(Source: Public Discourse – The Witherspoon Institute)

It might seem as if nothing could be less important to social conservatives than transportation. The Department of Health and Human Services crafts policies that affect abortion, the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission play crucial roles in determining how prevalent obscenity is in our society, but the Department of Transportation just funds highways, airports, and railroads, or so the usual thinking goes. But decisions about these projects and how to fund them have dramatic and far-reaching consequences for how Americans go about their lives on a day-to-day basis. Transportation decisions have the power to shape how we form communities, families, religious congregations, and even how we start small businesses. Bad transportation decisions can destroy communities, and good transportation decisions can help create them. 

Sadly, American conservatives have come to be associated with support for transportation decisions that promote dependence on automobiles, while American liberals are more likely to be associated with public transportation, city life, and pro-pedestrian policies. This association can be traced to the ’70s, when cities became associated with social dysfunction and suburbs remained bastions of ‘normalcy.’ This dynamic was fueled by headlines mocking ill-conceived transit projects that conservatives loved to point out as examples of wasteful government spending. Of course, just because there is a historic explanation for why Democrats are “pro-transit” and Republicans are “pro-car” does not mean that these associations make any sense. Support for government-subsidized highway projects and contempt for efficient mass transit does not follow from any of the core principles of social conservatism. 

A common misperception is that the current American state of auto-dependency is a result of the free market doing its work. In fact, a variety of government interventions ensure that the transportation “market” is skewed towards car-ownership. These policy biases are too numerous to list exhaustively, but a few merit special recognition: 

-If a state is interested in building a new highway, the only major regulatory obstacle is completing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). After this, the federal government will typically pay for a large portion of the project, and leave the details of its planning and construction to the state’s Department of Transportation. If a state or municipality is interested in a transit project like a subway, a streetcar, or a bus system, however, not only must it complete an EIS, it must also clear a barrage of regulatory hurdles, including a cost-effectiveness analysis, a land-use impact analysis, and a comparison with other transit systems. None of these requirements is necessarily bad in itself (though many of these regulations were designed only to make it harder to build transit systems), but highways aren’t subject to any of them. Naturally, states therefore find it easier to channel transportation dollars into highways. 

-As a 2003 report by the Brookings Institution points out, “federal funding for highway projects is more secure and generous than for transit projects; making highway projects easier to finance.” The Department of Transportation will typically match 80% to 90% of state funds directed towards highway repair or construction. Those same funds directed towards transit usually receive less than a 60% federal match, and carry further burdensome requirements for local funding that highway projects do not need to meet. 

-Zoning requirements in most municipalities mandate that shops and houses must be separated. It is widely illegal to build the old small-town main street with the mix of shops, houses, and apartments that many find charming (so charming that some of these towns have been turned into tourist attractions). Furthermore, in most states it is mandatory for new schools to be built next to hundreds of acres playing fields, and thus far away from residential neighborhoods (see this report and this paper for a fuller discussion of policies that affect travel to school). These and similar regulations ensure that there are no shops or schools—that is, major household destinations—within walking distance of the average American’s home, which in turn requires the average American to own and use a car, not merely to commute to work but to perform basic tasks like picking up a gallon of milk or sending the kids off to school in the morning. 

Clash of the Titans: Fiat reportedly squaring off with European Union over mergers…interest in GM‘s European subsidiary Opel, Marchionne is now asserting that would consider the possibility, but that no offer had been made to date.[Source: The Detroit News | Image: Andrej Isakovic/AFP/Getty]Clash of the Titans: Fiat reportedly squaring off with European Union over mergers originally appeared on Autoblog on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:…

 More cuts across the board: General Motors to slash dealers, plants and employees…GM, Earnings/FinancialsGeneral Motors’ spate of announcements this morning was bad news for enthusiasts (e.g. the shuttering of Pontiac) and even worse for GM‘s debt-for-equity swap (without a 90% take-rate the automaker is bound for CH 11). But for dealerships and workers, GM‘s re-revised restructuring plan is going to hurt… hard.In addition ..

(Source: NPR’s Planet Money)

 Even pirates need a business plan. J. Peter Pham, an analyst of African affairs at the James Madison University, looks at the economics of guns, captains, and $2 million dropped into the sea in waterproof containers. Plus, Per Gullestrup, CEO of Danish shipping company Clipper Group, has dealt with pirates first-hand — he says they’re tough negotiators.  When he ironed out the ransom details with the pirates, he had 3 demands:

1. The pirates showed “proof of life” (that the crew was still alive)
2. That they could drop the money from the air (faster than getting it there in a tug)
3. That the pirates fill up the ship with fuel.

 For a related story on NPR’s Planet money, click here.

(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: Institute for Transportation & Development Policy)

Activist Says Jakarta Current Vehicle Growth Leads to Transportation Failure

If the vehicle growth rate in Jakarta continues to hover around tens of percent annually without any breakthrough in transportation and traffic management, the city will be paralyzed by total gridlock by 2014, a nongovernmental organization said Wednesday.

“Total traffic failure is an unbearable risk caused by the city’s failure in transportation and traffic management,” the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy said in a statement sent to The Jakarta Post.

“Traffic jams have degraded the environment and people’s health due to excessive vehicle emissions. They also halt residents’ mobility that, in turn, cause economic losses,” it said.

