Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the federal government make transportation infrastructure a funding priority
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 73% | 46 votes | Total: 63 votes | |
| No | 27% | 17 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesToday, many Americans are thinking of new ways to stretch their paychecks. The current economic recession has many citizens concerned about the future. Gas prices are at an all-time high and current projections only see the price increasing. As more and more people across America begin to feel the pinch of these current events, they look more and more to the government for a solution.
Many government officials say that they have little control over the economy. This is true. We live in a regulated capitalistic economic system. The market system largely responds to the economic laws of supply and demand. While the government has little control over the prices of goods and services, they do have the power to regulate commerce. This right is granted to the legislative branch through the first article of the Constitution of the United States. While many are blaming the President they should, instead, be writing to their Representatives.
It is Congress that decides what regulations should be created for our nation's economy. The President does, however, play a role in this process. He has the power to veto legislation passed by the Congress. He also must execute the laws once they have been created. This is done through the various governmental departments that are overseen by the President and his cabinet. If legislation were to pass that would increase funding for transportation infrastructure the department that would be in charge of overseeing such a project would be the United States Department of Transportation.
The problem with getting such a measure passed is federalism. Our federal government brings all of our 50 states together under one central government. Our Congress is composed of individuals who represent each of these states. The problem that measures of this type run into is gaining the support of enough representatives to pass both houses of Congress. If certain states do not benefit from such a proposal, then they will most likely not support it. The way for such a measure to gain enough support to pass is through the activism of concerned citizens.
Why should individuals support such a measure? The answer is in the current state of the economy. When people think of the economy they do not often think of transportation. They think instead of interest rates and the stock market and the value of the dollar. Historically, however, periods of economic prosperity are preceded by large investments in infrastructure. If you examine the nuts and bolts of the laws of economics this makes sense.
What happens every morning after you leave the house but before you arrive at work? You are driving, sitting on a bus, sitting on a train, riding a bike, or walking between your home and your place of business. If you have cheap and efficient mass transit, you might take advantage of it with current gas prices. If you had a bike path the entire distance between your home and work, you might ride a bike or walk to work. If you had a fuel efficient car such as a hybrid or a fuel cell car, you might drive to work. Funding for roads, bike paths, and mass transit comes from the government (be it at the local, state, or federal level). Regulations on the auto industry come from the federal level of government.
Why is this important for the economy?
You, as a worker, provide two essential links in the three parts of our economic system. Both of these would be positively affected by better transportation.
Cheap and efficient mass transportation could lead to increased productivity. You won't arrive at work angry and bitter about the commute so you won't spend an hour complaining about it to your co-workers instead of working. You won't sit in a traffic jam for hours which would also decrease productivity. Imagine reading a book or the morning newspaper as you sit peacefully on a train that picks you up a few blocks from your house and drops you off a few blocks from your work. Now think about how much better of a day you might have at work when you compare it to the alternative. Sounds nice right? It is possible if you get your congressman or congresswoman on board. The economy might get better, if you were able to provide more efficient labor to the system.
Imagine not paying $50, $60, $70, or $80 to fill up your car for the week. How would you feel if you paid half of that? What if you didn't pay for gas at all? What if you filled your car up from the kitchen sink? It's possible. The technology is out there. Now imagine how much money you would have left over to spend on whatever you wanted. That sounds nice, doesn't it? It is possible if you get your congressman or congresswoman on board. The economy might improve with all of the extra consumer goods you could buy because you saved money you would have spent on gas.
There are other ways that improving transportation infrastructure can help the economy too.
If you, as an individual, are buying less gas then the price may decrease. The law of supply and demand predicts that it would. Taking thousands or even millions of cars off of the road would do such a thing. The farmers would be able to produce their crops with less expense. This would lead to decreased prices at the grocery store, which would lead to more money in your pocket yet again. It would also lead to cheaper costs of transporting those and other consumer goods from their manufacturing plant to the retail store. This would lead to cheaper consumer prices as well.
While these are just a few of the many examples of ways that improved transportation infrastructure could improve our current state of the economy, they are important. These are projects that would take some time to complete and would need to support of many people. However, these projects are just one way that the government can act to improve our situation. There are many other things that should happen that would also improve our nation's infrastructure. We are on the eve of a huge shift in the nature of our economy and the way that it is powered. With the help and activism of people like you we will be able to make sure that we don't drop the ball.
Shortly after our nation was formed, one of our founding fathers, Alexander Hamilton, spent much of his time and energy as Secretary of the Treasury for George Washington on transportation infrastructure projects. He understood even then that a vibrant economy was dependent on cheap, efficient, and effective modes of transportation among other things. He fought diligently for this cause just as we should be fighting for our government today to refocus their attention on the same thing. Our founding fathers were far-seeing individuals who looked more so to the future of their country instead of the present state of affairs. If we care about the future of our country, we should look towards solutions to our current problems that are not "quick fixes" but instead long-term solutions such as increasing funding for transportation infrastructure.
