(Source:  The Detroit News & SFGate.com)

Supporters have dropped an attempt to add “cash for clunkers” legislation to a tobacco regulation bill now before the Senate, a setback in efforts to boost car sales with federal subsidies.

“There are technical details to work out and the senator continues to look for a vehicle to pass this very important piece of legislation,” said Brad Carroll, a spokesman for Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a co-sponsor of the bill.

Two congressional aides said the measure was derailed by objections from the Senate Appropriations Committee to using money from the $787 billion economic stimulus package for the measure, which would offer up to $4,500 credits for consumers trading in older, low-gas-mileage vehicles.

In January, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced a bill, S247, that would give vouchers to people who turn in a car or truck that gets 15 or fewer miles per gallon to a dealer that scraps it.

Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio, introduced one in the House, HR1550. A compromise version was attached to the 900-page energy bill that was passed last month by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., introduced an almost identical one in the Senate. Her bill, S1135, would provide vouchers of $3,500 or $4,500, depending on the difference in gas mileage between the clunker and the new vehicle. The vouchers could only be used to buy or lease new vehicles, not for used vehicles or mass transit.

Environmentalists oppose the two industry-supported bills because they would provide vouchers to people who scrap more fuel-efficient vehicles (18 mpg or less) than under the Feinstein proposal (15 mpg or less).

Last month, Sen. Feinstein proposed an alternative that is less stringent than her original bill but stricter than Stabenow’s. For details, see links.sfgate.com/ZHHC.

It’s not clear whether the Senate will back the Stabenow bill, the new Feinstein approach or a compromise.

“Fiscal conservatives and environmentalists oppose the more permissive Stabenow bill as an expensive subsidy for the ailing auto industry, while union and manufacturing interests oppose the stricter Feinstein approach, which would likely favor fuel-efficient imported vehicles,” said Benjamin Salisbury, an analyst with FBR Capital Markets, in a report.

“The Senate could vote on both amendments and add the most popular one to unrelated legislation giving the Food and Drug Administration regulatory authority over tobacco products,” Salisbury wrote.

Idea likely to stick around

That didn’t happen Wednesday, as many expected. But with President Obama in favor of cash for clunkers, the idea is not likely to die.

Becker hopes Congress will not rush into passing a bill without enough research and debate to determine how much the program will cost and who will benefit most. “Somebody might come along and do clunker dating,” matching up people who want to buy new cars with people who have clunkers, he says.

He adds that Germany started a 1.5 billion euro cash-for-clunkers program this year and it has already swelled into a 5 billion euro program.

Consumers waiting to buy a new car until a bill passes should first figure out if their existing car would qualify under the scrapping plan. If so, the next question is whether the voucher would be worth more than the price they would get if they sold or traded in their car. If so, they should figure out whether the new car they want to buy would qualify. With so many unknowns remaining, it’s hard to reach a conclusion.

(Source: Autobloggreen & Detroit Free Press)

It seems that calls from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to fast track the Cash-For-Clunkers bill through the legislative process may have fallen on deaf ears. According to the Detroit Free Press, the somewhat controversial bill will be tacked on the much broader Climate Change bill that’s currently being drafted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

 Ohio Rep. Betty Sutton’s amendment made it onto the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the legislation being marked up this week by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Approved by a vote of 50-4, the amendment provides a voucher of up to $4,500 for trading in an old, lower mile-per-gallon vehicle to purchase a new one.

The measure wouldn’t favor domestic vehicles over those made by companies based overseas but it has incentives for trucks and sport-utility vehicles which could be of particular help to American automakers. President Barack Obama and key House Democrats agreed on the provisions contained in the amendment at a recent White House meeting.

U.S. Rep. John Dingell, a Dearborn Democrat and staunch advocate of domestic automakers, said the cash-for-clunkers amendment, if passed, “will result in meaningful reductions in vehicle fleet carbon emissions and fuel consumption, all while providing much-needed stimulus for our ailing automakers.”

(Source: Autoblog & GAO)

Big government’s inefficiency comes in a variety of flavors, and this one could hit your dashboards as early as next year. According to a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the U.S.’ Global Positioning System (GPS) could begin to experience black-outs and general failures next year due to the delays, mismanagement and underinvestment by the U.S. Air force. 

