An overview of the Federal Transportation program is that in recent years it faced a lot of challenges since its inception years. Lack of funding is the most urgent problem that the program faces with trust fund for highways slowly heading towards the direction of bankruptcy. The public is not yet ready to embrace alternative sources of funding such as the mileage fees, road fares and income taxes. Priority has not yet been placed to investments on the national transport system and maintaining the existing ones but rather it is directed to developing high speed programs on railways.
Some key lessons are that, many people including experts feel that the funding meant for transportation should be devolved to the various localities and states. This as a result of the fact that the road networks in a country are usually local and research has been done to attest to the fact that with decentralization there is an increase in infrastructure spending locally. Roads play a vital role in the overall development of a society and therefore maximum care should be taken to ensure they are in good shape. Regular analysis needs to be done to ensure that the gas taxes money is returned in accordance with the economic status of a state with the most being returned to those with high poverty rates.
A critical analysis of the program reveal that involvement of Feds in transportation has led to many roads and rails that are not needed because of the presence of free money. Questions have arisen on whether the Trust Funds on Highways are distributed in a fair manner as more is distributed to the states that have more needs. A recent study however, has shown that the states that are benefiting from these funds their highway usage is less and their incomes are high and therefore they do not need the funds. The representation of these states in the Congressional committee is better that that of the other needy states. Some such as Martin Wachs- RAND Corporation believe that it would not be feasible to leave such responsibility to the states. Some states that have high poverty rates would not allocate the money to transport if left to decide their transport systems would be deplorable hence they ought not to be given such power.
What is missing in the article is the consideration that the people that manage the funds in the more developed states can mismanage the funds and not allocate to the areas that really need the good road networks and they spend all the money in ensuring the key roads are not well maintained. The states with high poverty rates need to be given a chance to allocate the money and a study can be done after that to check whether their allocations are viable. The role the of the federal government in the regulation of the funding of road transportation has been overlooked in the one hundred and twenty years that it has been in operation. It has ensured enough money is allocated to development of road and rail networks and developments are constantly made in the areas that need them.
The recommendations include; traditional role of governance that is top down needs to be reformed and this gives the states a chance to lead on the funding. New restrictions ought to be laid down when the money from gas taxes is being returned to states as they shall enable them to spend it as they find most befitting. Introducing models that bring about competitive funding and rewarding the projects that have proven to be strong with subsidies and fixing the roads that existent will help to ensure the program bears fruit in the end. Reducing the amount of central authority and reconfiguring the transportation state departments will ensure the usage rates that are established are fair and ensure quality is maintained. This is achieved with the help of a local committee on oversight.
References
Erick Jaffe. (2013). The End of Federal Transportation Funding as We Know It. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/03/its-end-federal-transportation-funding-we-know-it/4931/
