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.
Speaking about the highway system, they got it wrong. They made long straight sections that ended up killing people and had to go back and redo it.
Had it been done by the states, they would have worked on it at different rates. They would have noticed long straights killing people and the states lagging would only have to had built it right once.
I should also say that the gulf states would still have jobs and oil rigs if it were not centrally controlled. Repeat this example thousands of times for other states.
Endanger your own species. Leave mine alone.
“National Defense Highway System”
Yes, they did call it that, for a time. It was the excuse for building highways, not the reason. The reason, I feel certain, was the railroad unions, who were crippling Europe at the time and somebody thought we should have a good alternative to rail.
But isn’t it great that politicians, as recently as the 1950s, still thought they needed a constitutional reason to do things? Today they recognize no limitations on their desires. Neither do most of their constituents.
(*Looks around maddeningly for a way to set the clock back. Sees none.*)
Sigh.
The story I’ve heard about Eisenhower and the Interstate Highway system goes like this:
In 1919, Lt Col Eisenhower is assigned to take part in a coast-to-coast convoy of 81 military vehicles. The trip took 62 days. As the linked article states:
The expedition was manned by 24 officers and 258 enlisted men. The convoy was to test the mobility of the military during wartime conditions. As an observer for the War Department, Lt. Col. Eisenhower learned first-hand of the difficulties faced in travelling great distances on roads that were impassable, and that resulted in frequent breakdowns of the military vehicles. These early experiences influenced his later decisions concerning the building of the interstate highway system during his presidential administration.
Odds are he was also influenced by Germany’s autobahn system and how that helped their military during the war. Back in the 1950s, they attached “National Defense” to the titles of many bills in Congress to help get them passed. It was an era when even Democrats strongly supported the military.
“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. ”
Wasn’t there some program not too long ago that was supposed to fix up infrastructure while providing construction jobs to the unemployed from other unrelated fields?
Obama almost had a good idea to address infrastructure projects. He should have advocated creating a sovereign wealth fund where the interest, dividends, or profits earned by the fund each year went to infrastructure projects. Instead he just wants the feds to loan states money.
Sections of it are even designed to serve as landing fields for aircraft.
Either you are a liar or you are ignorant. Which one is it, Matula? You certainly know nothing about aircraft to look at any Interstate and realize that statement is profoundly stupid.
Actually, I think it was the German autobahn that was suppose to use the roads as backup landing strips. Whether ours was or not, aircraft have used it in emergencies.
One could use a large grassy field in an emergency. Surprisingly, Chelsey Sullenberger proved you could indeed use a waterway for an emergency.
But Matula is being a pompous ass as usual, and this time, he’s more than wrong. He’s easily proven wrong by non other than the Department of Transportation. Which is great, but still no reason to keep them around. It would be better to get rid of both the DOT and pompous college professors.
By the way, he’s also wrong about the “National Defense Highway System”. It’s a minor issue though, as the DOT explains.
And speaking of what the DOT tells us, I love this part:
Congress should have put the money into transit instead of the Interstate System.
This was not an option in 1955 and 1956 when the congressional debate took place. At the time, transit was provided mainly by private companies. No one in the industry, in State and local governments, or in Congress imagined that the Federal Government would support these companies financially. In fact, the only thing the American Transit Association asked Congress to do was exempt buses from the gas tax. Congress did so.
Gerrib, your phone is ringing, it’s the Department of Transportation.
Leland,
You need to study history more…
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/turner.cfm
[[[The Air Force, particularly pushed us on this. I suppose you’re familiar with [the fact that one] of our major airports over there that was a part of the Autobahn. In fact, the Autobahn was used originally as runways. The airport was built right on the Autobahn . . . .]]]
[[[After the war in the early ”50s, we were pressured pretty hard by the Air Force to build into the Interstate System exactly that same capability and that we would even locate the lines, not in accordance with what the law says, by routes as direct as practicable between [the principal metropolitan areas, cities, and industrial centers]-even if we had to twist the alignment here to get in the wind directional consideration, and the low gradients and lack of obstructions and one thing and another, for three mile long sections that would be spaced along here at certain intervals, we were to design those into the system. So, periodically, about every 40-50 miles, we’d have about a three-mile section there that would meet those requirements. This was to be highly classified, of course. But this was one of the concepts that was cranked into it at that time.]]]
[[[They came back with the conclusion that from a practical standpoint we couldn’t really do it. Not because we couldn’t do it physically, but we could not, with our projections of traffic use and the kind of controls that would be required to permit emergency use of that thing, except as you took all the highway traffic off entirely. Made it exclusively a runway. ]]]
So it was one of the features considered in its design, although it wasn’t implemented.
They came back with the conclusion that from a practical standpoint we couldn’t really do it.
I rest my case. You’re a liar.
Oh wait, I read your link rather than your drivel. Since you told me I needed to study my history, I thought maybe you were suggesting I was wrong. At least you finally admitted that eventhough it was considered, it was never implemented. Never implemented means there are no segments designed to be runways. So I guess you were ignorant of that previously.
I suggest when you are ignorant about a topic, you don’t double down.
Leland,
Sorry Leland but it shows that national security was a factor in the development. The deciding factor was that using part of the Interstate for runways in wartime would interfer with it’s use for troop movements. In short the Army’s needs triumphed the Air Force needs. Something you would know if you actually read the link.
And returning to the key point, Ken is wrong, there was a defense justification for the Interstate Highway System.
Thomas, you are having that reading comprehension problem again. Where do I say there was NOT a defense justification? If I am wrong I will admit it. If you call me wrong when I am not, you owe me an apology.
That’s how it used to work in a civilized society.
Ken,
From an earlier post in this thread:
[[[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.)]]]
As I pointed out the Interstate Highway System met this requirement.
Let me use little word and type slowly…
They did include a defense justification. When. did. I. say. they. did. not?
Sorry to include a negative in my question. That can be confusing but I see no way around it.
You said, “Ken is wrong.” In general, that might be a true statement, but we’re being specific here. What did I say that was wrong? Let me help. I’m going to parse the example you gave so you can highlight the wrong statement.
1) Redistribution is pure political bullshit. If you say nothing a politician does is pure… ok, I’d accept that.
2) I believe there should be only one allowed reason, defense. I think I’m being pretty clear here. Being clear is not what politicians want. It makes it more difficult to do their slimy evil actions.
3) Politicians being what they are, they would then could and in this case did use that one reason as cover for continuing the redistribution bullshit. This really is the core statement. The fact that they did use defense as part of the justification is my point.
4) You pointed out the Interstate Highway System met this requirement. Apparently you feel this is why I am wrong about something. Ok then, which of the above three is wrong. Wrong has a specific meaning. It means not right.
Ken,
Federal funding of transportation has always involved national defense in the U.S. Postal roads, which date to the founding of the Republic, also served the needs of the military. A major argument for funding transcontinental railroads were to facilitate troop movements. the Alaskan Highway was built by military engineers. The first government involvement in aviation was military funding, as was the first funding for rocket technology after World War II.
And going back to the Constitution, and one of the reason the Constitutional Convention was held to replace the “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union” that had governed the United States of America was to enable the funds from the wealthy states to be used to build infrastructure is the less wealthy states for the benefit of the nation.
Do you think the State of Arizona could afford to build and maintain the Federal highways within it borders? Especially decades ago when they were built and its population was a lot smaller? No, it couldn’t. That is why the Federal government funded them and they brought commerce to the state. Same for the railroads in Arizona in the 19th Century. Without the Federal redistribution of wealth you rant against Arizona would have a lot fewer paved roads and a lot smaller population.