In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

245 thirty-two Making Transportation Policy In a scheme of policy which is devised for a nation, we should not limit our views to its operation for a single year, or even for a short term of years. We should look at its operation for a considerable time. —Henry Clay During the confirmation process several senators had pressed me on a particular issue: What was the Department of Transportation’s purpose? It had been in existence since 1966. Its enabling statute had expressly directed the secretary to develop a national transportation policy. Why? Congress created the department to coordinate the federal funding and regulation of transportation systems to promote safe, efficient, and seamless interstate and local transportation of people and goods.1 Yet almost a decade later, no transportation policy statement had been issued. In 1791 Alexander Hamilton had prepared what essentially was the nation’s first national transportation policy. It was called the “Report on Manufactures .” It stressed the importance of a comprehensive approach to the development of commerce and trade among the states in the young nation.2 In 1808 Albert Gallatin, secretary of the treasury under President Jefferson, presented the first federal transportation plan to Congress. It proposed the construction of a series of canals to connect interstate commerce efficiently, knitting together the diverse regions of a dynamic, growing economy. Implementing the federal plan, the Erie Canal was completed in 1835, followed by the construction of a network of canals in the East. Five years later a competitor emerged, the railroad, culminating in the laying of the first transcontinental tracks in 1869. What was the policy, if any? Through land grants, the federal government provided the railroads generous rights of way but did not provide a continued funding source for the railways. In 1895 the first American automobile was issued a patent. The federal government helped fund highway construction (but not maintenance) at different levels with a maximum of 90 percent federal and 10 percent state matching for the interstate highway system launched in 1956. Federal funding 05-0488-1 part5.indd 245 9/9/10 8:26 PM 246 / serving in the ford cabinet was recouped through gasoline and motor carrier taxes. Funding for public transit came later and was less generous, but both capital and operating costs at times were subsidized by federal and local governments. In 1903 a new form of transportation was born in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. In the succeeding decades, the United States would lead the world in the development of global aviation. The fledgling airline industry was supported by federal mail contracts. Airports were funded primarily through a ticket tax on passengers and local airport user fees paid by the airlines. Since 1808 federal transportation policy has evolved willy-nilly. How did all these federal programs fit together? Did they encourage a rational, efficient transportation system? national transportation policy On September 17, 1975, my department issued the first statement of national transportation policy. It consisted of general principles that would guide federal transportation decisionmaking, emphasizing the federal responsibility to promote safe, environmentally sensitive, and consumer-responsive transportation through a competitive private sector. We stressed the importance of efficient connections between different forms of transportation, facilitating the transfer of passengers and freight. This meant, among other things, rail and truck connections to ships at ports, public transit access to airports, and parkand -ride facilities to encourage commuters to use public transit in the cities. It also meant better coordination between federal, state, and local governments, including stronger regional planning authorities to ensure efficient trade-offs between highways and public transit in accordance with a regional master plan.3 We sought to minimize distortions in federal funding and regulation that might favor one mode of transportation over another. My first attempt at issuing a national transportation policy met with mixed reviews. Several members of Congress expressed displeasure with our policy. They apparently were looking for a plan that would essentially map out the country’s transportation infrastructure requirements for the next twenty-five years. I did not believe that, in an economy that relies primarily on the private sector to make capital investments and operate transportation services, the federal government should be in the business of creating such a plan. Nevertheless , I asked my assistant secretary for policy, plans, and international affairs to develop a transportation plan that would be consistent with the policy guidelines we had just issued. After much discussion, we concluded that it was not feasible for the federal...

Share