PAGENO="0001" ~. ~? :2. / FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT--1968 (90-30) HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ROADS OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETIETH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 17134 and related bills TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEARS 1970 AND 1971 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN HIGH- WAYS IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 23 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES FEBRUARY 20, 21; MAY 23, 28; TUNE 4, 5, 11, AND 12, 1968 Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works CL/5 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 96-030 WASHINGTON: 1968 PAGENO="0002" JOHN A. BLATNIK. Minnesota ROBERT E. JONES, Alabama JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Illinois JIM WRIGHT, Texas KENNETH J. GRAY, Illinois FRANK M. CLARK, Pennsylvania ED EDMONDSON, Oklahoma HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California WM. JENNINGS BRYAN DORN, South Carolina DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana RAY ROBERTS, Texas ROBERT A. EVERETT, Tennessee RICHARD D. McCARTHY, New York JAMES ~E, West Virginia JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey EDWIN W. EDWARDS, Louisiana JEROME R. WALDIE, California JOHN A. BLATNIK, Minnesota ROBERT E. JONES, Alabama FRANK M. CLARK, Pennsylvania ED EDMONDSON, Oklahoma ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana JIM WRIGHT, Texas ROBERT A. EVERETT, Tennessee RICHARD D. McCARTHY, New York JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey RAY ROBERTS, Texas WM. JENNINGS BRYAN DORN, South Carolina WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Florida WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio JAMES It. GROVER, New York JAMES C. CLEVELAND, New Hampshire DON H. CLAUSEN, California ROBERT C. McEWEN, New York JOHN J. DUNCAN, Tennessee FRED SCHWENGEL, Iowa HENRY C. SCHADEBERG, Wisconsin M. G. (GENE) SNYDER, Kentucky ROBERT V. PENNEY, Nebraska ROGER H. ZION, Indiana JACKH. McDONALD, Michigan JOHN PAUL HAMMERSCHMIDT, Arkansas CLARENCE B. MILLER, Ohio WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Florida WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio JAMES C. CLEVELAND, New Hampshire DON H. CLAUSEN, California ROBERT C. McEWEN, New York FRED SCHWENGEL, Iowa ROBERT V. DENNEY, Nebraska ROGER H. ZION, Indiana JACK H. McDONALD, Michigan COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS GEORGE H. FALLON, Maryland, Chairman COMMITTEE STAFF RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Chief Counsel LESTER EDELMAN, Counsel CLIFTON W. ENFIELD, Minority Counsel SHELDON S. GILBERT, Associate Minority Counsel Smr~ AssIsTANTS DOROTHY BEAM, IJ~recutivc Staff Assistant MERIAM BUCKLEY BELA S. YOUMANS ANNE KENNEDY STELLA SPAULDING STEaLTH B. CARROLL SuBco~i~nTTEH ON ROADS JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Illinois, Chairman AUDREY G. WARREN, Professional Staff (U) PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS Page Appendix - 795 I. TEXT OF BILLS H.R. 16994, H.R. 17134, to authorize appropriations for the fiscal years 1970 and 1971 for the construction of certain highways in accordance with title 23 of the United States Code, and for otherpurposes 100 II. TESTIMONY Airis, Thomas F., Director, District of Columbia Department of High- 485 ways and Traffic Armstrong, B. B., president, the Associated General Contractors of America, Roswell, N. Mex.; accompanied by James M. Sprouse, assist- ant executive director, contractor services 10 Bingham, Hon. Jonathan B., a Representative in Congress from the State of New York 383 Blackburn, Hon. Benjamin B., a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia 583 Borges, Ronald R., director, National Joint Heavy and Highway Con- struction Committee; accompanied by D. D. Danielson, secretary and director of research 574 Boyd, Hon. Alan S., Secretary of Transportation; accompanied by Hon. Lowell K. Bridwell, Federal Highway Administrator, Department of Transportation; Francis C. Turner, Director of Bureau of Public Roads; Dr. William Haddon, Jr., Director, National Highway Safety Bureau; and Dr. Robert Brenner, Deputy Director, National Highway Safety Bureau 131, 234 Braman, Hon. J. D., mayor of Seattle, Wash., accompanied by Milton Pikarsky, commissioner of public works, city of Chicago, appearing for the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors - - - 495 Bresnahan, William A., managing director, American Trucking Associa- tions, Inc.; accompanied by Edward V. Kiley, research counsel; Lewis C. Kibbee, director, engineering department; Richard A. Lill, chief highway engineer; and Goley D. Sontheimer 625, 777 Buchanan, John F., manager, Douglas Studs, Inc., South Fork, Colo - 569 Cabell, Hon. Earl, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, accompanied by Mayor Erik Jonsson, of Dallas, Tex.; and Vincent Ponte and Warren Travers of Ponte & Travers, planning architects and engineers 665 Clausen, Hon. Don C., A Representative in Congress from the State of California 396 Coupal, J. R., Jr., director of highways, State of Iowa 440 Craig, George, Western Lumber Manufacturers, Inc., San Francisco, Calif 558 Dingwall, J. C., State highway engineer, Texas 436 Fascell, Hon. Dante, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida Gilvin, L. P., vice president, Associated General Contractors of America, Amarillo, Tex., accompanied by Nello L. Teer, chairman, highway contractors division, and James M. Sprouse, assistant executive direc- tor, the Associated General Contractors of America 310 Gray, Hon. Kenneth J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois 401 Greenslit, Vance, president, Greyhound Bus Co., accompanied by Charles A. Webb, National Association of Motor Bus Owners 723 Hagenstein, W. D., executive vice president, Industrial Forestry Associa- tion, Portland Oreg 345 PAGENO="0004" IV Page Hall, John, National Forest Products Association, and Knox Marshall, California district forester, Western Wood Products Association 683 Healy, Patrick, executive director, the National League of Cities 2~ Hillenbrand, Bernard F., executive director, National Association of Counties 26 Hopkins, Charles, State Highway Department, Florida 467 Johnson, Hon. Harold T., a Representative in Congress from the State of California 659 Xachlein, George F., Jr., executive vice president, the American Auto- mobile Association, accompanied by Charles Brady, director of High- way Department, the American Automobile Association 749 Xee, Hon. James, a Representative in Congress from the State of West Virginia; accompanied by Page Woolridge, general counsel, Pocahontas Land Co 615 Lamb, Arch, chairman, Transportation Committee, National Association of Counties, accompanied by Bernard F. Hillenbrand, executive director, National Association of Counties; and Ralph Tabor, assistant director, National Association of Counties 518 Lindsay, Mrs. Harvey L., Norfolk, Va., vice president, Associated Clubs of Virginia for Roadside Development 554 Lorenz, Francis S., director, Department of Public Works and Buildings, State of Illinois; accompanied by Mr. Johnson 478 Lyon, John W., president, National Parking Association 483 Mahon, Hon. George H., a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas Marsh, Burton W., executive director, the Institute of Traffic Engineer& - Matsunaga, Hon. Spark M., a Representative in Congress from the State of Hawaii 662 Miller, Burton F., executive vice president, American Road Builders Asso- ciation; accompanied by Robert S. Holmes, president, American Road Builders Association, Pittsburgh, Pa.; Sam P. Turnbull, engineer direc- tor, Florida Road Builders Association, Tallahassee, Fla.; and Karl L. Rothermund, Jr., executive director, Ohio Contractors Associati on~. - - 67, 300 Morton, John 0., president (New Hampshire), American Association of State Highway Officials; accompanied by A. E. Johnson, executive direc- tor; and Ross G. Stapp, chairman, AASHO Committee on Transport - 251 Moyer, George H., Jr., president, Nebraska U.S. Hiway 81 Association~. 548 Nelsen, Hon. Ancher, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota 392 Nelson, M. 1v1., Deputy Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture; accompanied by Richard F. Droege, Associate Deputy Chief, Forest Service 222 Pickle, Hon. J. J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas 358 Pyle, Howard, president, the National Safety Council; accompanied by William G. Johnson, general manager; and Harry N. Rosenfield, gen- eral counsel Rhyner, Emerson, deputy chief counsel, California Division of Highways, accompanied by Mr. Sam Helwer, California deputy State highway engineer 336 Seacrest, Joe R., managing editor, Lincoln Journal, Lincoln, Nebr., repro- senting 1-35W Association 421 Seitz, Paul W., president, May Stone & Sand Co., Fort Wayne, md.; accompanied by George A. Zeigler, chairman, National Limestone Institute Spooner, Paul L., Roadside Business Association; accompanied by Don- ald S. Barbour, member, executive committee 592, 677 Stafseth, Henrik E., director, Michigan Department of State Highways~ 473 Stapp, Ross G., chief administrative officer, Wyoming Highway Depart- ment, Cheyenne, Wyo., first vice president, American Association of State Highway Officials; accompanied by Alfred E. Johnson, executive secretary, AASHO 51 Volpe, Hon. John A., Governor of Massachusetts, chairman, National Governors' Conference; presented by John Jackson, office of the Gov- ernor of Massachusetts 7 Waggonner, Hon. Joe D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana 513 PAGENO="0005" V Page Walker, Hon. E. S. Johnny, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Mexico 9 Won Pat, Antonio, government of Guam 564 Wright, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas 419 III. WRITTEN STATEMENTS American Paper Institute, Inc., and American Pulpwood Association 693 American Road Builders Association 81 American Transit Association 248, 690 Association of American Railroads 708 Beck, C. W. ("Red"), State representative, 23d district, State of Wash- ington 833 Boyd, Hon. Alan, Secretary of Transportation 207 Corman, Hon. James C., a Representative in Congress from the State of California 690 Culver, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa 406 Dc Lorenzi, John, managing director, public and government relations, American Automobile Association 773 Dickinson, Hon. W. L., a Representative in Congress from the State of Alabama 852 Drake, Frederick B., director of purchasing and real estate for Air Products and Chemicals, Inc 835 Dunn, Hon. Thomas G., mayor of Elizabeth, N.J 828 Farbstein, Hon. Leonard, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York 408 I?erguson, Joseph V., II, attorney, New Orleans, La., on behalf of Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., New Orleans East, Inc., International Auto Sales & Service, Inc., Oklahoma Cement Co., Dundee Cement Co., Louisiana Materials, Inc., Gertler Hebert Co., Pratt Farnsworth, Inc., Dixie Mill Supply 838 Florida Road Builders' Association, Inc 84 Gallagher, Hon. Cornelius E., a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey 409 Gibbons, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 406 Goodman, Ward, director of highways, Arkansas Highway Department, chairman, AASHO Committee on Bridges and Structures, statement re 5. 2658 286 Greenslit, H. Vance, on behalf of Greyhound Lines, Inc 728 Harrison, Hon. William Henry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wyoming 689 Helland, Henry C. director of highways, Utah State Department of Highways 704 Holmes, Robert S., president, American Road Builders Association 68 Johnson, Hon. Harold T. (Bizz), a Representative in Congress from the State of California 404 Kachlein, George F., Jr., executive vice president, American Automobile Association 750 Kleppe, Hon. Thomas, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Dakota 408 Marsh, Hon. John 0., a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia 408 Miller, Burton F. executive vice president, American Road Builders Association 301 Mitchell, Thomas F., executive representative, Georgia-Pacific Corp., Washington, D.C 716 Murphy, Hon. John M., a Representative in Congress from the State of New York 415 National Association of Counties, Bernard F. Hillenbrand, executive director 42 National Joint Heavy and Highway Construction Committee: A B C Highway System 48 Supplemental rebutting the position of Associated General Contrac- tors of America on Davis-Bacon coverage for A B C highway program PAGENO="0006" VI Page Nelson, M. M., Deputy Chief, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, additional comments, as requested by Chairman Kluczynski_ - - 232 New Orleans Port Commissioners 836 Pickle, Hon. J. J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, statement and additional materials 358 Price, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas___ 413 Roadside Business Association, Donald S. Barbour, member, executive committee 593 Schweagel, Hon. Fred, a Representative in COngress from the State of Iowa 791 Webb, Charles A., president, National Association of Motor Bus Owners - 724 Western Lumber Manufacturers, Inc 561 Whitten, Hon. Jamie L., a Representative in Congress from the State of Mississippi 403 Won Pat, Antonio, Representing the government of Guam 567 IV. MATERiAL RECEIVED FOR THE RECORD Airis, Thomas F., Director, District of Columbia Department of Highways, letter to Charles E. Hall, Division Engineer, Bureau of Public Roads, concerning "Highway Relocation Assistance Study" 486 American Farm Bureau Federation, John C. Lynn, legislative director, letter to Mr. Klucvznski 703 American Association of State Highway Officials: Number of single axle load applications to bring pavement to un- satisfactory condition (table) 256 Percentage of bridge decks designed for loadings (table) 258 American Automobile Association, George F. Kachlein, Jr., executive vice president, letter to Congressman McEwen concerning increase in truck widths 769 American National Cattlemen's Association, Denver, Cob., C. W. Mc- Milan, letter to Mr. Kluczynski 708 American Road Builders Association: Resolution relating to the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity program adopted at their 66th annual convention at Las Vegas, Nev., February 14, 1968 81 Resolution relating to urban transportation facilities adopted at their 66th annual convention in Las Vegas, Nev., February 14, 1968 70 American Transit Association: re section 14 of H.R. 17134 248 re H.R. 14474, S. 2658 690 Summary of maximum widths of transit motorbuses permitted under State laws 691 American Trucking Association: Additional information re proposed increases in allowable sizes and weights of motor vehicles using the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways 631, 645 Reply to questions submitted by Mr. Schwengel re weight, length and widht in the trucking industry 782 Asphalt Contractors Association of Florida, Inc., John C. Dickerson, executive director, telegram to Hon. William C. Cramer 4 Associated General Contractors of America: Replies received from State organizations (Feb. 1968) re how many highway contractors in their areas have gone out of business, voluntarily or involuntarily in the past 2 years: Alaska 12 Arizona 12 California 12 Connecticut 12 Delaware 12 Florida 11 Idaho 11 Illinois 11 Kentucky 13 Louisiana 13 Maine 13 Michigan 13 PAGENO="0007" VII Associated General Contractors of America-Continued Replies received from State organizations-Continued Page Minnesota 13 Mississippi 14 Missouri 14 New Mexico 14 New York 14 North Carolina 14 North Dakota 15 Rhode Island 16 South Dakota 16 Texas 15. Utah 15 Washington 16 West Virginia 15 Wisconsin 15 ~\Tyoming 15 Tabulation 20 Telegrams received from State organizations re extension of Davis- Bacon rates to ABC system: South Dakota 323 Kansas 323 Texas 323 Kentucky 324 Louisiana 324 Minnesota 324 Florida 324 Iowa 324 Automobile Club of Southern Calif., Joseph E. H~tvenner, executive vice president, letter to Hon. Chet Holifield 693 Boise Cascade Transportation Department, Boise, Idaho, F. L. Sigloh, director of transportation and distribution, letter to Chairman Fallon - 702 Boyd, Hon. Alan S., secretary of Transportation, responses to questions submitted by Congressman Cramer 162 Burton, Hon. Lawrence J., a representative in Congress from the State of Utah, letter forwarding comments of director of Utah State Department of Highways 831 Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Don A. Goodall, general manager, legislative action, letter to Chairman Klucyznski re H.R. 17134 841 City of Chicago, Ill., resolution opposing S. 2658 764 Clausen, Hon. Don H., a representative in Congress from the State of California, address to the second plenary session, Dec. 9, 1967 398 Department of Transportation: Cases where States were overruled on location recommendations (in favor of city recommendations) 154 Memorandum subject: 1968 cost estimate, adjusted apportionment factors with table 239 Outdoor advertising control-status of negotiations 192, 193 States that have enacted some form of legislation for the control of outdoor advertising 191 States with outdoor advertising agreements 189 Duke City Lumber Co., Inc., Albuquerque, N. Mex., Gale Weinstein, letter to congressman Thomas G. Morris 849 Federal-aid highway fund obligations for calendar years 1967 and 1968, assuming new 1968 fund obligations to be same as one-half 1968 appor- tionment and one-half 1969 apportionment 78 Future highway needs of States-replies to May 15, 1968, telegram from Chairman Kluczynski to State highway departments: Alabama 795 Arizona 796 California 796 Connecticut 798 Colorado 798 Delaware 799 Florida 800 Georgia 800 Idaho 800 Indiana 801 PAGENO="0008" VIII Future highway needs of States-Continued Page Iowa - 801 Kansas - 802 Kentucky 802 Louisiana 803 Massachusetts 803 Maine 805 Michigan 805 Minnesota 806 Mississippi 806 Missouri 808 Montana 808 Nebraska 808 Nevada 809 New Hampshire 809 New Jersey 811 New Mexico 811 New York 813 North Carolina 813 North Dakota 815 Ohio 815 Oklahoma 818 Oregon 820 Pennsylvania. 821 Rhone Island 821 South Carolina 822 South Dakota 823 Tennessee 824 Texas 825 Utah 825 Vermont 826 Virginia 826 Washington 826 West Virginia 826 Wisconsin 827 Wyoming 828 Hiway 81 Association (Nebraska) 548 H.R. 14953 589 H.R. 961 588 Hughes, Philip S., Deputy Director, Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget, Statement before the Subcommittee on Inter- governmental Relations of the Senate Committee on Government Operations on the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act and Related Measures 135 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Nils A. Lofgren, acting president, letter 842 Iowa Good Roads Association, Inc., R. G. Hileman, chairman, Joint Roads Committee for Action, letter to Mr. Kluczynski 703 Iowa Mississippi River Resource-A preliminary planning report 446 Lane, W.W., Mayor, Center, Tex., letter 831 Latham, K. Kemper, president, Shelby County (Texas) Sportsman Club, letter 830 Masheter, P.E., director of highways, State of Ohio, letter to Chairman, Fallon 58 Montana State Highway Commission, Lewis M. Chittim, State highway engineer, lettertoMr. Kluczynski 721 Motley, Jack, president, Center, Tex., Development Foundation Center, letter 831 National Apple Institute, Fred P. Corey, executive vice president, letter to Mr. ~uczyiishi 707 National Association of Motor Bus Owners, Stanley Hamilton, letter to Congressman McCarthy presenting information relating to the pro- portionate numbers of interstate buses relative to total motor vehicle population in the United States and comparable accident experience in terms of fatalities 737 National Highway 50 Federation, John Gianotti, president, letter, reso- lution 843 PAGENO="0009" Ix National League of Cities and National Association of Counties (supple- mentary statements): Page Highway programs 529 Urban-rural balance 532 National Safety Council: Themotorvehicleaccidentsituatiofl 542 Motor-vehicle deaths and changes, total United States, April and 4 months, 1968 State Motor Vehicle Deaths, Changes, and rates 544 Naval Air Basic Training Command, summaries of safety achievement records during first calendar quarter 1968 545 The effect of a reduced budget on safety programs fiscal year 1967-68 and 1968-69 Status of highway safety programs, May 1968 545 Cost-benefit implications of National Highway Safety Bureau budget- 546 National Wool Growers Association, Salt Lake City, Utah, Edwin E. Marsh, executive secretary, letter to Chairman Fallon 703 North West Timber Association, Eugene, Oreg., Arnold D. Ewing, pres- ident, letter 851 Ohio Contractors Association, Karl L. Rothermund, Jr., letter to U.S. Department of Labor re objections to proposed Office of Federal Con- tract Compliance regulations under Executive Order 11246-request to substituteaprequalificatiOnPlan 88 Ore-Ida Foods, Inc., Ontario, Oreg., Dwaine E. Griffith, general traffic manager, letter to Chairman Fallon 692 Pan American Highway Association, Inc., Merle M. Miller, president, letter to Congressman Denney 829 Pate, Hon. V. V., judge, Shelby County, Tex 831 Population of the standard metropolitan areas not on the Interstate System and distance from nearest interstate highway 529 Radford, Robert, chairman Watershed Fire Council of southern California, letter 831 Resolution No. 68-1, passed by Houston, Tex. City Council, January 10, 1968, endorsing proposed legislation recommended by the American Association of State Highway Officials 65 Robbins, Eugene W., managing director, Contractors Division, American Road Builders Association, letters to Department of Labor re preaward compliance procedures for federally involved construction contracts of $1 million or more 82, 84 Sisk, Hon. B. F., a Representative in Congress from the State of California, letter to Chairman Kluczynski 417 State legal maximum dimensions and weights of motor vehicles compared with AASHO standards (prepared by the American Association of State Highway Officials, Dec. 31, 1967) 689 Standard Lime & Refractories, Inc., Baltimore, Md., Lewis Rumford, II, president, letter re H.R. 14474 842 State of California Transportation Agency, Sacramento, Calif 5 State of Connecticut, Howard S. Ives, State highway commissioner, letter to Hon. Emilio Q. Daddario and Hon. Donald J. Erwin 719 State of Minnesota, Hon. Harold LeVander, Governor, letters to Hon. Ancher Nelson re highway trust funds 394 Statement of the effect of the official Federal highway cutback and un- official holdback of Federal highway funds on the A.B.C. system in Min- nesota. ~From Minnesota Good Roads, Inel 95 U.S. Conference of Mayors, John J. Gunther, executive director, resolution adopted by 1968 Annual Conference of Mayors 717 Weitzel, Frank H., Assistant Comptroller of the United States, letter to Mr. Cramer re requirements for acceptable "affirmative action programs" for compliance with the equal employment opportunity conditions of Executive Order No. 11246 (September 24, 1965) 243 Western Forestry and Conservation Association, Portland, Oreg., Arthur M. Roberts, forest counsel, letter 850 Western Governors Conference, 1968 Annual Meeting-Resolution relat- ing to Federal Highway Trust Fund 340 Whirlpool Corp., Benton Harbor, Mich., William V. Snyder, general manager, physical distribution, letter to Mr. Kluczynski 704 Williams, Lawrence G., a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, letter to Chairman Kluczynski 851 PAGENO="0010" x Page Proceedings of- February 20, 1968 1 February 21, 1968 51 May 23, 1968 99 May 28, 1968 251 June 4, 1968 353 June 5, 1968 495 June 11, 1968 615 June 12, 1968 723 PAGENO="0011" FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT-196S TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1968 HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUB00MMIrrEE ON ROADS OF THE COMMm~EE ON Pmu~c WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10: 05 a.rn., in room 2167, Rayburn Build- ing, Hon. John C. Kluczynski, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. The subcommittee will come to order. Today we begin highway hearings for the year 1968. This is a most important year insofar as the highway program is concerned. We have before us a number of reports that were requested by the Congress from the Department of Transportation on the future of the highway program, our highway needs, and the overall cost of the Interstate System. The backbone of this highway program has been and still is the ABC program. So today, as we undertake what I anticipate will ultimately be lengthy hearings on highway matters, it is most appropriate that we begin with the need for the continuation of our ABC program and for its future authorization. I anticipate that before we have concluded hearings on all the high- way matters pending before this subcommittee we will have covered in detail the problems facing the highway program, and I hope we will then be in a position to provide by legislation the solution to most of these problems. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the indulgence of the committee for just a minute. I would like to outline what I con- sider to be some of the problem areas that I think these hearings ought to go into, this being, as I understand it, the beginning of the hearing. I firmly believe this is a year of decision relating to highway con- struction in America. The program today is in a state of crisis. The ups and downs, cutbacks, the yo-yo program, must come to an end. Frankly I am becoming more and more in favor of legislation mak- ing the trust fund inviolate, from being used for budgetary manipula- tion purposes. This last cutback I think best evidences the fact that executive efforts, or, in effect, misuse of the fund, in my opinion, has resulted in substantial discrimination between States, and has done great damage to the program. I put in the Record yesterday, February 19, my comments relating to it. They appear starting on page 81136. I cite a couple of examples of discrimination. (1) PAGENO="0012" 2 Obviously, I would cite tue State of Florida, in which the cut amounts to some 3 percent of what otherwise would be available for obligation this year. I cite, for instance, the State of Delaware, 73 percent possible cut. I cite the State of Maryland, 84 percent possible cut, as compared, for instance, to the State of Colorado that gets a plus 15 percent possibly. The State of Masachusetts gets a plus 27 percent. And this, of course, as the members of this committee know, results from the formula used for the cutback supposedly of 5 percent of last year's construction obligations. They didn't mention, however, that they are also freezing the $1 million of unobligated obligational releases carried over from cal- endar year 1967. So I think this whole aspect of cutback authority must be considered this year by this Congress, and first by this committee. Thirdly, I have been sorely concerned about the results of, as it relates to getting the job done, the Transportation Department Act. It appears to me that the redt.ape is piling up, that we are more and more approaching a bureaucratic jungle. There has not been, in my opinion, adequate delegation of authority to the Bureau of Public Roads to the field offices. Prior to this act, applications came to the division and the region of the Bureau; decisions were made. Now it goes to the division office in the State and then to a newly created-just recently as I under- stand it-assistant to the Regional Federal Highway Administrator, who is superimposed between the division engineer and the Regional Federa.l Highway Administrator. Then it goes on to the Regional Federal Highway Administrator, and eventually it gets to the Bureau; then it goes to the Highway Administrator, and then to the Secretary. I think the obvious red tape is evident from that exposition of the procedure. Of course that does not include the auto safety, separate division, the beautification, separate division. Fourthly, I think we should consider whether or not this highway program can be made an implement for helping to solve our hard- core unemployment problems. In the Appalachian Regional Develop- ment Act, it is permitted that 20 percent of the cost be attributed to solving hard-core unemployment. Fifthly, I think we should look very carefully into Executive Order 11246, relating to Federal employment practices Commission regula- tions resulting from title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. And I will say as an aside, Mr. Chairman, that I sat on the Judi- ciary Committee that heard this matter, supposedly. We didii't actually hear FEPC. That was Education and Labor Committee hearing. It was added to the bill, and I am confident that those who voted for it did not intend that the requirements of fair employment practice should result in negating existing contract-letting legislation and competitive bidding. I think it is wrong to have an element of uncertainty in the bidding. I think it would result in substantially increased costs in highway con- PAGENO="0013" 3 struction if the present order is permitted to stand, which requires precontract negotiation. No. 6, I think we ought to give serious consideration to what Fed- eral participation or what type of program should be instituted relat- ing to urban transportation planning generally, similar to that being accomplished now by the concept team in the great State of Maryland, in Baltimore. Lastly, I think it is essential that we, in this year, consider the after 1972 program, so that *the States will know what the future of the Interstate System is. I personally think we ought to include legisla- tion referring to missing links as well as urban connectors, and give full consideration not only to ABC but to the after 1972 interstate program. These are some of the challenges, as I see it, Mr. Chairman, offered to this committee this year; and that is why I say this is the year of decision. Thank you. Mr. KLuczYNsKr. Thank you, Mr. Cramer. As you know, the coin- mittee will go over that statement of yours and your program, and I am sure that this committee will be able to come out with a program that will satisfy the needs you have outlined. Mr. CRAMER. May I just say one additional comment? Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. One reason for my real deep concern about this cut- back is what it has already meant to the State of Florida. And I just cite two examples. First example, supplied by Sam Turnbull, who is director of the American iRoadbuilders for Florida, the construction program in Florida for 1965 was $120 million; 1966, $200 million; 1967, $100 million; and 1968 promises to be $38 million less than $100 million. One contractor in the Tampa area had 400 employees 1 year ago, with a $40,000 per week payroll; today he has 286 employees, with less than $30,000 per week payroll. Contractors in Florida generally are working at approximately 35 percent of capacity. One other example. I would like to place this telegram in the record. This comes from John C. Dickerson, executive director, Asphalt Con- tractors Association of Florida, directed to me: The hot plant mix asphalt industry of Florida represents an equipment invest- ment of $43,750,000. During our last fiscal year the annual payroll was $22,500,000; with 4,000 employees. This industry used raw materials that included 91,250,000 gallons of liquid asphalt and 0,300,000 tons of crushed aggre- gate. This raw material required considerable payroll. Today our operation has been cut in half due to lack of highway funds. Any further decrease in available funds can only cause more damage to this industry, increase unemployment in Florida, and a failure to supply badly needed highways can only increase traffic death tolls. This association will appreciate any steps you are able to take that will prevent any further reduction in the highway funds. Thank you. Mr. KLTJCZYNSKI. Thank you, Mr. Cramer. You heard the telegram read by Mr. Cramer, and it will be made a part of the record. PAGENO="0014" 4 {Telegram] ASPHALT C(YNTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF FLonni&, Ixc.. Winter Park, Fla~, February 20, 1968. Hon. WILLIAM Ct CRAMER, Rayburn Office Bvilciing, Washington, D.C.: The hot plant mix asphalt industry of Florida represents an equipment invest- ment of $43,750,000. During our last fiscal year the annual payroll n-as $22500000, with 4.000 employees. This industry used raw materials that included 91,250.000 gallons of liquid asphalt, and 0,300000 tons of crushed aggregate. This raw material required considerable payroll. Today our operation has been cut in half due to lack of highway funds. Any further decrease in available funds can only cause more damage to this industry, increase unemployment in Florida. and a failure to supply badly needed highways can only increase traffic death tolls. This association will appreciate any steps you are able to take that will prevent any further reduction in the highway funds. Joux C. DICKERSON, Eaecntive Director. State road department 01 construction by Florida contractors 1005 $120, 000, 000 1966 200, 000, 000 1967 100, 000, 000 1968 (less than $100 million if cut back enforced) 38, 000. 000 One contractor in Tampa area bad 400 employees 1 year ago with a $40,000 per week payroll. Today he has 286 employees with less than $30,000 per week payroll. Contractors in Florida working at approximately 35 percent capacity. Mr. KLuczYxsxI. Mr. Chairman, do you want to make some re- marks? Mr. FALLON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I could not agree more with the statement of Mr. Cramer, if I had macic it myself. I think, as these hearings progress, not only will we be able to do the things that are necessary, which were stated by the gen- tlemen from Florida, but I think there might be some which will be implemented in many ways. I might say I have a number of communi- cations from the highways departments and the Governors of a nmn- ber of States, and we intend to read them over. There seems to be many of them that are repetitious and many of them are explaining their own personal problems. I will ask permission, Mr. Chairman, to msert in the record the ones that I think will help the committee hi its deliberations on this subject. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Hearing no objections; so ordered. (Subsequently, on May 15, 1968, Chairman Kluczynski telegraphed th~ highway departments of each state. The replies received may be found beginning on p. 795. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. The gentleman from California, Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. At the outset, I want to extend my own personal compliments to the chairman for initiating these hearings, and also to concur with all the comments made by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Cramer. Recently in California I had an opportunity to meet with our own highway officials, and I can't tell you how concerned generally they are about this overall cutback program. They have indicated that it seems to place them on a stop-and-go position, and almost as though they are on the end of a string, like a yo-yo. PAGENO="0015" 5 I want to just go on record before this committee as indicating that California is very much disturbed about this continumg cutback, the release, then the cutbacks. Further, Mr. Chairman, having been a member of the county gov- ernment units in California, I want to express my own personal desire that these hearings will bring forth a maximum opportunity for the cities and counties of America to be heard, as we look at the overall ABC program. In my judgment, America desperately needs a balanced highway program, balanced between the Interstate System, primary, and secondary road systems of the country, as well as the city improvements. And the only way in which this can be accomplished, in my judg- ment, is to develop the balanced system of finance, so I am hopeful we will take a good look at the existing formula, with a smgular em- phasis on the improvement of the formula for primary and secondary roads. I think this will do a great deal to provide access into some of these communities, because certainly in this country we need to have economic growth, and unless we have economic growth, unless we have the highway access into every section of the country, we cannot antici- pate the maximum in economic growth. So, with all the problems we have in the cities today, it would seem to me we might be able to provide something in the way of pressure release for the problems of the city by developing the access roads out into rural America. Having returned from the National Road Federation meeting in Australia, I am convinced again that we here in America must provide the leadership with a proper type of formula for the balancing of our highway system; and in the interest of time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask permission of the Chair to revise and extend my remarks in depth, so that it will be recorded at this point in the record, for the purpose of including the statement of Governor Reagan to the recent National Governor's Conference. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Without objection; so ordered. (Statement follows:) STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, SACRAMENTO, CALIF. WASHINGTON, D.C., February 29, 1968.-Eight major transportation problems and California Governor Ronald Reagan's potential solutions were submitted today to the National Committee on Transportation at the National Governors' Conference meeting here. Governor Reagan, who serves as committee chairman, was unable to attend the Washington, D.C. meeting and was represented by Gordon C. Luce, Secretary of Business and Transportation in Reagan's cabinet. Congressional investigation was cited as the answer to problems created by current delays in interstate highway funding and any similar future tampering with the flow of funds. Reagan refused to accept as valid statements by federal officials that the delay is aimed at combating inflation but instead pointed out that the resulting slow- down in planning and construction has cost the states inestimable millions of dollars. "In California," he said, "the construction cost index decreased 6.5 percent in 1967 over 1966. Prices now are going up, however, and we recommended an ac- celerated program to beat inflation rather than allow a disruption and slowdown, as these cutbacks are forcing the states to do. "Cutbacks in the release of federal funds have damaged orderly planning, scheduling and programming of `highway construction, are inconsistent with the PAGENO="0016" 6 intent of Congress to complete the interstate system at the earliest possible date, and have adversely affected the safety program on the nation's highways." Lack of mass transportation facilities was declared a central problem because it affects jobs, welfare, racial problems, business, recreation and even senior citizen needs. As a remedy, the California report calls for concentration of efforts on developing coordinated urban and rural mass transportation systems. It declared that each locality should determine the forms of transportation re- quired and methods to pay for them. Federal and state governments are rele- gated to the comparatively minor roles of coordination, research and integrated planning. Programming mass transportation systems in urban areas would be aided by combining the Department of Housing and Urban Development with the Department of Transportation. In dealing with safety problems, federal traffic safety standards are declared to be minimum bases which each state should surpass. The alcoholic driver is identified as a prime cause of preventable accidents and the report urges each state to take the lead in barring drunk drivers from highways. Other safety recommendations include broader representation of the states on the National Highway Safety Committee, that Congress authorize a more flexible time schedule fOr traffic safety reports required by federal law, and more precise definitions of state safety programs which can qualify for federal funding. Federal-aid programs are classified as a problem. The basic complaint centers about the high cost of federal administration and the inherent rigidity. The report noted that California drivers will pay a billion dollars more in federal highway user taxes than will be returned to the state for interstate construction. Once the interstate system is complete, Reagan recommends reduced federal participation and controls plus pro-rating future finances on the basis of need with monies dedicated well in advance so that careful planning can take place. "Federal highway trust funds should not be diverted to other forms of trans- portation after completion of the interstate program. Localities in states should be allowed to determine the forms of transportation best suited to their needs, and any such programs of mass transportation should be directed and developed in the states rather than by the federal government," the report declares. Federal policy which penalizes states that fail to. meet environmental criteria for highways was criticized. The California governor believes a program through which incentives are offered for meeting beautification standards would be far more effective. He recommended that the "federal government increase its share in transpor- tation projects when proper planning is accomplished rather than threaten to penalize governments as has been the case in the past. "States should be encouraged to further scenic highway programs, improve landscaping, and add to the enjoyment of highway users. A basic highway design should be offered to localities and they in turn should be allowed to decide the best environmental approach in their area and participate in the funding of special amenities essential to the improvement of their area. "Principal responsibility for beautification programs should be with states and local governments." The imperative need for airport planning and funding was noted along with the probability that some future taxation will be required. "We oppose a federal airport users tax fund, since federal overhead and inflexibilities tend to reduce the effectiveness of such an approach. States should be allowed to keep and utilize any such users tax free of federal controls on such a program." "Possibly, matching funds or tax incentives should be available from the fed- eral government to encourage proper future airport planning but studies should be made before a final recommendation is made on such funding." The need to encourage future modes of transportation is noted, especially in the field of water transportation, and the recommendation is made that research and development funds be dedicated to the imprOvement and refinement of exist- ing facilities. Automobile accident insurance is identified by Reagan as a problem because costs of insurance claims are continually increasing with a resulting increase in insurance premiums. The increase in losses is causing insurance companies to be more selective in accepting new policy holders and in renewing existing policies. He attributed merit to an American Bar Association study of a proposal to abolish damage suits in auto accidents and substitute a system whereby an auto PAGENO="0017" 7 is insured against crashes regardless of fault. This type of coverage might limit the personal damage possibilities in auto accidents and thereby reduce insurance premiums. Other committee members are Governor Buford Ellington, Tennessee, vice chairman; Governor Harold Hughes, Iowa; Governor George Romney, Michi- gan; Governor Tom McCall, Oregon; Governor Robert McNair, South Carolina, and Governor Mills Godwin, Virginia. Mr. KLTJCZYNSKI. Thank you, Mr. Clausen. We were very happy to hear from the chairman of the full com- mittee, and Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Clausen. I have always said it is one of the finest committees in Congress, and the chairman is willing to sit here at the hearings from now until the first of July, and I am sure all of the members of this committee will help in their attend- ance with the chairman, and I hope we can take care of all the road problems between now and the first of July. Mr. CLATJSEN. Mr. Chairman, will you just yield briefly? Mr. KLUOZYNSKI. Yes. Mr. CLAIJSEN. Your visit, Mr. Chairman, to our congressional dis- trict in California has given the people of that area more in the way of interest and enthusiasm than any singular thing, when you recog- nized the need to advance the forest roads and the development of those forest roads, and your interest in this is something that I shall compliment you for from this day forward. Mr. KLIJCZYNSKI. Thank you. Now, for the first witness I am delighted to have with us this morn- ing Mr. John Jackson of the office of the Governor of Massachusetts, who will read the statement of Governor Volpe. The floor is yours, Mr. Jackson, and we look forward to your remarks. STATEMENT OF GOV. JOHN A. VOLPE OF MASSACHUSETTS, CHAIR- MAN, NATIONAL GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE; PRESENTED BY JOHN JACKSON, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the committee: I appreciate this opportunity to present for the record of these hearings some thoughts on the highway situation facing the States. The outstanding work which you have done over the years in developing the Federal aid highway programs has resulted in the construction of the finest national and State network of highways in the world. America is a Nation on wheels. And you have contributed significantly toward helping people travel from one place to another. These hearings today on the Federal aid highway, ABC program are timely? They provide an opportunity for the Nation and the States to ch~cover where they are in highway development, and also to de- termine where they can and ought to go from here. The 1968 National Highway Needs Report, just presented to the Congress, tells the story in reasonably accurate estimates. The high- lights of our needs are sobering: A 71-percent increase in highway travel to more than 1.5 trillion miles a year by 1985. 