimed at cutting costs and keeping automaker out of bankruptcy, to be presented to workers for ratification.

Chrysler LLC and the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) union reached a tentative agreement Friday on a new labor contract intended to cut costs and keep the struggling automaker from bankruptcy, the union said.

The deal, which will be put to CAW-represented workers for ratification this weekend, is one of several agreements that Chrysler needs to reach by next week to win new U.S. government aid and avoid liquidation.

“We were told by Chrysler that they still didn’t have entire deals done to avoid a bankruptcy filing. We urge all the stakeholders in the United States to make equal sacrifices,” CAW President Ken Lewenza told reporters.

Chrysler, which has been kept operating since the start of the year with $4 billion in U.S. government loans, has until the end of this month to clinch an alliance with Italy’s Fiat SpA and win concessions from its bank creditors and major unions or face a cutoff of its government funding.

“We are extremely grateful to the CAW leadership and to its hard-working members for their openness in this challenging environment to create a new strategy that will lead this company on a path to success,” Chrysler vice chairman Tom LaSorda said in a statement.

The tentative contract for Canadian autoworkers with the No. 3 U.S. automaker would leave hourly base pay intact but cut a range of benefits, including an annual Christmas bonus, and add flexibility to work rules that would make it easier for Chrysler to hire temporary workers.

Chrysler will also cut the third production shift at its Windsor, Ontario, minivan plant.

Taken together, the contract changes will save Chrysler an estimated C$240 million in annual labor costs, Lewenza said.

(Source: Autoblog & The Detroit News)

It’s looking increasingly likely that the United States will soon have its own Cash-for-Clunkers program. According to The Detroit News, two bills are currently competing for Congressional votes, and while they would both offer sizable rewards for turning in older vehicles, they vary in what new cars and trucks would qualify for the program.

One bill, sponsored by Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) would give the largest voucher – up to $5,000 – to purchasers of new vehicles made in the United States. Slightly smaller amounts would be granted for other vehicles made in the rest of North America, and no cash would be granted for the purchase of foreign-made cars. All cars would need to manage at least 27 mpg to qualify, and trucks would need to hit at least 24 mpg.
 
The other bill, sponsored by Rep. Steve Israel (D-New York), would offer up to $4,500 for the purchase of a new vehicle, assuming that the vehicle being traded-in gets 18 mpg or less, and the new vehicle’s fuel efficiency is at least 25% better than average for its class. No distinction would be made based on the vehicle’s country of origin.

Both would require the scrapping of older vehicles to remove them from the roadways and both would give drivers the option of trading in an old car for a bus or subway pass.

In addition to promoting energy efficiency, the idea is to boost new car sales and get vehicles on the roads with updated safety features.

The program could cost as much as $4 billion and help retire at least 1 million older vehicles. Senior congressional aides and members of the Obama auto task force met earlier this month in search of the best way to pay for and structure it.

Toyota spokesman Charles Ing said his company wants legislation to apply to all fuel efficient vehicles and adhere to U.S. obligations under the World Trade Organization.

(Source: AP)

It was an ironic start to legislative efforts to tackle the nation’s transportation woes.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar completely missed a news conference on innovative transit programs Thursday because his car was stuck in traffic, behind an accident in a congested commuter tunnel.

The Minnesota Democrat has another news conference scheduled Friday with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, who estimate Congress needs to spend $470 billion to get the nation’s transportation system back on track.

 That event, and Thursday’s gathering organized by the Environmental Defense Fund, are two of several being staged in coming weeks as interest groups try to influence the shape of a six-year highway and transit construction bill expected to total roughly a half-trillion dollars. Oberstar hopes to introduce the legislation in May and win swift House passage.Already lined up on both sides of this heavyweight Washington lobbying contest are the trucking and construction industries, environmentalists, “smart growth” advocates, labor unions and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. To pass a bill of the sweep and size he envisions, Oberstar said everyone involved will have to first sell the plan to the public.

There is a consensus in Congress that something major needs to be done about the transportation mess. People are spending more time in their cars trying to get to work — or anywhere, for that matter. Transit systems are carrying record numbers of riders and, in some cases, are cutting back service. Freight delays, both highway and rail, are costing industry and consumers billions of dollars. An alarming share of the nation’s highways, bridges, tunnels, and train cars have aged beyond their intended life and are in disrepair.

“It is clear we need more revenue in the system, more investment dollars, but we can’t just say to people, ‘do this, do that.’ We have to show what we’re going to do with this program, how we are going to make it more responsive to their needs,” Oberstar said in an interview. “If people see that, then they’ll support it.”

(Source: Autoblog, Telegraph UK) 

After weeks of dithering, the Government announced a car scrappage scheme in yesterday’s Budget.  Anyone with a car registered after July 31, 1999 will get a cash incentive of £2,000 to trade in their old vehicle for a brand new one.

However, only £1,000 will come from the Government, with the remaining £1,000 coming from car firms; the motor industry had hoped that the Government would foot the entire £2,000 bill.

Participants will be able to buy any new vehicle, including small vans, rather than just low pollution models. Motorists taking advantage of the scheme must have owned the car for at least one year; it will also have to be taxed, insured and have a current MoT in order to qualify.

About £300 million has been set aside to fund the scheme, to be launched in mid-May. About 300,000 consumers are expected to benefit until the scheme ends in March 2010, unless funding runs out before then.

In the below video, you can hear Mr. Tony Whitehorn, Managing Director of Hyundai UK, welcoming Chancellor Alistair Darling’s ‘cash for bangers’ scheme announcement in the Budget.

 (Source: Autoblog & Detroit Free Press)

As in a basketball game when players are yanking on jerseys trying to block each other out under the basket, General Motors and Chrysler’s creditors have officially begun jockeying for position. 

Michigan’s Attorney General, Mike Cox, has sent letters to the CEOs at both companies to ask that, if they file for bankruptcy, they do it in Michigan. Why? Because that would be more convenient to the creditors that GM and Chrysler have in Michigan.

“I am gravely concerned about the impact of any bankruptcy filing in a jurisdiction outside Michigan,” Cox wrote in separate letters to GM CEO Fritz Henderson and Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli. 

Cox goes on to say that the financial health of both companies and Michigan have been intertwined for decades.

The state is a significant creditor for each of the troubled automakers through the Michigan Business and Single Business Tax obligations, workers’ compensation claims, unemployment insurance and environmental regulations. 

“The costs for many of these creditors (in Michigan) to participate in a New York or Delaware bankruptcy is overwhelming and would undoubtedly lead to unjust bills,” Cox said.

While Cox does not say that either company should file for bankruptcy, neither does he acknowledge that they might not need to if they meet certain criteria set by the U.S. Treasury Department.

“If you ultimately decide to choose bankruptcy as the vehicle to a stronger (company), I respectfully ask that you and your representatives meet with me before any filing is made,” the letter concludes. “Please feel free to contact me at any time, day or night, to discuss this matter.”