Gee, they say that like it would be a bad thing. Interestingly, space transportation is one area that actually does have a legitimate federal role, as a result of the Outer Space Treaty and Liability Convention. But it could be an independent agency, as could the FAA.
66 thoughts on “Dismantling the Department of Transportation?”
Comments are closed.
It will be interesting to see the states fund the Interstate Highways within their boundaries, especially “Tea Party” states like Alaska that often get $2 dollars from the federal government for each dollar they pay in taxes. A lot of those tax transfers is for transportation.
…so maybe it should be renamed the Department of Dollar Transportation.
“It will be interesting to see the states fund the Interstate Highways within their boundaries, especially “Tea Party” states like Alaska that ”
aren’t connected to the interstate highway system:
http://www.onlineatlas.us/interstate-highways.htm
“Dissolving a department” and “killing all funding back to the states” aren’t synonymous. Duh.
It’d work like this:
Instead of collecting the federal taxes at the states and shipping it off to DC where a good percentage is pulled off for administrative overhead, graft, and corruption, the money would stay in the states for their use. For many states, this would be a net plus because they’d get to keep the money raised in their states. Poor states like Mississippi and sparsely populated states like Wyoming wouldn’t come out as well.
The Highway Department is only one portion of the Department of Transportation. There are other portions like the FAA. Things like air traffic control are reasonably national matters. Other parts of the FAA could be reevaluated. For example, it costs many million dollars to certify a new airplane for production, even a four seater like a Cessna 172. In fact, certifying even such a simple plane can cost tens of millions of dollars. Certifying new engines and avionics is also extremely expensive. Currently, Light Sport Aircraft have much less stringent certification requirements and they have a good track record even using engines and avionics that otherwise would only be legal in homebuilt aircraft. Why not start at the bottom and loosen the certification requirements for small planes up to say 6 seats including existing designs?
Nope, but they do have federal highways.
“Nope, but they do have federal highways.”
lame
There are only four Departments: Treasury, Interior, War, and Navy. If you hit me hard enough I might agree to add Commerce.
If it won’t fit comfortably in one of those, it isn’t a Federal function in the first place. The others were designed and built as skinnerboxes for bureaucrats and pork-shovels. Yes, that includes Defense.
Regards,
Ric
“If you hit me hard enough I might agree to add Commerce.”
you’d be better to go with the post office ’cause commerce is from the progg era. from wiki:
“Post Office Department (1829–1971), headed by the Postmaster General”
I have my reservation maybe showing my nativity and lack of understanding on the subject. But DOT makes a framework, collective set of rules of the road across the whole system and deals with the interstate aspects. There can’t be 50 different set rules of the road or haphazard planning of highway , building/improvements/repairs, which might be interstate connections. Yes their is some local variation of the rule of the road such as Right turn on Red, U-turns.
A few boneheaded examples that doubt would happen, but possible say a state decides to change to left side driving, or state decides to narrow a lane to allow more space, while other state allows wider vehicles, change the stop light system to some technocrat suggestion be it 2 light or 4 light system. This already happened with California but having 50 different emission standards for vehicles that could hampered the interstate used car market . Banning of suvs from the state roads.
So, grasshopper Engineer, your example falsifies your premise.
California already makes their own rules – so what good are Federal rules for cars / highways?
Sorry.
But you must remember, the Tea Party is about freedom. If a state wants drivers to be on the left side it should be their right!
“There can’t be 50 different set rules of the road ”
so if fed dot disappears tomorrow anarchy?
i don’t think so. the states will work together without the dc bandits oversight.
“If a state wants drivers to be on the left side it should be their right!”
it should be. but most folks ain’t that stupid to use that as an example of what happens if this fed dot disappears.
Newrouter,
The states work together? Thanks for the laugh! Why do you think they had the Constitution Convention for in 1787? They couldn’t even agree on the same currency…
Well, you can never predict which posts are going to light up the commenters.
DOT makes a framework, collective set of rules of the road across the whole system and deals with the interstate aspects.
That doesn’t need a department unto itself. Under the Department of Commerce, there is an entity that used to be called the National Bureau of Standards (not National Institute of Standards and technology) that could fulfill that role just fine, if need be.
Thomas, do you really, in your delirium, fantasize that absent a federal Department of Transportation, that some states would decide to switch sides that they drive on?
Really? If so, how do you explain the fact that they all adhered to the left prior to 1966?
Ric,
Why is the Navy separate from the War Dept.? Seem you could get by with three megadepartments.
“The states work together?”
Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
Section 10 – Powers Prohibited of States
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,….into any Agreement or Compact with another State
Lets start I said “BONEHEADED” it is was really conjecture, mental experiment such as the mental experiment for the laffer curve if you have a 100% tax rate the it encourage people to either not work or subvert that tax bracket and a 100% tax rate is similarly “BONEHEADED”.
There are examples of not quite as boneheaded moves but close which has been implemented by states , we have states that give driver licenses to illegals which are then used as a primary id for other things, we have states require everyone have medical insurance.
We have states that want to pass laws to allow people to decide on what bathroom they want to use, so for example Pre-op trans3xual can go into the opposite s3x bathroom (don’t think it passed). Historically we had states that wanted to dictate voting on the color of one skin or institute government sanction racism and we still do (just the opposite now). But all of these laws really have limited interstate impact and fall under the control of the state and have limited effect upon visitors from out of state.
Yes I know California some what falsifies my statement and have lack of awareness on the full details of California laws. But with a quick check of Wiki on emission standards found this.
In the United States, emissions standards are managed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The state of California has special dispensation to promulgate more stringent vehicle emissions standards, and other states may choose to follow either the national or California standards.
So California got dispensation to have more rigorous so there is only 2 not 50 regulations, and much like Texas with Textbooks, California is sizable enough to have a market to itself. Though also showed some of my lack of knowledge that the emission standards fall under the EPA branch but make sense though guessing DoT has a part of the stick of enforcing that.
Now Rand the possibility of passing the framework to other branches so the suggestion is lets remove the department title and break up the function such as FAA and space agency as separate and tuck other important branches with in other departments. So what is the gain? (again nativity) yes know historically we pretty much had the list Ric suggested but times have changed. You still got the bureaucracy just spread out as smaller branches in other bureaucracy but do you actually reduce the aggregate bureaucracy? Now maybe Dot should have trimming. Though after your site was done some thinking suppose removing it from department level limits it voice and control for a specialized interest.
I Would say that transportation is a big enough subject that has enough state interrelationship it needs a department level, so their is some communication and common resources among them and be too specialized, to be all done by some super department of Interior or commerce. That a secretary couldn’t do it justice while knowing all the other different material under their charge. There are other departments that I would dissolve before transportation and don’t have the interstate consequences, such as Education.
“The states work together? Thanks for the laugh!”
“6 NORTHEAST STATES SUE E.P.A. OVER LACK OF ACID RAIN CURBS
By ELIZABETH KOLBERT
Published: July 17, 1987”
source: nytimes
Newrouter,
So? The key will be to watch what happens if the win. Will they all adopt the same standards? Or more likely, start suing each other.
You know transportation pork goes to the very first Congress when Representatives fought over how many postal roads would be built in their districts. You don’t need a separate Department to get the pork.
“Will they all adopt the same standards? ”
you be too stupid to talk to
umm Newsrouter you sort of all over the map, wouldn’t “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,….into any Agreement or Compact with another State” sort of prevent the states working together, depending on how you read the constitution and the terminology. It would say prevent two states from reaching a agreement to say build high way connecting at a certain point with out federal intervention. Though that leaves other option of privatizing it all so then private firms layout the road systems or (“other” transportation systems and infrastructure) but then the connections and assumption that only a few firms would have the capital to build expansive networks, so it fall under interstate commerce which feds have control over too.
Though getting to subject of the linked article. Seem the congressman was more complaining about the federal level scooping money from the states, but as pointed out in the site comments, Colorado most likely brings in more money from the dot than they lose to it.
“umm Newsrouter you sort of all over the map, wouldn’t “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,….into any Agreement or Compact with another State” sort of prevent the states working together”
no the states can form compacts with congress approval, they also can join together to sue the idiots in dc. next
And what does have to with ensuring common highway standards in all the different states?
I haven’t been following the rules of the road–I don’t know what DoT has standardized. When I was growing up a standard load was 8 feet wide in Washington state, 8.5 feet in Oregon. Trucks that were legal in Oregon were illegal in Washington. We hauled hay, and sometimes we pushed the limit a bit in Washington.
Oregon allows two trailers behind a semi, Washington only one.
The orientation of traffic signals varied from state to state; it’s been a while since Drivers Ed, but I thought there were other differences in the signals.
Lane colors were different from state to state.
It wasn’t that big of a deal. I wouldn’t be surprised if a higher percentage of people traveled interstate by car then than do now, and they seem to have managed.
You stripped my intention , though I will admit should of said it sooner.
“sort of prevent the states working together…… It would say prevent two states from reaching a agreement to say build high way connecting at a certain point with out federal intervention.”