96~-O3O--GS----2 PAGENO="0018" 8 Our States have determined that additional freeway mileage of at least 41,000 miles, equal to the Interstate System, will be needed by 1985. The report estimates the cost of needed capitai improvements on all streets, roads, and highways at $293 billion for the 1965-85 period. A third of this is for local streets and roads. The Federal Highway Administration has just increased its esti- mate of the total cost for the Interstate System to $56.5 billion. This is an increase of $9.7 billion over the last estimate submitted in 1965. And in the midst of all this, with the States anxious to know what is going to happen after 1972 in highway financing, the Secretary of Transportation announces a~ cutback in highway trust funds. All Governors expressed their opposition to such a cutback when it was proposed in three alternative formulas last October. And we will oppose it today. The proposed cutback is offered as a measure to control inflationary pressures. We believe that deferral of highway funds at this time will not have the effect of combating inflation in any measurable way. By delaying these highway construction programs, they will actually become victims of inflation. Construction costs are sure to rise. The delay will result in higher costs for building the same projects at a later time. The most immediate effect will be to interrupt the engineering and planning aspects of highway development. Projects ready for con- tracting and construction will be halted. The great backlog of high- way needs will be piled higher. Final accomplishment of the present highway program becomes less and less a reality within our grasp. And the projected work on ABC programs and on urban highway needs is that much further away. In terms of administration of highway departments, this cutback hurts the States. This prolonged uncertainty creates hardships in recruiting and retaining trained personnel. The States are wonder- ing if it is wise to plan ahead to try to meet the fantastic highway needs of the future. The highway industry is, of course, greatly affected by this atmos- phere of instability. For every man employed on a highway job, there are 21/2 men employed in support activities. The highway program has quite an impact on the economic picture. But we wonder if the unemployment resulting from this fund cutback is the best way to solve our economic problems. By creating a $600 million balance of unobligated funds in the high- way trust fund, the Secretary of Transportation makes available a resource of loan money for the General Treasury. This $600 million can then be used to offset expenditures of th~ general budget. This pro- vision in the trust fund law was in the event that the highway money was not needed by the States for construction programs. I assure you that this need definitely does still exist. The States are carrying their share of the burden. Several States are in the process of enacting legislation for bond issues or for gasoline PAGENO="0019" 9 tax increases for highway purposes. The announcement of a highway fund cutback can have a damaging effect on such efforts. Mr. Chairman, the Governors do recognize the national economic problems facing us today. And they would, of course, not place the in- terests of the highway programs above the national interests of eco- nomic stability or defense efforts. We feel, nevertheless, that other more direct means of curbing inflation ought to be explored. It would be unwise public policy, in our opinion, to extend the proposed fund reduction beyond the 1968 calendar year. We urge restoration of the deferred funds at the earliest possible date. We must look to the future to see what can be done to prevent fur- ther cutbacks in highway trust fund allocations and obligations. The instability in highway programing, and the delays in project accom- plishment which always result from such actions certainly were not within the intent of the Congress when it created the trust fund. I trust this subcommittee will explore proposals for amending Fed- eral laws to prevent such deferrals and withholding of funds from the highway trust fund. The total opposition of the Governors to this $600 million deferral would indicate their strong support for such a measure. Mr. Chairman, the highway needs of America are serious. They are related to our economy, our defense, and to the safety and welfare of our people. We must act responsibly and quickly to meet these needs. The States are ready to move. And we look forward to working in partnership with the Federal Government. Thank you. Mr. KLtTCZYNSKI. Thank you, Mr. Jackson, for that splendid state- ment of the Governor's. You may send him our best regards, from the chairman and members of this committee. He has appeared before this committee many times. Any questions to my right? Any questions to my left? Thank you, Mr. Jackson. It has been a pleasure to have you before this committee. At this time I want to introduce to this committee one of our out- standing Members of Congress. I do not know whether it is "Black" or "Red" label, but he is the Congressman from New Mexico. John, will you take the stand. STATEMENT OP HON. E. S. J~OHNNY WALKER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP NEW MEXICO Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I will not give any testimony this morning. However, I do want to thank you and the committee for the privilege of introducing my friend, B. B. Armstrong, who is currently the president of the As- sociated General Contractors of America, from Roswell, N. Mex., who has a prepared statement for the committee, and I think pretty much represents the thinking of us today. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Mr. Armstrong. Mr. KLUGZYNSKI. We will be happy to hear you. PAGENO="0020" 10 STATKMENT OP B. B. ARMSTRONG, PRESIDENT, THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OP AMERICA, ROSWELL, N. IVIEX.; AC- COMPANIED BY NAMES M. SPROUSE, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE. DIRECTOR, CONTRACTOR SERVICES Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is B. B. Armstrong. I am the managing partner of Armstrong & Armstrong, a highway construction firm in Roswell, N. Mex. Currently, I serve as president of the Associated General Contrac- tors of America, a trade association of over 8,500 of the Nation's lead- mg general construction contractors. Nearly 4,000 of these are high- way contractors, and are the men who are building the road network this committee is considering. I am accompanied by James M. Sprouse, assistant executive direc- tor of the AGO, who has appeared before this committee many times. My firm, Armstrong & Armstrong, performs about $3 million worth of highway construction a year. We work only in New Mexico, and the New Mexico Highway Department is our only source of work. My qualifications for speaking to you on highway construction also include three terms as president of the Associated Contractors of New Mexico, 10 years' membership on our joint committee with the Ameri- can Association of State Highway Officials, chairman of the AGO Highway Division and 3 years as a member of the AGO executive committee. The AGO strongly supports the continuation of the ABC program at its current level. This carries out the intent of this committee, and of the Congress, as set forth in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. The continued improvement of this network of arterial roads is vital to our Nation's security, and is urgently needed for the development of cities, for the full utilization of our natural resources, and for the promotion of our industrial and agricultural growth. Surveys show that the chief factors involved in business decisions concerning plant location are based primarily on the availability of markets, raw materials, and labor supply. The No. 1 factor is always good transportation, for without good transportation no industry can operate successfully. We hope, therefore, that this committee and the Congress will auth- orize the construction of this program on its present basis. We think, however, that we should point out to this committee that even as we are advocating the continuation of the highway program on an orderly basis, we are suffering from the effects of cutbacks, past and present, in that same program, and we certainly would be remiss if we did not bring to your attention the serious consequences of those cutbacks and their effect on those who depend on highway construction for their livelihood. The great majority of firms participating in the construction of Federal-aid highways are small organizations. They are not diversi- fied, and highway construction provides their only income. Many must obtain contracts to enable them to meet payments on their plant. and equipment. These firms are always the first casualties of a cutback in the Federal-aid highway program, since most lack the resources to carry them over long periods of idleness. Even if they do survive, they PAGENO="0021" 11 can hardly be expected to reinvest in a future program, with no assur- ance of its continuity. For all highway contractors, small or large, cutbacks create diffi- culty in intelligently planning work, in bidding on contracts, in mobi- lizing equipment, personnel, and sources of supply. Contractors have made long-term commitments for plant and equipment, relying on the stated intent of Congress to maintain a balanced, orderly, properly financed highway program. The design and construction of highways is a continuing, and long- reaching process. Projects must be scheduled far in advance of actual construction, and that schedule is of necessity based on the predictable availability of Federal funds. Short, intermittent, delayed, and unscheduled releases of these funds undermine the entire planning process, and serve only to prevent orderly completion of highways and to substantially increase their overall cost. Unless a basically stable letting schedule can be carried on by the State highway departments, contractors cannot maintain effi- cient operational organizations: they lose the construction momentum necessary for economical operations. All too frequently they are forced out of business. At this point we request permission to have inserted in the record of these hearings, as a supplement to my testimony, the replies re- ceived to a survey conducted by the AGO, asking its State organiza- tions how many highway contractors in their areas have gone out of business, voluntarily or involuntarily in the past 2 years. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Without objection; so ordered. (Documents referred to follow:) [Telegram~j ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF ILLINOIS, springfield, Iii., February 15, 1968. Mr. J. M. SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors, Washington, D.C.: Our directors estimate 35 Illinois highway contractors have gone out of busi- ness during past 2 years. CHARLES MILLER. ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS, Boise, Idaho, February 14, 1968. J. M. SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors of America, Washington, D.C.: Re your telegram of February 14, 1968, concerning contractors went out of business past 2 years. Idaho branch inclusive area had eight. Seven voluntary and one involuntary. J. P. MOLITOR. AssocIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS, Miami, Fia., February 15, 1968. .J. M. SPROUSE, Manager, Highway Heavy Division, Associated General Contractors o~ America, Inc., Washington, D.C.: Re telegram contractor failures approximately 20 annually according to SUrvey. PAUL H. HINDS, Eweentive Manager, south Florida Chapter. PAGENO="0022" 12 Assocr~rID GENERAL CONTRACTORS, Tampa, Fia., February 15, 1968. J. M. SPROUSE, Assistant E~ecutive Director, Contract Services, Associated General Contractors, Washington, D.C.: Re telegram requesting number of firms going out of btisiness 1966-67, Florida west coast chapter, AGO. 12-county area west coast of Florida-St. Petersburg, Tampa, Clearwater-knowledge of nine firms. CLAY MCCULLOCH, Florida West Coast Chapter. ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF DELAWARE. Wilmington, Del., February 16, 1968 J. 1\1. SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors of America, Washington, D.C.: Re your telegram two contractors voluntarily went out of business within past 2 years. SKIPPY LYNESS. ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF CONNECTICUT, ~ew Haven, Conn., February 14, 1968. J. M. SPR0u5E, Associated General Contractors of America, Washington, D.C.: Re your wire, we know of three firms which have ceased doing construction work during the past 2 years. One of these now trying to reactivate construc- tion activity. Probably more but no factual knowledge. FRANK J. WHITE. ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS, Phoenico, Ariz., February 14, 1968. JAMES M. SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors, Washington, D.C.: Re your telegram, approximately 15 highway heavy contractors have gone out of business in Arizona in the past 2 years. JAMES R. MCDONALD, Arizona Chapter. SAN DIEGO, CALIF., February 14, 1968. J. M. SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors, Washington, D.C.: Five AGO members and estimated 15 non-AGO members out of business in last 2 years in San Diego County. GLENN DowDY. ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS, Anchorage. Alaska. February 14, 1968. J. M. SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors, Washington, D.C.: To the best of my knowledge there were only three contractors considered reputable in the area who voluntarily went out of business within the past 2 years. NORMAN L. SCHWALB, Manager. PAGENO="0023" 13 Los ANGELES, CALIF., February 15, 1968. J. M. SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors, Washington, D.C.: Cursory survey indicates excess of 4,000 contractors (all types) went out of business through one means or another during last 2-year period here in southern California. RICHARD B. MUNN. KENTUCKY ASSOCIATION OF HIGHWAY CONTRACTORS, Frankfort, Ky., February 15, 1968. J. M. SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors, Washington, D.C.: Re telegram February 14, nine contractors, all small except one. D. E. COMLEY, Eccecutive Director. THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, INC., LOUISIANA HIGHWAY AND HEAVY CONSTRUCTION BRANCH, Baton Rouge, La., February 15, 1968. Mr. J. M. SPROUSE, Assistant Ecvecutive Director, Contractor Services, Associated General Contractors, Washington, D.C. DEAR JIM: As far as we are able to determine, approximately 53 Louisiana firms engaged in highway and heavy construction went out of business within the the past 2 years. Sincerely, PRESTON EGGERS, Jr., Managing Director. ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF MAINE, Augusta, Maine, Februray 15, 1968. J. M. SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors of America, Washington, D.C. Four contractors went out of business in the State of Maine in the last 2 years. RALPH KNOWLTON. MICHIGAN ROAD BUILDERS, Lansing, Mich., February 14, 1968. JAMES M. SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors of America, Washington, D.C. Eleven highway contractors went out of business in the State of Michigan during period from January 1, 1966, to December 31, 1967. C. V. KLAPAC. ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF MINNESOTA, Minneapolis, Minn., February 14, 1968. J. M. SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors, Washington, D.C. Approximately 12 Minnesota members out of business past 2 years. W. H. GARY, PAGENO="0024" 14 ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF MISSISSIPPI, Jackson, Miss., February 15, 1968. J. M. SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors, Washington, D.C. Re your telegram only two contractors our area out of business within past 2 years-one voluntarily, 1 involuntarily. KinK JEFFREYS. A55OCIATRB GENERAL CONTRACToRs OF AMERICA, SANTA FE, N. MEx., February 14, 1968. 3. M. SPROUSE, Associated Gen eral Con tractors, Washington, D.C. Best knowledge two contractors this area went out of business within past year. President Armstrong could best provide information for previous years. ROBERT RAGSDALE. ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF MISSOURI, Jefferson City, Mo., February 14, 1968. J. M. SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors of America, Washington, D.C. To the best of our knowledge, re highway heavy contractors our area, approxi- mately three went out of business involuntarily and an equal number voluntarily. JAMES W. KELLY. ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, NEW YORK STATE CHAPTER, INC., Albany, N.Y., February 16, 1968. Mr. JAMES M. SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., Washington, D.C. Replying to your telegram dated February 13. To the best of our knowledge six contractors from this area have voluntarily ~`gone out of business" and one involuntarily. Looking forward to seeing you again at our convention in Dallas next month. THOMAS C. KUEBLER. THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, INC., CAROLINAS BRANCH, Charlotte, N.C., February 14,1968. Mr. JAMES M. SPROUSE, Assistant Ewecutive Directer, Contract Services, Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., TVashington, D.C. DEAR JIM: In response to your telegraphic inquiry today, this is to advise that our records indicate a total of 18 buildings, highway, and heavy contractors in our area have gone out of business during the past 2 years; nine voluntarily and nine involuntarily. Of the nine voluntarily going out of buiSness, six of these were due to death of the principal. This survey is based on about 500 contractors who do approximately 90 percent of the industrial work in the Carolinas. Very truly yours, HENRY J. PIERCE, Managing Director. PAGENO="0025" 15 ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF NORTH DAKOTA, Bismarck, N. Dale., Febraary 14, 1968. Mr. JAMES M. SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SPROUSE: Approximately 11 contractors in our area either went out of business voluntarily or involuntarily within the past 2 years. Sincerely, GERALD W. McCoy, Manager. ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF WYOMING, Cheyenne, Wyo., February 15, 1968. Mr. JAMES M. SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., Washington, D.C. Estimated four contractors in Wyoming have gone out of business during the last 2 years. JACK KNOT. MADISON, Wis., February 15, 1968. Mr. JAMES M. SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., Washington, D.C. Re your telegram of February 14 to the best of our knowledge about 12 general contractors in our area went out of business in the past 2 years. None of these were AGC members. G. L. COLUCCY, Assistant Manager. ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, W. Va., February 14, 1968. Mr. JAMES M. SPROUSE, Assistant Executive Director, Associated General Contractors of America, Washington, D.C. Re your telegram, eight members West Virginia chapter went out of business in past 2 years, seven voluntarily and one involuntarily. A good estimate is that at least 15 contractors have quit the business in West Virginia in 2-year period. EUGENE H. BROWN, Executive Secretary. UTAH CHAPTER, AGC, Salt Lake City, Utah. JAMES SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors, Washinytan, D.C.: Six members of our association have gone out of business in the past 2 years. H. J. GUNN. TEXAS HIGHWAY HEAVY BRANCH, AGC, Austin, Tex., February 14, 1968. J. M. SPROU5E, Associated General Contractors of America, Washington, D.C.: Re your telegram, ten contractors went out of business either voluntarily or involuntarily during the past two years. JAMES M. RICHARDS. PAGENO="0026" 16 TACOMA CHAPTER, AGO, Tacoma, Wash., February 19, 1968. J. M. SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors, Washin~gton, D.C.: In re February 13, 1968, wire estimated figure 20 firms in the past 2 years. FRANK STOJACK, ~8ecretary Manager. PROVIDENCE, 11.1., February 15, 1968. J. M. SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors, Washington, D.C.: Re your telegram February 13, five contractors out of business last 2 years, three involuntary. W. J. SHEEHAN, Rhode Island Chapter. PIERRE, S. D~., February 14, 1968. J. M. SPROUSE, Associated General Contractors of America, Washingtou, D.C.: Re your telegram, 13 South Dakota contractors out during past 2 years. JIM HUNT, ~8outh Dakota Highway Heavy. Mr. AF3ISTRONG. These replies show that as many as 20 highway firms in one county went out of business in the past 2 years; 35 went under in Illinois; 20 went under in Florida; nme in the St. Peters- burg-Tampa~Jlearwater area. We do not know how many of these failures can be attributed to the cutbacks, but we do know one very significant fact: the great majority were small contractors. Of great concern to us also is the personnel problem arising from sudden cutbacks. Superintendents, foremen, equipment operators, and other top craftsmen who are kept on the~ payroll by contractors dur- mg the offseason and employed in repairing equipment so they will be available for summer construction, may have to even be laid off. Re- leasing these workers will result in severe disruption of the labor market. The investment made by these firms in training personnel will be lost, since there is no assurance that the workers will be available when needed in the future, as the program is resumed. The workers will try to locate employment in fields unaffected by stop-and-go construction activities. It is very difficult for these workers, with their present skills, to find employment in other fields. College students, to whom summer employment in the construction industry is important, will find that summer employment is nonexistent. The contractor must operate like any other businessman. He has all the usual business problems: personnel and equipment to procure and maintain, materials to buy, creditors and taxes to pay. Yet the high- way construction industry, with an average profit of 1.2 percent, is substantially below the national average of 4 percent. The U.S. construction industry is the largest industry in the world. It accounts for about 15 percent of the gross national product and pro- vides direct employment for about 3.5 million persons. Its size and the employment it generates warrant the Government's best efforts to PAGENO="0027" 17 keep it healthy. It cannot remain healthy if its work is to be turned off and on at irregular intervals. In announcing the cutback, the Secretary of Transportation cited figures to show that highway construction costs went up 4 percent in 1967. He called this a.n "undue increase." We respectfully call the Sec- retary's attention to the fact that wage increases in 1966 ranged as high as 24 percent. The average was 9 percent. We consider this an "undue increase," but to date the administration has not seen fit to take direct action to curb the outrageous demands of organized labor `and the exorbitant inflationary settlements forced on our industry by paralyzing strikes. In 1966 there were 977 construction strikes, involving 455,000 work- men, causing 6,140,000 man-days of idleness. The average strike lasted 29 days; some lasted as long as 100 days. As we said earlier, some of the eventual settlements cost as much as 24 percent more in wages. And while this irresponsible assault on the Nation's economy was taking place, the Government took no effective action against it. It is to be regretted that the administration, rather than getting at this root cause of the problem, instead, is destroying the stability of the highway program. We sincerely believe, however, that the principal cause of recent cost increases in the highway construction industry is the very action which the administration says will curb inflation: the cutbacks themselves. Construction simply cannot be done economically on a stop-and-go basis; it always costs more this way in the long run. The contractor must be able to plan ahead in order to carry on his work efficiently and economically. He must be able to plan and project his work program on more than a season-to-season basis. It stands to reason that the contractor can, while he still has his equipment, per- sonnel, and sources of supply mobilized, submit a bid lower than he can if he has lost the advantage of a mobilized, well-functioning organization. History has proved that "stop and go" or "peak and valley" construc- tion always costs the owner-in this case the public-substantially more than a continuing, orderly program such as the `Congress author- ized in 1956. Today the program of the Congress is seriously jeopar- dized by withholding and restoring funds at irregular and unpredicta- ble intervals. A construction job requires a vast amount of advance planning and development on the part of the general contractor. When the day arrives to start a job, he must already have assembled men, equipment, and material. A great deal of effort and money go into the pipeline before a hand is lifted on the jobsite. This flow into the pipeline cannot be cut off at a moment's notice-and, even more important, cannot be resumed at a moment's notice. The result of sudden deferral of con- struction is waste on a gigantic scale. The curtailment of highway funds without full congressional re- view and approval constitutes a breach of faith, a diversion of taxes collected under the pledge that the funds so raised would be used for construction of the national highway system. Short of such congres- sional action, our industry cannot concede the justification for a cut- PAGENO="0028" 18 back of this vital program except in the event of a national emergency requiring the imposition of controls on the whole economy. We note that at least six bills have been introduced, three by mem- bers of this committee, which would prohibit the withholding of high- way funds by the executive branch of the Government. We hope hear- ings will be held on those bills. Another difficulty of doing business which I mention briefly is the "affirmative action" obligation imposed on contractors in the name of equal employment opportunity, including the unworkable and, in some ways, ridiculous preaward inquisition. The AGC requested that the Secretary of Labor hold public hearings on this subject. The re- quest was refused. We are happy that this committee, and its counterpart in the Sen- ate, has indicated that they will hold hearings on this, and the AGC looks forward to presenting factual, helpful testimony to the commit- tees. The subject badly needs airing. In closing I should like to say that those whom I represent here today are contractors. They are also responsible citizens, and are fully aware of the worldwide obligations of our country which must be supported. Many of our members are working throughout the free world today, helping to carry out these obligations. The system of highways we are discussing here is vital to our Nation's economy a.nd safety. To the highest degree consistent with our overall obligations, we urge their continued improvement. And I would like to reiterate what Congressman Cramer said, sir, that a construction company in Tampa, Fla., had 400 employees with a weekly payroll of S40~000; now they have 286 employees with a weekly payroll of ~30,000. I think that I should also mention that as a direct reflection of the cutbacks, that the State of Maryland had highway contracts to be completed in the amount of more than $72 million as of January 1, 1967. Exactly 1 year later that figure was a little less than $43 million. Thank you, sir. Mr. KLUOZYNSKT. Thank you, Mr. Armstrong. It was a wonderful statement. It will be appreciated. I see on page 2, under "Comments on Availability of Funds," second paragraph says, "The great majority of firms participating in the construction of Federal-aid highways are small organizations." That means, if we have these cutbacks, that the small contractor- the man who is mortgaged to the hilt on his heavy machinery that costs $50,000 or $100,000 or $150,000-if he gets no work, he cannot make any payments. If he does not make payments, then they take that away from him; is that right? Mr. ARMSTRONG. That is correct, sir. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. In other words, that heavy machinery is getting rusty in the yard, cannot make any payments, and he is going to be forced out of business. Mr. ARMSTRONG. That is right. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. By forcing him out of business, it means we only have a few contractors in this country. Mr. ARMSTRONG. That is right. PAGENO="0029" 19 Mr. KLUCzYNsKI. I am chairman of a Subcommittee on Small Business, and I have always been looking after the small business- man. I came from a small business family all these years, and I have always tried to take care of that small man who needs help. The big fellow can take care of himself. I have said many times these cutbacks hurt the small contractor; they force him out of business, thus elimi- iia.ting competition and forcing costs even higher. Your statement certainly bears me out. We are very happy to have you here, and you have helped to convince me that I have been right. all these years. Any questions? Mr. Chairman. Mr. FALLON. Mr. Armstrong, I had the pleasure of visting the gar- den spot of New Mexico, Roswell, and met with your contractors. You mentioned the State of Maryland being severely cheated. I hope it is not because I am chairman of this committee that they singled out Maryland to get the worst treatment. However, I had quite a few conferences arid correspondence with the Department of Transportation and the Bureau of Public Roads, and I have received a letter from them, which I will make part of the record at a later part of this hearing, telling us that we didn't have to pay any attention to the figures in the directive that came out from the Department of Transportation; that if we could put more work under contract than the directive figure, well, they would honor these applications. I am not sure about the future of the program in Maryland at this time, but certainly we will follow up on their commitment to us, to no attention, that these were just guidelines and they were very flexible. So I do not know whether that is going to settle it or confuse us further. Certainly I hope by the time these hearings are over that ire can get a firm commitment some way or another for all the States. Mr. KLnCZYNSKI. Mr. Wright, the gentleman from Texas. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Armstrong, I just want to express my thanks as one member of the comihittee for your concise, clear, and lucid state- ment. You described to us very forcefully what has been happening and its effect on the highway-building industry and the ultimate cost. Just by way of comment, I would like to say, while this talk is going on about the mistreating of various States, as long as you have got Torn Morris up here, I do not think anybody is going to get by with mistreating New Mexico. Mr. KLUczYNsKI. Mr. Dorn. Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that we are happy to have Mr. Armstrong here. Of course I want to welcome my distin- guished and able colleague before the committee, Mr. Walker. I say to Mr. Armstrong that Mr. Walker is an outstanding man for New Mexico and the country. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I too, want to thank Mr. Armstrong for helpful, factual information that you made available to this corn- mittee, and also to welcome our colleague before the committee; both of you representing the great State of New Mexico. For the purpose of the record, I have looked over the exhibits that you made available and made a tabulation of them as to the number PAGENO="0030" 20 of highway contractor failures in the last 2 years. And the tabulation which I get of highway contractor failures in the last 2 years is 241, both voluntary and involuntary, in the 19 States, or parts of States, that reported. Some examples: California, 20; Florida. 20; Illinois, 35; Louisiana, 53, as some examples. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to have this tabulation made a. part of the record at. this point. Chairman FALLON (presiding). Without objection, so ordered. (Tabulation follows:) Failures Number Number Alaska 3 Michigan 11 Arizona 15 liinnesota 12 California ~O Mississippi 2 Connecticut 3 Missouri 6 Delaware 2 ~ew Mexico 2 Florida 20 New York 7 Idaho 8 ~orth Carolina 18 Iffinois 35 North Dakota 11 Kentucky _____ Louisiana 53 Total 241 Maine 4 Mr. CIL~rEi~. When t.he administration announced this cutback, it was on the basis, as you suggest in your statement, of approximately a 4-percent increase supposedly in cost of construction of highways in 1967 over 1966; is that not correct? Mr. ARMSTRONG. I believe so. Mr. CRAMER. Four percent. Mr. A IST'RONG. I believe. Mr. CRA3rrn. At that time, when the cut was announced, I made the statement that it appeared to me that this cut-the justification of which was to prevent inflation-would actually cause inflation. That is your conclusion, too; is it not? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir; very definitely, sir. Mr. CRA~r~. You cited some examples in your statement. Secondly, a major contributor to the increase was the lack of guide- lines which had previously been in existence relating to salary increases. Mr. ARMSTRONG. This is correct. Mr. CRA~rER. And you indicated what the. effect of dropping those guideline restrictions has been on the industry. Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. So, is it your conclusion, as it was mine, that the greatest causes of the 4-percent increase was, No. 1, the cutback, itself, of last year, and No. 2, the guideline no longer being restrictive on wage increases? Mr. A1i~rsmoNG. That is correct, sir. Mr. CRA~rER. So, in effect, what we are doing, by another cutback, is fueling the fire of inflation, as it relates to the highway industry; is that not right? Mr. ARMSTRONG. This is right. Mr. CRAMER. So, actually, the conclusion is this is the wrong ap- proach to that problem? PAGENO="0031" 21 Mr. ARMSTRONG. Very definitely, sir. Mr. CR~IER. Now, the State of New Mexico, as I interpret the figures, could be subject to a cutback of about 38 percent of the amounts that otherwise could be available which include the unobli- gated amount of $8.6 million carried over from 1967, plus additional obligational releases that have been and could be made during 1968 of $56.7 million, for a total of $65.34 million. And then taking into consideration the limitation on obligations of $40 million, the State of New Mexico, in effect, has $25 million cut, or 38 percent; is that approximately correct? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. Does that conform to your understanding? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. How is that going to affect the highway construction industry this year, in your opinion, in the State of New Mexico? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Sir, within the last 6 months we have had one voluntary and one involuntary going out of business, of two old-time construction firms. It is my understanding that another one will go out of business within 3 months on a vohmtary basis. Our contractors are all small contractors in New Mexico, with one or two exceptions. And the highway cutback can do nothing except, in my opinion, put some others out of business. Mr. CRAMER. Our chairman has touched on the matter which I think is of considerable interest and importance, and that is that he has had some negotiations with the Bureau and the Department relating to the State of Maryland, and understandably so. I have discussed the State of Florida with him. It is my understand- ing, as it apparently is his, that, come about April 1, there is going to be some money floating around. That is at least how I describe it, some money that some States had not used up to that time, and therefore it can be floated to other States that are prepared to let contracts; is that your understanding? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Sir, I had not heard this. (Mr. Kluczynski resumed the chair.) Mr. CRAMER. Well, maybe we can be of service to each other, then. Mr. ARMSTRONG. Right. Mr. CRAMER. I have a copy of an instructional memorandum that is dated January 23, instructional memorandum 30-2-68, Jamiary 23, 1968, signed by Mr. Turner, Director of Public Roads, which, in the next to the last paragraph says and I quote-and the reason I quote is that I think it is important for the States to understand it, and then I have another comment relating to it in a moment. "It will be our purpose to make continuing analyses of the progress being made in utilizing the funds available for obligation under this lirnitation"-rneaning the cutbacks. "Adjustments will be made in the schedule as appropriate to permit full use of available funds." Adjustments: "If it is found, after a few months' experience, that all of the States limitation, as shown on the attached table, cannot reasonably be expected to be utilized, we will attempt to develop a method to make these amounts available to other States." This is the floating money I am talking about. Therefore, I wouki hope that the States understand that there may be funds available, and that they should not curtail their tool- PAGENO="0032" 22 ing up to contract letting in view of that. Would that not be your interpretation? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. You are the authority on the subject. Would that not be your interpretation? Mr. Al~IsmoNG. Not the money; thatis right, sir. Mr. Cn~rmi. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. HARSHA. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAMER. Yes. Mr. HARSHA. The fact that this floating money that Mr. Cramer just alluded to is available would certainly contradict the position of the administration that this act was necessary to curtail inflation, be- cause they are promulgating, by this floating money, what they Os- tensibly claim they are doing with the cutback; is that not so? Mr. ARMSTRONG. That would be my understanding; yes, sir. Mr. CrL&3u~. Well, the staff has just called to my attention a later directive. This one is dated February 15, 1968, instructional memo- randum, also from Frank Turner, 30-3-68. This seems to, to some ex- tent, repudiate or limit the floating-money concept, and I will read it: Approximately 45 percent of the limitation amounts may be obligated during January-June period, and the balance may be obligated ~t1uring the period July 1 -through December 31 of 19G8. Meaning 45 percent of the amount left after the cut. So that appears to be a limitation on floating money used. Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes. Mr. Cm~rER. And then further, February 15, a circular memo- randum, first sentence of the second paragraph: It now becomes apparent that we must have the States' projected schedules as a basis for policy decisions on possible adjustments in the allocations which have been made. Accordingly, please transmit, in time to reach my office March 1, an analysis of the programs and schedules which you received, including your evaluation of the ability of the highway departments to obligate funds on the -basis which they have projected. So, do you know what that means? Mr. SPROUSE. Sounds confused. Mr. Cm~n~n. Sounds a little confusing? Mr. SPROUSE. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. It sounds confusing to me, too. So maybe we have floating money; maybe we do not have floating money, I guess is what it amounts to. But what disturbs me is who is going to decide what States get the -floating money? And under what circumstances? It is my opinion that that is why we wrote the apportionment for- mulas into the law, so that every State would be treated equitably, fairly, and nondiscriminatorily. Was that not your understanding of how the program was supposed to operate? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. I think this committee should watch with great in- terest, Mr. Chairman, the standards used and the procedures used, if there is going to be floating money, for the distribution of those fnmds, particularly in view of these new limitations that seem to con- ~tradict the previous ones. PAGENO="0033" 23 I think this clearly shows the risk involved, of possible discrimina- tion between States, selection by the executive branch of certain States, to the exclusion of other States, when you get into the busi- ness of manipulating the trust funds. I think that is. one of the risks involved in the cutback. Mr. FALLOW. