Federal Highway Act Essay

Words: 629
Pages: 3

The Federal Highway Act of 1956
Since the inception of the United States, several policies and regulations have been passed in regards to transportation that proved to be beneficial on some accords. While some policies and regulations proved to be a pivotal point in growth, in regards to America’s transportation industry, others proved to negate. This forced compromise and deregulation amongst all parties, to promote what America enjoys today; an unlimited access to a vast array of transportation. Following World War II, the nations hunger for car and truck ownership exploded. While this proved to benefit the economy in a vast number of ways, traffic congestion from across the nation caused angry motorists to demand relief via federal aid.
…show more content…
In the book titled, Defining a Nation: Our America and the Sources of Its Strength, Eisenhower described his transcontinental convoy as “difficult and fun” (Halberstam, 2003, pg. 129). Signed into law June 29, 1956 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Federal Aid to Highway Act authorized funds in excess of $25 billion dollars to be allocated for the construction of 41,000 interstate miles over a ten year period. There was never a time in America’s history in which such a large amount of funds would be used to facilitate a public works project of this magnitude. “It was a defining moment in the development of the nation’s transportations policy” (Dilger, 2003, pg. 21). The funds were generated via two ways, diversion of the national defense fund and the creation of new taxes in regards to gasoline and diesel fuel. Ninety percent would be contributed from the Federal government and the remaining ten percent would be contributed from the states. The Federal Highway Act centralized the nation’s highway policy and promised, “to make the entire nation accessible by automobile and truck through the construction of toll-free roads; ensure economic growth throughout the nation, without adversely affecting one region at the expense of another” (Dilger, 2003, pg. 21). The act has been