The report’s summary offers the following: The Global Positioning System (GPS), which provides position, navigation, and timing data to users worldwide, has become essential to U.S. national security and a key tool in an expanding array of public service and commercial applications at home and abroad. The United States provides GPS data free of charge. The Air Force, which is responsible for GPS acquisition, is in the process of modernizing GPS. In light of the importance of GPS, the modernization effort, and international efforts to develop new systems, GAO was asked to undertake a broad review of GPS. Specifically, GAO assessed progress in (1) acquiring GPS satellites, (2) acquiring the ground control and user equipment necessary to leverage GPS satellite capabilities, and evaluated (3) coordination among federal agencies and other organizations to ensure GPS missions can be accomplished. To carry out this assessment, GAO’s efforts included reviewing and analyzing program documentation, conducting its own analysis of Air Force satellite data, and interviewing key officials.

It is uncertain whether the Air Force will be able to acquire new satellites in time to maintain current GPS service without interruption. If not, some military operations and some civilian users could be adversely affected. (1) In recent years, the Air Force has struggled to successfully build GPS satellites within cost and schedule goals; it encountered significant technical problems that still threaten its delivery schedule; and it struggled with a different contractor. As a result, the current IIF satellite program has overrun its original cost estimate by about $870 million and the launch of its first satellite has been delayed to November 2009–almost 3 years late. (2) Further, while the Air Force is structuring the new GPS IIIA program to prevent mistakes made on the IIF program, the Air Force is aiming to deploy the next generation of GPS satellites 3 years faster than the IIF satellites. GAO’s analysis found that this schedule is optimistic, given the program’s late start, past trends in space acquisitions, and challenges facing the new contractor. Of particular concern is leadership for GPS acquisition, as GAO and other studies have found the lack of a single point of authority for space programs and frequent turnover in program managers have hampered requirements setting, funding stability, and resource allocation. (3) If the Air Force does not meet its schedule goals for development of GPS IIIA satellites, there will be an increased likelihood that in 2010, as old satellites begin to fail, the overall GPS constellation will fall below the number of satellites required to provide the level of GPS service that the U.S. government commits to. Such a gap in capability could have wide-ranging impacts on all GPS users, though there are measures the Air Force and others can take to plan for and minimize these impacts. In addition to risks facing the acquisition of new GPS satellites, the Air Force has not been fully successful in synchronizing the acquisition and development of the next generation of GPS satellites with the ground control and user equipment, thereby delaying the ability of military users to fully utilize new GPS satellite capabilities. Diffuse leadership has been a contributing factor, given that there is no single authority responsible for synchronizing all procurements and fielding related to GPS, and funding has been diverted from ground programs to pay for problems in the space segment. DOD and others involved in ensuring GPS can serve communities beyond the military have taken prudent steps to manage requirements and coordinate among the many organizations involved with GPS. However, GAO identified challenges in the areas of ensuring civilian requirements can be met and ensuring GPS compatibility with other new, potentially competing global space-based positioning, navigation, and timing systems.

Click here to download the report.  For those who like to read without leaving the page, here is the read-only version of the PDF.

(Source: Timesonline, UK & Autocar, UK)

A £2,000-a-car scrappage scheme aimed at kick-starting Britain’s depressed motor industry has hit trouble after a dispute between car companies and the Government over costs.

Manufacturers, including Ford and Honda, have told dealers not to register any new vehicles under the scheme, which is starting today.

Consumers are being offered £2,000 towards a new car if they trade in a motor that is at least ten years old.

The car companies said that they were seeking “clarification” from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) over “administrative” details.

The Government insisted that it had been clear on details of the scheme, under which manufacturers would pay £1,000 and the Government £1,000 towards the cost of the incentive.

However, the car manufacturers want dealers to share the cost.

The eleventh-hour hitch will come as a huge embarrassment to the Prime Minister, who had heavily promoted the “bangers for cash” scheme as the route to revitalising Britain’s depressed motor industry.

Gordon Brown and Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, visited a Nissan dealership today to talk to consumers signing up to the scheme.

Mr Brown said the £300 million project would prove “very popular” and “a great help to the British car industry.” It would help the economy to “move forward,” he said.

A BERR spokesman said: “Thirty-eight manufacturers have signed contracts with the Department which set out clearly that manufacturers provide £1,000 and the Government matches it.

“We understand several dealers are unhappy about the idea they should share the costs. The Government also needs to ensure VAT is paid in accordance with the scheme.”

Though the scheme was revealed in the Budget the final details emerged only at a meeting on Thursday, manufacturers said.

However, President of the AA Edmund King has pointed out that the £2000 incentive can be used as a deposit to help car buyers get finance. He added that the scheme would “transform the chances of survival in a crash for thousands of car owners” whose current old cars offer substantially less protection than newer models.

