Most drivers will begin paying new congestion tolls on Jan. 5 to reach the heart of Manhattan, if all goes as planned. The fees are meant to relieve some of the world’s worst gridlock and pollution while raising billions of dollars for important upgrades to New York City’s subways and buses. Officials also hope to […] More
The regulator faulted the automaker for not recalling cars with defective rearview cameras quickly enough and for providing incomplete and inaccurate information.Ford Motor will pay a fine of up to $165 million for not recalling cars with defective rearview cameras in a timely manner, the federal government’s main auto safety agency said on Thursday.The agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said Ford also had failed to provide accurate and complete information about the defect and recall. If Ford is required to pay the full sum, it will be the second-largest fine ever issued by the regulator. The largest fine, a $200 million penalty in 2015, was levied against Takata, a Japanese company that made defective airbag inflaters that resulted in a huge, global recall.The safety agency said a defective rearview camera could increase the risk of a crash.“Timely and accurate recalls are critical to keeping everyone safe on our roads,” the agency’s deputy administrator, Sophie Shulman, said in a statement. “When manufacturers fail to prioritize the safety of the American public and meet their obligations under federal law, NHTSA will hold them accountable.”Under a consent decree between the agency and Ford, the automaker is required to pay $65 million. A second sum of $55 million will be deferred and can be partly or completely reversed if Ford makes changes to improve its ability to identify defects and alert the safety agency quickly.Ford also agreed to spend $45 million to improve its ability to analyze data, create a new means of sharing information and documents with the safety agency, and set up a base to test rearview camera components.“We appreciate the opportunity to resolve this matter with NHTSA and remain committed to continuously improving safety and compliance at Ford,” the automaker said in a statement. “Wide-ranging enhancements are already underway with more to come, including advanced data analytics, a new in-house testing facility, among other capabilities.”According to a summary of the safety agency’s investigation, the defect was related to a faulty circuit board that caused rearview cameras in certain models to stop working. The agency received 15 complaints about the defect but did not identify any injuries or fatalities caused by it.Ford first identified the defect in 2020 and issued a recall for more than 620,000 vehicles, largely from the 2020 model year, including F-Series pickups, Mustangs and several sport utility vehicles. A year later, the safety agency opened an investigation to determine if Ford had accurately identified and reported all of the vehicles that could have been affected by the camera defect.Ford expanded the recall in 2023 and again this year. Separately, Ford recalled a different set of rearview cameras in 2023 at a cost of $270 million. More
Until a few years ago there was not much in this patch of desert 250 miles north of Mexico City but rattlesnakes, coyotes and cactus. Today, it is gleaming evidence of the country’s growing importance as an auto producer.In 2019, BMW completed a vast factory complex here, near the city of San Luis Potosí. As spotless and modern as any in Bavaria, the plant builds luxury sedans for the United States, Europe, China and dozens of other markets.San Luis Potosí is one of several Mexican cities that have become little Detroits, producing Volkswagens, Audis, Mercedes, Fords, Nissans and Chevrolets. In the first nine months of this year, Mexican factories produced more than three million vehicles, of which two million were exported to the United States, according to the Mexican Automobile Industry Association.But Mexico’s pivotal role in the global auto industry is now at risk. President-elect Donald J. Trump has threatened to impose punitive tariffs of 100 percent or higher on cars from Mexico, which would violate a trade agreement his first administration negotiated with Canada and Mexico.The BMW factory in San Luis Potosí has 3,700 employees.Bénédicte Desrus for The New York TimesThe consequences for the auto industry would be profound, affecting the price in the United States of popular models like Ford Maverick pickups, Chevrolet Equinox sport-utility vehicles and several variations of Ram trucks.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
Ford is struggling to make money on battery-powered models while General Motors, which started more slowly, says it is getting close to that goal.In the race to be second to Tesla in the U.S. electric vehicle market, Ford Motor leaped to an early lead four years ago over its crosstown rival, General Motors, with the Mustang Mach E, an electric sport utility vehicle with a design and a name that nodded to its classic sports car.But the contest looks much different today.Sales of G.M.’s battery-powered models are starting to surge as the company begins to reap its big investments in standardized batteries and new factories. Ford’s three electric models, including the F-150 Lightning pickup truck and a Transit van, are still selling well but are racking up billions of dollars of losses.The latest view into how Ford’s quick-start strategy has run into trouble came on Monday, when the company reported that its electric vehicle division lost $1.2 billion before interest and taxes from July to September. In the first nine months of the year, it lost $3.7 billion.Ford’s chief financial officer, John Lawler, said it was a “solid quarter,” noting that revenue had risen for the 10th quarter in a row, by 5 percent to $46.2 billion. But the company’s overall profit of $896 million in the third quarter was down 24 percent from a year earlier, largely because of problems with electric vehicles, warranty costs and other factors.