Jabodetabek, a large-scale metropolitan area with a population of 21 million, consists of Daerah Khusus Ibukota/DKI (Capital Special Region) Jakarta, as the capital city of Indonesia, which is the center of politics, economy and social activities, and 7 local governments (Bodetabek) in the surrounding areas covering Kota (municipality) Bogor, Kabupaten (regency/district) Bogor, Kota Depok, Kota Bekasi, Kabupaten Bekasi, Kota Tangerang, and Kabupaten Tangerang.

Traffic congestion is a chronic problem faced in the Jabodetabek region and the situation is expected to worsen should there be no improvement of any kind made on the existing transportation system. According to a 2005 study,  the economic loss caused by traffic congestion in the region could be as much as $ 68 million per year due to traffic congestion – and this estimate excludes the impacts of traffic congestion and pollution on human health.

Jakarta’s Paratransit Network Still Stuck In Slow Lane 

In this image taken with a cell phone by Jason McLane, the primary presidential aircraft, a Boeing 747 known as Air Force One when the president is aboard, flies low over New York Harbor, followed by an F-16 chase plane during a federal government photo op Monday, April 27, 2009. A low-flying Boeing 747 escorted by two fighter jets as part of a federal government photo opportunity over lower Manhattan caused a brief panic among workers near ground zero on Monday. (AP Photo/Jason McLane) (Jason Mclane - AP)

(Source: Washington Post)

NEW YORK — A Boeing 747 used by the president was escorted over lower Manhattan by two Air Force fighter jets Monday as part of a government photo opportunity, causing a brief panic among office workers near ground zero.

(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.

Some of you remember that TransportGooru dropped a letter to WMATA’s managament about a terrible commute a couple of weeks ago.  You can read that letter here:  An Open Letter to WMATA Chief, Mr. John Catoe – Are you really in touch with your customer? If not, please get in touch with me!

Surprise, Surprise! Metro’s Customer Service Manager, Paul Bumbry, replied to this “grievance” letter with an equally lengthy one, addressing the various issues highlighted by TransportGooru.  Though it does not address many of the concerns in a convincing fashion, Transportgooru applauds and appreciates WMATA’s efforts to take such complaints seriously and offer a response.  Thank you, WMATA & John Catoe.   Without further ado, let’s proceed to read the response from Mr. Bumbry.

Dear Mr. TransportGooru:

Thank you for your April 10, 2009 email to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.  I have been asked to respond to the open letter to General Manager John Catoe that you posted on your Web site.

We regret the  inconvenience you experienced on April 10, 2009, when your train did not stop at the place you have become accustomed to it stopping alongthe platform at the Gallery Place-Chinatown Metrorail station.  To help protect the safety of large crowds of customers during special events, Metrorail management requires all train operators to pull all the way to the front end of the platform, regardless of the number of cars in the train.  Public address announcements are made to advise customers when this is the case.

We also regret your experience with the train doors on the Red Line train.  We agree with you that safety is paramount, and our employees try hard to uphold this principle.  That is why we place so much emphasis on the proper procedures for train operators to open and close train doors when passengers are exiting and boarding.  Operators are required to look out of the operator cab window and check the view alongside the train before closing the doors.  Operators are also trained to respond as quickly as possible if the doors close inadvertently on a patron.

I have routed your e mail to the Red Line division, so the superintendent can re-instruct the operator on proper door closing procedures and investigate any reports of a malfunction that night.  If you witness such an incident again, please make note of as many details as possible, including the time and exact location, as well as the four-digit rail car number posted inside the door at each end of the car.  We encourage you to report the information by completing an online Customer Comment Form on the Metro Web site, at www.metroopensdoors.com, or by calling Metro¿s Office of Customer Service at (202) 637-1328, so we can take the appropriate follow-up action.

We apologize for this unfortunate incident, and we appreciate your suggestions.  Although we cannot implement each suggestion we receive, yours will be forwarded to Rail Operations for review.    I hope your future travel experiences on Metro are positive ones.

Sincerely,

Paul Bumbry
Customer Service Manager
When responding to this email, please perform a reply with history so that the following conversational identifier “[THREAD_ID:493950]” is included in your response.

Note to WMATA:  Last night I witnessed the no improvement in your “level of service” at Gallery Place when I arrived there a few minutes after 9 PM.  The crowd was swelling on the platform as the Capitals game at Verzion center was nearing the end with patrons leaving the game.  The approaching train pulled up to the father end of the platform as you noted in your response  (To help protect the safety of large crowds of customers during special events, Metrorail management requires all train operators to pull all the way to the front end of the platform, regardless of the number of cars in the train.  Public address announcements are made to advise customers when this is the case). But I must tell tell you, there was no PSA notification about this procedure.  As clueless as they always are, some of your customers ran chasing the train.   I am not sure what is not working — your PSA or your instructions to the employees to deliver such “advise” to customers.  The good thing is that the operator was a lot more courteous and didn’t play the jingle game like the one that got TransportGooru all upset earlier.   Oh readers, there is still no word from John Catoe about his availability to have a cup of coffee and go over some of these issues.  Mr. Catoe, the offer (that I’ll pay for your cup of coffee) is still valid and if you change your mind, please feel free to write to: transportgooru@gmail.com.