Eisenhower's Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956

[jason43]

If we hadn't had this act maybe we would have put more money into more efficient methods of mass transit. From an environmental perspective this was a disaster probably promoted by the auto manufacturer lobby.

Plus you could argue that the states could have worked together to build large roads where they were most needed.

 

[Erentheca]

If we hadn't had this act maybe we would have put more money into more efficient methods of mass transit. From an environmental perspective this was a disaster probably promoted by the auto manufacturer lobby.

Plus you could argue that the states could have worked together to build large roads where they were most needed.

This is about what I thought when reading through this thread. Additionally, the highway system we have is getting overused and is starting to fail from congestion in some of the largest metropolitan areas. For mass transit, the highway system is one of the least-efficient forms of transportation. Another factor is that the highway system promoted the commuter lifestyle, which encouraged land developers to build "bedroom" communities, placing multiple neighborhoods hours away from the business districts, often without the benefit of more efficient transportation alternatives like rail.

Inevitably, without this system, we would have had 4 possible market/state-government based solutions to expanding commerce and population.

1) Improved rail systems
2) Businesses relocating to be nearer to their workforces, instead of clustering in large metropolitan areas.
3) Renovation and improvement of urban areas to provide higher density housing in and near metropolitan areas.
4) E-commuting and a revamp of the cottage industry.

The interstate highway system and artificially low fuel prices have both combined to create gross inefficiency which now will be hard to undo as the highway system is overwhelmed and fuel prices eventually raise to their real levels.

 

[Raudsarw]

I didn't realize there were so many statists supporting Ron Paul. Maybe the libertarian movement isn't as big as I thought.

 

[Dr.3D]

I didn't realize there were so many statists supporting Ron Paul. Maybe the libertarian movement isn't as big as I thought.

I'll bet most of those people you thought were libertarian are really constitutionalists.

 

[NYgs23]

It's not Constitutional under the interstate commerce clause, which should only be taken to mean thtat the federal government has the power to ensure free trade between the states. And the "defense" thing is just a lame excuse that justify anything: "Washington can nationalize and manage the whole economy....for defense!"

Economically, let's keep in mind what Bastiat said about the seen and the unseen. All the resources invested in those highways would have been invested somewhere else otherwise, so you can't just judge it based on your liking for the highways you can see. You can't see what it would have been, but it would have been driven by consumer demand and not government whim.

 

[torchbearer]

I didn't realize there were so many statists supporting Ron Paul. Maybe the libertarian movement isn't as big as I thought.

gradation is to be expected.

 

[D.A.S.]

But now that we have this infrastructure in place, we are saddled with maintaining it. What is Ron's position on the infrastructure maintenance like Federal highways, bridges, tunnels, etc etc -- privatize them?

 

[sailingaway]

But now that we have this infrastructure in place, we are saddled with maintaining it. What is Ron's position on the infrastructure maintenance like Federal highways, bridges, tunnels, etc etc -- privatize them?

I think his highest priority is to balance the budget cutting foreign spending to spend it here where it helps our economy and those already promised services. I don't think he'd get down to road maintenance abolition in 4 years.

 

[acptulsa]

But now that we have this infrastructure in place, we are saddled with maintaining it. What is Ron's position on the infrastructure maintenance like Federal highways, bridges, tunnels, etc etc -- privatize them?

Unfortunately, I haven't heard him state one. But I surely would love to hear him say that he would favor dropping the federal fuel tax completely. We honestly don't need federal interference in it, and the Lord knows they're in bad enough shape without the fedgov taking their cut to pay for the bureaucrats who play with our money for a while before passing it back out to the states.

 

[Dr.3D]

I think his highest priority is to balance the budget cutting foreign spending to spend it here where it helps our economy and those already promised services. I don't think he'd get down to road maintenance abolition in 4 years.

Perhaps for those new here, that might be worded, "I don't think he'd get down to federal road maintenance abolition in 4 years."
Of course if he did that, he would let the states take care of their own roads.

 

[D.A.S.]

I think his highest priority is to balance the budget cutting foreign spending to spend it here where it helps our economy and those already promised services. I don't think he'd get down to road maintenance abolition in 4 years.