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAMER. I will yield to the distinguished chairman. Mr. FALLOW. I understand, of course, the point the gentleman is making. But, as I suggested before, that I was informed by the Secretary that there would be money available, that if Maryland could put more money under contract than was allowed in the direc- tive, and they are being cut 50 percent, so if they were one of the first States that got a little bit of this floating money, I would not con- sider that discrimination. I think the discrimination has already occurred. And if it is possible for the Secretary to relieve a little bit the dis- crimination that has already been made, I think that would be all right. I do not think the gentleman means that if these States that had been cut to the bone received a little of this floating money it would be discrimination. Mr. CRAMER. No, no. I am glad the chairman made his comment. I would not want my comments to be misinterpreted. I would be the last to suggest that making additional funds available to the great State of Maryland, which obviously was discriminated against in the cutback itself, would be discrimination, any more than the State of Florida. I would suggest, however, that a couple of these States that are getting plus money, such as Massachusetts with plus 27 percent, Colorado with plus 15 percent, as examples; if they got more money, that would be discrimination. That is one of the points that I had in mind. Mr. FALLOW. That is the one I had in mind. Mr. CRAMER. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KLTJCzYNSKI. Any questions to my right? Any questions to my left? Mr. Harsha? Mr. HARSHA. I just want to commend Mr. Armstrong for his state- ment and for the facts as he gave them to the committee, pointing up the necessity of legislation I have introduced to have a working pro- gram in process of completing the highways. Not only does this intermittent cut-off or freeze of funds delay the orderly process and development of the highway system, but it in- creases, in the final analysis, their overall cost; but it certainly impedes the safety and affects the welfare of the travelino public. As I understand, when we get this Interstate ~ystem completed, it is supposed to save around 8,000 lives a year. Now, how many are we losing because of these freezes and temporary delays in continuing this program? . I am certainly happy to urge the subcommittee to conduct hearings on this legislation. I hope the chairman sees fit to follow through, be- cause I think it is needed. Thank you. Mr. KLUCzYN5KI. The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Denney. 96-030--OS--3 PAGENO="0034" 24 Mr~ DENNEY. I wanted to commend Mr. Armstrong for the state- ment. On page 4 he makes the statements, "The curtailment of highway funds without full congressional review and approval constitutes a breach of faith." It is a breach of faith not only with the contractors, but it is a breach of faith with every citizen that drives an automobile and pays this tax into the purchase of gasoline; is that not correct? Mr. ARMSTRONG. That is correct, sir. Mr. DENNEY. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KLtTCZYNSKI. Thank you. The gentleman from California, Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAtTSEN. I want to join my colleagues in paying my compli- ments to you, sir. I think that your statement certainly is an excellent one and gives us documentary evidence of some of the problems that they face with this cutback, this stop-and-go type of action, as a result of the adminis- tration's decision. But I am particularly pleased to have you place the emphasis on what occurs to the small businessman in this country. The greatest problem we have is for these people in undertaking the hiring of l)er- sonnel and trying to develop organizations to handle the job, they ~an never go forward constructively and do the job and build the kind of responsible organizations that will keep our construction costs in line, unless they can have what was originally intended, as far as the act was concerned, to depend upon it. I think you enunciated this very well, and I think the committee is very indebted to you for giving us this kind of example. Thank you. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Thank you. The gentleman from Indiana. Mr. ZIoN. Mr. Armstrong, I believe you testified that approximately 241 highway contractors have gone out of business in the last 2 years, was that correct? Mr. ARMSTRONG. I believe that is the figure; yes, sir. Mr. ZIoN. Were most of the States heard from here? Mr. ARMSTRONG. No, we did not hear from all of the States. Mr. ZIoN. About how many States did you hear from? Mr. SPROUSE. I believe it is in the tabulation. Mr. ZION. How many States? Mr. CRAMER. 19 States. Mr. ZIoN. 19 States out of 50. We can presume, then, that there will be considerably more than 241 in the United States that went out of business. Mr. CLAUSEN. Did that include California? Mr. CRAMER. California had 20 contractors going out of business; and the State of Florida had 20; and the State of Louisiana had 53; Illinois, 35; in the last 2 years. Mr. ZION. My point is that this 241 highway contractors is a imni- mum figure. Probably, if we took the United States as a whole, this might represent less than 50 percent of the contractors who went out of business in the last 2 years. Would that be a fair statement? Mr. ARMSTRONG. I would b~lieve it to be a fair statement. Mr. ZIoN. Thank you. PAGENO="0035" 25 Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Thank you. Mr. ARMSTRONG. I believe that the 20 from California represented just one county, San Diego County. Mr. SPROnSE. We received additional information from our south- ern California chapter in Los Angeles, which said, in the 2 years, that 4,000 contractors of all types went out of business in California. Now, I talked to the manager of our affiliated organization in Los Angele~s on that 4,000 figure, and he said, Well, there are 65,000 licensed contractors in the State of California. This includes all types of contractors from the very smallest man, who does nothing but the guardrail, up to the Bechtel Corp. So now we can break that down to a figure, we can substantiate as to how many highway contractors went out of business; we could not do it in California. Our San Diego chapter, however, gave us the answer of 20 in San Diego County alone. Mr. CLAUSEN. We have this wire, Mr. Chairman, from Mr. Glenn Dowdy to Mr. James Sprouse, "Five AGC members and estimated 15 non-AGC members out of business in last 2 years in San Diego County." And this substantiates the point he was making. I have only briefly heard of some of them from California, but now that the hearings are underway, they are trying to get their story across, and I am deeply grateful for you getting this substantiating evidence, and we are going to be getting into more and more of this as time goes on. Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, I understand the purpose of these hear- ings this morning was to have testimony on the continuation of the ABC program, and always this committee has allowed flexibility, so we are not held to any particular subject. I would like to know from AGC, Mr. Armstrong, just what yiur feelings are in regard to the continuation of the ABC program? Mr. ARMSTRONG. We stated that we supported the continuation of the ABC program at its current level, and we would urge that it be continued. Mr. FALLON. On the same formula? Mr. ARMSTRONG. Yes, sir. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Thank you, Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Olsen? Mr. OLSEN. I wanted to join the rest of my colleagues in compli- menting our friend, Mr. Walker, for bringing these gentlemen here before us, introducing them to us. Mr. Walker also does an outstanding job and has great interest in his great State of New Mexico, and I know the highway program of the United States, and I appreciate his bringing these gentlemen here. Thank you very much. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Thank you, Mr. Olsen. I was going to say, but you beat me to it, that they should feel very fortunate in being introduced by the Congressman from New Mexico. Thank you. The next witness will be Mr. Patrick Healy, executive director of the National League of Cities, and Mr. Bernard F. Hillenbraiid, exec- utive director, National Association of Counties. Will you please be seated, and whoever wants to start it off may do so. PAGENO="0036" 26 STATEMENTS OF PATRICK HEALY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES; AND BERNARD P. HILLENBRAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OP COUNTIES Mr. HEALY. I am Patrick Healy, executive director of the National League of Cities. I appear on behalf of 14,400 cities, affiliated with the National League of Cities and located in all 50 States. I am pleased that I have with me here Mr. Bernard F. Hillenbrand, who is my counterpart with the National Association of Counties. We have had extensive consultation with various interest groups con- cerned with the highway program, including the county governments as represented through their national organization, the State highway officials, through the American Association of State Highway officials, and user groups, in arriving at recommendations we are making here. The purpose of my testimony is twofold: First, to urge Congress to continue its support of the ABC pro- gram for highway improvement. Second, to urge that this committee take action, during this session of Congress, to initiate the development of a new highway program to be implemented as the Interstate System approaches completion. The National League of Cities urges authorization and appropria- tions of at least the current $1 billion funding level for the ABC sys- tem for each of the fiscal years 1970 and 1971. That sum must be avail- able to assure even a nominal improvement in street and highway svs- tems essential to move traffic in and around our urban areas. Our cities badly need funds to improve streets and highways that are not part of the Interstate System. The 1968 National Highway Needs Report, recently submitted to the Congress by the Federal Highway Administration, emphasizes that it is in urban areas where highway systems most urgently require improvement. A recent survey conducted by the American Association of State Highway Officials concludes that approximately 34.7 percent of current ABC appropria- tions are spent in urban areas. While this percentage is significant, and a great improvement over allocations in earlier years of this pro- gram, it is still far from sufficient to keep pace with the growing need to provide urban areas with comprehensive highway systems. Conse- quently, any interruption or reduction in the flow of ABC moneys would certainly compound an already difficult local traffic and finan- cial situation. I have confidence that this committee, and this Congress, recognizes the importance of the ABC program and will continue it at at least its current funding level. The National League of Cities believes that Congress must begin now to develop a new highway program; a program which will more nearly meet the requirements of this urban Nation. A long leadtime is necessary to plan and develop highway systems. As Chairman Fallon noted last June: Because of the magnitude of the highway construction program and because of the importance of coordinating highway construction with other activities, it is necessary to initiate action to plan for any new program several years before it is to begin. PAGENO="0037" 27 The 1968 National Highway Needs Report also noted: The planning for future highway programs cannot wait completion of the Interstate System. An orderly transition from the present program to the new requires that preliminary planning studies begin at the earliest possible time. The available lead time (to 1975) is just barely adequate even now. Any new highway program must have as its goal the development of a coordinated transportation system. The Interstate System will never achieve maximum effectiveness, nor will urban centers achieve maximum viability, if disproportionate~ emphasis continues to be placed on one element of the transportation system. The Interstate System has succeeded in reducing congestion in some ways in urban areas, but it has increased it in others by dumping large amounts of traffic onto street systems unprepared to absorb such heavy traffic volumes. Its own utility has been limited because it is often compelled to function as a local arterial to relieve inadequate, con- gested streets which should carry more local traffic. Further, develop- ment of essential urban traffic circulation systems is not apt to occur in the absence of any Federal support for such systems. Many needed improvements in local street and highway systems not a part of the Interstate System have been deferred pending the pro- jected 1972 completion date for the Interstate System. As the comple- tion date for the Interstate System is put off further and further, the need for action on these other projects is ever more compelling. Recent cost estimates indicate that the Interstate System will not be completed until well after the originally projected 1972 comple- tion date. Before that system is completed, an interim program must be initiated to decrease congestion and improve the safety and con- venience of travel on major arteries within metropolitan areas and on essential elements of the highway system in rural regions by focus- ing resources on the most necessary highway projects deferred pending completion of the Interstate System. A procedure must be developed to "phase. in" a new highway program as early as possible. Thus it is appropriate, while discussing the immediate future of the ABC program, that we look ahead to the problems and solutions involved in developing coordinated transportation systems for urban areas in the next decade. While we are concerned with the total highway program, as an organization of America's cities, our primary concern is urban trans- portation. In this latter respect we propose that a new urban trans- portation program should have three vital characteristics: It should provide convenience and economy of travel, but it should also be a tool to shape the growth of metropolitan areas and have as its goal improvement of the quality of the urban environment; It should be sufficiently flexible to permit the particular char- acteristics of the urban region to be served to determine the trans- portation modes and services most appropriate for the area; and It should be structured so as to assure funding of the trans- portation system employing the mix of modes most appropriate to good transportat.ion in the urban area. Further, we believe that such a nro~ram should seek to o1~er_ come some present roadblocks to coordinated transportation develop- PAGENO="0038" 28 ment which are inherent in past and current highway programs, for example: The allocation of Federal highway funds through the interstate and the ABC programs has encouraged development of particu- lar classes of roads in urban areas with insufficient provision for the needs of the total urban highway network; Funds have generally been allocated without sufficient consider- ation of the priorities necessary to develop an intergrated urban major street and highway system; Construction of the Interstate System and urban expressway elements of the State primary system through cities have created severe traffic problems because insufficient attention has been given to financing development of related~. local major street systems; Use of highway funds for highway related public transporta- tion aspects of the total system has been severely restricted in spite of the fact that such use could complement the highway systems. I am speaking of such matters as exclusive bus lanes and turnoffs and so on; and The coordinated development of highways and public trans- portation systems has been impeded because the. public transpor- tation, or as commonly referred to, mass transportation transit program has been compelled to depend on annual and relatively minor Federal appropriations in contrast to substantially greater Federal funds available to finance the highway system. The National League of Cities' program emphasizes an approach to urban transportation which will stimulate coordinated development of all transportation systems and which will integrate transportation into the total development process of the community. Through its fore- sight, the Congress has already provided the basic ingredients of a program to coordinate development of total transportation systems. These include- A comprehensive, continuing, cooperative transportation plan- ning process; A Federal aTd highway program; and A Federal aid mass transit program. These basic ingredients now must be brought into a meaningful relationship in metropolitan area development, and should be applied to multicounty, nonmetropolitan areas. Because of the requirements of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1962, all urban areas over 50,000 population are currently engaged in a comprehensive, continuing transportation planning process. This planning process is intended to relate urban development and the de- velopment of all modes of transportation in the area. it covers. High- way and mass transit funds should be channeled to finance develop- ment programs based on plans arid priorities resulting from this com- prehensive transportation planning process. Coordination of trans- portation improvements with other metropolitan development pro- grams can he achieved throu~h annlicatioii of the r~ouirernents of sec- tion 204 of the Demonstration Cities ~nd Metronolif an T)evelonment Act of 1966: a valuable device for relating functional and comnrehen- sive planning. The growing highway needs of urban areas must be met through a reorientation of the highway program. but at the same time commit- PAGENO="0039" 29 ments made by the present highway program must be honored to achieve successful completion of the Interstate System. We suggest the following as a transition plan to redirect and increase aid for non- interstate highway development in urban and rural areas while at the same time fulfilling the commitment to complete the Interstate System within a reasonable time. 1. The highway trust fund must be continued beyond its .current 1972 expiration date to assure adequate financing to complete the Interstate System and to meet other essential highway needs. This Congress should make it clear that the trust fund will be continued~ 2. The Interstate System mileage should not be extended beyond the present 41,000-mile limit. We suggest that upon completion of the Interstate System the Federal-State matching formula be reduced to a standard matching formula for all Federal aid systems and that any mileage necessary to provide linkages to the Interstate System be financed as part of the State primary system. 3. Support must be continued for metropolitan transportation plan- ning through the comprehensive, continuing transportation planning process. A program must be initiated to develop transportation plans for nonmetropolitan areas through multicounty planning agencies utilizing the same process. To give transportation planning necessary support, we advocate an increase in the present 1½ percent of the high- w-ay trust fund reserved for planning and research. We suggest that a specified amount of this money be set aside for transportation plan- ping. Beginning with fiscal year 1973, no Federal funds should be allocated to support street and highway development in any area, urban or rural, that does not maintain a comprehensive transporta- tion planning process. 4. The roles of States and local governments in the highway plan- fling and development process should be redefined. States should be assigned responsibility for planning and programing improvements on the State primary system, including the Interstate System, in both urban and rural areas. The comprehensive transportation planning agency responsible for development of transportation plans in each metropolitan area should be assigned responsibility for planning and programing improvements to the urban street and highway system in its jurisdiction. Multicounty transportation planning agencies~ act- ing through the cooperative transportation planning process, should be assigned responsibility for planning and programing improve- mènts on the rural secondary system within their respective jurisdic- tions. 5. Implementation of a program to achieve a complete functional classification of streets and highways by July 1, 1971, should be man- dated. All streets and highways should be classified according to de- finitions and standards developed by the Federal Highway Adminis- tration, in consultation with State, county, and city officials. Functional classification should be on a statewide basis with the State responsible. for classifying the primary system and the metropolitan transporta- tion planning agencies and multicounty transportation planning agen- cies responsible for classifying other streets and highways within their jurisdictions, subject to State approval. States would be expected to aid local planning agencies in their classification process. Begin- ning with fiscal year 1973, that is beginning July 1, 1972, no Federal funds should be allocated to support street and highway construc- PAGENO="0040" 30 tion in any area that does not have a functional classification of its street and highway system. 6. Effective with the fiscal year begii~ining July 1, 1973, that is for fiscal 1974, funds allocated under the current ABC program should be distributed under a new allocation formula recognizing the new functional classification. The funds should be divided among the three systems: the State system, the urban system and the rural system. The percentage of Federal funds allocated for each of these programs from the trust fund should be set by the Congress. The distribution formulas among the States from each system fund should recognize the various characteristics relevant to each system. These formulas should be related to objective criteria which permit biennial adjust- ment of allocations as conditions change. States should be given lee- way to transfer a small percentage of their allotment between the three systems according to need. 7. Beginning July 1. 1972. funds allocated to the Interstate System annually until its completion should be fixed at a sum equal to the average amount of money appropriated to the Interstate System from the trust fund for the previous 5 fiscal years. All receipts in the trust fund in excess of the allocation to the Interstate System in fiscal year 1973 and each year thereafter should be appropria.ted for the State, urban, rural (STJR) system. In the present program, the Interstate System allotments from the highway trust fund increase as a result of incrementsin trust fund revenues, while the A-B-C system allotments remain stable. Vital, non-Interstate. System projects have been delayed and the program has been reduced in size. because cost increases have eaten into the fixed appropriat.ion of $1 billion. Extension of the com- pletion date for the Interstate System from 1972 to at least 1975 because of increased cost estimates threatens to continue to consume trust funds, resulting in further delay for critical projects not on the Interstate System. Extending time for completion of the Interstate System so that the critical needs of other elements of a coordinated highway system can be met is as justifiable a. basis for a stretchout. as extending the completion date because of increased costs. 8. Streets and highways eligible for Federal aid under the new State, urban, and rural (SUB) program should be those with classi- fications similar to the following: State primary system: Its purpose would be to provide for expedi- tious movement of large volumes of traffic between, around, and through metropolitan areas. A secondary purpose of some routes might be to provide direct access to abutting land. Some State primary routes would be built to freeway or expressway standards: A freewa.y would have complete separation of conflicting traffic flows, while an express- way may have few or no grade separations and may be a stage devel- opment toward a freeway. Other primary routes would not be built to as high standards but these routes would normally be subject to the necessary regulation of parking, turning movements, pedestrian use, entrances, exits and curb use. Urban major street. and highway system: Maor streets and highways would allow for traffic movement between and across port~ons of the urban area. They would provide direct. service to principal traffic generators and connections to the interstate or State primary systems. A secondary l)urPose would be to provide direct access to abutting land. These roads would he subject to the necessary regulations governing PAGENO="0041" 31 parking, turning movements, pedestrian use, entrances, exits, and curb use. The individual major streets would combine to make a system for traffic movement in the metropolitan area. In some cases maj or streets would be divided arterial roadways with some control of access and they may even be built to freeway or expressway standards. Collector streets which connect major streets and highways directly with resi- dential and industrial areas and local streets which connect to collec- tors or major streets and serve primarily as access to abutting property would not be included in the Federal-aid program. Rural system: The rural system would be composed of major sec- ondary roads not on the interstate or State primary systems, located outside of metropolitan areas. These roads would serve the same function in rural areas as that served by the major street and high- way system in urban areas. Roads classified as of lesser importance would not be eligible for aid. 9. Projects on the urban and rural systems to be financed by SUR funds would be proposed by the local transportation planning agen- cies in metropolitan and rural areas and submitted, with determined i)riorities, to the State highway departments. The States would assign the urban and rural system money to these projects from the respec- tive system funds. 10. Construction should be basically a State responsibility. How- ever, the States should be able, as heretofore, to delegate this respon- sibility where city and county government~s are capable of adminis- tering project~s in their jurisdictions. The National League of Cities will present, at the appropriate time, a proposal to achieve a better coordination of highway and public transportation programs, that is mass transportation programs. I recognize that the public transportation program is not the respon- sibility of this committee, and I mention it only in passing. We be- lieve that the public transportation component of the total trans- portation system, in areas where it is relevant, should be planned and financed in a manner similar to that for the highway system, with modifications to recognize tl~at public transportation will not serve every community as highways do. To provide funds adequate for support of a successful urban transportation program we will urge: A. That the present Highway Trust Fund be continued and be reserved for highways at current rates and with the additions sug- gested in the President's budget message, and B. That a $1.5 billion contract authority be made available to the Department of Transportation to support development of public transportation facilities identified by the comprehensive transpor- tation planning process as essential to a comprehensive and integrated transportation system. To achieve the goals of a coordinated national transportation sys- tem and viable urban centers, the energies of concerned officials at all levels of government, and private transportation interests, must be unified. Only with coordinated transportation systems planned and developed to fit the needs of the communities they serve can the Nation's cities hope to be prepared to meet the great cha}lenge in America's third century. (Chart follows.) PAGENO="0042" 1 11t7 7t~ (`~..(l f1ctlioii; ft IUICLILtIC tnt! \IX~ 116 ;y;t~n; ti~d~u NLC 1 Ln1(~JI1 Vnctl Yc.ir 193 1069 19O 1111 .1972 1973 1971 1973 1976 1977 9/3 1979 - (Ill ) ~ fTJ I II :~:::1 ~ S JI \lI 5 \IC IJII \11 I I 1.5 tIll 1 ~ 1.5 PAGENO="0043" 33 I thank you, gentlemen, for your attention. I will be happy to an- swer any questions. Mr. KLUCZYNSKT. Thank you, Mr. Healy, for that excellent, well- prepared statement of yours. You really have a very long-range pro- gram under consideration, is that right? Mr. HEALY. Yes, sir. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. You are talking about a continuing mass trans - portation program and a better interstate and local highway program, also Federal aid to the mass transit program. And your organization is opposed to any future extension of the Interstate Highway System as I understand it. Mr. HEALY. Yes, we are. Mr. KLTJCZYNSKI. The official mileage now for interstate is 41,000 miles. Mr. HIEALY. We are suggesting that any additional mileage be classi- fied as State primary system mileage. It could be built to the same standard as the interstate, but that the interstate as such with its pres- ent matching ratio would be considered completed at the 41,000 and then at that time all systems would be on a same matching ratio, what- ever you might determine. Mr. KrAJCzYNsKI. When we first enacted this in 1956 for the 41,000 miles, we thought we could complete it by 1972 as you know. Now they talk about 1973 and 1974 and I believe at this session they are talking about 1975 or beyond that. I would hope we could complete this. The sooner we do the better. The longer we make it the more money itcosts. You haven't said anything about the cutback here in your state- ment, have you? How do you feel about it?. Mr. HEALY. We don't have anything in our statement about that, but naturally the éity officials of this country are just as much dis- turbed as I gather this committee is by the cutback. Mr. KLUOZYNSKI. In other words, if we do. not complete it by the next couple of years it will just take so much more money and more time. Is that right, if we stretch it out another year or two? Mr. HEALY. Exactly... . . Mr. KLUCZYNSKL Any questions, Mr. Cramer? Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ., I want. to congratulate you for a very interesting statement, Mr. Healy. It is a very thoughtful statement .and one wh:ich points out a number of problems which obviously now and in the future to a greater extent will have to be met on not only highway construction but also coordinated transportation in the metropolitan areas. How- ever, there are two or three questions I would like to ask. One is the subject touched upon by our Chairman relating to more mileage on the Interstate .System. As I understand it, you do not ob- ject to more mileage. You want it classified, however, as primary- Mr. HEALY. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. -which under the present formula would mean 50-50 matching. Mr. HEALY. That is right. Mr. CRAMER. That, of course, is at odds with the American Associ- ation of Highway Officials' recommendation which suggested a 5~000 to 6,000 mile additional interstate connections and missing link program. PAGENO="0044" 34 Mr. HEALY. I wasn't aware that they were recommending that. My impression was that they were recommending that the ratio of match- ino be changed, possibly to two-thirds-one-third mstead of 5O-~0. ~1r. CRAMER. I under~i.and they did recommend 75-25 percent. How- ever, they did recommend the additional amount of the interstate. Mr. H~EALY. Has that position been changed, Mr. Cramer? Mr. CRAMER. I only know what they testified to on an interim basis before this committee late last year. We will probably hear from them further relating to that. I do not think there is any question but what some additional mile- age is needed on the Interstate System in certain areas. Do you? For instance, I am thinking of Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Miami. There is obviously missing mileage, for one example. Mr. HEALY. I am sure there are many other examples of where that standard of highway needs to be built. WTe are merely suggesting that rather than continue a 90-10 formula. on a program that gets all that high priority that the formula for distribution be changed possibly to 75-25 or two-thirds-one-third, and that all of them get the same amount and that these additions you are referring to be additions to the State primary system. Mr. CRAMER. The 90 percent was put in partially on the basis of it being a defense system, an Interstate Defense Highway program. Mr. HEALY. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. You suggest on page 2, and I concur with your thought, that whatever is going t.o be done should be done now. Mr. HEALY. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. And you quote the 1968 National Highway Needs Report which indicates that the available leadtime for 1975 is just barely adequate even now for making those decisions now. I agree with that wholeheartedly. This year is the year of decision relating to the future of the highway program. Mr. HEALY. Right. Mr. CRAMER. You suggest on page 8, and your problem obviously is where the money is coming from for the phase in program you are proposing. Right? Mr. HEALY. Right. Mr. CRAMER. So you are suggesting as I understand it that the money should come out of the trust fund by stretching out the Interstate System. Mr. HEALY. Yes, in effect that is right. It would stretch it out another year or two. Mr. CRAMER. And your chart accompanying your statement in- dicates that. the. allocations would continue until 1978 meaning con- struction probably until 1979 anyway. So if we followed your recom- mendations we could not contemplate the completion of the Inter- state System until 1979. Mr. HEALY. That would be fiscal year 1968, yes. Mr. CRAMER. Well tha.t is the money. The actual construction takes another year or so. Is that correct? Mr. HEALY. Yes, sir; that is right. Mr. CRAMER. Well I disagree with you on that concept. I realize, lmowever~ you have to get money some place; but I do not. think it PAGENO="0045" 35 ought to come out of the trust fund penalizing the completion of the Interstate System, partially because it is for defense, partially because highway users have been paying in under the existing formula expect- ing that they will have high-speed, limited-access highways completed in this country within a reasonable period of time. So if I were to comment on your recommendation, I would~ suggest that maybe you ought to try to find the money someplace else. Mr. HEALY. You mean like an increased tax? Mr. CRAMER. Yes; or somewhere. Mr. HEALY. Well, of course, that is up to Congress and we probably wouldn't quarrel with it either. Mr. CRAMER. Well the President has not had much success in his suggestion of increased taxes to finance programs of the adminis- tration. I think this brings to light one of the problems we have had with trust funds for years. There are an awful lot of people who would like to use that money for some other purposes. I do not blame the cities for their interest in trying to convert some of that money if they can. But I do think we have a responsibility. We made a commitment to complete the Interstate System within a reasonable period of time. Mr. HEALY. We are not suggesting that the money be diverted. We are suggesting that it be used for highways only. But we are suggesting that a stretchout in order to meet the needs of the other roads is just as justificable as a stretchout because of increased costs, which is what is happening anyway. Mr. CRAMER. Well I `think-this is personal and I can only speak for myse1f-~this is a rather unrealistic approach to suggest to Con- gress that we curtail' the presently existing program and its coinple- tion in order to accomplish a new program concept. I just think you are on the wrong track. You ought to look for money someplace else, and I do not argue with the `basic concept of the program you are sug- gesting. We have got to get into urban `transportation, particularly highways. I think your statement further serves as a useful purpose in clearly pointing out that we have hybrid-headed agencies or hybrid- headed program's relating to diffierent types of transportation and the obvious result is a `lack of coordination. Mr. HEALY. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. With the Bureau of Public Roads and other compre- hensive planning agencies becoming involved. I would hope that if your suggestions were seriously considered relating to comprehensive planning agencies, county and state'wide and city, that we not end up with a situation like we have in `the District of Columbia where we have no action-all planning-no decisions. I think that is the risk that we must be aware o'f in the recommendation. I am sure you would not want that either. Mr. HEALY. Absolutely not. Mr. CRAMER. Somebody has to make the decision; right? Mr. HEALY. That is right, and that is the problem here in the Dis- trict which I don't think exists anywhere else. Th'is is unique. Mr. CRAMER. Well I do not want to make the whole coun'try unique. [Laughter.] On page 11, there is $1.5 billion contract authority for the Depart- ment of Transportation for development of public transportation PAGENO="0046" 36 facilities. Could von indicate where that would come from under your plan? Mr. H~ix. The money ? Mr. CRAMER. Yes, sir. Mr. HEALY. That could come out of the general fund. Mr. CRAMER. General fund. Mr. HEALY. Right. There would have to be an appropriation by Congress through the regular process authorizing a contract author- ity of that amount. Mr. CRAMER. It is your thought that it should be appropriated to whom-TIUD? Transportation? Mr. HEALY. Department of Transportation. I am assuming that the mass transit program is going to be transferred to the Department of Transportation from HUD. Mr. CRAMER. I think you have been wise on suggesting on page 7 that w~hatever planning be done that it be subject to State approval so somebody has the final sayso. That was your intention, was it? Mr. HEALY. Yes, it was; yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. I think you made a valuable contribution on the sub- ject of functional classification, No. 5 on page 7. In my opinion this probably should have been done long ago. This also would provide more certainty in the program. Mr. HEALY. Right. Mr. CRAMER. And less executive flexibility which we have too much of today in my opinion. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KLUczYNsKI. Any further questions? Mr. HEALY. Mr. Chairman, in connection with Mr. Cramer's ques- tioning he referred to the chart that we have. We have attempted to picture here what the effect would be in~ terms of time of the recoin- mendations. We have made an error in the cutoff date of nonclassified functioning and the cutoff date below that. They should be moved ahead 1 year. If it is your desire to reproduce a chart like this in the record, we would like an opportunity to correct that before it is inserted. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the record be left open for the purpose of inserting a proper chart following the statement. Mr. KLUCZYNSKT. Hearing no objection, it. is so ordered. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for a very good statement, Mr. Healy. Recog- nizing that most of the communities in the country have other serious problems classified as urban problems, where would you place highway development in the list of priorities as far as urban problems are con- cerned? Mr. HEALY. It is hard to make a general statement. After the riots in Watts in Los Angeles, the commission which investigated that cited as possibly the most important reason for the discontent there was the lack of adequate transportation for the people living there to get to jobs. In other areas that might not be the most important problem. So I don't believe that I could generalize. Mr. CLAUSEN. Would you say that in most cases it will be toward the top of the list or the bottom of the list. PAGENO="0047" 37 Mr. HEALY. Oh I would say it would be toward the top. Traffic strangulation is getting worse everywhere in the cities. Mr. CLAITSEN. Oftentimes in the Congress before the House when our legislation reaches the floor of the House there have been sugges- tions by people in urban areas that we divert some of the funds from this trust fund over into a transit system. `Will you comment on this? Do you agree with that? Mr. HEALY. No, I don't agree with that. Mr. CLAUSEN. Would you say how the bulk of your local officials feel about this. Mr. HEALY. I would say at present the bulk of the local officials want the trust funds reserved for highways and highway related transporta- tion needs. Mr. CLAUSEN. And thus they should seek other methods of finance if this is what their problem is. Is this what you are suggesting here? Mr. HEALY. Exactly. Mr. CLAUSEN. Well I am glad to have this because I know there have been many amendments offered on occasion, and I think it will be very helpful to our committee members to offer in rebuttal on the floor of the House your testimony. Actually you have considered two basic systems, namely the transit systems and your highway system in your urban areas. Recognizing that our committee does not have jurisdiction over airports, I am one of the leading advocates, as you know, of developing an integrated system of airports in urban areas so that we can relieve some of the congestion up topside. Now do you feel in this overall planning that some consideration should be given to aviation access into your com- munity as well? Is this what you mean by the balance? Mr. HEALY. Yes, I do. What we mean by comprehensive, continu- ing, cooperative planning is not just for streets and highways, but comprehensive planning for all transportation needs and comprehen- sive planning for the total development of the community which in- cludes airports and location of airports and other public facilities and access to them. It includes the whole works. Mr. CLAUSEN. You see, one of the problems we face here is that this is the Roads Subcommittee and aviation matters are handled by Inter- state and Foreign Commerce. Frankly, I am not satisfied with the kind of coordination that has hitherto been present. So, while I do not ex- pect to develop this in depth here, I would like to have you people give some serious thought as to how we could coordinate legislatively the implementation of the kind of integrated and balanced transporta- tion system that goes to all forms. Mr. HEALY. Well, Mr. Clausen, as the comprehensive planning process frankly is quite new in this country and, in fact, it was only in the Highway Act of 1962 that it was required that for highways the process had to be started by 1965, however, it is now in process and we are quite optimistic about the results that we will get from this process. It's not just for highways but total comprehensive planning, and there are more and more Federal programs that require this be- fore local units are eligible to get Federal aid for different types of programs. This planning process has to go on. Mr. CLAUSEN. All right, the final question. You have heard Mr. Cramer's comments about offering the finance formula and the rec- PAGENO="0048" 38 ommendatjons that have come forward which is about on a 75-25 basis. I have not detected from your testimony that you have a posi- tion or a recommendation on the formula. Did you leave this out on purpose or was it just an inadvertence? Mr. }IEALY. We don't have a position officially as an organization on the formula at this time. But we are considering it and we will un- doubted~y be in close consultation with the American Association of State Highway Officials and the National Association of Counties on one agreed upon formula. Mr. CI~usEx. Well I would hope that you would because I believe 1 recall in my opening statement that the only way to have a balanced system of highways is to have a balanced system of finance, and I am hoping we can arrive at that here. Do you feel this committee should make a recommendation or this would go to the Ways and Means Committee? Mr. HEALY. Well this committee should make a recommendation on the formula. