Chapter 19 argues that DOT should return to a narrower role focused on safety and regulatory framework rather than choosing projects, distributing discretionary grants, and steering transportation behavior from Washington. It combines institutional retrenchment with support for public-private partnerships, emerging technology, and rollback of fuel-economy and related regulatory distortions.
- Chapter title: Department of Transportation
- Chapter number: 19
- Major institutional domain: transportation funding, regulation, grantmaking, infrastructure finance, emerging technology, and vehicle standards
- Chapter position: tenth chapter in Section 3, "The General Welfare"
- The contents page places this chapter at page 619, with Chapter 20 beginning at page 641
¶ Major claims and proposals
- The chapter argues that DOT has drifted from a regulatory and safety mission into a top-down planner, grantmaker, and lender that weakens local accountability.
- It recommends abolishing or sharply reducing discretionary grantmaking and moving toward formula distributions to states, which it treats as better judges of transportation needs.
- It supports more use of user fees, private financing, and public-private partnerships where those arrangements genuinely improve value and shift risk appropriately.
- It treats the Build America Bureau as a body that should face tighter underwriting, repayment, and transparency rules rather than functioning as disguised subsidy.
- It argues that DOT should facilitate emerging transportation technologies and automated vehicles through safety standards and regulatory clarity, not industrial favoritism.
- It also criticizes current federal fuel-economy and emissions structures, especially California's role and overlapping federal pressure, as drivers of higher vehicle costs and constrained consumer choice.
¶ Institutions, actors, or domains involved
- Department of Transportation
- Office of the Secretary
- Build America Bureau
- Federal Highway Administration
- Federal Aviation Administration
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
- Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
- public-private partnerships and infrastructure finance
- automated vehicles, spectrum policy, and CAFE standards
¶ Policy mechanisms and implementation logic
The chapter relies on eliminating discretionary grant structures, re-centering regulation on safety and performance, and allowing states and private capital to make more infrastructure decisions. Its core logic is that transportation works better when federal government sets basic rules, avoids picking modal winners, and lets pricing, local control, and private innovation shape infrastructure and mobility.
- The chapter argues against federal planning while still relying on significant federal standard-setting and statutory preemption in areas like vehicle regulation and fuel economy.
- It praises private finance and user-fee discipline, but also acknowledges that private financing does not solve underlying funding problems and can impose long-run public costs.
- The chapter seeks both tech neutrality and a strong federal role in emerging-technology integration, which can create tension between deregulatory aims and safety oversight.
raw/papers/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf- Contents pages identify Chapter 19 as beginning on page 619 and Chapter 20 as beginning on page 641
- Extracted chapter text covers DOT's narrowed mission argument, grantmaking critique, Build America Bureau, public-private partnerships, emerging technologies, and fuel-economy policy
¶ Evidence limits and open questions
- This chapter is broad across modes and financing mechanisms, but it is still coherent at the chapter level. Later work could split infrastructure finance from modal and vehicle-regulation issues if needed.
- The chapter is prescriptive and should not be treated as evidence that these DOT reforms were implemented.