So you still need feds to intervene and really doubt can tie up congress with approving every interstate interaction, connection. (Though that may be a feature and not be a bad thing) But in the end you need a separate agency at fed level to control that.
“And what does have to with ensuring common highway standards in all the different states?”
so if we do away with fed oversight there’s immediate anarchy argument. you lose.
this internet thing doesn’t have fed rules yet but it still works.
“But in the end you need a separate agency at fed level to control that.”
no you don’t! its f**kin’ roads for allan’s sake.
this internet thing doesn’t have fed rules yet but it still works.
if you trying to make the augment that i think you trying to make that is a separate augment. For the most part the internet is a collective private industry system, our current system of roads is not a private industry it very much a public one, now should it be like that that is a different augment. But the feds do have the say over the internet that not the states. FBI cyber crimes, wiretapping laws and so on, states are unable to enforce internet sales tax, short of in state internet sales, or in state internet crimes.
with the assumption that the road infrastructure is a public system and not private.
Newsrouter then how do you propose a state builds a high way to one of it borders for traffic in between states? Every time they do it they have to have congressional approval (Feds involvement) since by constitution they have to for a agreement/compact? Or what they just build a high way to the edge of the state and hope the other state has the funding and builds a matching highway that connects?
“Newsrouter then how do you propose a state builds a high way to one of it borders for traffic in between states? Every time they do it they have to have congressional approval (Feds involvement) since by constitution they have to for a agreement/compact? Or what they just build a high way to the edge of the state and hope the other state has the funding and builds a matching highway that connects?”
see stupid like this is the problem. there wasn’t a fed dot when the the f**kin trans continental railroads were built. dude we don’t need dc to build things!!11!!
Newsrouter the transcontinental railroad still had a fed approval
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railway_Act
so your suggestion is to have a act of congress for every major high way that goes between states?
“Newsrouter the transcontinental railroad still had a fed approval”
f**k you
“The “Empire Builder”
Between 1883 and 1889, Hill built his railroads across Minnesota, into Wisconsin, and across North Dakota to Montana. Hill and his men worked in spite of all obstacles—including a presidential veto of a bill that would have allowed Hill legally to build through American Indian territory (the law preventing Hill from laying track across Indian territories was later repealed under President Grover Cleveland, who like Hill was a Bourbon Democrat).
When there was not enough industry in the areas Hill was building, Hill brought the industry in, often by buying out a company and placing plants along his railroad lines. By 1889, Hill decided that his future lay in expanding into a transcontinental railroad.
“What we want,” Hill is quoted as saying, “is the best possible line, shortest distance, lowest grades, and least curvature we can build. We do not care enough for Rocky Mountains scenery to spend a large sum of money developing it.”[3] Hill got what he wanted, and in January 1893 his Great Northern Railway, running from St. Paul, Minnesota to Seattle, Washington — a distance of more than 1,700 miles (2,700 km) — was completed. The Great Northern was the first transcontinental built without public money and just a few land grants and was one of the few transcontinental railroads not to go bankrupt.
Hill chose to build his railroad north of the competing Northern Pacific line, which had reached the Pacific Northwest over much more difficult terrain with more bridges, steeper grades, and tunnelling. Hill did much of the route planning himself, travelling over proposed routes on horseback. The key to the Great Northern line was Hill’s use of the previously unmapped Marias Pass first discovered by Santiago Jameson. The pass had been discovered by John Frank Stevens, principal engineer of the Great Northern Railway, in December 1889, and offered an easier route across the Rockies than that taken by the Northern Pacific.
The Great Northern reached Seattle in 1893.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._Hill
“Engineer Says: ”
i’m a commie bureaucrat. idjiot
Again we getting to the private vs public augment Newsrouter that is a different augment entirely. And for the most part such systems only work with some sort of monopoly to police/control, be it one company in charge such as Great northern railway or in other cases , standards committees such as for the internet or a government for other examples.
As long as it a public system you need a higher level bureaucracy for dealing between each state.
“As long as it a public system you need a higher level bureaucracy for dealing between each state.”
says the bureaucrat. jim hill didn’t need dc at all. jim hill needed less dc. so does space exploration. f**kin “public” doesn’t equal faggot commies.
who the F&&k defines “a public system “. is that facebook? allan you infidels are the stupid.
psst, newrouter …. stop feeding the new troll
Who is the allan?
This is one of the more idiotic discussions we’ve had here. Plus we had it here years ago. It wasn’t resolved then either.
One issue is redistribution of funds. It’s pure political BS. There should not be any with one and only one exception… a clear national security reason. That will normally not be the case, but just that one exception would of course be used by politicians as justification for their pork (pork simply being use of taxpayer money as reelection funds.)