But Friends of the Earth executive director Andy Atkins said the scrappage scheme was “a lost opportunity”.

“A well-designed scheme could have played a limited role in cutting emissions from our roads,” he said. “But, unlike some other countries, the UK scheme doesn’t prevent motorists part-exchanging an old, small model for a brand-new gas guzzler.”

Business secretary Peter Mandelson visited a car dealership today to launch the scheme and said there has been a positive response from the industry.

“I am delighted by the response of the motor industry. Thirty-eight companies have signed up – all the major UK car manufacturers and a number of other companies. This means more choice for consumers and a boost for British brands. 



“The scheme has been met with a flood of enquiries from customers. It will provide a boost to the industry and kick-start sales.” 



The confirmed list of manufacturers who have signed up to take part are: Allied Vehicles, Bentley, BMW, Chevrolet, Citroen, Daihatsu, FIAT, Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Isuzu, Jaguar, Kia, Land Rover, London Taxis International, Mazda, Mercedes Benz, MG Motor, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Perodua, Peugeot, Porsche, Proton, Renault, Rolls Royce, SAAB, SECMA UK, Subaru, Suzuki, Toyota, Vauxhall, Volkswagen, Volvo, Koelliker UK Ltd, Iveco Ltd, Chrysler and Renault Trucks UK Ltd.

As stimulus spending on highways and bridges ramps up, Senate Democrats submitted legislation Thursday that suggests the nation’s transportation policy is headed for a major overhaul, with a strong emphasis on reducing automobile use and carbon emissions and boosting public transit, inter-city rail and rail freight service.

 Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) introduced legislation that they say lays out the guidelines of what they expect the next five-year federal transportation spending plan to accomplish. Their goal is to influence the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which is responsible for drafting the spending plan. The House plan is expected in early June, and the bill is due for reauthorization this fall.  The Rockefeller-Lautenberg marker, which got some early love from the Washington Post, states that the next federal transportation bill should accomplish the following:

• Reduce national per-capita motor vehicle miles traveled on an annual basis;
• Cut national motor vehicle-related fatalities in half by 2030;
• Cut national surface transportation-generated carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030;
• Reduce surface transportation delays per capita on an annual basis; 
• Get 20 percent more critical surface-transportation assets into a state of good repair by 2030;
• Increase the total usage of public transit, intercity passenger rail and non-motorized transport on an annual basis.

The focus for those trying to ascertain the administration’s transportation agenda has since turned to the five-year bill, which is expected to cost at least $400 billion. One big question is how the government plans to fund transportation spending, with revenue from the gas tax increasingly falling short. The new Senate bill does not address that problem.

Another big question is how much the bill will provide for public transportation. As it now stands, 80 percent of federal transportation money goes to highways. But David Goldberg, an official with the advocacy group Transportation for America, said Congress and the White House are sending signs that the new plan could represent a major break. The White House has already said it hopes to spend $1 billion per year on high-speed rail.

(Source: USA Today & Image: Jalopnik)

As the American lawmakers are getting ready to pass the landmark “cash for clunkers” legislation, many of you are still left wondering what this legislation entails and how it will affect you.  The media chatter in the past has offered very little except that the legislation would provide federal vouchers of up to $4,500 for people to trade in their older vehicles for new ones that get better mileage.

Talk of the vouchers has kept some would-be new car and truck buyers on the sidelines, waiting to see whether they’d qualify for government help. So, for the moment, the idea is hurting sales. Based on interviews with lobbyists and congressional offices, the USA Today captured the details of this legislation in a nice Q & A format:

Image: Newsday

Q: What’s the idea behind “cash-for-clunkers”?

A: Supporters say it would replace older vehicles with new ones that use less fuel, are safer and pollute less. And it would give the struggling auto industry a sales boost.

Q: What’s the bill’s status?

A: It’s in a House committee and backed by the president. Senators from both parties are prepared to co-sponsor similar legislation as soon as this week.

Q: Sounds like a sure thing.

A: Not so. Environmental lobbyists, who don’t think it boosts fuel economy enough, might derail it or get it changed enough in the Senate that a compromise would take awhile.

Q: Any groups trying to keep it from being derailed?

A: You bet. Car companies, autoworkers, component suppliers and car dealers, among them. The House bill “will help jump-start auto sales and the U.S. economy, while also providing environmental benefits and increasing energy security,” says Ziad Ojakli, Ford Motor spokesman.

Q: What’s the price tag?

A: About $4 billion. The money is currently proposed to come from Energy Department funding included in the already enacted $787 billion economic stimulus package.