Learn more about this author, Casey Clay.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Transportation infrastructure is one of the major issues plaguing major metropolitan areas today. States with older metropolitan areas are grappling with the fact that the smaller cities and grid systems that used to serve towns for years cannot handle their needs today while cities with a lot of suburban sprawl and entirely new cities altogether, such as those found in the South and in the West find that one can never truly build transportation infrastructure right.
Americans gravitate towards what appears to be at the time an excessive approach to transportation infrastructure. We are infatuated with wide roads, the number of lanes in a road and the length of a road. We like to break in new highways as though we were young lovebirds wanting to break in a new bed and can never get enough of places to put our automobiles. Yet these roads, both in length, width and complexity are very expensive, and residents of counties often absorb the costs.
When the costs cannot be borne by property taxes alone tolls are implemented, at times creative situations come about, such as absorbing the costs through speeding tickets and other traffic fines; localities almost always try to force new businesses to add to the transportation infrastructure in order to make up for the extra burden on existing infrastructure.
Yet there is an unfailing truth about transportation infrastructure; people always go to what is newest and the most attractive, often neglecting to choose alternate routes that are more productive. The widest roads and highways will always be more attractive than side streets, which are rarely taken unless there are accidents or other concerns, the same goes for bridges and tunnels. At the end of the day metropolitan areas often find that the only way to avert a complete paralysis of their transportation infrastructure, is to include more public transportation; which is something that everyone wants when they are without an automobile and no motorist really wants around.
Yet none of this is really the burden or responsibility of the federal government. There are times when the federal government may have a vested interest in doing so, depending on how the metropolitan area lies in importance to the rest of the countries economic interest, but quite honestly, transportation infrastructure is something that cities can and often do address by themselves without the help of the federal government.
Too often the federal government gets involved in the business of rescuing or attempting to jump start economic progress in an metropolitan area with little if any return on their investment. Cities become codependent on the federal government and loose their autonomy. Also, individuals wouldn't really like the way the federal government addresses transportation infrastructure to begin with, particularly when it is the government that is responsible for building that infrastructure. The quirks and character that go along with streets in many neighborhoods would be put aside for a standardized, almost homogeneous methodology for road building.
What the government does do is provide a means for individuals in different cities to connect to each other. Amtrak and our interstate highway system are both examples of ways that the government is involved in transportation infrastructure. Amtrak is very expensive and cost prohibitive; the train is rarely any cheaper than air travel or even the bus. Because it isn't used much it would be difficult to use taxation to reduce it's costs, plus it isn't something that most people use.
In spite of all of this there is still a movement to have the federal government more involved in the business of prioritizing the transportation infrastructure; the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century was enacted in 1998 as public law. There were programs for highways, highway safety, and transit up until 2003 but the law elapsed because there was no consensus in Congress about how to proceed with it's implementation. At the time the law had mandated that regional transportation plans addressed needs for the economic vitality of the area by encouraging global competitiveness and enhance public transportation for non-motorists.
While a lot of good could have come out of that law it was replaced by the "Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users", a new measure that had a lot of pork spending that allowed states to implement pet projects; though California did receive 10% of the money.
The federal government shouldn't spend any more money on building roads that only benefit the middle class and it's wealthiest constituents whatsoever, but it should allocate money for the American poor that have to rely on public transportation to get around town and travel between cities. Too often public transportation is an afterthought in a metropolitan area and simply cannot be relied on; the prevalence of automobiles make it undesirable and people are still willing to use it for every little thing instead of maximizing the use one could get from it. Chronic usage of the automobile adds to a lot of waste, particularly that of energy, fuel, money and time. Cities inevitably turn into unproductive areas that are then forced to implement public transportation at the last minute and are at a loss to find funding because the same individuals who could benefit from it aren't necessarily those that can afford the tax increases.
The federal government will always have money put aside for the nations transportation infrastructure but it will never be enough to handle the needs of some cities. Roads deteriorate quickly, traffic increases exponentially and other issues always come about which push transportation funding aside.
Learn more about this author, Christopher Kendalls.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Government & Policies
- Should the US implement a carbon tax on energy sources that emit carbon dioxide?
- Was President Bush right to grant control of records to a president's family?
- Should members of Congress and their staff disclose information about their meetings and contacts with lobbyists?
- Should the Freedom of Information Act cover federal court records?
- Should elderly drivers have to undergo road tests to renew licenses?
