Should the federal government stop subsidizing highways?

Road building and maintainence used to be up to the states. Then during the 1930s it became a way for the federal government to pump money into the depressed economy. In the 1950s the Interstate system was devised for a variety of reasons: economic development, a chance to set federal highway standards, decreasing dependence on privately owned railroads, even civil defense. People love cars and gas was dirt cheap, so it seemed like a win-win deal.

With decades of hindsight the mixed blessings of freeway building have become apparent. No amount of pavement seems capable of abolishing traffic jams. Gas isn’t cheap anymore, imported oil has become a strategic and security liability, and pollution is an issue. And plenty of unintended economic drawbacks have been noted: the decay of urban centers as people and businesses move to the suburbs, and the rise of “big box” warehouse chain stores, made possible by access to inexpensive land. In effect extra-urban developement is being subsidized by billions in federal tax dollars.

America has too much invested in the car/freeway system now to try to turn back the clock; but does the federal government need to keep subsidizing it? What is the incentive? As far as I can see about the only justification is that granting or witholding federal subsidies gives the Feds an extra-legal power to mandate state traffic laws. It isn’t like freeways would vanish if the feds didn’t pay for them; the states could simply collect and spend the current gas taxes. But given the uncertain wisdom of our freeway economy, should the federal government at least stop actively promoting it?

It’s a lose/lose situation for the federal government if they stop subsidizing the highway system. It’s less money in federal hands and more money in state hands, less decision making power in federal hands and more decision making power in state hands.

Plus intrinsically the federal govenment funding the interstate highway system is probably the best way to do it. A big bonus of the interstate highway system is that it is fairly uniform in design. If you’re okay on the interstate in Georgia you’re okay in Montana. Speed limits may be different but road markings are similar, and it’s all presented in a manner that keeps you familiar with what is going on and where you are at. Furthermore if states were left to maintain the roads stretches of interstate in poor states would become run-down. The benefit of the interstate highway system is that it connects the entire country, you lose that to a degree when parts of the system aren’t ran up to standards because the state in question is too poor to fund the road properly. It’s another form of federal income redistribution, basically.

I love interstate highways! I love that the green signs with white lettering are the same all over. I love that you can usually count on safe road conditions. There are states that I only drive through–they have no real appeal. I’m glad that they get US money to maintain the road I use and I’m glad that they have to comply with federal standards. I love the highway beautification act and how they can’t put new billboards or junkyards next to interstates. Yeah, FHWA! :slight_smile:

I love interstate highways! I love that the green signs with white lettering are the same all over. I love that you can usually count on safe road conditions. There are states that I only drive through–they have no real appeal. I’m glad that they get US money to maintain the road I use and I’m glad that they have to comply with federal standards. I love the highway beautification act and how they can’t put new billboards or junkyards next to interstates. Yeah, FHWA! :slight_smile:

BTW, the feds also subsidize state mass transit projects, if that makes you feel better.

You should bear in mind that cars (and private citizens) are only secondary users of the Interstate - they’re not much more than an afterthought. The roads are there for trade. If I’m notmistaken, most goods are transported throughout the U.S. on 18-wheel trucks, and it’s THEM the roads are for. You take them out, you’re going to have to lay down a hell of a lot of railroads to compensate.

I’ve driven on the Interstate, and I understood very quickly that I was just a guest in trucker country.

They’re also for quick military transportation if we ever get invaded. I’ve heard it said that the minimum height of an overpass is the height of a Sherman tank on a flatbed truck, plus a bit for clearance.

Yes, trucks carry most of the weight and value of American freight, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. About 3/4 the value and 2/3 the weight of US freight goes by truck.

As a 28 year veteran of my state DOT, I’ve come around in my opinion. I used to think the FHWA was a bureaucratic speedbump in our business, particularly for donor states. Sending $100 million to Washington in order to get $85 million back with strings attached doesn’t seem like such a bargain. But now I see things differently, and I personally am grateful for the federal oversight. A lot of states didn’t inspect their bridges until the FHWA mandated it. A lot of states didn’t check their bridges for undermining during flood events (known as bridge scour) until the feds required it. There are a lot of good things that we as state DOTs do only because the feds make us do it.

And if the state DOTs need some guidance, just think of all the local agencies. A lot of the agencies I work with would tell me to get stuffed if the state didn’t have the power to cut their federal funds. God knows what the road network would look like if thousands of agencies all did their own things for design standards.