“Our strategic advantages are not falling to the bottom line the way they should because of cost,” Mr. Lawler said.Ford made an early entry into the electric vehicle market compared to other established automakers with the Mustang Mach E.David Zalubowski/Associated PressWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
Although Donald Trump has opposed policies that favor electric cars, if he becomes president he could ease regulatory scrutiny of Tesla or protect lucrative credits and subsidies.Former President Donald J. Trump has promised, if he is re-elected, to do away with Biden administration policies that encourage the use and production of electric cars. Yet one of his biggest supporters is Elon Musk, the chief executive of Tesla, which makes nearly half the electric vehicles sold in the United States.Whether or not Mr. Trump would carry out his threats against battery-powered cars and trucks, a second Trump administration could still be good for Tesla and Mr. Musk, auto and political experts say.Mr. Musk has spent more than $75 million to support the Trump campaign and is running a get-out-the-vote effort on the former president’s behalf in Pennsylvania. That will almost surely earn Mr. Musk the kind of access he would need to promote Tesla.But Mr. Musk would also have to confront a big gap between his Washington wish list and Mr. Trump’s agenda.While Mr. Musk rarely acknowledges it, Tesla has collected billions of dollars from programs championed by Democrats like President Biden that Mr. Trump and other Republicans have vowed to dismantle.In Michigan, a battleground state and home to many auto factories, the Trump campaign has run ads that claim that Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, wants to “end all gas-powered cars” — a position that she does not hold.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
Once the largest city in the U.S. to declare bankruptcy, this Midwestern metropolis is now thriving. But some obstacles still remain.On a sunny Friday morning last month, Mike Duggan, the mayor of Detroit, got behind thewheel of his black Jeep Grand Cherokee to give a tour of the city he has led for 10 years. Not far from Michigan Central Station, the former hulking ruin that was recently transformed into a gleaming office complex, he slowed to point to a construction site of vertical steel girders and yellow earth-moving machines. It will become a 600-room JW Marriott hotel, linked to the city’s convention center and scheduled to open by 2027, when college basketball’s Final Four will be played in Detroit.Farther west, more earth movers were crawling along a mile-long stretch of riverfront land, adding contours that will soon be a spacious, green recreation area, with elaborate play structures, a water park, basketball courts and outdoor workout equipment. It will be one of the final links in a 3.5-mile chain of parks, open spaces and bike paths that have replaced the warehouses and industrial yards that previously lined the Detroit River.Just beyond the park stood a vestige of Detroit’s troubled past — a crumbling, boarded-up building that was once the Southwest Detroit Hospital, which closed 18 years ago. Detroit City FC, a professional soccer club, hopes to raze it and build a new stadium.A mile or so away, Mr. Duggan, 66, pulled up at another construction site that will be the home of a University of Michigan research and innovation center focusing on software, artificial intelligence and other advanced technologies. “This is where we are going to create the jobs of the future,” he said.“I’m excited about how much pride is back among Detroiters,” said Mayor Mike Duggan.Nic Antaya for The New York TimesTwenty minutes later, Mr. Duggan stepped out of the Jeep at a small park off Rosa Parks Boulevard, north of downtown. In 1967, it was the site of an unlicensed after-hours club that was raided by the police. The action provoked a violent uprising that raged for five days, left 34 people dead, 1,200 injured, and more than 14,000 homes, buildings and stores burned or destroyed. The episode spurred the flight of thousands of residents from the city and marked the start of Detroit’s long, painful decline.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
