Search results

Provisions of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 vastly expanded the federal role in highway improvement on a long range basis, especially with respect to the so-called Interstate System. Authorizations of highway aid were further increased substantially by Congress in legislation enacted in 1958. The 1956 act for the first time also provided that the funds to pay for federal aid highway programs should come from specified levies upon highway users and a highway trust fund was established for this purpose. Owing principally to cost increases exceeding the original estimates, it has become apparent since the 1956 act was passed that the revenues earmarked for the trust fund will not suffice to pay for the costs of the federal aid programs as projected into future years. Thus, the federal aid highway programs are not yet on an assured basis of full support from highway user tax revenues although the 1956 act contains a declaration of policy for the Congress to enact further legislation, as from time to time may be required, in order to effect a balance in the highway trust fund between total receipts and total expenditures. To accomplish this purpose, assuming that the programs are to go forward as projected, additional federal highway user taxes are going to be necessary to sustain the trust fund.

By virtue of the nature of our federal system every attempt to regulate extensive economic activity involves constantly recurring problems as to the proper allocation of governmental power between the state and national governments, and thus problems as to the proper balancing of local or state and national interests. The development of motor carrier regulation in the United States has been controlled by the general concepts of federalism and exemplifies the nature of the basic problems inherent in those concepts. The purpose of this article is to examine the regulation of motor carriers from the standpoint of the allocation of governmental powers and to offer some tentative conclusions as to the effectiveness of the present system of regulation in this regard.

The origins of the intercity trucking industry were humble. The development of the motor truck and of an intercity highway system which made its use in the transportation of freight practicable led many enterprising individuals to set themselves up as intercity truckers during the decade between 1925 and 1935. Capital requirements were minimal. The initial investment was frequently no more than the down payment on the motor vehicles employed. In the early stages of development, the typical motor carrier was a sole proprietorship, partnership or family-held corporation which relied for its financing on retained earnings of the business and hand-to-mouth borrowing from local banking institutions or equipment manufacturers rather than upon public financing through security issues traditionally employed in corporate finance. Federal regulation of the intercity motor carrier industry was inaugurated by the passage of the Motor Carrier Act in 1935. This legislation subjected the issuance of securities by common or contract carriers by motor vehicle to the provisions of section 20a of the Interstate Commerce Act which had been enacted as part of the Transportation Act of 1920, to confer on the Interstate Commerce Commission authority over the issuance of railroad securities.

Historical overview of US federal and state regulation and reform.

Introduction -- Overview, evaluations, and criticisms of the safety measurement system -- Applications of item response theory models in other contexts and public release and transparency -- Applying item response theory models to highway safety -- Extensions of and implementation of the item response theory model to the safety measurement system -- Data availability and quality

This discussion of buying motor carrier services in a deregulated environment identifies the key factors influencing supplier choice.