And I agree with what you're saying, but a question on this issue could come up sooner or later, which is why I like to be informed on Ron's public stances as much as possible.

Unfortunately, I haven't heard him state one. But I surely would love to hear him say that he would favor dropping the federal fuel tax completely. We honestly don't need federal interference in it, and the Lord knows they're in bad enough shape without the fedgov taking their cut to pay for the bureaucrats who play with our money for a while before passing it back out to the states.

Are the states currently maintaining the interstate highways with federal funds allocated to them? I guess it would have been smarter to let the states collect their own taxes and pay for maintenance... The states are already involved in maintaining the interstates, right, just that they don't collect taxes for it directly?

Perhaps for those new here, that might be worded, "I don't think he'd get down to federal road maintenance abolition in 4 years."
Of course if he did that, he would let the states take care of their own roads.

I think the word "federal" is very important as with many other issues because people like to paint Paul as an anarchist, whereas he simply wants to turn a lot of things back over to the states because they can do a more efficient job maintaining their localities.

 

[acptulsa]

Are the states currently maintaining the interstate highways with federal funds allocated to them? I guess it would have been smarter to let the states collect their own taxes and pay for maintenance... The states are already involved in maintaining the interstates, right, just that they don't collect taxes for it directly?

All states also collect fuel taxes and apply them directly. These taxes predate, and set the example for, the federal fuel tax. The federal government does nothing to maintain roads outside of military bases and Washington, D.C. They just take our money, take a cut, and give our states back our money if they hire enough grant proposal writers and jump through enough hoops.

 

[D.A.S.]

All states also collect fuel taxes and apply them directly. These taxes predate, and set the example for, the federal fuel tax. The federal government does nothing to maintain roads outside of military bases and Washington, D.C. They just take our money, take a cut, and give our states back our money if they hire enough grant proposal writers and jump through enough hoops.

Yea, I was just reading on Wikipedia:

For the first quarter of 2009, the mean state gasoline tax is 27.2 cents per US gallon, plus 18.4 cents per US gallon federal tax making the total 45.6 cents per US gallon (12.0 ¢/L). For diesel, the mean state tax is 26.6 cents per US gallon plus an additional 24.4 cents per US gallon federal tax making the total 50.8 cents US per gallon (13.4 ¢/L).


So if the states collected all of the fuel tax, with interstate maintenance factored in, it would probably reduce the gasoline tax by something like 7-10 cents a gallon or so...

 

[king_nothing_]

Found this quote yesterday:

"A traffic jam is a collision between free enterprise and socialism. Free enterprise produces automobiles faster than socialism can build roads and road capacity." - Andrew Galambos

 

[1836]

There are a lot worse things than the interstate highway system. However, I do think it is worth noting that this has been used to shackle the states in different ways (i.e., drinking age).

 

[No Free Beer]

@Raudsarw, just because someone thinks government can do things to benefit the country, doesn't make them a statist. Grow up.

 

[cucucachu0000]

i think if allowed the private sector would have put out better roads and kept them up better, including bridges and tunnels and kept the costs down (unlike the bridges and tunnels into manhattan i beleive its like 11 or 12 bucks now). same with the railroads. i heard that only 40% of fuel tax actually gets used on our highways it gets sucked into other programs and is just another way of the govt. to get into your pocket for there corruption.

 

[No Free Beer]

But aren't roads different than any other part of the market products? What I mean is that if you charge a toll on roads and the people believe it is too high, would there be other roads around to avoid the price of certain tolls?

 

[No Free Beer]

I am under the impression that this act was not perfect, but it changed our country as a whole...for the good.

 

[acptulsa]

I am under the impression that this act was not perfect, but it changed our country as a whole...for the good.

We are taught all through school that every damned fool thing the federal government has ever done was 'not perfect, but changed our country for the good.'

Limited access highways would have happened without the federal fuels tax, and a lot of federal waste and nationwide laws of (at best) questionable merit would have been avoided. Hell, the 55 mph speed limit did so much to divide West from East and shove the West and South into the arms of the neocons it's unbelievable. And that's something they don't mention in the history books, but it's true--take it from someone who saw it happen.