U.S. Funding for roads is dwindling

Among many pressing problems, our federal policy makers are struggling with re-authorization of the nation’s surface transportation legislation.  We take for granted that the federal government’s role includes overseeing commerce and the network of roads and highways that carry goods and people.

The federal government’s role in transportation policy has not always been so clear and in fact has evolved significantly over the years.  With the narrow exception of “post roads,” meaning roads that were to access a post office, the U.S. Constitution does not specifically call for a federal role in providing transportation. 

The debate as to whether this language permitted a federal government role in providing other non-post roads began in the 1800’s.  Representatives of western states – which were expanding and building roads – strongly supported federal assistance in funding new transportation.  Not unexpectedly, older parts of the young country opposed such funding.

Instead of providing cash, the government began to authorize federal land grants to states.  States then sold the land using the revenues to support not only roads and bridges but also canals and railroads.  By 1900 the federal government had donated 3.2 million acres of federal lands for road construction; 6.725 million acres for canals and improved river navigation, and 37.8 million acres for railroad improvements.  States had almost full latitude over project selection and oversight.

The 1900’s brought together two strong interest groups pressuring for direct federal funding for local transportation projects – first the bicycle riders and then the newly emerging car owners.  Between 1900 and 1915 automobile ownership in the U.S. increased from 8,000 to over 2 million.  Bicyclists and motorists alike were tired of muddy roads.

These groups effectively represented by the newly formed American Automobile Association, the National Grange, and the American Association of State Highway Officials, successfully lobbied for direct federal funding to match local funding for post roads in 1916. 

By 1921 there were over 10.2 million automobiles and the role of the federal government in surface transportation again came under review including the need for a federal highway system.  Stopping short of a federal highway system, the Federal Highway act of 1921 increased funding available to match state funding (50-50 matching) but limited the funds to a system of federal “aid” highways.  These were to be were “interstate in character.”

By the beginning of the 20th century, populations had shifted with nearly 40 percent of the population living in cities.  Subsequent transportation debates centered on the interests of rural and urban areas as each jockeyed for transportation funding.  In 1944 separate pots of funding were set up for primary highways, secondary highways and feeder routes so both urban and rural interests received protected funding.  The federal government solidified its role in transportation and previous constraints became an issue of the past.

A 41,000 mile National Interstate System was authorized in 1956.  The next 35 years of transportation policy focused on the completion of that system and how to pay for it.  Governors opposed increases in the gas tax. Trucking organizations opposed fees.  A one cent gas tax increase pledged to a dedicated Highway Trust Funds was finally supported by the majority of interest groups.  With the Interstate System came the first national standards for highway design and construction.

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 introduced a new emphasis on bus and light rail projects with a $32 billion appropriation specifically for mass transit.  The population was shifting again and roads alone were not able to move people efficiently in large urban centers. 

Today, two hundred years later, the role of the federal government in transportation is once again the focus of debate about federal transportation policy.  But rather than based on Constitutional issues, it is prompted by dwindling gas tax revenues because of fuel efficient and non-gasoline vehicles.   Unless there is some agreement on new taxes or other revenue sources, states may soon find themselves without a federal funding partner.  And this time don’t expect the federal government to give away land.