Q: If the House bill becomes law, how would it work?

A: The government would send up to $4,500 to the selling dealer on your behalf, if you:

1. Trade in a car that — this is a key point — has been registered and in use for at least a year, and has a federal combined city/highway fuel-economy rating of 18 or fewer miles per gallon.

2. Buy a new car, priced at $45,000 or less and rated at least 4 mpg better than the old one (gets a $3,500 voucher). If the new one gets at least 10 mpg better, you get the full $4,500.

Example: Trade that well-worn 1985 Chevrolet Impala V-8, rated 14 mpg, for a 2009 Impala V-8 rated 19 mpg and the government will kick in $3,500. Downsize to Chevy Cobalt (27 mpg) or even a larger Honda Accord (24 mpg) and get $4,500.

Mileage ratings back to 1985 are at www.fueleconomy.gov.

Q: What about trucks?

A: It’s more complicated.

For standard-duty models — most SUVs, vans and pickups:

1. The old one must be rated 18 mpg or less.

2. The new one must be at least 2 mpg better for $3,500 or at least 5 mpg better for $4,500.

For heavy-duties (6,000 to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating):

1. The old one must be rated 15 mpg or less.

2. The new one must be rated at least 1 mpg better for $3,500, or 2 mpg or more for $4,500.

Work trucks (8,500 to 10,000 lbs.) don’t have mpg ratings, so age is the criteria. The old one has to be a 2001 model or older. And only $3,500 is available.

Q: Is it worth it for $4,500?

A: The assumption is that the people most likely to use the program would trade in cars worth less than $4,500. Thus, while not necessarily clunkers, most would be at least 8 years old.

Q: Can I combine these incentives with other offers?

A: Yes. For instance, you could trade for a hybrid and get the voucher, claim the hybrid tax credit and get dealer or manufacturer discounts. You also could deduct the sales tax, if any, on your next federal tax return.

Q: Would I ever see the $3,500 or $4,500?

A: No. It’s an electronic transfer from the government to the dealer. Dealers want to be sure the amount can be counted as cash from the buyer, which would help buyers get credit because they’re financing less.

Q: What does the dealer do with my trade-in?

A: Gives it to a salvage operator. The engine, transmission and some other parts must be destroyed so they can’t be reused. The idea is to cull fuel-thirsty, polluting drivetrains. Operators can resell other parts, however.

Q: What’s to keep me from buying a junkyard car for a few hundred bucks, getting it barely running and trading it?

A: The one-year-in-service requirement noted earlier. Lawmakers wanted to exclude the revival of so-called junkyard dogs, because they’ve already been taken off the road.

Q: What do I get if I recently bought a car that would have qualified?

A: The bill contemplates making the incentives retroactive to March 30, but it’s unclear how to find and junk cars that were traded in that long ago. Some might already be back on the road, driven by new owners.

Q: What’s wrong with environmentalists’ idea that the new car or truck should get much better fuel economy than the House bill currently requires?

A: Opponents say the environmentalists’ fuel-economy improvement thresholds are so high that foreign brands benefit disproportionately, because their lineups tend now to have more small, fuel-efficient vehicles.

But the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy complained in a statement criticizing the House bill that the proposal as it stands now is way too lenient.

The council charged that the bill “aims primarily to clear Detroit’s unsold inventory from the storage lots,” rather than to seriously cut fuel use.

Q: How soon could this become law?

A: Depends on how much critics can sway the Senate, and to what piece of legislation this “fleet modernization” bill is attached.

If it becomes part of a larger bill that’s likely to get lots of debate, it could take awhile. If it’s attached to urgent, must-pass legislation, such as an appropriation bill, it could move quickly to the president’s desk.

A current plan is to add the program as an amendment to climate change legislation now being considered.

As proposed, it would be in effect for just one year.

(Source: Detroit Free Press & Image: Jalopnik)

WASHINGTON — Congress appeared ready Wednesday to move forward on a bill to pay people to surrender their old gas-guzzlers for new, fuel-efficient models — but the auto industry hasn’t decided what it wants out of the program.

While backers of a cash-for-clunkers plan announced a deal earlier this month, the final bill has yet to be crafted because of a last-minute dispute between foreign and domestic automakers over incentives for leasing. Environmental groups aren’t thrilled with the compromise, saying it is weighted too heavily toward truck buyers.

But with House and Senate leaders, along with President Barack Obama, voicing support, industry officials say they are hopeful a bill that will boost a lethargic market for new vehicles will get through Congress in weeks. Backers say the compromise would cost about $4 billion — paid for by money from the economic stimulus plan passed earlier this year — and could boost sales by 1.3 million vehicles over a year, according to industry officials.