Inequality is taken care of by the free market. Low cost areas of the country become incubators for innovation. Letting the central government get their sticking fingers on funds just gives them more political power. It does nothing else that justifies the redistribution.
Some claim that states are not capable of doing some projects and that therefore the federal government is required. Complete and total BS. Nothing prevents states from doing interstate projects. It’s just a form of contract. The debate is distributed and they have to come to some agreements. Adults can handle that. National standards do not require central control and communities should have the right to establish local standards that disagree with national standards. Leaving just one issue. What happens when people cross state borders?
That’s already an issue. Gun laws vary from state to state. I can be perfectly legal, then cross a border and become a criminal. That’s a problem, but we have absolutely zero need for the central government to therefore step in and take control. Absolute zero.
Things would work differently without central control. So what? I heard Cavuto yesterday saying the worlds finances have become a single entity. Meaning that when it collapses, not if, it will take everyone down at once. Aren’t we the lucky ones?
Diversity is strength. Give that responsibility to the central government and they screw it up… every. single. time.
The whole argument is based on the idea that people are too stupid to govern themselves at anything less than the federal level. No, state and local governments are too ignorant. Only the wise and benevolent leaders in Washington DC are capable of making sound decisions, staffed as they are with people who graduated from the best schools and who have everyone’s best interests at heart.
Meanwhile, back in reality, we see that isn’t the case. The DC government Mandarin class looks out for itself first and foremost. They are venal and corrupt, and yet they look down on the poor hayseeds in “flyover country” with contempt. They’re so full of themselves that they don’t realize they need us far more than we need them. By the time they awaken to that fact, it’ll likely be too late.
Who needs a Federal Department of Transportation when General Motors, a company selling automobiles in all “57 states”, gets to violate laws with impunity?
GM and only GM cars have this gizmo where the backup lights come on in response to the keyless entry when the owner is still in their office, and I am sitting there out in the parking ramp waiting for this car to back up.
Guess what, activating the backup lights for any other reason than the transmission being in the reverse gear is illegal in the State of Wisconsin. It is illegal for a reason — illuminating the backup lamps when the car is not about to back up is “crying wolf” and diminishes the safety warning function of backup lamps.
And mind you, it is only GM doing this . . . no . . . other . . . car . . . maker . . . is . . . doing . . . this.
Newrouter,
I never said immediate anarchy, don’t put words in my mouth. Inertia will continue the legacy. But roads and bridges will start to fall apart faster without federal funds. We are already $1.3 trillion behind in repairs according to the ASCE.
Also with the disappearance of federal pressure to comply with a single set of regulations and standards compatibility between states will decrease. Safety standards will decline and vary between states. Some states will probably become havens for lax regulations (think South Dakota and credit cards). Insurance rate will shoot up as a result.
Are there problems with DOT. Sure, all organizations have them. Might it run better if merged with another agency, like Commerce and Energy, probably. But just eliminating it is senseless.
Newrouter,
Although the GNR didn’t get land grants they did need lobby for and received approval to build across Native American Reservations against the wishes of the tribes living there.
Ken,
The proper name for the Interstate Highway System is the National Defense Highway System. It official role is to allow the rapid November of troops, armor and supplies across country in case of war. Sections of it are even designed to serve as landing fields for aircraft. So actually it is a defense issue.
Ugh, auto spell, that movement, not November.
Paul,
Sounds like Wisconsin should be suing them.
National Defense Highway System
Thanks for making a small part of my point Thomas. Politicians!
roads and bridges will start to fall apart faster without federal funds
Where did this magic Obama money from his stash come from? Did they take any for themselves before being so ‘generous.’ Try again.
standards compatibility between states will decrease
That’s the good news. Kind of tough to vote with your feet when there’s nothing to vote for. Sing it with me Thomas, competition is Gooood.
Some states will probably become havens
So you agree that competition will be stimulated. Now that’s a very good thing.
Let’s look at one DOT function as an example of possible problems. The FAA provides traffic control which is not per state. The ANM ARTCC for example handles traffic for 7.5 states (including northern California.) How in the world could that be handled by separate states?
Easy. They just do it. They adapt. Airspace is divided into regions that have nothing to do with state boundaries. Well, now they would.
Another problem. All commercial pilots must speak english to ground controllers no matter where in the world they both are. Sounds good right.
Guess what, if it is good, they would still do so. (Do non English speaking military in battle do that as well? I’m finding that hard to believe. I don’t actually know.) If for any reason some decide not to, so what?
Only an ivory tower genius thinks that only they know what the rest of us should do.