The Inflation Reduction Act was a compromise between competing priorities. Evaluating the law on the effectiveness of the $7,500 tax credit for E.V.s is tricky.A team of economists has taken on a central component of the Inflation Reduction Act: the $7,500 tax credit for U.S.-made electric vehicles.The challenge in evaluating it is that the policy has sometimes conflicting goals. One is getting people to buy electric vehicles to lower carbon emissions and slow climate change. The other is strengthening U.S. auto manufacturing by denying subsidies to foreign companies, even for better or cheaper electric vehicles.That’s why totaling those pluses and minuses is complex, but overall the researchers found that Americans have seen a two-to-one return on their investment in the new electric vehicle subsidies. That includes environmental benefits, but mostly reflects a shift of profits to the United States. Before the climate law, tax credits were mainly used to buy foreign-made cars.“What the I.R.A. did was swing the pendulum the other way, and heavily subsidized American carmakers,” said Felix Tintelnot, an associate professor of economics at Duke University who was a co-author of the paper.Those benefits were undermined, however, by a loophole allowing dealers to apply the subsidy to leases of foreign-made electric vehicles. The provision sends profits to non-American companies, and since those foreign-made vehicles are on average heavier and less efficient, they impose more environmental and road-safety costs.Also, the researchers estimated that for every additional electric vehicle the new tax credits put on the road, about three other electric vehicle buyers would have made the purchases even without a $7,500 credit. That dilutes the effectiveness of the subsidies, which are forecast to cost as much as $390 billion through 2031. “The I.R.A. was worth the money invested,” said Jonathan Smoke, the chief economist at Cox Automotive, which provided some of the data used in the analysis. “But in essence, my conclusion is that we could do better.”How the Environmental and Safety Costs of Gas- and Electric-Powered Cars Stack UpMeasuring the cost to society of carbon emissions from driving and manufacturing, local air pollutants and the danger of crashes, a new economic analysis finds that some gas-powered vehicles are less damaging than electric and hybrid vehicles.
.dw-chart-subhed {
line-height: 1;
margin-bottom: 6px;
font-family: nyt-franklin;
color: #121212;
font-size: 15px;
font-weight: 700;
}
The five least and most costly gas- and electric-powered vehicles
Averages are weighted by the number of each model registered within each powertrain category. Total costs subtract fiscal benefits from gas taxes and electricity bills.Source: Hunt Allcott, Stanford; Joseph Shapiro, U.C. Berkeley; Reigner Kane and Max Maydanchik, University of Chicago; and Felix Tintelnot, Duke UniversityBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
Rail labor disruptions in Canada tend to be brief, but a prolonged stoppage could have hurt farmers, automakers and other businesses.Late Thursday, the Canadian government ordered arbitration between the railroads and the rail workers’ union, a move that will end the shutdown. Read the latest coverage here.Canada’s two main railroads shut down for several hours on Thursday after contract talks with a labor union failed to reach a deal, forcing businesses in North America to grapple with another big supply chain challenge after several years of disruptions.The sprawling networks of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Kansas City are crucial to Canada’s economy and an important conduit for exports to the United States, Mexico and other countries. Had it lasted, the stoppage would have forced companies to find other modes of transport, but for some types of cargo, like grains, there are no practical alternatives to railroads.Canadian National’s network extends into the United States, and Canadian Pacific Kansas City has operations in the United States and Mexico. The companies’ networks outside Canada are still operating because their American and Mexican workers are covered by different labor agreements.What would a shutdown mean?Canada has recent experience with rail labor disruptions. Strikes in 2015 and 2019 ended in days. The country’s federal government has the power to press the rail workers union, the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, and management to accept an arbitrated settlement.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
The automaker said it would invest less in battery-powered cars and scrap a planned electric three-row sport utility vehicle.Ford Motor, which had once hoped to race ahead of other established automakers in electric vehicles, is again slowing the pace of its investments and new battery-powered models.The automaker said on Wednesday that it would delay the introduction of a new large electric pickup truck by about 18 months, to 2027, and scrap a three-row electric sport utility vehicle.The company is also reducing the amount of money it plans to spend on electric vehicles in an effort to stem multibillion-dollar losses on the technology, while adding plans to introduce a new electric delivery van in 2026. A new medium-size electric pickup is expected in 2027 as well, the company said.“The competitive nature of the market is changing globally,” Ford’s chief financial officer, John Lawler, said in a conference call. “That means these vehicles need to be profitable, and if not, we will pivot and adjust and make those tough decisions.”Mr. Lawler said investments in electric vehicles would now account for about 30 percent of the company’s capital budget, down from 40 percent. The company will take a charge of $400 million to account for the cost of manufacturing equipment it purchased for the production of the canceled electric S.U.V., and it may have up to $1.5 billion in additional expenses related to the project.“This is certainly not great news in terms of Ford’s progress on E.V.s,” said Sam Abuelsamid, a principal research analyst at Guidehouse Insights, a research firm. “Clearly they have not yet come to grips with cost-reduced E.V.s and getting more affordable products on the market.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