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, but no trade-in value because the vehicles would be scrapped.

“This is a jobs bill that helps the environment,” said Ziad Ojakli, Ford’s group vice president for governmental affairs.

The plan does have several hurdles that will keep some potential buyers on the sidelines. The clunker being traded in has to be kept off the road — meaning it will have no trade-in value beyond the voucher. Far more trucks on the road will qualify for the vouchers than cars: even 15 years ago, only five models of midsize sedans managed just 18 m.p.g.

And while the compromise among U.S. House members was unveiled earlier this month, the actual bill will be kept under wraps until it is introduced with the House Democrats’ plan to control carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade system, expected no later than Monday.

Although cash-for-clunkers programs in other nations have been motivated by environmental goals to improve the mileage of vehicles on the road, environmental groups are lukewarm about the U.S. compromise.

(Source: Transportation for America)

With Congress preparing to write the bill that will determine the next six years of transportation spending, Transportation for America yesterday released a detailed plan to restructure the nation’s transportation program in order to build a smart, safe and clean transportation system that provides real choices to all Americans.

Image Courtesy: Transportation for America @Flickr

If our platform, released in February, lays out the vision and goals for America’s transportation system, then the Transportation for AmericaBlueprint contains the detailed directions for getting there.

The Route to Reform: Blueprint for a 21st Century Federal Transportation Program will serve as T4 America’s proposal for the policies and financing structures necessary to achieve real transformational change in America’s transportation system. (We’ll be highlighting and explaining pieces of the Blueprint here over the coming weeks — it’s a lot to digest at once.)

In the blueprint, Transportation for America recommends Congress include four critical reforms in the upcoming transportation authorization bill:

1. Articulate a National Vision, Objectives, and Performance Targets for the national transportation program and hold state and local transportation agencies accountable for demonstrable progress toward goals including safety, efficiency, environment, health and equity.
2. Restructure and consolidate federal programs for greater modal integration, with a focus on completing the second half of the national transportation system, providing more transportation options for all Americans and creating seamless transportation systems that meet the unique needs and connect metropolitan regions, small towns, and rural areas.
3. Empower states, regions, and cities with direct transportation funding and greater flexibility to select projects, using carrots and sticks to incentivize wise transportation investments and in return require demonstrated performance on meeting national objectives.
4. Reform how we pay for the transportation system and create a Unified Transportation Trust Fund that would achieve balanced allocations of federal funds in a portfolio of rail, freight, highway, public transportation, and non-motorized transportation investment

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell — a co-chair of the Build America’s Future campaign and one of the leading voices calling for a renewed transportation system – gave the event’s keynote speech in the same committee where the transportation bill will be written and considered first by Chairman Oberstar’s House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Gov. Rendell was followed by a panel that included James Corless, director of the Transportation for America Campaign; Elaine Clegg, Co-Executive Director of Idaho Smart Growth and and city council member in Boise; Astrid Glynn, former Commissioner of the New York State Department of Transportation; Andrew Cotugno, the director of planning for Metro in Portland, Oregon; andRonald Kilcoyne, the General Manager/CEO of Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority.

“This report couldn’t be more correct when it says this is a once in a lifetime opportunity,” Gov. Rendell said.

“If we don’t take advantage of this opportunity…nothing will change, and we’ll just bump along, funding some good projects almost by accident, some mediocre projects and some terrible projects. We won’t have national policy, we won’t move the ball forward, and we won’t do something that will improve our economic competitiveness – we’ll just keep moving along the way we’ve been moving along, and not solving any problems.”

(Source: The Infrastructurist)

Many of you heard through the grapevine (from Congress), particularly, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar — that the new transportation bill would be passed this year. Oberstar even offered September 30 as a target date. Sen Mark Warner (D, Va.) is now saying he’s “not sure” that the estimated $500 billion authorization will happen until next year. According to a story by Terry Kivlan in CongressDaily, Warner thinks that “Congress might have too many big-ticket items on its agenda this year to take on a transportation package.” Speaking at an infrastructure-focused conference hosted by the Departments of Transportation and the Department of Commerce, the senator remarked: “I’m not sure you are going to see a full transportation bill put out this year.”

He’s specifically worried about funding availability in light the fact that revenue from the gas tax, which pays for highway and transit programs, is no longer sufficient to cover outlays.  He called this the “elephant in the room” with respect to infrastructure funding.

(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.