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you. You gave us the authority. Mr. KI~uczYNsKI. We planned on meeting this afternoon but it seems we cannot get unanimous consent. So the chairman of the coin- mittee wifi be happy to stay here until we. get a call to the floor. So, at this time we will hear from the counties. Mr. Hillenbrand. Mr. HILLENBRAND. Mr. Chairman, my name is Bernard F. Hillen- brand, executive director of the National Association of Counties, and my statemeht is meant to be thought of in the context of being a com- panion statement with Mr. Healy, because we wanted to emphasize to the members of this committee tha.t the cities and counties jointly have developed this position with the idea of phasing in from our present highway system into a new highway system. With your per- mission, Mr. Chairman, in view of the lateness of the hour, I would like to, if I might, file my statement for the record and hit the high points. Mr. KIUCzYNsKI. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. Hillenbrand, you can hit on the high points if you wish, and if there are any questions of Mr. Hillenbrand lie is sitting there walting. Mr. HILLEXBRAND. Well, as the broadway musical says, with a little bit of luck I can hit those high points in exactly 5 minutes. Mr. KLUOZYNSKI. Go ahead. Mr. HILLENBRAND. The first thing is, of course, we are whole- heartedly in support of continuing the ABC appropriations at least at the level of $1 billion. In line with Mr. Cramer's questions and the discussions, you wifi remember that when we first started the Inter- state System the ABC appropriation was something at the level of $925 million and we increased it at approximately $25 million a year until it reached the level of $1 billion. We think it is important to recognize that we have in effect a freeze on the ABC funds at a level of $1 billion, which means in the face of continuing inflation on the magnitude of 3 percent a year that we are actually having a decrease in the amount of money available. So, Mr. Cramer, we would like for you to consider our recoinmenda- tions with respect to the stretchout of the Interstate System in the context of it isn't that we love the Interstate System less but that we PAGENO="0049" 39 have waited so long to get at this other system of roads-the rural sys- tem and the urban system that we are talking about. So what we are suggesting is rather to switch the emphasis at a later date when we are more prepared to continue these urban and rural systems so that in effect the freeze becomes then on the Interstate System and the annual increment into the trust fund because of increased revenue receipts would go into starting this new system. Mr. CRAMER. May I ask a question there. Do you not think there is a substantial value to the cities as well as to the entire Nation as well as to our defense in keeping our commitment to complete the Interstate System as soon as possible? Mr. HILLENBRAND. We would certainly agree with that, Mr. Cramer, and we certainly don't want in this testimony or any other after 12 years of supporting the Interstate System to sound like we are not enthusiastic about completing the system. Frankly, in many of these communities we have found that other kinds of roads are getting to be of increasingly urgent necessity. When we started with the 1956 High- way Act we all agreed that we were going to put into effect a freeze on the ABC roads. Now with the increased cost to the Interstate System there are prospects that we might not even be able to get at the ABC system until perhaps as late as 1980 in some people's projec- tion. For example, we understand, that new cost estimates between this year and 2 years ago indicate relatively the same amount .of cost to complete the system. So that we have had 2 years of appro- priations or about $6 billion and haven't got any closer to the comple- tion dates in terms of dollars involved. So, Mr. Cramer, we don't want to be in a position of being against the Interstate System. On the other hand,' we have got other road responsibilities too, particularly at the city and county level. At the county level, of 3,500,000 miles of roads in the TJnited States we have responsibility for 2,750,000 miles of them. So we have got other problems. Mr. CRAMER. And we get down , to the same problem of money. Mr. HILLERBRAND. Right. Mr. CRAMER. And if. there is not more money going into the trust fund somebody is going to suffer. Mr. HILLENBEAND. Well we would be content for you to force more money on us to build more. We would appreciate it. Mr. CRAMER. I have suggested for a number of years maybe w-e ought to consider some of the automobile excise tax going into the trust funds. Mr. HILLENBRAND. We have that matter under discussion now. There is approximately $1.5 billion tha.t does not get used for highways now. Mr. CLAIJSEN. That is where I believe that you people at the city and county `level are going to have to help some of us who generally believe that the development of a highway system as rapidly as possi- ble-we will not complete economic growth-but in my judgment should take priority over some of the other expenditures going into other programs. You should have this kind of priority in the tax reve- nue if I recall my experiences as a county supervisor. Mr. HILLENBRAND. We agree with that wholeheartedly. This ~leads to my point too. We don't want to put emphasis of creating a new sys- 9G-030-GS-----4 PAGENO="0050" 40 tern of roads. What we really want to do is apply the concepts we have developed in the Interstate System to an urban area and rural area so we are not appropriating money willy-nilly but a~propriating it for completing usable increments of a system within an urban area and a rural area.. In a rural area, for example, we may want to build a road network to a recreational facility or a rural college and this might very well involve crossing se ceral counties and through se reral cities and so on. So we want to apply the samo planning requ rement now as when we came before t his committee in 1962 to sup~ ort the idea of continuing, comprehensice, cooperative planning in I he urban areas. In our judgment, that has worked so extremely weU we would now like to extend it into th~ rural areas, and we would lii .e in this session of the Congress and before this committee to ask you to authorize the use of the one and one-half percent funds which we a re suggesting be increased to 2 percent, and open these funds for use n rural areas on exactly the. same basis under which they were made a `ailable in urban areas with so much success to have a continuing, co nprehensive, co- operative planning process. If we have our way, Mr. Chairman, when we are finished every road in the United States will be a part of a planned system, everyone involving a Federal expenditure where we can be sure that preceding that we have this other point that we classify the road network in the United States. A classification of a road in one State doesn't mean the same thing in another State and it doesn't even mean the same thing within a State. So I am sure this committee is well aware of the tremendous problem of even taking an inventory of roads in the United States and determining what the needs are where someone may sit down with a slide rule and measure eight blocks of city streets and projects into a universe of some type. The highway classi- fication we would do in cooperation with the State. And that leads to another point, Mr. Cramer, you made in your questions. What we are after in this continuing, comprehensive, co- operative planning process is to come up with a community program that everybody is agreed on, and then we can fix responsibility for the State highway official and the Bureau of Public Roads to actually build the road after all this planning is done. Someone at the end of the line has got to have a responsibility, and we think the planning process that we are suggesting in both urban and rural areas will do just exactly that. They will have wide community acceptance and will enable the state highway department, to say this is where the road is going because this is what t.he plan indicates. Mr. Chairman, those were the main points of reference. We want to emphasize again that this is a city-county position, that we are to- gether on it. We have worked on it a considerable amount of time with the American Association of State Highway Officials and we are suggesting that these changes ought to be made this year. As a point of fact they probably ought to have been made several years ago so we can get our ducks in a row. We note from our experience that the 1962 planning requirement is only now becoming fully operative in all of the metropolitan areas. So weneed as much leadtime as we can get. We ~ow if we go with the highway classification project there ought to be cooperation with the city, county, State, and Con- PAGENO="0051" 41 gress. So we are suggesting that. We are suggesting this is the year to start phasing in with the program after 1972 with these relatively modest amendments we have suggested to this year's bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.. Mr. KLUCzYNSKI. Thank you, Mr. Hillenbrand. We greatly appreci- ate your statement. And we thank you, Mr. Healy. As has been said many times before, the work is cut out for this committee. We have got a lot of planning to do and a lot of legislation to pass, and I can assure you that the chairman of this committee will do everything pos- sible to give to the people of this country a great transportation system. You have made it possible for the next witness who came in from Indiana to testify. He is unable to be here tomorrow, and perhaps we can take a few minutes for him. Mr. HEALY. Mr. Chairman, could I elaborate on my answer to a question Mr. Clausen addressed to me? Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Oh, yes; sure. Mr. IIa~rx. And, if possible, have it inserted at that point where he asked about the position of the National League of Cities on using highway trust fund moneys for mass transit,but I would like to qualify that answer a little bit by saying that there is developing a sort of a backlash about the relatively well-funded highway program as con- tracted to financing available for mass transportation or public trans- portation; that there is a feeling that unless there is a larger, more adequate fund of Federal aid available for public transportation f a- cilities there will be a growing feeling that highway trust fund money ought to be used. Mr. CLAtTSEN. Mr. Chairman, may I respond briefly to that. No. 1, the highway trust fund was only successful because of the fact that the taxpayers are paying directly into that trust fund. So I might suggest to you that as far as the mass transit program is concerned, those people might give attention into developing a method similar to this to pay for it. Mr. CRAMER. Maybe what we need then is a separate use tax, a sepa- rate trust fund. Mr. CLAtTSEN. Yes, sir. There is no use robbing Peter who is doing a pretty good job to pay Paul who wants to depend on somebody else. Mr. HEALY. I understand that position, Mr. Clausen. I am just re- porting a feeling. Mr. CRAMER. Well I think you have been very candid and that is what concerns some of us. We know that feeling is abroad and we felt a highway user trust fund concept for financing highways which would be used was a fair way to do it. .Now because there is some money in it even though it is short of accomplishing the objectives, substantially short, so a lot of people say there is a lot of money and we better try to make it available for other transportation systems. Well my answer is maybe you ought to consider using the same concept, a subway user tax, mass transit user tax similar to the highway user tax. Mr. HEALY. We are not ta~king 5ust about subways or rail transit. We are talking about bus transit which is highway related. Mr. CRAMER. Well a bus user tax. Mr. HEALY. And what we would like to appeal to you gentlemen is to support our position that we need some separate fund or some con- PAGENO="0052" 42 tract authorization to get more for mass transportation and thereby relieve this pressure that could develop. Mr. CLAUSEN. Well, as long as it does not rob the trust fund, you draft the bill and I will introduce it. Mr. HILLENBRAND. And you will get joint support for it. We can assure you of that. (The complete statement follows:) STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF ~THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNT~S BY BERNARD F. HILLENBRAND. EXECUTIVE DmECTOR We, in the National Association of Counties, are increasingly concerned that the national preoccupation with completion of the Interstate Highway System is causing a mounting crisis and overwhelming backlog of needed improvements on our other federal-aid highways. Our Association vigorously* supported the 1956 Federal Aid Highway Act which inaugurated the Interstate system and we still are very much committed to completing the 41,000 miles of Interstate highways at the earliest practical date. We are alarmed, however, with the rising cost of the Interstate system and the prospects that it may not be completed until as late as 1980. It is not that we are less enthusiastic about Interstate construction but that we are finding we must get on with the job of improving our other road systems. With the present primary, secondary, and urban extension systems (ABC roads) frozen at an annual appropriation level of one billion dollars, we actually are putting in place fewer miles of ABC roads because of infiatioS and other factors. We have been working very closely with the National League of Cities in developing a joint transition program which we feel confident will enable us to begin a new non-Interstate program as we come to the completion date for the Interstate system. NEW HIGHWAY DESIGNATIONS We are suggesting in effect. that once the now designated 41000 miles of interstate highways are completed, that, with the exception of 5 or 10 per cent of the annual highway appropriation for upgrading, the new emphasis be placed on three new highway systems. The first would be the state Primary system. In many cases this Would be improved to expresswCy standards. The state primary system Would provide rapid movement of large volumes of traffic between, around, and through metropolitan areas. Whet~er built to expressway stand- ards or not, we envision that this system of roads would be subject to the regula- tion of parking, turning movements, pedestrian use, entrances, exits and curb use. The second system would bean ~urban major street and highway system which would provide for traffic movement between and across portions of the urban area. In effect, this system wouldconnect major traffic generating points within an urban area. A secondary purpose might be to provide direct access to abutting lands. This system also would be subject to regulations governing parking, turn- ing movement, pedestrian use, entrances, exits and curb use. The individual major streets would combine to make a system of traffic movement throughout the entire metropolitan area. In some cases major streets would be divided arterial roadways with some control of access and they could even be built to freeway or expressway standards. Collector streets which connect major arterials directly with residential and industrial areas and local streets which Serve primarily as access to abutting property would not be included in the federal-aid program. The third system would be a rural secondary or inter-county system. The rural secondary system would be composed of major secondary roads not on the Inter- state or state primary systems, and would be located outside metropolitan areas. These roads would serve the same function in rural areas as that served by major streets and highways systems in urban areas. This system would be limited in mileage and roads classified as of lesser importance would not be eligible for federal aid. PAGENO="0053" 43 HIGHWAY CHANGES In anticipation of switching to the new federal-aid systems, we would envision these changes: 1. Congress would contine to vigorously support metropolitan transportation planning through the Continuing, Comprehensive, Cooperative transportation planning process required by the 1962 highway act, (the "Three C planning process"-Continuing, Comprehensive, Cooperative). We also recommend strongly that Congress enact a parallel requirement that multi-county planning agencies outside metropolitan areas also utilize the three C process as a pre- requisite for obtaining federal funds for roads in these areas. To help defray the cost of the new planning requirement in rural areas, federal and state highway funds should be made available immediately for multi-county "Three C" planning on the same terms now available to standard metropolitan areas. Beginning July 1st, 1974, no federal funds will be allocated to support streets and highway developments in any area that does not maintain a comprehensive, continuing, cooperative transportation planning process. (We would envision that in some rural areas there would be opposition to this program. This would come primarily from the fact that until the present time there have not been adequate financial resources in these rural areas to undertake a continuing planning process. We believe the availability of federal funds through the highway program, plus a parallel effort we are urging to open up the Department of Housing and Urban Development's urban planning grant pro- grain (701 Program), would provide the necessary incentive and ability.) 2. Shift in emphasis on highway planning. Under this proposal the states w-ould be assigned responsibility for planning the state Primary systems in both urban and rural areas. The three C agencies would be made responsible for developing transportation plans in each metropolitan area and in each rural area. 3. Implementation of classification plan. The very heart of these proposals is a suggested amendment to the Federal Aid Highway Act requiring streets and highways to be functionally classified in accordance with definitions and standards developed cooperatively by the Federal Highway Administration in consultation with the states and local officials. We would suggest that a deadline of July 1st, 1971 be established for completing the classification program. Functional classification would be on a state-wide basis with the state responsible for classifying the primary system and the metropolitan 3-C planning agencies and the multi-county 3-C planning agencies responsible for classifying streets and highways within their jurisdictions subject to approval by the states. States would be expected to aid local planning agencies in this process. 4. New fund allocation formulas. Effective with the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 1972, funds allocated under the present ABC program would be distributed under a new formula recognizing the new functional classification system. Funds from the federal government would be distributed to the states earmarked for the state primary system, the urban system and the rural system. The per- centage of federal funds allocated for each of these programs from the trust fund and the allocations within each fund among thestates would be set at the national level. Distribution formulas among the states from each system fund would be developed, recognizing the various characteristics relevant to each system. States would be given leeway to transfer a small percentage of their allotment between the three systems according to their state needs. .. Rei~ersing fund allocations. We propose that beginning with the fiscal year 1973 funds allocated annually to the Interstate system should be fixed at an amount equal to the average amount of money appropriated to the Interstate sys- tem during the preceding five fiscal years. All receipts in the trust fund in excess of this fixed allocation to the Interstate system would he appropriated for the new state, urban, and rural (SUR) systems. In the present program the interstate system authorization from highway ~rnst funds are increasing as a result of increased receipts into the trust fund~ The ABC authorizations remain stable at one billion dollars per year. Extension of the projected completion date of the interstate system from 1972 to as late as 1980 because of always increasing cost estimates threatens to continue to consume trust funds resulting in further de- mv for critical projects off the interstate system. We currently have a freeze on the ABC funds. In effect, we a.re su~restin~ that after fiscal year 1973. the freezin~ should be on the Interstate system and that the annual increment of increased receints into the trust fund should he used to speed up construction on non-Interstate projects. PAGENO="0054" 44 6. Allocations within the states. Local projects to be financed by SUIt funds would be proposed by the "Three C planning" agencies in metropolitan and rural areas and local assigned priorities would be submitted to the state highway cle- partrnents. The states would then assign the urban and rural system monies to these projects from the respective system funds. Construction basically would be a state responsibility. However, the state can and should be able to delegate this responsibility where city and county highway departments are capable of administering construction projects in their jurisdictions. Summary and conclusion In effect, we are suggesting that some of the principals and concepts that have proven so successful in the development of 41,000 miles of Interstate highways now be applied at the metropolitan and rural level to develop systems of roads in these areas based upon a uniform national system of road classification. We are suggesting that the Congress determine allocation formulas to distribute the monies between the states with some leeway left to the state to allocate the funds between the three systems within a state. We also are suggesting that the only effective long range method of building highways is through the universal application of the continuing, comprehensive cooperative highway planning process on the urban, rural and statewide primary systems. We also would strongly emphasize that we proceed immediately to amend the Federal Aid Highway Act to move toward this new approach to. highway plan- ning. It has been repeatedly emphasized by planners, highway officials, and, state and local officials generally that there is a very long lead timein preparing land use plans and developing sensible highway systems based upon realistic functional highway classifications. We look forward to continuing our very close working relationship with the Na- tional League of Cities and are hopeful of being able to work with the Congress, the Administration and the state highway departments in developing an effective long range highway program that is so desperately needed. Mr. Ki~czYxsKi. Next is Mr. Paul Seitz. STATEMENT OP PAUL W. SEITZ, PRESIDENT, MAY STONE & SAND CO., PORT WAYNE, INI).; ACCOMPANIED BY GEORGE A. ZEI(}LER, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL LIMESTONE INSTITUTE Mr. SEITZ. Mr. Chairman, I have, accompanying me today Mr. George Zeigler, Chairman of the National Limestone Institutes. My name is Paul W. Seit.z. I am president of the May Stone & Sand Co of Fort Wa\ ne, md i `im `iso second ~ ice chairm'tn of the National Limestone Institute Inc `md a member of the bo'ii d of directors. Consequently, while I am speaking with a .direct personal interest, I also represent 549 limestone producers from 34 States. First, I want to compliment this eoinniittee on the vigorous w `iv ~ on ha~ e promoted the hlghw'm\ needs of oui N'mtion `While I h'i~ e not had the pleasure of meeting all members of this~ committee, we have appreciated the niess'Iges w hich the chairman of the subcom mittee the ch'nrrnan of the full committee and the rankmg member of these committees have brought us from time to time at our annual conventions. It. seems to those of us in this industry which supplies one of the essential materials for highway co~struc.t.ion that everyone in high policy posit.ions is not nearly as knowledgeable as the members of this committee on the impact of some of the~ decisions affecting highway funding that have been made in recent years. I would like to discuss some of these decisions. Before continuing though, I should like to review the background of our participation. Many of us are relatively new in this area-by this, I mean we represent some companies less than 2.5 years old. In PAGENO="0055" 45 1966, 70 percent of all crushed stone produced in the United States was limestone and 60 percent of all limestone was used as road stone or concrete aggregates. Needless, to say, the limestone industry has been sigiiificantly affected as this Nation increased its ABC funds, first to $400 million, then to $700 million, then to $825 million and then by $25 million annual increments to $1 billion. Unfortunately, many seem to assume that now that we have reached the "magic" figure of $1 billion a year, we have "arrived." I know this committee well understands that the needs of the ABC networks are continuing to grow-actually more nearly on a geometric scale than a regular annual increase. Previous testimony of our organization has repeatedly urged not just an annual increase of $25 million a year but $50 million a year, if we hope to keep pace in this vital system. While we recognize that the new studies are going to encompass this system, hopefully with a major new approach to the primary phase, we should not-yes, can- not-delay until the new approach is finalized. This aggregate industry, which grew from 300 niiilion tons in 1930 to 1.1 billion tons in 1960, expects to more than triple this figure by 1980. The median projection is 3.8 billion tons. We, in the limestone industry, are perfectly willing to do ou~ part in expanding to take care of this Nation's needs. Howevcr, I cannot overstress that as we commit millions of dollars to the purcb ase of capital equipment needed to double and triple our productive capa- bilities, we need to have assurances that cutbacks in annDunce~l pro- grams will be held to an absolute minimum. These expansions a re not only costly-which, obviously, must be passed on-but can actually put companies that have become too extended out of business. The temporary freeze of Federal funds in 1967 delayed the 41,000- mile. Interstate Expressway System a year, highway officials say. Even though most of the Federal funds were restored, highway programs can't be turned off and on like a spigot. It is easier to restore money than time.. . . Fifty-two thousand highway fatalities in 1967 and 3,650,000 injured on our highways is obviously som~thing our civilized Nationshould be concerned, with. However, let us relate this to a daily figure of 140 killed and 10,000 injured, but these statistics sometimes also seem empty unless we relate to sOmething. Imagine the public outcry if the Defense Department announced 140 servicemen were being killed and another 10,000 wounded every day in Vietnam. Add the results of all other forms of injury-producing violence that America is plagued with and yOu still have only one-tenth of the traffic accident total. Doesn't there seem to be an answer in reducing this slaughter on our highways? Yes, we are finding an answer in our travel on interstate- type freeways as they are twice as safe as the roads they have replaced. And, although they represent less than 1 percei~t of total highway mileage, these new freeways are ca.rrying over 10 percent of all traffic, and decreasing loss of lives by 5,000 per year. Highways can be built to meet increasing traffic demands and, at the same time, greatly re- duce the death and injury rate; and t.he job can be done for consider- ably less than the $10 billion that Americans waste annually in direct economic losses resulting from highway accidents. PAGENO="0056" 46 And, of course, good roads also generate economic progress. When 1,400 of the nation's leading industrialists were asked to list major factors affecting new plant locations, modern highways ranked irurn- ber one. This isn't surprising. Business today demands good roads and streets. Highways carry 75 percent. of the nation's freight, passengers, raw materials and finished products, or $12.0 billion worth of trans- portation per year. No matter what yardstick you use, the most expensive highway isn't the new freeway at all. It's the worn-out, two-lane "killer" road-boobyt.rapped by blind curves-no medians- narrow bridges-and a dozen other hazards. Alan S. Boyd, when U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Trans- portation, said those who oppose construction of urban expressways or contend that rapid transit systems offer a simple soultion to traffic problems "overlook the fact. that so long as people have freedom of choice they'll buy autos." People demand the personal mobility "allowed by cars and highways and foi~ this reason, construction of the Interstate System shouldn't. be delayed," Boyd told a Cleveland audience. As we look a.t the Secretary's record, one can't help wondering whether the Secretary has changed his mind about not delaying the highway program, has~ new advisors, or has decided that highways should not receive the emphasis given them in recent years by the Congress. Now again comes a request. for a cutback of $600 million from the projected level of Federal-aid highway obligations to have been in- curred during the calendar year 1968. So says a January 23 memo- randum to State highway departments from the U.S. Department of Transportation. At least three fundam~ntal issues are at stake. IS IT THE PREROGATIVE OF TIlE ADMINISTRATION TO ARBITRARILY DECREE THAT DEDICATED HIGHWAY TRUST FEND REVENHE BE WITHHELD? Twelve years ago, with popular support and by unanimous con- gressional action, this fund was established and taxes imposed for the specific and sole purpose of building a modern highway system. In contrast with virtually every other Federal program, it is a nondeficit and pay-as-you-go fund. It. also is solvent with more than enough anticipated revenues to underwrite previously planned outlays. IS THE ROA~DBtJTLDING PROGRAM INFLATIONARY? Highway construction costs have remained relatively stable since 1950 when compared with other cost indexes says a 1967 Department of Commerce release. In the past decade, the highway program has been remarkable growth. Despite this growth. the highway construction industry has largely escaped the gradual but sustained creep in prices and costs experienced during the same period by most other sectors of the economy. Less than one-twentieth of the government's budget is for highways. However, one out of every seven workers in the U.S. is dependent on the highway and automotive industries for his livelihood. Recently, Secretary of Transportation Alan S. Boyd, said the cut- back is justified due to increases in highway construction costs in recent months. This is a. paradoxical position for the Government to PAGENO="0057" 47 take, since the principal reasons for these increases is the extremely high wage settlements that unions extracted from hundreds of con- tractor organizations last year. Federal mediators repeatedly were asked to intervene in these negotiations-and unfailingly sat on their hands. IS A SLOWDOWN IN THE HIGHWAY PROGRAM IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC? "The gravest problem before this Nation, next to the war in Viet- nam, is the death and destruction, the shocking and senseless carnage that strikes daily on our highways," President Johnson said in 1966. "In this century, more than 11/2 million of our fellow citizens have died on our streets and highways-nearly three times as many Ameri- cans as we have lost in all our wars. V\Te are going to cut down this senseless loss of lives." The final bit of inflated irony is that the "modest but essential" $600 million in highway-user taxes apparently isn't going to be taken out of circulation at all. Shortly before announcing the reduction, Boyd told a group of State highway officials: The $600 million that would become a (Highway) Trust Fund balance would go to the General Fund, on interest, and would obviate the need for the Federal Government going to the private money market-to help satisfy the budget deficit, created largely by Vietnam. This is the same Secretary Boyd who, a few weeks earlier, said, "I think we should make our position very clear regarding the use of highway trust fund moneys for nonhighway purposes. This cannot be done-the law clearly prohibits it." One can wonder if 106 million motorists aren't getting a little fed up with being the No. 1 sitting duck in Washington's political shoot- ing gallery. Highways aren't built with "Federal aid," they are built with the billions of dollars the motorists have paid, in good faith, into the highway trust fund matched with billions of dollars collected by the State for highways, nothing else. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the committee for the privilege of appearing before you this morning to present our views. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Thank you, Mr. Seitz. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Seitz, I thank you for a very excellent statement and it certainly states my point of view. Apparently, referring to Mr. Boyd's statement, the fund cannot be used for other than highway purposes. Apparently what he meant was, it is all right to do it temporarily. Mr. SEITZ. We presume that is what he might have meant. Mr. CRAMER. From what has happened since, I presume so, too. I think you have been very helpful in highlighting what I think is not often enough discussed, and that is just exactly what highways mean in the economy of our Nation as it relates to the employment problem of our country and, incidentally, as it relates to the defei~o of the country. We might add that. I think you have made a very fine statement. Mr. KLUCZYN5IcI. Mr. Clausen. PAGENO="0058" 48 Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Seitz, you certainly stated in your comments what I have already said. I want to thank you for the statement you made. You heard what I said earlier and you are certamly in accord. I want to make this categorical statement that if we are going to lmve to establish a. list of priorities on expenditures this is the one area where we can increase funds to resolve most of the. social problems of this country. If we can give proper attention to the highway nnd road needs, we will balance out. the tax basis in most of the cases so they can handle t.he bulk of their own social and welfare problems. Mr. S~ITZ. I would like to say one thing else, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cramer mentioned about. the excise taxes on autos. If we were to pull in the tax moneys that should be going to highways of people who are paying really into a highway fund and it is not getting there, we could expand our ABC program and not have any problems out ahead of ourselves. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I want to thank you, Mr. Seitz. There are a lot of questions and a lot of comments on that wonderful statement. Mr. Zion. Mr. ZION. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a brief statement. I have a special word of welcome to a fellow Hoosier here. I want to assure you that when the first cutba.ck was announced in the alloca- tion, 11 Congressmen got together and unanimously agreed to oppose any cutback in general highway funds and we are still with you. Mr. SEITZ. Wonderful. Mr. KLUOZYNSKI. We are happy to have you here and I will assure you that the committee will study your statement. We stand recessed. (`Whereupon, at 12 :20, p.m., the subcommittee recessed to recon- vene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, February 21,1968.) (The following was furnished for insertion:) STATEMENT OF NATIONAL JoINT HEAVY AND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE ON THE ABC HIGHWAY SYSTEM Gentlemen, the National Joint Heavy and Highway Construction Committee is vitally interested in those matters which affect the members of these six Inter- national Unions on highway construction throughout the United States. These six International Unions are the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Laborers' Inter- national Union of North America, the Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International Association of the United States and Canada, the Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers' International Union of America and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, who have a total membership of 3.8 million of which hundreds of thousands are employed and dependent on highway construction for their livelihood. We are pleased with this opportunity to express their views on this nation's primary and secondary highway systems and their urban extensions known as the ABC System. . - THE IMPORT OF THE ABC PROGRAM Since 1916, the Federal Government has had a Highway Program; the main thrust has been towards a highway of an interstate nature. With the passage of the 1956 Highway Act, this country embarked on the largest public works project known to man, the National System of Interstate Defense Roads. How- ever, recognizing that at the completion of the Interstate System, these roads will carry only 25% of the nation's traffic. Congress, for the past decade, has progressively increased the annual author- ized level of Federal Aid Highway Funds to this primary and secondary urban PAGENO="0059" 49 road system. For the years 1966 to 1909, $1 billion annually will be available to the ABC Program. We are pleased with the concern of Congress for the ABC System and espe- cially for the most recent attention paid to the urban roads. These roads are necessary to au~jr integrated system of inter and intrastate highways. We also concur with the recommendations of Secretary of Transportation, Alan S. Boyd, that more attention should be paid by all interested parties in developing an urban road system that is compatible with the social and economic needs of our urban areas. By 1990, more than 200 million people will he living in this country's urban areas; this is more than the total population of these fifty states. TIlE ABC SYSTEMS IMPACT ON EMPLOYMENT Recognizing our responsiblities as representatives of organized labor, we would like to emphasize the iniportance of the ABC System as it is related to employment. There will be, through the partnership of the Federal and 50 States' Govern- ments, in funding for the years 1906 through 1969, a total of $2 billion annually for the ABC System. Using the 1966 report of the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics on labor requirements for construction of Federal Aid High- ways, this $2 billion will generate, annually, employment for 230thousand people in manufacturing, transportation, trade, mining and other related industries. Of these 230 thousand potential jobs, over 40% will be available to construction workers. Considering the recommendations of Secretary Boyd, of the nation's needs for greater attention towards the citizens of our urban areas, let us consider the needs for greater employment opportunities in the urban areas. In 1967, one-third of all unemployed workers lived in this nation's fifteen larger cities. The unemployment rate in our cities is generally greater than the national average especially among minority groups in unskilled workers. In- creased highway construction in the metropolitan areas in this country will provide employment opportunities for this segment of our population, now one of the main concerns of this country's "War on Poverty." The highway con- struction industry can train these people and upgrade them in the mainstream of this country's economy. DAvIS-BACON COVERAGE FOR THE ABC SYSTEM During the Eisenhower Administration, Congress wisely included a provision in Section 115, Title 1 of the 1956 Highway Act requiring the Secretary of Labor to determine the prevailing wage rates on similar construction in the locality of proposed interstate projects. This provided highway construction workers with the protection of the Davis-Bacon Act and lent to the industries in general, the stability afforded by predetermined prevailing wages. Prior to the late 1940's, only construction contracts that were let by the so- called "procurement agencies" (Corps of Engineers, G.S.A., Bureau of Reclama- tion and the U.S. Air Force) came under the purview of the Davis-Bacon Act. This afforded workers with the necessary protection that large expenditures of their taxes, on federal construction projects, would not serve to destroy wage rates which were established and prevailing in their areas. The Administrations of Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and John- son have all endorsed the principle of federal and local participation in the financing of construction projects that are held to be necessary to the needs of this country. With the innovation of Federal assistance programs whereby the Federal Government, through its various agencies, together with state munic- ipalities or other local governmemital authorities, share the cost of construe- ti()n projects under the `National Housing Act of 1949," the "Federal Airport Act," the "College Housing Act of 1950," the "Area Redevelopment Act," and the "Education Assistance Act of 1963." If there is any single, common denominator among these programs, it is that the Secretary of Labor sets forth the prevailing wage rates for all construction workers employed on these projects. This is true whether the Federal Govern- ment is paying 90% of the project, as in the Interstate Highway Program, or in the cases of some projects of the Federal Housing Administration, where no federal funds are expended but the Federal Government acts as the guarantor of the loan. PAGENO="0060" 50 We feel that an annual federal disbursement of $1 billion for this ABC has such an impact on the highway industry that the workers on these projects are entitled to the protection of the Davis-Bacon Act. Certainly it was the intent of Congress with the passage of the Davis-Bacon Act to protect workers on all construction projects in which the Federal Government is involved whether it be by direct contract or those federal assistance programs with a predeter- mined prevailing wage rate. Therefore, we feel Congress should, at this time, act to place the workers employed on these ABC Highways under the protection of the Davis-Bacon Act. SAFETY AND THE ABC SYSTEM As representatives of organized labor, we feel we have a social responsibility, both to our members and to the general citizenry, to insist that any highway program must attempt to halt the alarming fatality rate on our nation's high- ways. Every single day over 10,000 Americans are injured on our highways and every week more than 1,000 are killed; the monthly economic loss is well over ~800 million. Congress is again to be commended for their most recent attempts in passing the Federal Highway Safety Act to reduce this shocking waste of human lives. We know that your Committee will continue to consciously Search for answ-ers to our nation's most disgraceful malady. Again, we are appreciative of the opportunity to address your important Com- mittee and trust that you will give our views and suggestions careful consideration. PAGENO="0061" FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT-19$8 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1958 H0HSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBcOMMITrnE ON ROADS OF THE COMMIr2EE ON Puni~ic WORKS, Wa~shington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn Build- ing, Hon. John C. Kluczynski, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. The subcommittee will come to order. We will resume hearings this morning on the ABC highway pro- gram. And our first witness is Mr. Ross G. Stapp, American Associa- tion of State Highway Officials, chief administrative officer, Wyoming Highway Department, Cheyenne, Wyo. He is accompanied by Alfred E. Johnson, executive secretary. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF ROSS G. STAPP, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, WYOMING HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, CHEYENNE, WYO., FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OP STATE HIGHWAY OFFICIALS; ACCOMPANIED BY ALFRED E. JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AASHO Mr. STAFF. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee: I am Ross G. Stapp, chief administrative officer of the Wyoming State Highway Department, and am the first vice president of the American Association of State Highway Officials. I am appearing for our president, Mr. John 0. Morton, commis- sioner of highways for the State of New Hampshire, and president of AASHO, who was in Washington yesterday to testify in con- gressional hearings, but had to return to New Hampshire last night on important business. We appreciate the privilege of appearing before you and expressing our views on the matter of authorization legislation for the ABC Federal-aid highway program. Of course, our views might be summed up in a statement that such legislation is absolutely essential this year, for it is a prerequisite for making the 1970 fiscal year ABC apportionments to the several State highway departments. Along with this is the necessity of approving the 1968 interstate cost estimate, so that the interstate 1970 fiscal year apportionments can also be made. (51) PAGENO="0062" 52 Inasmuch as both sets of apportionments are generally made at the same time, it becomes necessary that Congress take action on both of these matters between now and apportionment time. We, therefore, register our interest in the matter and hope that no unnecessary complications may be encountered, so that the appor- tionments can be made about the usual time, sometime late this summer or early fall. As you know, we started on the interstate program with a sizable backlog of ABC system needs, which have been held in abeyance, and we have added to those needs from that time until now, and will continue to do so. Most of our financial capabilities have been going towards the construction of the very important 41,000-mile interstate system. In 1956, the top priority highway needs of this Nation was a net- work of freeways, inasmuch as our major traffic streams were get- ting so dense that the conventional dual-purpose primary highway could not longer satisfy the long distance and the local needs ef- ficiently and safely. We, therefore, allotted the major portion of our Federal-aid funds to the number one priority need, so that the Nation's economy could expand and so that national defense could be enhanced by having this system of interstate freeways across the Nation. We, of the State highway departments, have been looking forward to the day that the 41,000-mile interstate program is completed, so that we can then turn our financial resOurces to modernizing our vast primary highway system that serves the whole country, and in takiug care of our growing urban highway transportation requirements. `We also must continue an adequate land service farm-to-market program, for it is also essential to our ecomonic health. To us, then, as soon as we can possibly complete our 41,000-mile in- terstate program, our top priority consists of modernizing the primary system, satisfying our growing urban requirements, and continuing an ade4ua.te secondary program. At the present time, we see no substantial increases in highway revenues, so it appears that we will have to finish the interstate pro- gram before we can start out on this big backlog of growing highway needs on our ABC systems. This will be brought out thoroughly, and with supportmg data, when the AASHO presents to this committee in the very near future its recommendations regarding an after "75" continuing Federal-aid highway program. The State highway administrators are unanimous in their hopes that we can finish the 41,000-mile interstate network and not add to that mileage, either now or later, for to do so will continue to put off the day when we can turn our financial resources to modernizing our primary system, which includes the replacement of a number of sub- standard bridges, and address our attention to taking care of urban problems. In upgrading the primary system, those qualifying will be to freeway standards. Others will be expressway or vastly improved two-lane facilities. As soon as the 41,000-mile system is completed, and any substandard sections in it corrected, we would like to drop the 90-10 matching ratio, PAGENO="0063" 53 and have a uniform matching ratio for all Federal-aid system pro- grams, based on the capabilities of the composite State highway de- partment to match the Federal funds, but with the sliding scale pro- visions continuing for the public land States. One of the greatest reasons for the success of the Federal-aid high- way program in the United States has been the ability of the State highway departments to plan their programs, provide necessary match- ing funds, and to make necessary commitments to involved property owners and public officials at the various levels of government on the basis of the congressional authorizations. In other words, we refer to the "contractual obligation" feature of the Federal-aid program that became part of it in 1922. From that time on, we have been able to use the authorization as a basis for our plan- ning. Without "contractual obligation," the program would have faltered. In the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, the so-called Byrd amendment prohibited expenditures in excess of the capability of the trust fund to finance. In 1959, a point was reached in our highway program where ex- penditures under the original schedule of authorizations exceeded the trust fund receipts, so a rescheduling of authorizations and a revision of the trust fund receipts had to be undertaken by Congress. Inasmuch as the balance between expenditures and the~trust fund capabilities was a rather sensitive one, it brought into being a process developed by the Bureau of the Budget and the Bureau of Public Roads, called reimbursement planning or contract control operation. This involved a quarterly control over program obligations, so that reimbursements to the highway departments from the trust fund would never exceed the capabilities of that fund. This operation, for the first time, brought into being in the highway program a quarterly control procedure. Since that time, there has been an increasing amount of complexity in administering the program, and within recent years a certain amount of uncertainty has become a part of the process. At least the highway departments have been kept guessing to a certain degree as to when fiscal year apportionments will be made, when quarterly allotments will be announced, and in what amounts, and to say the least, the program has been kept off balance. The so-called cutbacks of 1966, and the present one, have added to this uncertainty. It takes at least 4 years to develop a project before it can go to contract. During that time, a great deal of planning and engineering work must take place and commitments must be made to the affected parties and agencies. The highway program is so big, and a State highway department is such a complex organization, that letting dates and the projects involved in those lettings must be scheduled months in advance. The uncertainty and the off-balance features that we have mentioned can cause many problems in necessary rescheduling caused by slowdowns in the program that are not in conformity to congressional authori- zations. PAGENO="0064" 54 Please understand that the State highway departments are not tak- ing the position that the. highway program should be placed above the national interest, or that it should be subject to no control what- soever, but we are of the opinion that the authorizations estabhshed by the Congress, and the ability of the trust fund to support the pro- gram, should be the controlling features in the way that the program is advanced and carried out. Each year there seems to be a certain amount of suspense and uncer- tainty a to the exact time that the fiscal year apportionments will be made. We believe that much of this suspense can be relieved. Inasmuch as the ABC apportionments~ are given first priority in the apportioning procedure, and they and the interstate are made at the same time, we think that while you are considering ABC authorization legislation this year, it would be in order for us to suggest the follow- ing changes with regard to title 23, United States Code, highways. This language will tie down the apportioning dates and would dis- courage cutbacks. Section 104, the first paragraph of subsection (b), shall be revised toread: Between September 15th and September 30th next preceding the commence- ment of each fiscal year, the Secretary, after making the deduction authorized by subsection (a) of this section shall apportion the remainder of the sums author- ized for expenditures on the Federal-aid sy~tems, including the Interstate System, for that fiscal year among the several States, and it shall be officially announced by a notification to the State highways departments and the appor- tionment shall be made in the following manner. I would like to stress, Mr. Chairman, the last part of that sentence, where it says, "and it shall be officially announced by a notification to the State highway departments and the apportionment shall be made in the following manner." At the present time this information is given to the news media, and the highway departments read it in the newspaper and usually do not receive official notification for 2 to 3 days, and sometimes longer, after that; 3 days or longer. The following sentence in section 104(b) (5) shall be deleted: Each apportionment herein authorized for the fiscal years 1000 through 1011 inclusive shall be made on ~a date as far in advance of the beginning of the fiscal year for which authorized as practicable, but in no case more than eighteen months prior to the beginning of the fiscal year for which authorized. Section 104(e) shall be revised to read: Between September 15th and September 30th preceding the commencement of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall certify to each of the State highway depart- ments the sums for which he has apportioned hereinunder for each State for each fiscal year, and also the sums which he has deducted for administration and re- search pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, and the funds so apportioned to the States shall be available for obligation for the payment of the pro rata share of the Federal Government for reimbursement of projects approved under such authority and such procedure shall constitute a constractual obligation on the part of the United States, and the rate of obligation shall be at the election of the State highway departments except for such procedures as the Secretary may promulgate to protect the integrity of the highway trust fund as established by section 200 of the Highway Revenue Act of 1956. This would take out the uncertainty of contractual obligation and the money being obligated to the States, released to them for expendi- PAGENO="0065" 55 tures. It would beef up the contractual obligations so that each State could depend on that, and they would take away the uncertainty and allow the States to proceed on a uniform highway program. Section 104 is amended by adding the following new subsection: (f) No part of any sums authorized to be appropriated for expenditure upon any Federal-aid system which has been apportioned pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be impounded or withheld from obligation, for purposes and projects as provided in this title, by any officer or employee of any department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive branch of the Federal government, except such specific sums as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, as being necessary to be withheld from obligation for specific periods of time to assure that sufficient amounts will be available in the highway trust fund to defray the expenditures which will be required to be made from such fund. We would like to call attention, Mr. Chairman, of the committee to the fact that the cutbacks, as they have been made, have left no warn- ing to the highway departments, and by mixing the fiscal year versus calendar year, it has caused an undue hardship to many States, and it has especially in my State of Wyoming, and that is somewhat dear to~ my heart at the present time. So we think that we should, if there is to be a cutback, it should be by congressional action, and some advance notice, so that we can prepare for it. While we have no particular pride in authorship, or the language used, we believe something along this line might be considered by your committee. We realize that legislation to accomplish similar purposes has al- ready been introduced. Anything that would do the job is acceptable to us. It is our experience that a cutback in the highway program in most or all of the States has such an adverse impact on the local economy, and on the contracting industry, that it makes the overall beneficial effects of such cutbacks questionable, especially when one views the magnitude of our vast and growing highway needs that are getting ahead of our efforts. We feel that any time that the national interest should dictate a re- duction in the highway program, that it should be carefully thought out and should probably be accomplished by a reduction in congres- sional authorizations, and made known in sufficient time that all those affected by it can adjust without experiencing a psychological shock. At the time that AASHO comes to you, in the near future with its After 75 program recommendations, we will be supporting that pro- gram with results of a nationwide research survey, entitled "Public Preference for Future Individual Transportation." This research effort, which is unique in its field, used twice the num- ber of interviews generally used by the Gallup, Harris, or similar pub- lie opinion polls. The project was carried on through the Highway Research Board, and the results definitely bear out the fact that the highway pro- gram, and the use of the automobile, continues to be a very popular thing with the public, a situation which will grow. Your committee can plan the continuation of the highway program and its future with complete assurance that the public supports you. We initiated this research project at a time when we heard a great deal about developing a national transportation policy, system, and 96-030-68-----5 PAGENO="0066" 56 program, based on the "cost effectiveness" or the "investment return concept." We also heard comments that people do not want highways, but that they were literally forced on them because it was the only major tranSpOrtat1Ofl program that was financed. WTe were of the opinion that some other factors must be cranked into any cost-effectiveness analysis than the dollar sign, in determin- ing the importance of any particular mode in a tranSl)ortation system. In case of highways, those factors were personal convenience, flex- ibility, and popularity of the automobile. We feel that we now have definite scientific data to support our rec- ommendations, that had been assumed previously, and that our as- sumptions are now proven correct. Our After 75 program recommendation will consist mainly of an enlarged and modernized ABC type of program. We see little need, except in a few areas, for any extensive addi- tional urban freeways, but we do see the need for a Federal-aid system in our metropolitan urban areas which will make use of all traffic en- gineering, highway design techniques, and new innovations in design and operation which will increase traffic flexibility, capacity, and safety on that segment. of the total street mileage in such metropolitan areas that connect the traffic-generating areas, freeway interchanges, transportation terminals, and eventually feed into the residential street patterns. We also nmst modernize some 200,000 miles of 30- to 40-vear-ohi primary highways and, of course, the thousands of old bridges involved. We have mentioned these things because your hearings today are pri- manly on the ABC program. These are the roads that connect America. They are the ones that haul people and goods to all of the towns and cities. They are the ones where the greatest needs exist, and we must turn our attention to them as soon as we can complete the present inter- state program. Thank you. Mr. Ki~czvxsni. Thank von. Mr. Stap~~ for the splendid stateme1~t. Mr. Chairmau~ are there airy questions or comments? Mr. F~urox. Yes. I would like to congratulate Mr. Stapp for his c~cc1l~nt ci ~ei en~ oid coral ~tal `~e tiic ~i ie ic ii ~croc mo i ~t ~e iahi Otit~im~s fom the i couti l)iT~ on tI it tiC h ~e i ~ to ti I e~i g of tie p o~e'trv~n o~ this ~ ci ia' v M S `ipp could ~ o i tell me if q 1 O iiilli~i no ~i oi mo ie~ tu it has been apportioned to the States for calendar year 1968, in your judgment. can that much money be put under contract? Mr. STAPP. les. Sn'. Mr. I~lJ~0N. Could you tell me how much money-I think last year ~1 4 billion ii op~ om moi ed to the St mte~-conid ~ ou teil me ho~ mm n of that mon cv was put unde.r conti'act in that calendar year? Mi Srm ~I John on ith ces u e lie Jiinl it is ~ppio~miu~e'm S4.1 billion. but lie is not al)SOlutely sure on that figure. PAGENO="0067" 57 Mr. JOHNSON. $4.1 billion; I believe that is correct, that was obli- gated in the 1967 calendar year. Mr. FALLON. So that there was a balance in the money that was apportioned last year of $400 million? Mr. STAPP. Approximately. Mr. JohNsoN. Something like that; yes. There is always a lag in the amount that is apportioned, and that which goes under obligation. Mr. FALLON. So if the States could put under contract the total amount apportioned for calendar 1969, it would be exactly the same as the amount that was put under contract in 1967; is that right? Mr. JoI~NsoN. Mr. Chairman, actually, you remember the amount that we were able to obligate last year was interrupted by a cutback of November 1966. So we did have a slowdown on the program. The highway departments were able, we think, to have obligated the entire amount that became available, to them this calendar year. Mr. FALLON. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Stapp. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Harsha. Mr. Il-IAH5HA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. STAPP, you recommend that no additional mileage he added to the Interstate System, either now or later. And then in your report that is in the hearing before this committee, containing the prelimi- nary report of AASHO on Federal-aid to highways needs after 1972, this was apparently conducted in June of last year, on page 14 of that report, the testimony of the AASI-iO witness at that time said that one of the recommendations they would make was as follows: Third, provide for upgrading and for meritorious and justifiable limited ex- tensIons of the Interstate System so it can perform the function assigned to it by the Congress in 195(1. And then on page 16, where the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Kiuczynski, questioned Mr. Johnson, Mr. Johnson indicat ccl that at least. 5 or 6 thousand additional miles were needed in the interstate System. Now, has AASI-T() changed its position? Mr. STArr. Yes, sir. It has reconsiclerecL and it is the unamnmus dc- CiSion of the chjef administrators that. theme he no addition at the p~ese~it time or in the future to the Interstate System. That. has been reconsidered, Mr. F[arsha. Mr. i-L~nsin~. Weil now, also I will ask you, on page 2 of your state- ment, you say that as soon as the Interstate System is completed and any corrections made in the substanclaid sections of it, you want. to cli 01) the ~`O-1') n 1~Ch1PQ 1 ]O `iid 1i'~ e q ~ii ifoi in pi~i+clu ig 1 ~it'o foi T ic ii nd ~ ~ein p ooi lm"~ 1) \ on b'tl ~ ~iv~ ieconnnenci ons at this time as to what ratio that will he Mr. SrAT'r. That will be. brought out, Mr. Harsha, after the 1975 committee renort. I am not acquainted with that. There have been several ratios recommended. I have one of my own, but I should not mention that because that affects Wyoming. That will he submitted later. Mr. I-L\rmsrL~. All might. Well non, I am eemtaii~lv happy to see that you have at least en- clorsed in pnm~ciple tile legislation that I introduced to curb this Il- n;~gl ug with the apportionment system. Certainly, as all the witnesses PAGENO="0068" 58 have indicated to date, the desired effect of the administration's claim for withholding, or reasons for the withholding, is not going to be an actual fact but is going to have, in the opinion of all the witnesses that I recall who have testified so far, it will have an adverse effect, not only the proper development and completion of the Interstate Sys- tem but also on the cost item involved and the so-called inflationary measures, because of the continual increase in the cost of production. Is that correct? Mr. STAPP. That is right. Mr. H~ulsi1A. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have a copy of a letter addressed to the Honorable George Fallon, chairman of the full committee, from Mr. Masheter, who is the director of highways for the State of Ohio, and a member of AASHO, of course; and he, in that letter, points out the effects of this cutback on Ohio and why it is so serious in regard to Ohio, and because of the previous delay and holdup in apportion- ment and then the subsequent strike that Ohio endured in the highway construction field; and then Ohio was not able to obligate its allowance or apportionment for 1967, therefore the cutback, based on the 1967 obligation in Ohio, amounts to a far greater percentage than claimed by the administration. Without objection, I would like to introduce that letter and make it a part of the record. Mr. KI~uczrxsKI. There being no objeetion; so ordered. It will be made a part of the record. (Letter referred to follows:) FEBRUARY 16, 19~R Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, (,`li.airrnan, House Public Works Connnittee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN FAriox: Instructional Memorandum 30-2-68 recently is- sued by the Department of Transportation outlines the 1968 calendar year limita- tion of Federal funds to the individual states and specifies that it is based upon 05 percent of the amount each state obligated in the 1967 calendar year. We have expressed our objection to the Department of Transportation, and are taking this opportunity to express our objection to you in your capacity as Chair- man of the House Public Works Committee. Our objection is based upon the following: 1. Ohio's highway planning and budgeting are based upon anticipated fiscal year allocations. Our State Legislature's appropriations are based upon antici- pated fiscal year federal fund allocations. If a reduction in federal highway funds is necessary, it should at least be related to a percentage of a particular fiscal year allocation. 2. Ohio did not obligate a normal amount of federal funds in 1967 calendar year because of the previous cutback of federal funds, because of a construction equipment operator's strike of six weeks during which time we did not take bids for construction contracts, and because of design delays as a result of incorpo- rating additional safety standards into projects during the last half of the year. We should be in the position of making up for lost time this year instead of being delayed to a greater degree. A 1968 limitation based upon 1967 obligations is arbitrary and inconsistent with good planning. 3. We have a total highway program which normally averages in excess of ~400 million per year and our engineering, right of way and construction budgets and manpower are geared to this anticipated production. We can't find out in the middle of the fiscal year that there is to be an immediate reduction of a por- tion of our resources without suffering loss of efficient use of manpower and funds. We don't feel it is necessary that governmental organizations should be forced to operate under these conditions. PAGENO="0069" 59 We solicit your Committee's review of this federal fund allocation procedure. We feel it is a serious matter that needs attention. Very truly yours, P. E. MASiIETER, Director. Mr. HARSHA. Thank you. That is all I have. Mr. KLnOZYNSKI. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Wright, any questions? Mr. WRIGHT. None, thank you; except to commend the gentleman on a very excellent statement. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Any questions to my left? Mr. Denney? Mr. DENNEY. Mr. Stapp, I was interested in your comment that AASHO unanimously agreed not to recommend any additions to the interstate. In the light of the testimony we heard on June 7, can you tell me approximately when AASHO members met and made this determination? Mr. STAPP. December 12 in Chicago. Mr. PENNEY. December 12 in Chicago. You recognize that there are three States in the United States that have no north-south interstate roads running through them, only east-west, and it makes a real lag in the north-south transportation and moving of commercial products because this situation exists,. and I refer specifically to my State of Nebraska. Was that ever brought up in the discussion? Mr. STArr. Yes, that was. And also, Mr. Penney, the statement I believe that I have in here, that the primary system could be brought to what could be considered interstate standards if the traffic war- ranted it under the new program. Mr. PENNEY. In other words, your thought is that the primary sys- tem would be built to specifications of interstate and would serve the same purpose; is that right? Mr. STArr. Where traffic warrants that. Mr. PENNEY. Where traffic warrants that. Mr. STAPP. Not in its entirety; no, sir. Mr. PENNEY. It would require a traffic survey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Any questions to my right? The gentleman from New York, Mr. McEwen. Mr. MCEwEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In your testimony you have referred to the "After `75' Report" of AASHO. Can you say when that is to be available? Mr. STArr. Mr. Johnson advices me in about 6 weeks. Mr. MCEWEN. About 6 weeks. I believe in answer to the question of the gentleman from Nebraska, you said that this decision of no extensions on the Interstate System both now and after 1973 or 1975, this decision was made at Chicago on December 12; is that correct? Mr. STAPP. Yes, sir. Mr. MCEWEN. May I inquire: Was there any publicity given to that decision? Has that been announced prior to today? PAGENO="0070" 60 Mr. STArr. It was advisory to the "After 75 Committee." That was for their information. Mr. MCEWEN. Do I understand that this was a unanimous decision ? Mr. STArr. To my knowledge, it was; yes, sir. I was there, and I do not recall a dissenting vote. Mr. MCEWEN. Was this a meeting of the entire AASHO organiza- tion or executive committee? Mr. STArr. Chief administrative officers of all the States, and some of us had our deputies with us. Mi M( 1 w L~ Cluck executn e officeis of `ill of oui S `tte highw `vs departments were 1j~~eseiit at that meeting; is that. correct? Mr. STAun. I think they were; yes sir. Puerto Rico was not. there, i\lr. Johnson advises me. Mr. McLwux. Referring again to the testimony before this commit- tee on June 7 of last year-the gentleman from Ohio referred to it. just a moment ago-i notice, Mr. Johnson, that you, replying to the chair- than, Mr. Kiuczynski, said: "~Ve. have not mache a survey of the State highway departments on what would be recommended." And then you said: "Yes, we have, excuse me. On the questionnaire we did have that on it, and it totaled about 5,000 or 6,000 miles." The chairman, Mr. Kluczynski, said : "5,000 or 6,000?" And Mr. Jolmson repliecl "Yes." And the chairman then expressed agreement. with the need for at least, in his words, 5,000 or more miles. Do either of you care to explain, if you will, what has happened between your testimony of .June 7 and this meeting of all of the chief executive officers of our highway departments on T)ecember 12, which is just. slightly over a 6-month period? What happened to this need for :,000 or 6,000 miles of interstate? Mr. JoHNsoN. I think it is a very normal thing, Mr. McEwen. The data that von are. referring to was gleaned from a very extensive ques- tionnaire. that was designed by the chief administrators a year in ad- vance of that. The information was filed by the highway planning survey engi- neers of the higi~way departments. In their opinion there was 5,000 to 6,000 miles that. could be used to fill in what they thought were the gaps in the Interstate System network. Now then, we began to look at the needs that. we had on the primary and urban areas, and we were of the opinion that if we kept on adding to the interstate and adding and adding, and the cost going up, and that sort. of thing, we wotilci be a long time in the future, if ever, get- ting done with the. Interstate System. Now, we are putting a billion dollars a year on the ABC program, amid as prices go up and things compound, we are getting less and less out of our billion dollars. Now~ we started into the entire State program with a large backlog of ABC needs, and they have, pretty much been heIdi in abeyance. So what we want to do is get the 41,000 miles done, whichi is certified by the Department of Defense as essential to this country. We agree with that. Then we~ want to get it. out of the way and get our financial resources into the primary and urban areas, and that sort. of thing. PAGENO="0071" 61 Now, where we would be building a road to match the traffic, these gaps to which you refer, if the traffic justified it, they would be built to full, what we know as interstate standards. Some of them would not, it would all be dependent on what the traffic is. But I think that the highway chief administrators had 6 months to reflect on this, and that was their decision in Chicago. And the 90-10 feature, we think `that that has been a source of some problem to the highway clepart-ments. We think if we had the same matching ratio for all programs, Federal-aid programs, we would be far better off, and there would be less tendence -for somebody to try to push a road off Onto a system that had a more favorable matching ratio. Mr. MCEWEN. Mr. Johnson, if I understand what you are saying, you are saying that the chief highway administrators of our 50 States cannot abandon what they had earlier indicated, and not within the last year, year and a l~alf, that they needed 5,000 additional miles of interstate, you are simply saying that you have changed your prior- ities; is that correct? Mr. JohNsoN. That is the summation; yes, sir. Mr. MGEWEN. Mr. Johnson, could you make available to this corn mit-tee the 5,000 miles that the highway administrators indicated were needed where these various highways were? I share with Mr. Denney the concern lie has in his own State of Nebraska. I think we have many areas in our States where we very desperately need interstate extensions and connections, and I wonder if you could make available to us the replies of the 50 administrators on where these needs are? Mr. JOHNSoN. I would have to go back to *the State highway de- partments and ask for it. I think that everybody was surprised that there was only 5,000 or 6,000 miles that was designated that was to be added to the Interstate System. For the highway administrators feel that if they were called up to name additions or to designate desirable additions to the Interstate System, you would probably get another 40~000 miles. And they are just a little bit cautious about giving pub- licity t.o the mileage or to the routes that they put in their planmng survey reports. Because it would immediately bring pressure on them to add more mileage to it, and we would prefer to heave it in the category it is now until we bring our After "75" Report to you. Mr. MCEwEN. May I ask if this is coming out in 6 weeks, what is this After "75" Report going to show? Is this committee going to be enlightened on any specifics of AASHO's thinking? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I think you will; yes, sir. It will show what we think the top priorities are in the highway program, what the needs are in dollars and in miles. We will show you what we think that the matching ratio should be, based on the canabilities of the States, and we have a preliminary report in my office this morning from the AASHO Finance Committee on what that will be. The 90-10 of the Interstate System program did not come out of the atmosphere; it came out of reviewing the financial capabilities of all the States, and setting a matching ratio which all the States could participate in. PAGENO="0072" 62 So it will be a very comprehensive program, far more comprehensive than the preliminary draft that you got last year. Mr. MCEwEN. Just one further question. In this meeting of Decem- ber 12, when it was unanimously agreed to abandon any extensions on the Interstate System as a recommendation of AASHO, was there any consideration given to the question of the toll roads in the various States that are now on the Interstate System and what was to be done with those? Mr. JoHNsoN. That has been discussecl~ Mr. McEwen, for many years in AASHO. It does not affect all the States uniformly. We had always taken the attitude that we would get through with the interstate pro- gram before we would take a position on it. And that the general dis- cussion was that if there were any reimbursement, it should be on the depreciated value of the toll road, and it ought to be free. But we have actually taken no official point on it. As I say, it does not affect all the States uniformly. Mr. MCCARTHY. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. MCEWEN. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from New York. Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Johnson, on this question of reimbursement, I do not know, but it does not seem to have too much momentum be- hind it, although I am for it; here is another aspect to it. Just recently, within the last week, as a matter of fact, a new high- way project has been proposed in New York State, out of my city of Buffalo, clue east, which would link up the-eventually-with the im- proved route 17 across the southern tier of New York State. Now, this would, if it is built, and I certainly hope it is and I expect it will be. would provide a direct free route from Buffalo to New York City that would be 60 miles shorter than the New York State Thruway. Now, maybe this is the answer to toll roads, I do not know. I wonder what your thinking is on this. Now, obviously, if people are provided with a vast, convenient, modern route that would be 60 miles shorter to the principal destina- tion, they are not going to use the toll road. Have you discussed this aspect, whereas these new highways are built and these new ABC highways are built, people are going to have more choices available and they are obviously going to avoid the toll roads? Have you considered this aspect of it? Mr. JoHNsoN. Mr. McCarthy, I am familiar with your Route 17 project. It goes up through a beautiful part of the country. But I would say that what we are talldng about in modernizing long sections of the primary system, that would be in competition with a toll-road project., that it will be so far off before it is a complete, usable entity, that the toll roads will pretty well be paid up by then. Mr. MCEwEN. Mr. Chairman, I might ask one more question. Mr. Johnson, you agree. I presume, with the basic law that was enacted in 1956 on a 90-10 basis, to build our interstate. Would I be correct in assuming that you would believe the 90-10 formula was PAGENO="0073" 63 necessary to build this 41,000-mile system, that without it it was a 50-50 basis, the States would not have built this? Mr. JoHNsoN. I had a great deal to do in developing that 90-10 concept, yes, sir. Mr. MCEWEN. Is it not a reasonable assumption flowing from that, and particularly in view of increasing acquisition costs on right-of- way, increasing design and construction costs, that we are going to need that 90-10 formula if we are to see any extensions of this Interstate System? Mr. JOHNSON. At the meeting in Chicago on the 12th day of Decem- ber, the highway administrators assigned 5 percent of the 1975 to 1985 fund availability to upgrading sections of the 41,000 miles, and that would continue on 90-10. Only 5 percent of the money. And after that, they say, let us do not add to the interstate, because if we do we are going to postpone the time when our money can be going into modernizing the primary system. Now, we have an awfully large number of bridges that have to be replaced on that, as you know. That is very much in the news now. But please bear in mind that we are asking in this after-1975 program that all programs have the same matching ratio. And we are talking now about two-thirds, one-third, or, I think this preliminary report goes up to the point of 25-75. Now, that is based on the capabilities of the States to do their administration, their maintenance, their State's construction, and have money for matching. So we are not getting too far away from the concept that you are talking about. It is going to be matched on the overall capabilities of the States to afford matching for a Federal-aid program, but it will be the same for everything. Mr. MCEwEN. Mr. Johnson, your final words, "it will be the same for everything," you are saying there that there is going to be no inducement for the building of additional interstate miles. Now, if we needed that inducement in the first place, the 90~40 as opposed to 50-50-I submit, sir, that we still need it if we are going to have any extensions to this Interstate System, which, in my opinion, is far from complete when the 41,000 miles are constructed; there were parts that were needed in the original system that were not put in, I assume solely for the reason that it was an ambitious program, and the chairman of the full committee has often said, the greatest public works undertaking in the history of the world. So we limited it to 41,000 miles, which is a rather large system to construct. It has been known all along by many that there were parts that should have been in there, if we could that should in future be added. I never expected to head from AA~HO that there was going to be an abandonment of 90-10 concept on the Interstate System, and par- ticularly, sir, after your testimony last summer when, in answer to the chairman's question, you said 5,000 miles were needed, and you said further here that this was a conservative figure; because your highway administrators held down the miles that they were request- ing to build up. PAGENO="0074" 64 Mr. JoHNsoN. We would intend to build the type, of road that was needed, but. it. might not be built as interstate. It would be built as a freeway primary. Mr. KLuczYxsKI. Any questions to my right? The chairman of the. committee. Mr. FALLON. If I understood your testimony here, Mr. Johnson, you are going to build to the system. to the Interstate System, but you are just. changing the name, you are just calling it primary? Mr. JoHNsoN. That may be right; yes, sir. Mr. kLrczrNsKI. The gentleman froth Iowa. Mr. ScHWENGEL. Mr. Joimson. I was not here when you began your testimony, but I have since read your testimony. We appreciate the great help you have been to this committee, as we have followed this system of Interstate System, especially all the other aspects of the road system. I recall when we were hearing testimony on the Interstate System, it was a. challenge, and there was testimony in behalf of the economic effect on the country. I have two questions: One, were we right, in the predictions on the total economic effect on the business activity of the country,. or did we, as we usually do, miss it.; we were too conservative in our estimates on the total economic effect of the Interstate System on the road system that we were con- sidering at that time? Mr. JoHNsoN. Mr. Schwengei, in 1955 and 1956, as you remember, we did introduce some of the economic benefits that. we thought would come from the interstate program. I think history has shown that those are conservative estimates of the benefit of that system. Mr. SciIwENGEL. Mr. Chairman. I think I would like to have in the record, maybe at this point, an insertion of what our predictions were at that time, if we can. My second question is: Do you have an estimate of what. the actual economic benefits are, compared with those figures that we were predicting at that time? Mr. Jouxsox. We hope that will be part of our after-I 975 program submission. Mr. SCHwENGEL. That will be a part of the report? Mr. JoHNsoN. Yes. sir. And, Mr. Schwengei, von will remember in the early part of this program, the gentlemen up here do, ~-ou know the interstate p1~o- gram originally had its genesis out of the inierregional report; do you remember it ? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. Mr. JOHNSON. There were several different systems that were pro- iosecl to do the job that the Interstate was enacted to do. I think one was the 27,000-mile system, one was the 40,000, and one was maybe a 60,000 and one was a 77,000-mile. And we arrived at the 40,000 be- cause it, at that time, could pretty well join the cities of over 50,000, the international boundary connections, arid we thought within the available fimcls that. we could see we might have been in error on that one. PAGENO="0075" 65 Mr. SCHWENGEL. Am I right in assuming, also, that whenever we cut back any part of a highway program, we are jeopardizing the growth and expansion of our economy of America? Mr. JOHNSON. I think we are at least delaying it. We are delaying the beneficial effect. And I remember onetime Chief MacDonald al- ways would say, when he was before this committee, that the indirect benefits of a road project far outweighted and exceeded the direct benefits that came from it. And I think that is still a fair statement. Mr. FALLON. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. Mr. FALLON. In speaking of economic benefits, I think it has been stated in the record a number of times that the economic benefits ratio- to-cost would be about 4 to 1, and that is a large ratio benefit to cost than any project we had ever reported out of this committee. Mr. Jol-INsoN. Mr. Chairman, I believe those are direct benefits. Mr. FALLON. That is right. Mr. SCHWENGEL. I think we ought not to lose sight here that we are hearing all this testimony, and I am interested in what it is going to do now to the economy of a State or regional community. and I am as much interested, maybe all of us should be more interested, in the long- range benefits of a highway system. This deals with something that this committee, and Congress said, before this committee was created, has always been interested in the development of the transportation system, I cail it the fifth-great freedom, freedom of movement of men and goods. Whenever you hamper that, postpone it, handicap in any way, you are interfering with the normal growth of community and the Nation. So I think we ought to have this uppermost in mind, and I hope you can continue to study it, the long-range benefits, so we can have the. benefit of those studies in your testimony. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Thank you, Mr. Schwengel. Any questions? Thank you, gentlemen. It is alwa~-s a pleasure to have the. officials of the AAST-TO people here before this committee, for giving us your I fbi led ~e, ii e ~ jfly ~pniecnte it \~L `u e be ~i ig iCi ci I ~o seeing you again. As we said yesterday, this is the year of decision. This is the year we must ~iRll for the future, highways for this great, country of ours. (The reso1ut~on follows :) REsOLUTIoN No. CS-i RESOLUTION A resolution endorsing proposed legislation recommended by the American Association of Highway Officials as Presented to the Congress of the United States of America at a hearing before the Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, 90th Congress, June 7, 1907, in order to provide the necessary guide1~nes for future highway planning, construction, and maintenance, and for tlìe supplementation of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways beyond the currently authorized program to meet the needs of the Nation. PAGENO="0076" 66 Whereas, the City Council of the City of Houston has long recognized the economic value of the highway program to the community, state, and nation; and Whereas, over a period of many years the City of Houston has actively sup- ported the Texas Highway Department in the development of the highways of this community and the state; and Whereas, the City Council of the City of Houston recognizes the need for a continuing program to augment the interstate system now nearing completion; and Whereas, the planning and development of such a supplemental system will require several years of lead time; and Whereas, the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO), after intense investigation and study, presented to the Congress, at a hearing before the Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, 90th Congress, June 7, 1967, a recommended plan for the continuation of the highway program after 1972, at which time the interstate highway program will be essentially complete; and Whereas, the dedicated highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) are the most knowledgeable people in the matter of highway needs and proper administrative handling; and Whereas, the City Council of the City of Houston recognizes the urgency for immediate action in regard to continuation of a well-planned and promptly executed highway program: Now, therefore, be it resolved, That the Congress be urged to enact at the earliest possible moment legislation recommended by the American Association of Highway Officials (AASHO) presented to the Congress at a hearing before the Committee on Publiic Works, House of Representatives, 90th Congress, June 7, 1967, in order to provide the necessary guide lines for future highway planning, construction and maintenance and for the supplementation of the national system for interstate and defense highways beyond the currently au- thorized program to meet the needs of the nation; and Be it further resolved, That copies of this Resolution be submitted to the President of the United States, to our Congressmen, to the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administrator, and to our State Highway Commission. Passed this 10th day of January, A.D. 1968. Approved this 10th day of January, A.D. 1968. (5) Louin WELCH, Mayor of tiw City of Houston. Attest: (S) M. H. WESTERMAN, City Secretary. Approved. (S) T. H. CODY, Jr., Senior Assistant City Attorney. I, M. H. Westerman, City Secretary of the City of Houston, Texas, do hereby certify that the within and foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 68-1, passed by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of said City on the 10th day of January, 1968, as the same appears in the records in my office. Witness my hand and the Seal of said City this 5th day of February, AD. 1968. M. H. WESTERMAN, City Secretary of t1i~e City ef Houston. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. The next witness will be Mr. Burton F. Miller, executive vice president of the American Road Builders Association; and Mr. Robert Holmes, president, from Pittsburgh, Pa.; and Mr. Sam P. Turnbuli, engineer director, Florida Road Builders Associa- tion, Tallahassee, Fla. We are glad to have you gentlemen with us. Will you give the reporter your names, please? PAGENO="0077" 67 STATEMENT OF BURTON F. MILLER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AIYLERICAN ROAD BUILDERS ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT S. HOLMES, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ROAD BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, PITTSBURGH, PA.; SAM P. TURNBULL, ENGINEER DIRECTOR, FLORIDA ROAD BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, TALLAHAS- SEE, FLA.; AND KARL L. ROTHERMUND, JR, EXECUTIVE DIREC- TOR, OHIO CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman Kluczynski, Chairman Fallon, distin- guished members of the committee- Mr. FALLON. Will the gentleman pause for a minute ? I am glad to see Mr. Miller here this morning, and he is certainly no stranger to the committee. The American Road Builders have been of great assistance to this committee for many years. And I also want to recall, back in 1956, the contribution of the task force in putting this highway pro- gram over, and certainly it is a big help to this committee and the Congress. And although Mr. Miller has appeared here many times as an as- sociate, today we want to welcome him, on his first appearance in his new position as executive vice president of American Road Builders. It is a pleasure to welcome you here this morning, Mr. Miller. Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very grateful for those comments. Mr. Chairman, with your pleasure, I would also like to have with us to present part of our statement, Mr. Sam P. Turnbull, of the Florida Road Builders Association, and Mr. Karl Rothermund, of the Ohio Contractors Association. I have asked these gentlemen to come in, Mr. Chairman, to present to this distinguished committee first hand the grassroots information regarding this cutback. It so happens that Ohio and Florida are two of the States, perhaps, which were hardest hit by the cutback. Another one, I think, is the good State of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, our presentation here this morning will be in three parts, with your permission. First, we would like to discuss the ABC program; second, we would like to discuss briefly with you the cutback; and then, third, mention a very serious problem that will have a pronounced affect upon the highway program, and this problem is in the area of equal employ- ment opportunity, which was mentioned briefly. Now, Mr. Chairman, with your kind permission, I would like to present the president of the American Road Builders Association, Robert S. Holmes. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Holmes, you may proceed. Mr. HOLMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Robert S. Holmes, and I am president of the American Road Builders Association, with headquarters in Washington, D.C. I would like to have your permission, Mr. Chairman, to proceed with the testimony by paraphrasing it rather than reading it in com- plete context, since you have the complete text before you. PAGENO="0078" Cs Mr. KuuczYNsKI. There being no objection, the statement of Mr. Holmes will be put in the record. (The prepared statement follows:) STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. HOLMES, PRESIDENT, A~1EitIcAN ROAD BUILDERS AssocIATIoN Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Robert S. Holmes, and I am President of the American Road Builders' Association, with head- quarters in Washington, D.C. We are a federation of businessmen and engineers representative of all seg- ments of the highway industry and highway engineering profession. Our mem- bei's include highway contractors, equipment manufacturers and distributors, producers and suppliers of highway materials, public and private engineers, high- way administrators, and educators. I wish to direct my remark-s this morning primarily to the subject of the continuation of the programs for the improvement of the Federal-aid primary and secondary systems and the urban extensiOn thereto, commonly referred to as the ABC Systems. Certain facts seem self-evident. First, there has been no increase h~ Federal-aid ABC authorizations since 1964. Second, the cost of improving the ABC highways has increased substantially since then. Third, the needs of the ABC Systems are extensive and urgent. In the light of these facts, the American Road Builders' Association is urging that the authorization level for the ABC Systems be increased to $1.5 billion for each of the fiscal years 1970 and 1971. When the distinguished Chairman of the Public Works Committee introduced the legislation which became the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, he stated the view of the Committee that the authorizations for the ABC program should be increased in annual increments until an authorization level of $1 billion was reached. This w-as reached in 1964. The legislative history shows a Congressional intent to keep the ABC program in balance with the Interstate program, in view of the fact that the ABC high- ways serve as feeders and connectors with the Interstate System. But ABC authorizaions have not beeii increased in proportion to the increase in Interstate authorizations since 1954. The lOGS Interstate Cost Estimate, recently submitted to Congress by the Department of Transportation, contains ample evidence of the increased cost of building highways. The estimate, of course, does not pertain directly to the ABC programs, but a large share of the itemized cost increases identified therein are applicable to the ABC program. This is true of the unit price increases, which added almost $1.9 billion to the estimated cost of the Interstate program between 1965 and 1968. It is true also of the price increase attributable to heavier design of roadway base. surface and shoulder areas to accommodate heavier traffic vol- umes and increased load factors, reflecting changes in design knowledge and procedures. It is true of the additional safety features and the added landscap- ing, erosion control features and additional rest areas. For it is a fact that the demand for higher standards on the Interstate System is matched by a similar demand for high quality construction on the ABC roads. The Department of Transportation's 1968 National Highway Needs Report points out that `with the rising importance of urban areas in our national life and the complexity awl high costs of solving urban transportation problems, more extensive assistance by the Federal government toward the solution of internal urban transportation problems appears warranted in the national inter- est and as a proper major focus for the Federal highway program in at least the next two decades.' Both the Department of Transportation report and the nreliminary report on hirh `ii n'~en'- suhinittcil to this Con~i ifree last i e~i hi tne \.i ~eucaa ~s~oci-i tion of ~t ~te Hi~hw~ti (1~ ~ii nd c'tte~ ti it `i gie~tli exp'indel ii b"n Fedei't' aid program will be needed in the years ahead. It is evident that the post-Interstate Federal-aid program w-ill have to be a program heavily oriented toward improvements in the ABC highways, both rural and urban. We would have a great (Teal of work to do if we only aimed to bring the ABC roads up to standards adequate for today's traffic. PAGENO="0079" 09 Translating the needs into money, we are confronted with the prospect that the Nation's capital outlay for highways should be more than doubled in the post-Interstate period. To quote once again from the 1968 Highway Needs Report of the Department of Transportation: `The average annual estimated needs for all roads and streets for 1973-85, totaling $17.4 billion, are more than double the $8.5 billion per year estimated annual accomplishments during the remainder of the current program period, 1965-72." In the view of the American Road Builders' Association, it is vital to the Nation that we make a substantial attack now on the tremendous backlog of work. An early acceleration of the ABC program also makes good economic sense be- cause the rising cost of acquiring right-of-way and the rising cost of highway con- struction will make the roads built in future years more expensive than the roads built now. An increase of $500 million in the annual level of authorizations for the ABC program would, of course, create an additional drain on the Highway Trust Fund. In view of the fact that the Trust Fund had a cash balance of approximately $521 million at the end of calendar 1967, a modest increase in the ABC authoriza- tions might be funded from existing Trust Fund balances. Or, the Congress might consider some modification of the Byrd Amendment, or additional financing pro- posals, in view of the serious requirements of the ABC systems. We see this, in short, as an interim proposal for a transitional program, lead- ing the way for a long-range program for the improvenient of the primary and secondary systems. The American Road Builders' Association believes that such a program would be in the best interest of the motoring public of the Nation. Mr. }I0LME5. You are a familiar with the composition of the Amer- ican Road Builders Association, and I do want to emphasize that we are a federation not only of businessmen but of public and private engineers, highway engineers. I wish to direct my remarks this morning primarily to the ABC systems. Certain facts seem to be evident. First, there has been no increase in Federal-aid ABC authorization since 1964. Second, the cost of improving the ABC highways has increased sub- stantially since then. Third, the needs of the ABC systems are extensive and urgent. In light of these facts, the American Road Builders Association is urging that the authorization level for the ABC systems be increased to $1.5 billion for each of the fiscal years 1970 and 1971. When the distinguished chairman of the Public Works Committee introduced the legislation which became the Federal-aid 1-lighway Act of 1956, he stated the view of the committee that the authorization for the ABC program should be increased in annual increments until an authorization level of $1 billion was reached. This was reached in 1964. The legislative history shows a congressional intent to keep the ABC progiam in b'tlance with the interstate program, in view of the f~tct that the ABC highways serve as feeders and connectors with the In- terstate System. But ABC authorizations have iiot `been increased in proportion to the increase in interstate authorizations since 1964. The 1968 interstate cost estimate, recently submitted to Congress by the Department. of Transportation, contains ample evidence of the in- ci eased cost of building highw~tys The estimate, of couise, does not peitain diiectl~ to the ABC pio gi `tms, but `t large sh'ire of the itemized cost mci eases identified there in `ue ~tpplic~ble to die ABC program This is tine of the umt puce PAGENO="0080" 70 increase, which added almost $1.9 billion to the estimated cost of the interstate program between 1965 and 1968. It is true also of the price increase attributable to heavier design of roadway base, surface and shoulder areas to accommodate heavier traffic volumes and in- creased load factors, reflecting changes in design Irnowledge and pro- cedures. It is true of the additional safety features and the added landscaping, erosion control features and additional rest areas. Gentlemen, it is a fact. that the demand for higher standards on the Interstate System is matched by a similar demand for high quality construction on the ABC roads. The Department of Transportation's 1968 National Highway Needs Report points out that, and I quote, with the rising importance of urban areas in our national life and the complex- ity and high costs of solving urban transportation problems, more extensive assistance by the Federal Government toward the solution of internal urban transportation problems appears warranted in the national interest and as a proper major focus for the Federal highway program in at least the next two decades. Both the Department of Transportation report and the preliminary report on highway needs submitted to this Committee last year by the American Association of State Highway Officials indicates that a greatly expanded urban Federal-aid program will be needed in the years ahead. I would like at this time to place in the record the resolution adopted just last week by the American R.oad Builders Association at their annual meeting in Last Vegas. I will not read the entire reso- lution. I will simply eliminate tile "whereases" and get to the "re- solved." Now therefore be it resolved by the American Road Builders Association in Convention assembled at Las Vegas, Nevada, this 14th day of February, 1968, That we hereby affirm that it shall be the policy of the American Road Builders Association to initiate, collaborate or support, as may be deemed appropriate, constructive programs aimed at bringing about a long-range improvement in urban transportation facilities, including but not limited to highway transpor- tation programs in urban areas; Provided, That under no circumstances shall funds be taken from the High- way Trust Fund to support other programs. Mr. Ki~ucz~sKr. There being no objection, the resolution will be made part of the record. (Resolution follows:) REsoLUTIoN RElATING TO URBAN TRANSPORTATION FACUlTIES ADOPTED BY THE AMIuaCYAx ROAD BUILDERS ASSOCIATION AT THEm 66TH ANNUAL Coxvmmox IN LAS VEGAS, NEv., FEBRUARY 14,1968 Whereas authorities in the field of population research predict that the popu- lation of the United States will reach 262,000,000 by 1985, and that the pre- ponderant part of the anticipated population increase will occur in the surburban sections of metropolitan areas; and Whereas this pattern of population growth wifi cause a tremendous growth in short-trip movements with multiple origins and destinations throughout the metropolitan areas; and Whereas such anticipated movements will require greatly expanded facifities for the movement of people and goods throughout the metropolitan areas; and Whereas the general comfort, convenience and safety of the people as well as the efficiency of transportation will be best served by continuing and comprehen- sive urban transportation planning processes giving due consideration to the advantages of all modes of transportation and the interrelationship of all modes; Now therefore be it resolved by the American Road Builders' Association in Convention assembled at Las Vegas, Nevada, this 14th day of February, 1968, PAGENO="0081" 71 That we do hereby affirm that it shall be the policy of the American Road Build- ers' Association to initiate, collaborate or support, as may be deemed appropriate, constructive programs aimed at bringing about a long-range improvement in ur- ban transportation facilities, including but not limited to highway transportation programs in urban areas; Provided, That under no circumstances shall funds be taken from the Highway Trust Fund to support other programs. Mr. HOLMES. It is evident that the post-interstate Federal aid pro- gram will have to be a program heavily oriented toward improve- ments in the ABC highways, both rural and urban. We would have a great deal of work to do if we only aimed to bring the ABC roads up to standards adequate for today's traffic. Translating the needs into money, we are confronted with the prospect that the Nation's capital outlay for highways should be more than doubled in the post-interstate period. To quote once again from the 1968 Highway Needs Report of the Department of Transportation: The average annual estimated needs for all roads and streets for 1973-85, totaling $17.4 billion, are more than double the $8.5 billion per year estimated annual accomplishments during the remainder of the current program period, 1965-72. In the view of the American Road Builders Association, it is vital to the Nation that we make a substantial attack now on the trernen- dous backlog of work. In addition to costs, higher operating costs and wasted time, an early acceleration of the ABC program also makes good economic sense because of the rising cost of acquiring right-of-way, and the rising cost of highway construction will make the roads built in future years more expensive than the roads built now. We recognized an increase of $500 million in annual level of author- izations for the ABC program would of course create an additional drain on the highway trust fund. In view of the fact that the trust fund had a cash balance of approximately $521 million at the end of calendar 1967, a modest increase in the ABC authorizations might be funded from existing trust fund balances. Or the Congress might consider some modification of the Byrd amendment, or additional financing proposals. We see this, in short, as an interim proposal for a transitional program, leading the way for a long-range progrt~m for the improve- ment of the primary and secondary systems. And I refer again to the statement you just heard from the rep- resentatives of AASHO, and I quote: "Our After "75" program recommendation will consist mainly of an enlarged and modernized ABC type of programs." The American Road Builders Association believes that such a program would be in the best interest of the motoring public and the Nation. This concludes my portion of the testimony, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KLtrOZYNSKI. Thank you, Mr. Holmes. You explained it thor- oughly. I see your suggestion on page 2, "Association is urging that the authorization level for the ABC systems be increased to $1.5 billion for each of the fiscal years 1970 and 1971." Mr. HOLMES. That is correct. Mr. KLtTCZYNSKI. That would increase from 1 to 1.5 billion. 96-030-68------6 PAGENO="0082" 72 Any questions to my right? Mr. FALLON. Mr. 1-lolmes, your recommendation, in the considera- tion of the ABC program, can you tell me as to the capability of in- clustry to take on this additional worklOad ? IVoulci there be a great deal of increase in price!? What effect would it have on the prices ? Mr. IHOLMES. Insofar as industry capability is concerned, we can assure you that there is the capability there, because the American Road Builders Association made a rather quick study a year ago when we were preparing testimony for the cutback hearings which were re- cessed. This was adding to the original task force reports, which we prepared in order to back up the 1956 act. We feel that we not only have the capability, but the current price structure should remain stable and only. change as the national econ- omy and the gross national product might change. It would be affected by the state of the economy at the time, and industry as well as labor increases, if they should occur. Mr. FALLON. Mr. Holmes. I read in the paper today that this com- mittee, the members of this committee, inference was that they were holding these meetings, and by associating with State highway officials and representatives of industry, we are just friends of the lobbyists. Now we, of course, up here believe that you are here to give us, the witnesses here are to give us the information which is necessary to transport. goods, services, and the people, the safest way that can be clone throughout the Nation. What is your organization, that national organization, doing to get public support for a program of this kind? Mr. HoL~iEs. We have had for some time in the association not only a public information program of our own, but. we have worked on a cooperative basis with the American Association of State 1-Iighway Officials in an annual public information workshop, prmcipafly for the benefit of the State highway departments. At our meeting in Las Vegas last week, the American Road Builders Association's board of directors approved a very much expanded pub- lie information program, which will extend nationwide in its impact and hopefully will provide favorable comment on the highway pro- gram such as the February issue of the National Geographic magazine is doing, in order to offset the adverse publicity that we seem to con- tinually be receiving. We not only have expanded this activity, and a very strong public information program to gain public support, but we also have a more cohesive, coordinated joint, effort with the American Association of State Highway Officials to expand the public information workshop. This year this workshop will be held in June. We expect to gain much from that. Mr. FALLOX. Thank you. Mr. kiuczYxsKi. Mr. Holmes, how many members do you have in the American load Builders Association? Mr. :F{OLMES. I will ask Mr. Miller for the current number. ~\1r. MILLER. 5.363. Mr. KLIJCzYX5KI. 5,300 plus. Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. Mr. KLrTCZYXSKI. Have any of your members failed in the last ~ or 6 years, small contractors, I am talking about? PAGENO="0083" 73 Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, yes, and we would like to get into that subject when my witnesses refer to the cutback. Mr. KLTJCzYNSKI. Do you have a list of those that failed, the same as Mr. Sprouse and Mr. Armstrong presented, failures of members of their organizations? Could you tell us offhand about how many have failed? Mr. MILLER. `We have no accurate figures regarding national sta- tistics on this subject. Mr. KLIJCzYNSKI. Could you get this to the committee, a list? The reason I am getting at it is, if we have more cutbacks and the failures will be the small businessman, who is mortgaged to the hilt, with money tied up in machinery, payments must be made, and if the payments are not made they are going to lose all their equipment and wind up with nothing but a few, eight or 10 big contractors who will raise the prices of our road system in this country. I would appreciate it if you had a list of failures in your organi- zation, so we can put it in the record. Mr. MILLER. I regret that no such list is available for the record. However, one of our witnesses will present some specific figures on this subject. Mr. KLIJCzYNSKI. I want to say, the members of your organization are not represented by lobbyists but are represented by high-class rep- resentatives, Mr. Holmes and Mr. Miller, who are doing a wonderful job, and they should be very happy to have representatives like you people here in `Washington, looking after their industry. Mr. FALLON. May I add something to your statement? Mr. KLUCzYNSKI. Yes, Mr. Fallon. Mr. FALLON. I might say that one experience with this highway pro- gram, and I have been with it since its inception, tile thing is that the lobbyists are the members of the Public Works Committee of the House of Representatives. Mr. KLUCzYNSKI. Mr. Harsha. Mr. HAEsITA. Mr. Holmes, you heard tile testimony of the repre- sentatives of AASHO. Are you now aware that they are now of the opinion that there should not be any additional mileage to tile Interstate System after tile 41,000-mile network is completed? `\Viiat is the position of your organization on that pomt? Mr. 1-IOLMES. At the present time we are, as I have stated in my testimony, supporting the ABC program, primarily for tile reasons that I stated. We have not identified ourselves with tile Interstate program, cle- liberately, because we have not heard the final report of the American ASsocTahon of State Highway Officials. I would say that we would still strongly endorse tile urban portions and the I~Ii1Tmar~T amid rural highway expansion, as I have outlined. I cannot really comment on whether we have approved or clisap- pTO\TCd extention of the Interstate System at this time, because actu- ally I have heard that just for the first time this morning. Mi ML~LFP Mi Cii mi `n m'm I comment on th'it Mr. KLuczYxsTdI. Mr. Miller. Mr. MILLER. Insofar as the Interstate System as a functional system is concerned, we recognize that there is a need for additional mileage- tlieie is no question about jt-in our opinion substantially in excess of the 5,000 miles that has been referred to. PAGENO="0084" 74 Mr. Chairman, the only question here is that of finance, and that of matching funds. I really do not think we are dealing in terms of miles of highway, but, rather, how is it~ to be financed ~ That is the issue. Whether it be 90-10 or some other formula. I gather from Mr. Johnson's testimony they are just using a differ- ent. identification, if you please. These extensions they are referring to in the Primary system would be of the identical same. standards. You could not tell when you left the Interstate System and proceeded on to the primary system. The only difference, as I see it, in the Pro)lem before us is that of the matching basis, whether it be 90-10 or some other new matching basis. Mr. HAR5HA. Do you have a recommendation as to the matching basis? Mr. MILLER. I would like to defer, Mr. Harsha, this answer. I do not want to hedge, but I would like to defer the answer until we get all the information; but I can see great difficulty in getting the high- type roads that we commonly refer to as Interstate System on the same matching basis with the others. And my concern would be this, Mr. Chairman, that if ample provi- sion is not made for the extension of the mileage of these expressways, they must be built-they must be built-and if proper financing can- not be found, you are forcing the States, in my opinion, in many areas to go back to toll roads. This is why the toll road movement started in the first place, because the construction of these high-type highways were beyond the finan- cial capabilities of the States within the normal purview of their financing, so they went to toll road financing. Then came the great Interstate System. Unless extreme caution is exercised, we can easily go back into another toll road movement. So I do not have a specific answer, Mr. Harsha, but we recognize the problem and have our engineers studying it day and night. Thank you. Mr. KLuCZYNSKI. Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Holmes, it is good to have your organization before us again. I have been following clOsely the questions and an- swers so far, and I have admired your attitude and your performance through the years. And to follow the testimony in the process of con- structing the Interstate System, it is noted that the increased cost was very much in line; in fact, the figures that we were shown before the increased costs were more than met with increased efficiency by your organization, and I note you refer to increased costs. Is it true or is it not that the larger percent of increased cost comes from the cost that is not attributable to the contractors, the road- builders-I am talking about the percentage of increase now? Mr. HOLMES. That is correct. We feel, as I pointed out in my testi- mony, the major increases are based on the new requirement.s for de- sign, for safety features. These are requirements being placed on the construction industry by the Department of Transportation through the Bureau of Public Roads, the landscaping, safety features, the heavier design features. This is the bulk of the increase, over 50 percent. Mr. SCmVENGEL. What extra cost of right-of-way, comparing- Mr. HOLMES. Engineering and right-of-way, roughly 15 percent. PAGENO="0085" 75 Mr. SCHWENGEL. I want to establish this point, Mr. Chairman, be- cause I respect these kinds of people, and they are very helpful. And you `answered the question on the number of contractors, and this indi- cates that it is still pretty competitive in an area, and the rules are to be laid out, and the State highway commissions are forcing you to be competitors, working in the public interest; and generally speak- ing, we, with your cooperation, the State highway commissions' co- operation, and the Bureau of Roads, have built roads very economically by comparison. Mr. HOLMES. That is right. Mr. SCHWENGEL. So I want to pay my tribute to you people who represent the important part of the free enterprise system that makes this kind of building production possible. Mr. HOLMES. Thank you. Mr. SCHWENGEL. I think it would be well if we could have a running statement on increased costs of the actual contracting cost increase compared to the increased efficiency and effectiveness in production, and as, at some point, we get this in the testimony, it would be very valuable testimony to have. Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, if I may, in the last recent cost estimate of completion of the Interstate System, submitted to the Congress, it is indicated that of the total cost, increased cost of $9 billion-plus, $9.075 billion, that $1.875 billion is related to the increase in construc- tion prices. The rest of it is accounted for, `and I will be glad to submit this for the record. It gives you in detail what this cost represents. Mr. SCHWENGEL. I would like to have it. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. We would appreciate having that in the record. (Table referred to follows:) [In millions of clollaJrsl Unit price changes: (a) Change in cost due to the increase in unit prices between the base year 1963 and the year 1966 1, 875 Added construction items: (b) Additional interchanges and grade separations, plus improvements in design of ramps and structure-~costs not included in 1965 estimate 990 (c) Additional lanes over those reported in 1965 estimate but not in- cluding the conversion from 2 to 4 lanes in item (k), an increase to meet greater traffic needs 340 (d) Heavier design of roadway base, surface, and shoulder areas to accommodate heavier traffic volumes and increased load factors, reflecting changes in design knowledge and procedures over 1965 estimate data 1, 045 (e) Extra stage of pavement structure on earlier opened sections of Interstate System to adequately accommodate design year traffic 200 (f) Added landscaping, erosion control features, roadside rest areas, and rest area facilities, not included in 1965 estimate, and not subsec. 319(b) costs 555 (g) Additional safety features on work under construction, or work remaining to be obligated-including flatter slopes, wider bridges, additional guardrail, safety posts, and light standards- not a part of 1965 estimate 845 (h) Added safety features on segments previously opened to traffic__ 685 Subtotal 4, 660 PAGENO="0086" 76 Preliminary engineering and right-of-way: (i) Increase in right-of-way costs over 1965 estimate for segments not included ft items (1) and (k) 890 (j) Increase in preliminary engineering costs over 1965 estimate, for segments not included in items (1) and (k) plus overruns in preliminary engineering and right-of-way projects previously considered fully financed for 1965 estimate purposes 385 Subtotal 1, 275 Four-lane minimum design requirement: (k) Added cost to provide a minimum of 4 lanes for previous 2-lane segments of the Interstate System, in accordance with see. 5 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1966 335 System changes: (1) System additions and significant system adjustments, including deleted system segments. total $1.345.000,000 which is offset by an allowance of S5.000.000 per mile for 83 miles included in the 1965 estimate-Increase 930 Grand total 9, 075 Mr. KLUCZYXSKI. Of course, we all know that when we first passed the Interstate Highway System we anticipated spending around $29 billion. I understand now it is 65 Percent complete, and it will cost over $52 billion. It is just as simple as A B C: if you do not build today it will cost more ncxt year. Mr. MILLER. iou are right. Mr. Chairman. The latest estimate places the cost of completion at $56.5 billion. Mr. kLITCZYNSKI. ~56 billion. Mr. MILLER. les. sir. Mr. KLLTCzYXSII. Any further questions? It has been a pleasure to have von before the committee and we appreciate the information you have given to us. I think it is going to be ver, very helpful when we get into executive session. Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like, to continue with our other testimcnv. Mr. hLuczvNSKI. We would be &ad to hear from von. Mi'. MILLER. Thank von very nI~ich. Mi KLI CZ~Si~I I ii 1 ~Oi [lie ~,° i~ie `ni fiopi Fbi lr't m~ been ue~i iect__lie hid `ii ottiei mceti ig w e ~hi~ iioiiiing-to v~eicome fellow Floridian. I hope Mr. Cramer will be here any minute. Mi ~TTJ~~ Mi Chuim'j 1 if'1 ~ o~ ~ine su I i a like to present to the Tistiiiguished ~ommittee. Mr. Sam Turnbuii, engineer- director of the Florida Road Builders Association. and former chief engineer of the. Florida State highway Department. I know of no one better qualified to discuss the subject he is about to present to the committee. Mr. Turnbull would like to report to you briefly on the impact of this cutback upon the State of Florida. Mr. KLFCZYNSRI. It is a pleasure for this committee to have you appear here. Mr. TTmNBwLL. Mr. Chairman and members of the. committee, my iiame is Sam P. Turnbull, and I am engineer-director of the Florida Road Builders Association, Inc.., with headquarters in Tallahassee, Fla. PAGENO="0087" 77 We are an association of highway contractors, equipment dealers, material suppliers, and consulting engineers. I wish to direct my remarks primarily to the effects of the Federal highway cutback on the State of Florida, since it is one of the hardest hit. From 1962 through 1966, 5 years, contract lettings with the State road department of Florida have amounted to $785 million, or an average per year of $157 million. In the yea,r 1967, contract lettings by the* State road department amounted to $116 million, an amount of $41 million below the 5-year previous average. This was primarily brought about because of failure to match $25 million in Federal firnds. With a 37-percent cutback from the funds which would normally be anticipated for 1968, leaves only $62 million rather than the antici- pated $99 million. With State matching funds for this $62 million for both ABC and interstate, and after deducting engineering, supervi- sion, R/W and other contingencies, the amount left for actual con- struction amounts to approximately $73 million. That is the Federal program. An additional $5 million for the primary program is anticipated by the State road department which totals $78 million. Adding the sec- ondary and bond programs, the total amounts will not far exceed a $100 million 1968 actual construction program for Florida. This whole cutback has had a tremendous effect on the contracting industry in Florida. The industry is operating at approximately 35- percent capacity. I might add there that when a contractor is operating at 70 per- cent lie is up in the cream, lie is at his peak, and when he gets down to 50- or 55-percent level, lie is hitting famine; and he is well below the famine stage now. Twenty-five percent layoffs are not uncommon among the contrac- tors. If relief does not come soon in the form of going back to the pat- tern of construction that prevailed from 1962 through 1966, many con- tractors, equipment dealers, and others will be forced into bankruptcy in Florida. The State road department of Florida is recommending to the Hon- orable Alan S. Boyd, Secretary of Transportation, that in their opin- ion an equitable formula would he a pro rata cutback for each State. This formula would amount to a 10.86-percent cutback of 1968 antici- Patedi funds. This would accomplish the same end result of $4.115 billion obligation limitation. Attached to this statement is a copy of their proposal. That ends my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KLUczYNsKI. Any questions to my left? Any questions to my right? I want to thank you for this fine statement. of yours. 1~nithout objection, the table attached to your statement will be made a part of the record. (Table referred to follows:) PAGENO="0088" r1,-1 H -p0 ~ ~ 2 = ~. .~ :3 07~ 3 C) ~p1~ ~ 3 3 40 ~ 00(01(71 0040 (UN) ~O) (j~~ N) 01 N) (7100 N) (U 40~ 40(0 N) 00(71 N) (0004001(0 N) N)))) (0 -.4(71 (U))) 0100 N) (U ~ 0)704000(000010) C~ CON) 00(710)00 00 (0(710000(0 C)) (0(g) ~4 40'- (U 00 N) -~ 000)010) -C C)) 0000(04001 (C)00~ ~(U (0 (410) (0 N) 0140(0(040 (U CU N)oO 00(04040 (41(U N) 40 40C. N) (0 40N) N) (U 400°C)) (U ~(U C) N) N) 0)01(710) 014001(0 N)))) (04001 N) N) 0101 N)01 (U o71- N) (U (U ()1~ 01~ (4) (0(0 N)))) (0400) CD ~(U (U ..4o0 010001 400)40(0 ~`~°~` ~ 0°$~!'~ °~0°~ ~-J 4000~0 N) 01 ~(U (U (U N) (00)40 (U N) (71 ~(U ~ N) (U 400040 N)N) 110 0N) N) 00400100 N) C4)0)°° N) 010)00000100 C-N ~ r:I)~ ~*~* ~-~- ~ c-t-,~~ CD CD~' 0 -. 00 CD - ~U ~ CD C,, ~CCD> ~ 0° 0) 00 0°> ~ -100 00 0> 0) 01= 0° 0 >0° C,) ~ 000 rn_I = 0 C- ci) m *-1 00 a 0. a =< ~ C,) >0° 0) 00 0> (U >0) 01 ~T1 - (C) C/) 0) C/) >E~. ~G) ~0z ~C1) =0° ~00 00 PAGENO="0089" 79 I would like to present Mr. Karl Rothermund. Mr. KLUOZYNSKI. Do you have a prepared statement? Mr. ROTHERM1ZIND. No, sir, I do not. Mr. KLtrczYNsKI. You may proceed. It is a pleasure to have you before this committee. Mr. ROTHERMIJND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Fallon, Mr. Harsha. The cutback in Ohio amounts to 46 percent, when you consider the amount of Federal aid approved by Congress that would be available to the State this year. We have a very unusual circumstance, as pointed out by Mr. Harsha, and as covered by Mr. Masheter in his letter, because of the cutback in funds in 1966, because of a prolonged strike of the operating engineers last year in our industry in Ohio, and because of the delay in letting the contract of Federal-aid projects because of the change in design of safety standards, Ohio's program last year dropped to $327 million. This is compared to $454 million in 1965 and $445 million in 1966. So that the cutback, taken from the $327 million program that we had last year was reduced 5 percent from that, so this leaves us with a cutback this year of 46 percent from our normal program of $450 million. Now, you ask, Mr. Kluczynski. about contractor failures, and I understand this was covered yesterday very well by Mr. Armstrong. In Ohio, in 1964, we had three highway contractors go broke. In 1965 we had two; in 1966, none; in 1967, we had eight. And this can be attributed to the cutback and to the strike that we had last year. Thank you, sir. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Rothermund, the reason I asked Mr. Miller was, I would like to have that in the record, how many failures there were from the members of your association. Any questions? Mr. Harsha of Ohio. Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome Mr. Rother- mund to the committee. He certainly played a big part in the develop- ment of the highway system in Ohio, and we are indebted to him for his leadership in that field. Mr. Rothermund, you say that the effect of the cutback in Ohio actu- ally allows for about 46 percent of what the highway program nor- mally obligated during a calendar year? Mr. ROTHERMUND. Yes, sir. Mr. ITAR5HA. Now, what effect will this cutback have on the so-called inflationary problems that we are confronted with in the highway system? What I am trying to get at is this: Will it, in effect, pull down the inflationary tendencies or, rather, to the contrary effect, encourage them and probably add impetus to them in the future? Mr. ROTHERMUND. We feel that it definitely will in the future. For instance, last year we had eight contractors go broke, and we know this year we are going to have more; and this has this immediate effect. But then when you try to catch up in the future, why, it will just make the spiraling that much faster. PAGENO="0090" so Mr. HAI~SHA. Ai~d will it not also have the effect of reducing the nunTher of miles constructed in comparison with the cost it takes to construct them now? Mr. ROTHERMUND. \ery definitely. Mr. HARSHA. Now, could you also-I understand the Secretary of Labor, in addition to directing that. certain highway colitracts are not to be awarded until such time as the Secretary of Labor makes a. find- ing about certain employment, practices of the contractors-am I ac- curate in that statement? Mr. ROTHERMUND. Yes, sir. This is under this Equal Employment Opportunity, Presidential directive, and they have issued rules and regulations that call for a preaward conference, where representative of the Labor Department would sit in on the award of the contract that, by statute, should he made by the highway direcor. Mr. }IARSHA. What is the effect of this regulation? Mr. ROTHERMUND. Well, the first job that was sold in Ohio bids were taken on yesterday; so it is now in that process, and we do not know exactly what is going to happen. Mr. HARSHA. Could you enlighten us a. little more on the problems that. you anticipate with regard to such a, directive as this? Mr. ROTHERM~UND. By taking away the awarding authority from tl1e highway director and bringing into the picture a situation that is not specifically covered in the specifications-in other words, what they plan on doing, according to the. directive from the Office of Fed- eral Contract Con~liance i.s to consult with the contractor after the bids are taken, with the low bidder, to determine whether or not he has an affirmative action program in equal employment opportunity. And then, from their consultation with the contractor and a review of his operation, they will determine whether or not he has a positive posture in equal employment. and then recommend, or not recommend, the award of the contract. We feel that this will completely disrupt the competitive bidding system under which our great highway system has been and is being built. For instance, if a contractor is exceptionally low in his bid and leaves, as we say, a lot of money on the table, he could very well not have a positive posture, on purpose, not to, in order to get out from underneath the bid. If a second bidder has a record of employing a. lot of minority groups. it could very well be that the Office of Federal Contract Com- pliance then would want to bypass the low bidder and go to the second bidder, and thereby causing an increased cost in order to have the minority group representation on the project that they want. As I say, the first job under this new procedure was sold yesterday, and we do not know exactly what is going'to happen, but we see many, many pitfalls lying ahead. Mi. H.~imsLC IVell, now, have they defined what a positive program is? Are there any guidelines? Mr. ROTHERMUND. No, sir. They say that they expect the contractor to use the same ingenuity in figuring this out that he does in figuring work on bidding a job, and building the job. Mr. HARSHA. Do you want to comment on that, Mr. Miller? Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Harsha. PAGENO="0091" 81 Yes, I would like to. As of today there is no national application of these procedures. The plan was first put into effect in California as a' pilot, then moved to Ohio, and then to Pennsylvania. Now, those are the only three States that have had any experience whatsoever imcler these new procedures. In our opinion the procedures that have been used in these pilot projects are absolutely impossible of compliance, on the 1)art of inclus- try and the State highway departments. It was published in the Fed- eiai Register the 15th, I believe, the Federal Register of February 15, on page 3000, a proposed regulation detailing this entire problem. The industry and others interested were given until March 15 to submit briefs regarding this proposed regulation. So until the regula- tion is issued and becomes nationwide in effect, it is difficult to give you an accurate portrayal of the impact of this regulation. I have, Mr. Chairman, a brief statement on this subject. I would like to include for the record, together with a resolution passed by the American Road Builders Association, at the convention last week, dealing with this subject; and I would like to submit these for the record. I do not want to prolong this discussion, but I would, Mr. Chairman, like to make the record clear. Mr. KLuczYNsKI. 1-Tearing no objection, it will be made a part of the record. (The statement, resolution, and letters follow:) STATEMENT OF AMERICAN ROAD BUILDERS ASSOCIATION We wish to express our grave concern over a proposed regulation of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance of the United States Department of Labor re- lating to equal employment opportunity. This regulation is based upon Executive Order 11246 which requires that a so-called pre-award conference be held on every Federal and Federal-aid highway construction contract of one million dollars or more. The apparent low bidder would be required to take some unspecified action relating to equal employment opportunity prior to the award of the contract. We believe the requirement of a pre-award conference would destroy the com- petitive bid system in the United States. We believe it would be an illegal usurpation of the rights of the sovereign states to award contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. We believe it would be impossible for the contractors and state highway de- partments to comply with the proposed order, regardless of how much they are in accord with the objectives of equal employment opportunity. We hope to have an opportunity at an early date to present to this Committee alternative means by which the objectives of Executive Order 11246 can best be implemented. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE FEDERAL EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PaO- G1~AM ADOPTED BY THE AMERICAN ROAD BUILDERS ASSOCIATION AT THE 66TH ANNUAL CONVENTION AT LAS VEGAS, NEv., FEBRUARY 14, 1968 Whereas the construction industry and the State, county and city highway departments employ large numbers of workers who are members of minority groups; and Whereas there is an increasing shortage of skilled labor in most of the trades involved in the construction of highways and, therefore, an increasing need for adequate apprenticeship programs and other training programs; and Whereas certain administrative procedures and requirements, both current and proposed, purported to interpret the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Program are impractical, unworkable and disruptive with respect to sound con- tractual procedures and functions and are, in fact, contrary to the intent of the law; PAGENO="0092" 82 Now, therefore be it resolved by the American Road Builders' Association in Convention assembled at Las Vegas, Nevada, this 14th day of February, 1068, That we do hereby make the following declarations with regard to equal em- ployment opportunities in the construction field: 1. That the Association considers it to be a matter of settled national policy that discrimination in employment practices is inequitable, unjust and economically unsound. 2. That the Association is already working toward, and will continue to work toward, the development of an affirmative program to insure equal em- ployment opportunity in the construction industry. 3. That the Association deplores those equal employment opportunity reg- ulations and practices including preaward procedures which interfere with the contractual relationship betw-een the contracting agency and the con- tractor, those which impose financial burdens on the contractor without provision for the identification and reimbursement of the costs, and those which impose upon the contractor unreasonable requirements with respect to locating and hiring workers who have specific scarce job skills and are members of a specific minority group. MARCH 11, 1068. Mr. EDWARD C. SYLVESTER. Jr., Dirdctar, Office of Federal Contract Compliance, U.,~. Department of Labor. Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SYLVESTER: We appreciate the opportunity of presenting written comments on your proposed order which would establish preaward compliance procedures for Federally involved construction contracts of one million dollars or more. We will also comment at this time on those parts of the proposed per- manent regulations of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance which concern pre-award procedures. We strongly urge that the low bidder on Federally-assisted highway contracts not be subjected to a compliance review between the opening of bids and the con- tract award, as you have proposed. We believe that such reviews would disrupt sound and well established com- petitive bidding procedures without significantly improving employment oppor- tunities for members of minority groups. To the extent that compliance reviews attempt to change patterns of construc- tion employment in particular areas they may be lengthy and involve demands that contractors take action which is costly and contrary to collectively bar- gained labor agreements. Such reviews could not be completed within the period of time allowed by state law for the award of highway contracts in many cases. (Thirty-four states require that such contracts be awarded within 30 days of the opening of bids and five of these require awards within 20 days.) Often the low bidder could not anticipate the costs of recruitment, training or other "affirmative action" demanded in the compliance review. Refusing to per- mit the low bidder to change his bid to reflect such additional costs would be unfair to him. Allowing such a change would be unfair to other bidders. When labor contracts control the employment of journeymen or apprentices. the individual contractor_-as low bidder or contract awardee-has little power to produce change-especially within a 30-day period. Such changes can generally be made only by agreement between the appropriate contractor association and union. While we oppose the pre-war procedure you have proposed, we do not contend that only post-award compliance procedures are workable in highway construc- tion. We are firmly convinced that a system of pre-qualification of contractors could promote equal employment opportunity without damaging our present com- petitive bidding system. Pre-qualification of contractors is an accepted part of highway contracting. Appropriate programs of affirmative action to insure against discrimination in employment could be added to present requirements for determIning eligibility to bid on Federal or Federally-assisted projects. These affirmative action programs could have reasonable variations to fit different areas or conditions and the length of the period during which bidders are considered qualified could also vary to meet changing needs. PAGENO="0093" 83 Contractors meeting such pre-qualification requirements would know exactly what their affirmative action obligations would be in advance of bidding and could develop their bids accordingly. Once bids were opened, awards could be made promptly to the low bidder whose eligibility for equal employment oppor- tunity purposes would have been previously established, Periodically, the qualification of contractors could be reviewed to determine if past performance has been satisfactory and if commitments for the future are acceptable. If a contractor's performance or commitments fall significantly below the level required, his qualification to bid for future contracts could be terminated or suspended by appropriate action. Pre-qualification would not only protect bidding and expedite contract awards, it would enable two of the most difficult problems of equal employment oppor- tunity in highway construction to be dealt with effectively. One of these problems is qualifications. The other is labor contracts. Significant increases in the employment of minority group members in the more highly skilled trades will often be possible only if special training programs are established. Such programs can usually be most productive if all of the mem- bers of a contractors association participate in them and if some Federal funding is provided. (The program of the Florida Road Contractors for turning unskilled and underprivileged laborers into skilled road equipment operators is an example of such a program. See attached notice.) The American Road Builders Association believes that the establishment of such training programs would be encouraged by the adoption of pre-qualification requirements. It believes that individual contractors would participate in such programs more fully under those circumstances than as a result of compliance reviews on a succession of low bidders. Pre-qualification procedures would also focus attention properly on any situations in which joint apprentice programs or exclusive referral arrangements are considered discriminatory. In such situations the eligibility of all contractors participating in the program and desiring Federally involved contracts would be questioned equally and simultaneously. The issue of whether an existing program or arrangement bad to be changed would thus be raised clearly and could be resolved through discussions with the union involved. Such an approach seems most consistent with the position taken by Secretary Wirtz in his recent letter to President Haggerty of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO concerning the cooperation of building trade unions with affirmative action programs. We also recognize that in addition to the above situations in which contractor action can most effectively be taken on a joint basis, there are obligations under Executive Order 11246 which each contractor can and should discharge individually. However, we submit that the discharge of such obligations can be insured as effectively in pre-qualification as in pre-award proceedings. While we oppose compliance reviews in highway construction work between the opening of bids and the award of contracts, we are not contending that such procedures may not be fair and effective in other industries which have different traditions and needs. Accordingly, we suggest that paragraph 3 of your proposed order be revised to provide that agencies may adopt a pre-qualification procedure as an alternative to the pre-award procedure outlined in paragraph 3(b). Consistent with the above suggestion, we recommend that Sections 60-1.6(d) and 60-1.29 of the "Proposed Permanent Regulations of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance on Equal Employment Opportunity Obligations of Con- tractors" be revised to specify that pre-qualification reviews are an acceptable alternative to pre-award reviews. We further suggest that the pre-award order you have proposed and some of the special pre-award procedures which might be specified under proposed Section 60-1.29(b) should be considered "rules and regulations of a general nature" to be issued by the Secretary of Labor under Paragraph 5.a of the Sec- retary's Order No. 26-65, 31 F.R. 6921. Section 60-1.2 of the Proposed Permanent Regulations also reserves to the Secretary the issuance of such general rules and regulations. We strongly believe that any order affecting a class of contractors without identifying each by name should be considered a "rule or regulation of a general nature" which should be issued by the Secretary himself. PAGENO="0094" 84 Again let me express our apppreciation for this opportunity to state our posi- tion. We would be happy to suggest specific language to carry out our recom- niendations and to discuss this matter further at your convenience. Yours truly, EUGENE W. RoBBINs, Managing Director, Contractors Division. FLORIDA ROAD BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION, Ixo. Florida Road Contractors are turning unskilled and underpriv~Iedged Iili)O1'ers into skilled road equipment operators undei~ a bootstrap operation launched ic- cently by the Florida Road Builders' Association. The unique program w-ill turn out considerable numbers of skilled workers in a very short time and at a fraction of the cost of ordinary training programs. Contractors w-ere pestered with an ever-increasing shortage of equipment op- erators for years. J. L. Cone, Jr., President of Cone Bros. Contracting Company of Tampa and Vice President of FRBA. proposed a statewide training program more than two years ago but an attempt to work it out with federal authorities was unsuccessful. Late in 1967. however. Alex Gaither. regional officer of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, revived the idea and the proposal was resubmitted. This time, the effort was successful and a contract w-as signed under which 120 men would be trained as equipment operators in the following 12 months. The longest training period for any man is only 20 weeks. with some running only 13 to 18 weeks. Maximum cost to the taxpayer is only ~136 per trainee and this is for supervisory personnel. The actual training cost is borne by each Iflhli- vidual contractor. Ed Medard, Vice President of Bay Dredging and Construction Company and Chairman of the FRBA Labor and Wage Rate Committee, said that the program is aimed at "creating an adequate supply of machine operators in Florida." `This program is designed to train disadvantaged workers who might not have any other opportunity to learn a skill." the veteran road contractor said. "It will also aid highway contractors in complying with federal non-discrimi- nation and equal opportunity laws and regulations. `It will enable the contractor to train employees at rates less thami rates paid to skilled operators on Federal Interstate road building contracts. "Heretofore, a contractor has been required to pay trainees and skilled opera- tors the same rate of pay. This has prohmbited such trainng programs in time past." Medard said. In operation. the program consists of individual contractors selecting trainees fromn their own labor force or from unemployed workers, choosing from a list recommended by tile Florida State Employment Service. Training is offered in 13 job categories, including highway construction car- penter and bridge carpenter. and operators of the following types ot equipnent back1~oes, bulldozers, cranes, derricks or (Iragilnes. heavy earthmovers, front end loaders both over and under one cubic yarn, motor gradei's. pile drivers, finish rollers, and tractors over and under SO l~orsepnwer. The contractors have been enthusiastic over tile shor1ne-~s of rile training period, which will give them early ad with a long standing shortage of qualified workers. The cost is only about one-fourth of rile average on tile job training program. 1 i'- hen ~upe i d ~ ~hc~ `~ I U Elt o~ )1~'nt1ce~- 717) tnd tI i i i T me 1 1 7~1 tm m 71111 C 101 - tte ( l eii~( b n~ em e d ~`1 I federal agencies and other states with an eye toward copying it. Tenimes-ee is reported to be about ready to install ii similar program. Mancmi 21, IPUS. Mi'. EDWARD C. SYIXESTEFi. Jr.. Director. Office of Federal Contract (o;apliaiicc. U.S. Department of Labor. tfasJiiii~jto;i. D.C. DEAR Mn. SYLVESTEI1: We anprecmate rile opportunity to file tile following corn- ments on the Proposed Permanent Regulations of the Office of Federal Ccii- tract Comniirmnce in addition to those flied iii my letter of March 11. 1905. con- PAGENO="0095" 85 cerning your proposed order on pre-award compliance procedures for construc- tion contractors. As stated in my earlier letter, the American Road Builders Association strongly objects to any requirement or use in the Federal highway program of the pre-award compliance procedures outlined in your proposed regulations and orders. We continue to believe that your objective of securing equal oppor- tunity-whicli we support-can be better accomplished in highway construction through a pre-qualification procedure. A copy of my earlier letter is attached for your reference. The ARBA's further comments on the Proposed Permanent Itegulations are offered in a cooperative but critical spirit. We fully recognize the need for in- suring non-discrimination in Federal contract employment. In our judgment, however, certain of your Proposed Permanent Regulations would place undue or impossible obligations on contractors and would not adequately safeguard contractors against arbitrary action by compliance officials. We are concerned with the scope of the contractor's obligations as indicated in the Proposed Regulations, the proposed delegations of authority to interpret those obligations and the proposed procedures for determining compliance and imposing sanctions on those considered to be in noncompliance. Our principal concerns with the contractor's obligations as outlined in the Proposed Regulations are that they do not give sufficient recognition to qualifica- tions as a proper basis for employment decisions and that they do not deal ade- quately with situations in which labor contract provisions raise compliance questions. Section 60-1.1 of the current Government Contract Employment Regulations, 41 C.E.R. Chapter 00, states that: "The purpose of the regulations in this part is to achieve the aims of Part III of Executive Order 10925 and Executive Order 11114 for the promotion an(l insuring of equal opportunity for all qualified persons . . . ." [Emphasis supplied.] Section 60-1.20(a) of the same regulations also provides that: "The purpose of compliance reviews shall be to ascertain the extent to which the Orders are being implemented by the creation of equal employment op- portunity for all qualified persons . . . in accordance with the national policy. They are not intended to interfere with the responsibilities of employers to deter- mine the competence and qualifications of employees and applicants foi~ employ- ment." [Emphasis supplied.] These statements are consistent with the provisions of Executive Orders 1092~, 11114 and 11246 and of Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 14)64. Flow- ever, the underlined references to qualifications have been omitted fro~n proposed Sections 60-1.1 and 00-1.20(a). "Unqualified" Negroes are as much entitled to protection against racial dis- crimination in employment as "qualified" Negroes, but employers are entitled to assurance that their contract obligations to take "affirmative action to ensure" nondiscrimination allow them to employ the most qualified persons available regardless of race. Similarly employers should be assured that their determina- tions of necessary qualifications will not be interfered with unless there is evidence that they are using cualifications to discriminate on racial or other improper grounds. The Federal Government has a legitimate interest in promoting the employ- ment of presently unqualified workers but this should not be made a matter ni compliance with contract obligations not to discriminate on the basms of race. Employers can effectively be encouraged and induced to hire hard core mmcm- ployed through programs such as the National Alliance of Businessmen and with financial assistance from Manpower Development and Training Act funds and procurement preferences under Defense Manpower Policy No. 4. Any attempts to compel such hiring not only are unauthorized by Executive Order 11246 and contrary to Title VII but may jeopardize the voluntary efforts that are being unci ertaken. Accordingly, we recommend that the substance of the language on qualifica- tions now contaiiied in sections 00-1.1 and 00-1.20 (a) be included in the Permna- nent Regulations. In addition we recommend that the substance of the order adoptmng 26 C.F.R. Part 30 as the standard for resolving compliance questions concerning the ap- prenticeship programs (41 C.F.R., 00-80.2) be included in the Permanent Regula- tions. Secretary \Virtz's letter to President ilaggerty of the Building and Con- PAGENO="0096" 86 struction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, dated February 2, 1968, made clear that the standards of 29 C.F.R. Part 30 would continue to be applied under Executive Order 11246 and a reference to this effect in the Permanent Regula- tions would be informative and appropriate for employers. Apprenticeship programs and hiring hail systems are common in the construc- tion industry and are generally governed by agreements negotiated between con- tractors and labor unions. If the operation of such an apprenticeship program or hiring hail is considered to raise questions of compliance with Executive Order 11246, those questions can usually only be resolved with the union's agree- ment or by litigation. Pressuring the contractor alone to change the labor agree- ment or to evade its obligations is seldom effective. Section 60-1.7 of the current regulations has not provided a satisfactory or effective procedure for dealing with such situations. It simply authorizes best efforts to secure union cooperation, permits public hearings to be held and al- lows other agencies to be notified of the compliance problem. Under the circumstances, we disagree with the proposal to incorporate the substance of Section 60-1.7 of the current regulations in Section 60-1.9 of the Permanent Regulations without significant amendment. We recommend two specific changes: 1. amend Section 60-1.9(b) to provide for unions to participate in any contract compliance proceeding when changes are considered necessary in one of their collectively bargained agreements or arrangements. 2. amend Section 60-1.9(c) to provide that full use will be made of Title VII or other procedures for resolving compliance questions involving labor agreements or arrangements before Executive Order sanctions are imposed on contractors. Two other substantive obligations imposed on contractors by the Proposed Permanent Regulations seem excessive. Each would make contractors guarantors that equal rights will not be abridged. The first is contained in Section 60-1.8 and relates to segregated facilities. This section is a restatement of the Order of the Secretary of Labor which now appears in 41 C.F.R. Chapter 60, Part 60-2. It requires contractors to "ensure that facilities provided for employees are provided in such a manner that segregation . . . cannot result." [Emphasis supplied.] In certain cases the possibility of segregation by employer custom cannot be ensured against. It is suggested that the sentence quoted be eliminated. The succeeding sentence makes clear that contractors may not tolerate segrega- tion by employee custom. This phrasing would at least give contractors a chance to correct such segregation when it comes to their attention. Even more extreme is the obligation Section 60-1.32 of the Proposed Perman- ent Regulations would place on contractors to protect individuals from intimida- tion or interference. This obligation is literally to take "all necessary steps to ensure that no person intimidates . . . (etc) any individual for the purpose of interfering with . . . any . . . activity related to the administration of . . . any Federal, state or local laws requiring equal employment opportunity." [Empha- sis supplied.] Intimidation should be discouraged vigorously but this proposal tries to make super policemen out of contractors. They are expected to take whatever steps are regarded as necessary to prevent any person (even if not an employee or applicant) from threatening any other individual (again regardless of whether or not there is an employment relationship) for the purpose of inter- fering with any equal employment opportunity proceeding-even one which does not directly involve the contractor. It is suggested that Section 00-1.32 be limited to requiring contractors to take reasonable steps to avoid intimidation of employees and applicants on company property or work sites, to take appropriate action to discipline com- pany employees who intimidate or try to intimidate individuals in matters involving the company and to give advance notice that such disciplinary action will be imposed. In addition to the above-mentioned substantive matters, there are a number of procedural items in the Proposed Permanent Regulations on which we wish to comment. 1. Section 401 of Executive Order 11246 does not authorize the Secretary of Labor to delegate the power to issue "rules and regulations of a general nature." Proposed Section 60-1.3(t) appears to contemplate such a delegation, however, PAGENO="0097" 87 by providing that rules, regulations and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor shall include those of his "designee." Such a designation seems incon- sistent with Section 401 of the Executive Order. Accordingly, it is recommended that Section 60-1.3(t) as proposed be omitted from the Permanent Regulations. For the same reasons we recommend that any ruling or interruption of a gen- eral nature of Executive Order 11246 or of the Permanent Regulations be made by the Secretary of Labor and not by a designee of his. We recommend that proposed Section 60-1.44 be revised on this basis. 2. The clause to be inserted in Federally-assisted construction contracts has been carried over into Section 60-1.4(b) from Section 60-1.3(b) of the current regulations. However, the current regulations antedated Section 602 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which established a statutory procedure to be followed in connection with any withholding of Federal assistance. Section 303(c) of Executive Order 11246 recognized and provided for necessary changes in the Executive Order procedures to accommodate Section 602. We recommend that the final sentence of the language to be inserted in Federally assisted construe- tion contracts be revised as follows: "In addition the applicant agrees that if it fails or refuses to comply with these undertakings, the administering agency may, in conformity with Fiection 602 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and the regulations of the admi~iistertng agency or department issued thereunder) can- cel (etc.)." [Suggested language italicized.] 3. Section 60-1.6(c) as proposed does not provide for publication of agency regulations for the administration of Executive Order 11246 and the Permanent Regulations of OFCC. It is suggested that this section be revised to provide for publication and for an opportunity for public comment in advance of the ef- fective date of such regulations. 4. Section 60-1.26(b) (ii) provides for hearings when the director of OFOC proposes to declare a contractor ineligible for further contracts under Section 209 of Executive Order 11246. At times OFCO and its predecessor have directed that contracts be denied or delayed on the authority of Section 205 or 211 or their predecessor sections. As indicated in Crown Zellerbach Corp. v. Wirtz (D.D.C. 1968) Civ. No. 3150-67, such denials are indistinguishable forms of "blacklisting" from that provided for in Section 209(a) (6) of the Executive Order and should involve the same right to a hearing before the sanction is made final. Consequently, Section 60-1.26(b) 2 (ii) should be amended by omit- ting the reference to Section 209. 5. The provision for designation of a hearing officer in Section 60-1.26(b) (1) does not establish any minimum qualifications for service in that position. We suggest that that Secton be amended to provide that the hearing officer selected shall be one who is qualified under Section 11 of the Administrative Procedure Act. 6. Section 60-1.28 would authorize the Director to issue a notice requiring a contractor to show cause why enforcement or other action should not be insti- tuted against him within 30 days. While the proposed section says that the Director shall have reasonable cause to believe the contractor is in noncompli- ance before he issues such an order, it does not require him to set forth the basis for his belief in his show cause notice to the contractor. We submit that such a requirement should certainly be added to the proposed section. 7. The Proposed Permanent Regulations contain many significant grants of authority to the Director of OFCC; the power to withdraw exemptions (60- 1.5(d)), the power to approve agency regulations (60-1.6(c)), the power to require additional information of bidders (60-1.7(b) (2)), the power to assume jurisdiction of matters before agencies and to impose sanctions (60-1.25), the power to review agency determinations (60-1.26(b) (2) (iv), the power to issue show cause notices (60-1.28), the power to require pre-award procedures in specific cases (60-1.29). In our judgment these powers should not be re- delegated. Therefore, we urge that Section 60-1.46 be omitted from the Per- manent Regulations. We will appreciate your consideration of these comments and hope that they will assist you in developing fair and effective Permanent Regulations. Sincerely, EUGENE W. ROBBINS, Managing Director, Contractors Division. 96-030 O-68----7 PAGENO="0098" 88 Onio CONTRACTORS AssociATioN, Columbus, Ohio, March 18, 1968. Re objections to proposed Office of Federal Contract Compliance Regulations under Executive Order 11246-request to substitute a pre-qualification plan. OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. (Attention: Edward Sylvester, Director.) GENTLEMEN: The Ohio Contractors Association has worked with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance and its representatives in the implementation of the "Cleveland Plan" as it affects our members engaged in highway construction in northeast Ohio. A letter to Honorable Willard J. Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, dated December 19, 1967 (attached as Exhibit 1), outlined some of the problems we expected with respect to the "Cleveland PLan" as it would apply to highway construction. As a result, a preconstruction conference procedure was substituted for a pre-award conference procedure. Not enough time has elapsed as of this date to determine what effect, constructive or detrimental, the revised "Cleveland Plan" will have on highway construction since the first letting which incorpor- ated the revised plan was held on February 20, 1968. A résumé of what has tran- spired to date is attached (Exhibit 2). By re-instituting pre-award conference procedures (Proposed Regs. Sec. 60-1.6(d)), the fruitful negotiations and agreements reached during 1967 would be nullified without giving the present program an opportunity to be tested. Pre-award conferences are, in our opinion, unworkable. The cost to the State of Ohio and the Federal Government, under the "Cleveland Plan", through de- lays in contract lettings, cancellation of lettings, and delays in construction of highways for the use of the public, would be incalculable. The most serious problem to be encountered in the operation of pre-award conference procedures under the proposed regulations, as under the "Cleveland Plan," is the probable delay in approval of the contractors' affirmative action program by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance (aside from its insistence on preferential hiring contrary to existing union contracts, quotas, and manning tables). The proposed regulations do not contemplate informing the contractor what he is expected to do. There are no objective standards. The contractor must guess what the Office of Federal Contract Compliance wants, submit a plan, and then wait before being told whether his plan is approved. This practice, which building contractors have experienced under the "Cleveland Plan," is raised to the status of law under the proposed regulations, and threatens to destroy the concept of competitive bidding. The proposed regulations create even greater possibilities for delay. In Sec. 60-1.7(b) (2), a contractor is required to submit "such information" as the Di- rector requests prior to the award of the contract after the bid. By virtue of this provision, contracts could be held up indefinitely without redress to the con- tractor other than withdrawing his bid and forcing the state to the expense of asking for new bids. We submit that this creates a situation which has been impossible under the "Cleveland Plan" and will be intolerable in the future under the proposed regulations. The proposed regulations are unclear, ambiguous, and place such unchecked power in the Office of Federal Contract Compliance so as to make that agency the czar of all federally-assisted construction, with little or no checks or balances. As an example, under Sec. 60-1.26(2) (i) of the proposed regulations, the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance has the unrestricted power to suspend a construction contract, "in the discretion of the Director" if the con- tractor, in exercising his rights under due process, requests a hearing. There is no provision for a bond, indemnity or other means to hold the contractor harm- less in the event the Director's suspension-after possible court litigation-- proves to have been unjustified. Further, as Crowm-Zellerback has shown us, the threat of cancellation by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance without a hearing to achieve its ends is a matter of public record. Tinder Sec. 60-1.29 (a) and (b) of the proposed regulations, upon the request of the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, agencies are not permitted to deal with any contractor until a pre-award complianèe review has been conducted and the Director has approved a determination that the bidder will be able to comply with the provisions of the equal opportunity clause. Fur- ther, upon the request of the Director, the agency may not enter into contracts PAGENO="0099" 89 with any contractor specified by him "until the agency has complied with the directions contained in the request." There are no checks or balances to this delegation of authority to the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, to be legislator~ judge and jury. Is there a time limit on approval of affirmative action programs? Where are the objective standards that a contractor must follow? How is this procedure to be administered on the local level? What has happened to due process? The pre-award conference is untenable, the pre-construction scarcely better. There must be an alternative to the unreasonable delay caused by the subjective criteria imposed on contractors under the proposed pre-award procedure. A work- able alternative would be to specify objective standards for a contractor to be- come an equal opportunity employer so that a class of contractors would be pre-quaZifted for bidding on federally assisted construction projects. Pre-quali- fication for highway contractors exists in Ohio with respect to financial solvency, responsibility and competency. See Sections 5525.02.09, Ohio Revised Code, and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. There is no reason why criteria could not be established-after public hearings-to pre-qualify contractors with respect to their civil rights obligations. Pre-qualification would remove the un- certainty in bidding and avoid costly delays. Racial discrimination cannot and will not be tolerated on public work projects in Ohio in which the Ohio Contractors Association is involved. Repeated efforts are being made to induce minority applicants to enter the construction industry. These efforts will be continued. The ultimate success of the President's program on civil rights rests upon the good will and cooperation of those directly involved. The unbridled and un- checked powers given to the Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compli- ance in the proposed regulations authorize and permit an agency of the Federal Government to usurp legislative and judicial functions, create an agency un- controlled by law, and permit the ends desired b~ the Office of Federal Contract Compliance to be accomplished by whatever means it desires. The willingness to cooperate and assist in the struggle for civil rights will be set back considerably by raising the proposed regulations to the force of law. We urge that they be withdrawn and public hearings be held to investigate a pre-qualification procedure and the entire problem of civil rights in the construc- tion industry so that justice to all may be achieved. Sincerely, KARL L. ROTHERMUND, Jr., E~vecutive Director. Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, if I may, in conclusion, the American Road Builders Association is in complete sympathy with the philos- ophy and objectives of equal employment. There is little discrimina- tion today in our industry. We have pledged our support to this pro- gram, and we intend to make it good. The only thing we are asking of the Department of Labor, No. 1, to give us a hearing, which has been denied up to the present time; and No. 2, to please give consideration of the practical problems in the administration's program, and to give industry and the State high- way departments an opportunity to implement to the best of our ability the desired objective. Thank you, sir. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Very happy to hear that. Mr. Miller, have you spoken with the Secretary of Labor in regard to these hearings? Mr. MILLER. The American Road Builders Association filed a formal petition for a hearing on this subject to the Secretary of Labor, and the hearing was denied. I do not understand, actually, the legal tech- nicalities of denial, but presumably the hearing was denied because these procedures are being carried out under an Executive order, as distinguished from an act of Congress or a law. And we therefore, Mr. Chairman, appeal to this distinguished body, at the earliest possible date, to please grant us an opportunity with PAGENO="0100" 90 more experience behind us to present this very discouraging problem in full. Mr. KLUOZYNSKI. Did you get an answer from the Secretary of Labor in regard to the hearings you requested? Mr. MILLER. The answer was in the negative. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. In the negative? Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. Mr. KI~ucz~sKI. Well, I am sure our staff will check into that and keep you informed. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. Do you mean that the Department of Labor would not grant you hearings on this subject; is that what 1 understood? Mr. MILLER. Yes. We were in possession of a proposed draft of the regulations. Mr. CRAMER. They refused to grant you hearings before the regula- tions were issued? Mr. MILLER. That is correct. Now, the regulation was scheduled to be put into effect February 1 by the Department of Labor through the Chief of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, Mr. Sylvester. We recently met with him during our Las Vegas convention-and Mr. Sylvester did say that he would delay formal issuance of this order until he had an opportunity to receive written recommendations from industry. But still, not an opportunity to discuss before- Mr. CRAMER. Sit down and discuss with industry, to discuss with your Government about this proposed FEPC regulation, how it might affect you? Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. You were denied that right? Mr. Mu~r,r~n. Well, yes, but they have invited comments. Mr. CRAMER. Well, it appears to me, Mr. Chairman, that if there are going to be hearings on this matter, and from what I understand of the situation, it is rather serious, and I will ask your opinion, Mr. Miller or Mr. Holmes, as I understand it, what they have in their regulations provided is that you have to have negotiations relating to FEPC before the contract signing; is that correct? Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir, Mr. Cramer. This is what is referred to as the pre-award. Mr. CRA~rr~r~. Pre-award negotiations. Mr. M1u~i~. Yes, sir. The procedure. very briefly, is: the State ad- vertises; the contractor, in good faith, bids upon the specifications as presented. He is announced as apparent low bidder. Mr. CRA!srrit. Lowest responsible bidder. Mr. MILLER. By the State highway department. Mr. CRAMER. Right. Mr. MILLER. Then after that, and after his bid is in, then they have this pre-award conference, at which time conditions not in the contract involving thousands of dollars, to my best information, have been im- posed upon the contractor after he has bid. One of the things we are asking for, sir, at a minimum, is definite information of what the requirements are going to be, so we can in- telligently bid upon those requirements. Mr. CRAMER. If you do not have specifications that are certain, there is no way you can submit a reasonable and fair bid, is there? PAGENO="0101" 91 Mr. MILLER. We cannot possibly do so. Mr. CRAMER. There is an uncertain condition after the bid. Mr. MILLER. Experience to date, most uncertain, yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that although I under- stand the other body is going to take this matter up, that if it is not taken up adequately, that consideration be given to taking this matter up before this subcommittee. I would like to also welcome before the committee, rather belatedly, Mr. Türnbull, director of Florida Road Building Association, and I appreciate his advising us of the effect of this cutback, as it relates to the State of Florida. - And we put some evidence in the record yesterday which indicates that the cutback was rather severely affecting the road building in- dustry in the State of Florida. That is the effect of your testimony, is is not? Mr. TURNBULL. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. I also understand that there is some question as to what should happen relating to the Interstate Sy,stem after 1972. Before I get into that, I will say, Mr. Turnbull, as you know, I have very strongly opposed the cutback as not being anti-inflationary, but inflationary feeding, as it relates to the industry, but relating to the Interstate System. Now, Mr. Turnbull, I would like to ask you, because you are familiar with it, do you know of the necessity of providing adequate facilities between Tampa, St. Pete and Miami? Mr. TURNBULIJ. Right. That area is one-quarter of the State of Florida, including Sarasota, Fort Myers- Mr. `CRAMER. Southeast coast; right? Mr. TtTRNBULL. That is not serviced by an Interstate System. Mr. CRAMER. If my memory serves me right, and I can be wrong, you were involved with the State roads department at the time that the 1950 act was under consideration and State recommendations were submitted, were you not? Mr. TURNBULL. Right. Mr. CRAMER. And Tampa, St. Pete, to Miami, what I termed was the missing link, was included in the interstate mileage at that time, was it not? Mr. TURNBULL. It was, yes. Mr. CRAMER. It was turned down, as I understand it, at that time, because of lack of adequate traffic to justify it? Mr. TURNBULL. The traffic volume did not warrant it at that time. Mr. CRAMER. As you indicate, two of the major metropolitan areas in the United States, let alone in the State of Florida, are the middle west coast, Tampa, St. Pete, and Clearwater and Miami, that have no inter- state connecting link; is that not correct? Mr. TURNBIJLL. That is correct. One of the primary highways of Florida in the early days was the Tamiami Trail, which paralleled the proposed Interstate System. Mr. CRAMER. What is interesting to me and has concerned me as an example, there may be similar problems throughout the country, since t.his system was inaugurated in 1956, there obviously have been sub- stantial developments in a number of areas, so it appears to me there obviously is a need for some additional interstate mileage, citing Tampa, St. Pete to Miami as an example. Do you agree with that? PAGENO="0102" 92 Mr. TURNBULL. From the standpoint of Florida, I do, 100 percent; yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. What has been disturbing to me is that AASHO and some other people have suggested that we should just abandon any further extension of the Interstate System, or filling of missing links, or providing of closing of gaps that have come into being since 1956, which does not make much sense to me. Does it to you? Mr. TuI~Btrr~I~. No, sir. Mr. CRAMER. I would like to ask Mr. Miller, does the American Road Builders take the position that there should be no more mileage on the Interstate System after, whatever the completion date is? Mr. MILLER. Mr. Cramer, the studies made by the engineers of my organization indicate beyond any shadow of a doubt the need for substantial additional mileage of interstate design. Mr. Cm~IEi~. Whether you call it interstate or call it something else, whatever the matching formula is? Mr. MILLri~. That is correct. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Will you suspend just for a moment? The Chair would like to recognize at this time the gentleman from New York, Mr. McEwen. Mr. MOEWEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I call to the attention of you and the members of the committee the Methodist Youth Group from Clayton, N.Y., my district, who have just come into the hearing room to listen to the testimony on questions of this matter. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Will you please rise? These are the future leaders of America. [Applause.] Welcome to the Subcommittee on Roads. Mr. MCEWEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ci~MER. I am glad to yield for that purpose. Mr. MOEWEN. I thank the gentleman from Florida. Mr. CRAMER. You were relating to the American Road Builders' recommendations concerning additional mileage on the Interstate System. Mr. Miir1i~. Yes. I do not have at this time a precise figure. But it is quite evident, Congressman Cramer, that there is a pressing need for additional mileage of the interstate design. Mr. CRAMER. Well, frankly, the problem I have, and it is a very sub- stantial problem, and it is one I think this committee should be familiar with, is that there is obviously a need for a highway built at the interstate standard between Tampa-St. Pete to Miami, and I cite that as an example, there are probably other examples throughout *the country. There are some people who are saying, well, let us not have any more interstate mileage. There are other people who are saying, in Florida, well, let us build it as a toll road. There are other people who are saying, we will never get it as part of the Interstate System. And I just wanted your concurrence, if you see fit to give it, that in light of that situation, which could be duplicated in many places throughout the country, in other words, Florida has to make a deci- sion this year, are they going to build a toll road from Tampa-St. Pete to Miami, or are they going to hopefully get an interstate route, maybe build it now and be reimbursed later. PAGENO="0103" 93 So under those circumstances and other situations throughout the country, do you not think this is the year that Congress ought to make a decision as to what is going to happen concerning additional mileage on the Interstate System, so the States can plan ahead? Mr. MILLER. That would very definitely be our conclusion. As the distinguished Chairman Kluczynski has mentioned, this is the year of decision. We feel that should be determined, as well as other important mat- ters embodying the future of the highway program. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Turnbull, you are familiar intimately with the State of Florida and its problems. Do you not concur with my judg- ment relating to the Tampa-St. Pete to Miami missing link on the Interstate System? Mr. TURNBULL. I concur 100 percent. The people in that area have fussed ever since-have commented ever since the beginning of the interstate program, that they are paying a tax and cannot get to the Interstate System. Fort Myers is a large city, and it is 140 miles to the closest Inter- state System from Fort Myers. Mr. CRAMER. Do you concur that whatever is going to be done after 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, whatever it is, that this is the year that Congress ought to make the decision so that States will know? Mr. TURNBULL. Right. Mr. CRAMER. As to what additional interstate mileage there ~ought tobe? Mr. TURNBULL. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Do you concur with that, Mr. President? Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir; very much. Mr. KLtrozrNsIu. Any further questions or comments? Mr. McEwen. Mr. MCEWEN. I am pleased to hear you gentlemen agree on this need for the segments that are not now in our Interstate System. I do not know of any public works program, as I have observed, that has had more beneficial effects. I believe Chairman Fallon made the statement not long ago of 4-to-i benefit-to-cost ratio in direct benefits. And we in this committee in other areas authorize projects where certainly we do not see a 4-to-i benefit-to-cost ratio. I know my own State of New York, and in my own congressional district, I have seen the direct benefits, such as the location of new or expanded businesses and industries in relation to this Interstate System. I think, too, the concern we have over the proliferation of toll roads we are facing now, and I am sure you gentlemen will agree, that it is not going to be a deterrent to toll roads if it became known that there is not going to be 90-10 interstate in the future. If the cost sharing in interstate highways would be on the basis, the same as A B C, but I think we will see more toll road construction, not less. I am pleased that you gentlemen concur with the observation of the gentleman from Florida on these roads. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Any further comments? Mr. Miller. Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, if I may, in conclusion, sir, add just two items: One, the American Road Builders' Association would like to go on record fully supporting the recommendations of the American Asso- PAGENO="0104" 94 ciation of State Highway Officials presented at this committee this morning regarding the drafting of appropriate legislation to guaran- tee the integrity of the highway trust fimd. We strongly support that. We have no specific language to offer; but we believe, in the wisdom of this great committee, it can and should be done. Second, in response to the question asked by Chairman Fallon, my engineering staff has made a little research that might help you, Mr. Fallon, and we tried to give here an overall picture of just what this cutback means. And, as you witnessed from the testimony presented here, it varies from nothing to extreme hardship. I would like the record to show that that is so. Mr. Chairman, for the calendar year 1968, under the cutback pro- gram as we now stand, this is the reduction of obligations of $600 mil- lion, it is estimated that the total work available in 1968 will be $8.9 billion. So we still have a substantial program nationwide, in spite of this cutback. Now, that total is arrived at in this manner: There is $4.1 billion of work carried over from contracts awarded prior to the cutback and freeze; that plus the freeze level will give us a total program in 1968 of $8.9 billion. Now, without the cut, and assuming that those States with unobli- gated balances could place these amounts under contract in 1968, there is a potential maximum of $10.6 billion as compared to $8.9 billion. Now, that is a maximum potential, and analysis of it would indicate that all States could not put their money under contract, which my engineers estimate would probably give us a level, were it not for the cutback during the calendar year of 1968 of construction activity on the Federal-aid system of $9.7 billion; or, in other words, overall the cutback would represent a loss in construction activity and progress of approximately $1 billion. Mr. KLuczl-NsKI. Does that complete your statement, Mr. Miller? Mr. MILLER. May I ifie this for the record, please, Mr. Chairman? Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Without objection. soordered. (Table referred to follows:) Calendar year 1~968-Progi~am under the cutback Billions Uncompleted work under contract, Jan. 1, 1968 $4. 1 Estimated 1968 obligation limitation (including matching funds) 4. 8 Total work available, 1988 8. 9 Theoretical martimum work possible, calendar year 1968 (ito cutback) Billions Uncompleted work under contract, Jan. 1, 1988 $4. 1 Balance available for reimbursable obligations, Dec. 31, 19671 1.2 Estimated 1968 Federal-aid allocation' 5.3 Total 10. 6 Practical level of construction work which could be performed during calendar year 1988 9. 7 `Includes matching funds. NOTE.-Presented as a part of the American Road Builders' Association testimony before the Subcommittee on Roads, Committee on Public Works, U.S. House of Representatives, Feb. 21, 1968. PAGENO="0105" 95 Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my colleagues, I want to express our sincere appreciation to this great committee for giving us an opportunity to present our views. Thank you very much, sir. Mr. KLtTCZYNSKI. Mr. Miller, we are happy to have you here, and your statements will be very helpful and beneficial to this committee when we sit down in executive session. This will be of great help to us. I want to tell you that the record will be open for at least 2 more weeks, if you have any further information to give this committee; we will be happy to have you put it in the record. Mr. Fallon. Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to note the presence of an old highway builder in the room today, Mr. Jack Robinson, who used to be director of highways in Washington, D.C., when they were build- ing highways in Washington. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. No further questions or comments? Gentlemen, we want to thank you. We appreciate your presence here. We will adjourn until February 27, at 10 a.m. (Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, February 27,1968.) (The following was furnished for insertion:) MINNESOTA GOOD ROADS, INC., Minneapolis, Minn., February 16, 1968. [From Minnesota Good Roads, Inc.] STATEMENT OF THE EFFECT OF THE OFFICIAL FEDERAL HIGHWAY CUTBACK AND UNOFFICIAL HOLDBACK OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY FUNDS ON THE A.B.C. SYSTEM IN MINNESOTA For the second time in two years, the State of Minnesota has been forced to cancel the publication of its annual 5-year construction program. Attempts to keep our public informed of our highway programs have been completely stymied by the actual cutbacks, threats of cutbacks and the unofficial holding back of Federal highway user fees we have been dependent upon. The official cutback of approximately $8 million is bad, but, during the past two years quarterly allotments of funds to Minnesota have fallen nearly six months behind. Our Highway Department has been carrying this deficit forward with the hope that the Federal Government might eventually catch up. The $600 million cutback has caused our Department to fear the worst. They have been forced to remove more than $35 million of construction from the scheduled pro- grams for 1968. As to the effect on the A.B.C. system, eight very significant projects have had to be delayed on highways, some of which were built in the late 20's and early 30's, because money has not been available to reconstruct and bring them up to a modern standard that will reduce the unnecessary slaughter because of the unsafe conditions on some of these roads. Many towns in our State cannot be entered by a fully loaded truck or a modern school bus; because of the lack of funds they cannot be brought up to the 9-ton all-weather road. By the manipulation of these dedicated highway funds, attempts to publish construction schedules and completion estimates, to maintain a balanced program of highway construction and meet the needs of the traveling public have become meaningless. Minnesota Good Roads, Inc. is an organization which represents facets of the economy, including both labor and industry, and we are deeply concerned that highways we have paid for-through the collection of highway user fees on a national level-will not be built on time-or at all. ROBERT M. JOHNSON, Eccecutive Director. PAGENO="0106" 96 STATEMENT OF NATIONAL JOINT HEAVY AND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS ON THE ABC HIGHWAY SYSTEM Gentlemen, the National Joint Heavy and Highway Construction Committee is vitally interested in those matters which affect the members of these six International Unions on highway construction throughout the United States. These six International Unions are the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, the International UniOn of Operating Engineers, the Laborers' International Union of North America, the Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International Association of the United States and Canada, the Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers' International Union of America and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, who have a total membership of 3.8 million of which hundreds of thousands are employed and dependent on highway construction for their liveli- hood. We are pleased with this opportunity to express their views of this nation's primary and secondary highway systems and their urban extensions known as the ABC System. THE IMPORT OF THE ABC PROGRAM Since 1916, the Federal Government has had a Highway Program; the main thrust has been towards a highway of an interstate nature. With the passage of the 1956 Highway Act, this country embarked on the largest public works project known to man, the National System of Interstate Defense Roads. How- ever, recognizing that at the completion of the Interstate System, these roads will carry only 25% of the nation's traffic. Congress, for the past decade, has progressively increased the annual author- ized level of Federal Aid Highway Funds to this primary and secondary urban road system. For the years 1966 to 1969, $1 billion annually will be available to the ABC Program. We are pleased with the concern of Congress for the ABC System and es- pecially for the most recent attention paid to the arban roads. These roads are necessary to any intergrated system of inter and intrastate highways. We also concur with the recommendations of Secretary of Transportation, Alan S. Boyd, that more attention should be paid by all interested parties in developing an urban road system that is compatible with the social and economic needs of four urban areas. By 1990, more than 200 million people will be living in this country's urban areas; this is more than the total population of this fifty states. THE ABC SYSTEM'S IMPACI' ON EMPLOYMENT Recognizing our responsibilities as representatives of organized labor, we would like to emphasize the importance of the ABC System as it is related to employment. There will be, through the partnership of the Federal and 50 States' Govern- ments, in funding for the years 1966 through 1969, a total of $2 billion annually for the ABC System. Using the 1966 report of the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics on labor requirements for construction of Federal Aid High- ways, this $2 bfflion wifi generate, annually, employment for 230 thousand people in manufacturing, transportation, trade, mining and other related industries. Of these 230 thousand potential jobs, over 40% will be available to construction workers. Considering the recommendations of Secretary Boyd, of the nation's needs for greater attention towards the citizens of our urban areas, let us consider the needs for greater employment opportunities in the urban areas. In 1967, one-third of all unemployed workers lived in this nation's fifteen larger cities. The unemployment rate in our cities is generally greater than the national average especially among minority groups in unskilled workers. Increased high- way construction in the metropolitan areas in this country will provide employ- ment opportunities for this segment of our population, now one of the main concerns of this country's "War on Poverty." The highway construction industry can train these people and upgrade them iii the mainstream of this country's economy. PAGENO="0107" 97 DAVIS-BACON COVEBAGE FOR THE ABC SYSTEM During the Eisenhower Administration, Congress wisely included a provision in Section 115, Title 1 of the 1956 Highway Act requiring the Secretary of Labor to determine the prevailing wage rates on similar construction in the locality of proposed interstate projects. This provided highway construction wi5rkers with the protection of the Davis-Bacon Act and lent to the industries in general, the stability afforded by predetermined prevailing wages. Prior to the late 1940's, only construction contracts that were let by the so- called "procurement agencies" (Corps of Engineers, G.S.A., Bureau of Reclama- tion and the U.S. Air Force) came under the purview of the Davis-Bacon Act. This afforded workers with the necessary protection that large expenditures of their taxes, on Federal construction projects, would not serve to destroy wage rates which were established and prevailing in their areas. The Administrations of Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson have all endorsed the principle of federal and local participation in the financing of construction projects that are held to be necessary to the needs of this country. With the innovation of Federal assistance programs whereby the Federal Gov- ernment, through its various agencies, together with state municipalities or other local governmental authorities, share the cost of construction projects under the "National Housing Act of 1949," the "Federal Airport Act," the "Col- lege Housing Act of 1950," the "Area Redevelopment Act," and the "Education Assistance Act of 1963." If there is any single, common denominator among these programs, it is that the Secretary of Labor sets forth the prevailing wage rates for all construction workers employed on these projects. This is true whether the Federal Govern- ment is paying 90% of the project, as in the Interstate Highway Program, or in the cases of some projects of the Federal Housing Administration, where no federal funds are expended but the Federal Government acts as the guarantor of the loan. We feel that an annual federal disbursement of $1 billion for this ABC has such an impact on the highway industry that the workers on these projects are entitled to the protection of the Davis-Bacon Act. Certainly it was the intent of Congress with the passage of the Davis-Bacon Act to protect workers on all construction projects in which the Federal Government is involved whether it be by direct contract or those federal assistance programs with a predetermined prevailing wage rate. Therefore, we feel Congress should, at this time, act to place the workers employed on these ABC Highways under the protection of the Davis-Bacon Act. SAFETY AND THE ABC SYSTEM As representatives of organized labor, we feel we have a social responsibility, both to our members and to the general citizenry, to insist that any highway program must attempt to halt the alarming fatality rate on our nation's high- ways. Every single day over 10,000 Americans are injured on our highways and every week more than 1,000 are killed; the monthly economic loss is well over $800 million. Congress is again to be commended for their most recent attempts in passing the Federal Highway Safety Act to reduce this shocking waste of human lives. We know that your Committee will continue to consciously search for answers to our nation's most disgraceful malady. Again, we are appreciative of the opportunity to address your important Com- mittee and trust that you will give our views and suggestions careful consider- ation. PAGENO="0108" PAGENO="0109" FEDERAL AID HIGHWAY ACT-1968 THURSDAY, MAY 23, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Su~oo~n~nmE ON ROADS OF THE COMMITPEE ON Pu~o~ro WORKS, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10:08 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn Build- ing, the Honorable John C. Klucz~ynski, chairman `of the subcommittee presidling. Mr. KLtJOZYNSKI. The Subcommittee on Roads will please come to order. Earlier this year we heard testimony regarding the requirements of the ABC System. This morning we continue with authorization of the cost estimate for the Interstate System and with a wide variety of subjects closely related to the current and future highway policy. There are some new program proposals in the adminstration's pro- posed legislation. There are pending before the committee in fact, not in legislation, such significant questions as relocation policy, ex- tension of the Interstate System, policy on cutbacks of funds to the States, and so on. Today we are going to hear from the Department of Transporta- tion and the Forest Service. Next week and the following week we will hear from the Members of Congress, the States, and other inter- ested witnesses. With the exception of the legislation dealing with sizes and weights of trucks, which is scheduled for May 29, the witnesses may cover any and all of these subjects in one appearance before the committee. Because many of these subjects have significant bearing on future highway policy, it seems quite likely that the committee will wish to ask the Department of Transportation witnesses to return at the conclusion of these hearings so that the committee may have the bene- fit of some departmental analysis of what we hear from the other vitally interested groups. (99) PAGENO="0110" 100 9&rii CONGRESS 1 6994 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mkr 2, 1968 Mr. FALr~ox (for himself and Mr. KLtTCZYNsKI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Public Works A BILL To authorize appropriations for the fiscal years 1970 and 1971 for the construction of certain highways in accordance with title 23 of the United States Code, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tires of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SHORT TITLE 4 SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Federal- 5 Aid Highway Act of 1968." 6 REVISION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS .7 FOR INTERSTATE SYSTEM 8 SEC. 2. Subsection (14 of section 108 of the Federal- 9 Aid Highway Act of 1956, as amended, is amended to 10 read as follows: I PAGENO="0111" 101 2 1 "(b) AUTII0IuzATI0N oi~ APP1?oPi?IATI0Ns.- For the 2 purpose of expediting the construction, reconstruction, or im- 3 provement, inclusive of necessary bridges and tunnels, of the 4 Interstate System, including extensions thereof through 5 urban areas, designated in accordance with the provisions of 6 subsection (d) of section 103 of title 23, United States Code, 7 there is hereby authorized to be appropriated the additional 8 sum of $1,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 9 1957, which sum shall be in addition to the authorization 10 heretofore made for that year, the additional sum of $1,700,- 11 000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1958, the addi- 12 tional sum of $2,200,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 13 30, 1959, the additional sum of $2,500,000,000 for the fiscal 14 year ending June 30, 1960, the additional sum of $1,800,- 15 000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, the addi- 16 tional sum of $2,700,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 17 30, 1962, the additional sum of $2,400,000,000 for the fiscal 18 year endh~g June 30, 1963, the additional sum of $2,600,- 19 000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, the addi- 20 tional sum of 2,700,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 21 ~ 1965, the additional sum of $2,800,000,000 for the fiscal 22 year ending June 30, 1966, the additional sum of $3,000,- 23 000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, the addi- 24 tional sum of $3,400,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 25 30, 1968, the additional sum of $3,800,000,000 for the fiscal PAGENO="0112" 102 3 1 year ending June 30, 1969, the additional sum of $4,000,- 2 000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, the addi- 3 tional sum of $4,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 4 30, 1971, the additional snm'of $4;000,000,000 for the fiscal 5 year ending June 30, 1972, the additional sum of $4,000,- 6 000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and the 7 additional sum of $2,225,000,000 for the fiscal year ending 8 June 30, 1974. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed 9 to authorize the appropriation of any sums to carry out see- 10 tions 131, 136, or 319 (b) of title 23, United States Code, or any provision of law relating to highway safety enacted 12 after May 1, 1966." 13 AUTIIORIZATION OF USE OF COST ESTIMATE FOR 14 APPORTIONMENT OF INTERSTATE FUNDS 15 SEC. 3. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized 16 to make ~the apportionment for the fiscal years ending 17 June 30 1970, and 1971, of the sums authorized to be 18 appropriated for such years for expenditures on the National 19 System of Interstate and Defense Highways, using the 20 apportionment factors contained in table 5 of House Docu- 21 ment Numbered 199, Ninetieth Coi~gress. 22 EXTENSION OF TIME FOR COMPLETION OF SYSTEM 23 SEC. 4. (a) The second paragraph of section 101 (b) 24 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking out 25 "sixteen years'" and inserting in lieu thereof "eighteen PAGENO="0113" 103 4 1 years'" and by striking out "June 30, 1972", and inserting 2 in lieu thereof "June 30, 1974". 3 (b) The introductory phrase and the second and third 4 sentences of section 104 (b) (5) of title 23, United States 5 Code, are amended by striking "1972" where it appears 6 and inserting in lieu thereof "1974", and such section 104 7 (b) (5) is further amended by striking the three sentences 8 preceding the last sentence and inserting the following: 9 "Upon the approval by the Congress, the Secretary shall 10 use the Federal share of such approved estimate in making 11 apportionments for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1970, 12 and June 30, 1971. The Secretary shall make a final revised 13 estimate of the cost of completing the then designated Inter- 14 state System after taking into account all previous appor- 15 tionments made under this section, in the same manner as 16~ stated above, and transmit the same to the Senate and the 17 House of Representatives within ten days subsequent to 18 January 2, 1970. Upon the approval by the Congress, the 19 Secretary shall use the Federal share of such approved 20 estimate in making apportionments for the fiscal years ending 21 June 30, 1972, Julle 30, 1973, and June 30, 1974." 22 AUTHORIZATIONS 23 SEc. 5. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions 24 of title 23, United States Code, the following sums are hereby 25 authorized to be appropriated: 96-&30 O-68------8 PAGENO="0114" 104 5 1 (1) For the Federal-aid primary system and the 2 Federal-aid secondary system and for their extension 3 within urban areas, out of the highway trust fund, 4 $1,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 5 1970, and $1,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending 6 June 30, 1971. Nothing in this paragraph shall be con- 7 strued to authorize the appropriation of any sums to 8 carry out sections 131, 136, or 319 (b) of title 23, 9 United States Code, or any provision of law relating to 10 highway safety enacted after May 1, 1966. The sums 11 authorized in this paragraph for eaeh fiscal year shall be 12 available for expenditure as follows: 13 (A) 45 per centum for projects on the Fed- 14 eral-aid primary highway system; 15 (B) 30 per centiim for projects on the Federal- 16 aid secondary highway system; and 17 (0) 25 per centunl for projects on extensions 18 of the Federal-aid primary and Federal-aid second- 19 ary highway systems in urban areas. 20 (2) For traffic operation projects in urban areas as 21 authorized in section 135 of title 23, United States `Code, 22 out of the highway trust fund, the additional sum of 23 $250,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, 24 the additional sum of $2~0,000,000 for the fiscal year 25 ending June 30, 1971, the additional sum of PAGENO="0115" 105 6 1 $250,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, 2 the additional sum of $250,000,000 for the fiscal year 3 ending June 30, 1973, and the additional sum of 4 $250,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974. (3) For forest highways, $33,000,000 for the fiscal 6 year ending June 30, 1970, and $33,000,000 for the 7 fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. 8 (4) For public lands highways, $16,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and $16,000,000 10 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. 11 (5) For forest development roads and trails, 12 $125,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, 13 and $125,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 14 1971. 15 (6) For public lands development roads and trails, 16 $3,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and 17 $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. 18 (7) For park roads and trails, $30,000,000 for the 19 fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. 20 (8) For parkways, $11,000,000 for the fiscal year 21 ending June 30, 1971. 22 (9) For Indiaii reservation roads and bridges, 23 $30,000,000 for the fiscal year endiiig June 30, 1970, 24 and $30,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 25 1971. PAGENO="0116" 106 7 I AUTHORIZATiON FOR STATE AND COMMUNITY HIGHWAY 2 SAFETY PROGRAMS 3 SEC. 6. For the purpose of Carrying out section 402 of 4 title 23, Tjnited States Code. there is hereby authorized to 5 be appropriated the sum of S50,000,000 for the fiscal year 6 ending June 30. 1970, and 875,000,000 for the fiscal year 7 endirigJune3o, 1971. 8 ATJTITOHTZATJOX I'()R HIGHWAY SAFETY RESEARCH AND 9 DEVELOPMENT I~ROGRAMS 10 SEC. 7. For the purpose of CarrYing out sections 307 (a) 11 and 403 of title 23. United States Code, there is hereby 12 authorized to he appropriated to remain available until ex- 13 pended. the additional suni of 830,000,000 for the fiscal year 14 ending June 30, 1970, and the additional smn of $40,000,- ~ 000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. 16 ADVANCE ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY 17 SEC. 8. (a) That section 108 of title 23, United States 18 Code, is amended to read as follows: 19 " (a) For the purpose of faeilitating lime acquisition of 20 iights-of-way on any of the Federal-aid highway systems, 21 including the Interstate System, in the most expeditious and 22 econonmical manner, and recognizing that time acquisition of 23 rights-of-way requires lengthy planning and negotiations 24 if it is to be done at reasonable cost; to facilitate the orderly PAGENO="0117" 107 8 1 relocation of persons, businesses, farms, and other existing 2 users of property; ~o minimize right-of-way costs by fore- 3 stalling development of land ultimately required for highway 4 purposes, and to achieve a rational development of corn- 5 munities, the Secretary, upon the request of the State high- 6 way department, is authorized to make available the funds 7 apportioned to any State for expenditure on any of the 8 Federal-aid highway systems, including the Interstate Sys- 9 tern, for acquisition of rights-of-way in anticipation of con- 10 struction and under such rules and regulations as the Secre- 11 tary may prescribe. 12 "(b) In addition to funds available under subsection 13 (a.) of this section, the Secretary is authorized to allocate .14 to each State, subject to the provisions of section 124 (b) of 15 this title, an additional amount equivalent to 2 per centum 16 of the aggregate sums apportioned to it under sectioii 104 of 17 this title for any fiscal year. Within six months subsequent 18 to the allocation to a State of funds under this subsection 19 the State shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secre- 20 tary that it will obligate such funds for the purposes of this 21 subsection. Any funds made available under this subsection 22 with respect to which a State has not made the demonstra- 23 tion required by the preceding sentence shall automatically 24 revert to the Secretary who may, in his discretion, make such 25 reverted funds available for the purposes of this subsection PAGENO="0118" 108 9 1 and on the basis of need to any other State requesting such 2 funds and making the requisite demonstration. 3 "(c) Before any funds may be made available to a 4 State pursuant to this section, the State highway depart- 5 ment shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary which 6 shall provide (1) for the reimbursement of the costs of such 7 rights-of-way, and (2) for the actual construction of a road 8 on such rights-of-way, both within a period not exceeding 9 seven years following the fiscal year in which such request 10 is made or by the terminal date of the highway trust fund, 11 whichever occurs first. 12 "(d) Federal participation in the cost of right-of-way 13 acquired under subsection (a) of this `section shall not exceed 14 the Fedcra.I ~ rain share applicable to the class of funds 15 from which Federal reimbursement is made except for ad- 16 vance l)aymeflts that are to be repaid under the provisions 17 of section 124 (c) of this title." 18 (14 That section 124 of title 23, United States Code, 19 is amended by relettering the first paragraph as subsection 20 "(a) ", substituting the word "subsection" for the world 21 "section" in the third sentence of such subsection "(a)" and 22 adding at the end thereof the following new subsections: 23 "(1)) For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of 24 section 108 (ii) of this title relating to the allocation of PAGENO="0119" 109 10 1 additional amounts to the States for the advance acquisition 2 of rights-of-way, there is hereby authorized to be appropri- 3 ated from the highway trust fund such moneys, iiot to exceed 4 $100,000,000, as may be necessary for the initial eStal)liSh- 5 ment of a fund and for its replenishment on an annual basis, 6 which may be used by the Secretary, upon the request of 7 any State, for payment of the total cost of rights-of-way 8 acquired in advance of construction, including any net ex- 9 penses of property management, on any of the Federal-aid 10 systems. Pending such appropriation, the Secretary may ad- 11 vance from any cash heretofore 01' hereafter appropriated 12 from the highway trust fund to Federal-aid highways (trust 13 fund) for liquidation of contract authority, such sums as 14 may be necessary for payments to the States for the rights- ~-`~ of-way acquired in advance of construction, that appropria- 16 tion to be reimbursed from the appropriations herein author- 17 ized when made. 18 "(c) Before any funds are made available to a State 19 under subsection (b) of this section, the respective State 20 highway department shall enter into an agreement with 21 the Secretary which shall provide for repayment by the 22 State of its pro rata share of funds made available under 23 section 108 of this title. Before actual constniction corn- 24 mences on rights-of-way acquired under section 108 of this 25 title, repayment by the State of its pro rata share of the PAGENO="0120" 110 11 1 costs applicable to such project shall be credited to the 2 highway trust fund and the Federal pro rata share of the 3 costs applicable to such project shall be charged to the 4 unobligated balance of regularly apportioned funds available 5 to the State for improvement of the Federal-aid system 6 for which the right-of-way was purchased. 7 "(d) The provisions of subsections (d), (f), and (g) 8 of section 209 of the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 (70 9 Stat. 374) shall be applicable to section 108 (b) of this 10 title and to subsection (b) of this section." 11 DEFINITIONS OF FOREST ROAD OR TRAIL AND FOREST 12 DEVELOPMENT ROADS AND TRAILS 13 SEc. 9. The fourth and fifth paragraphs in section 101 14 (a) of title 23, United States Code, are amended to read 15 as follows: 16 "The term `forest road or trail' means a road or trail 17 wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the na- 18 tional forests and other areas under Forest Service adminis- 19 tration. 20 "The. term `forest development roads and trails' means 21 those forest roads or trails of primary importance for the 22 protection, administration, and utilization of the national 23 forest and other areas under Forest Service administration 24 or, where necessary, for the use and development of the re- 25 sources upon which communities within or adjacent to the PAGENO="0121" 111 12 1 national forest and other areas administered by the Forest 2 Service are dependent." 3 FOREST DEVELOPMENT ROADS AND TRAILS 4 SEC. 10. The first two sentences of subsection (c) of 5 section 205 of title 23, United States Code, are amended to 6 read as follows: 7 "(c) Construction estimated to cost $15,000 or more 8 per mile or $15,000 or more per project for projects with a 9 length of less than one mile, exclusive of bridges and engi- 10 neering, shall be advertised and let to contract. If such esti- 11 mated cost is less than $15,000 per mile or $15,000 per 12 project for projects with a length of less than one mile or 13 if, after proper advertising, no acceptable bid is received or 14 the bids are deemed excessive, the work may be done by 15 the Secretary of Agriculture on his own account." 16 URBAN AREA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS IMPROVEMENT 17 PROGRAMS 18 SEc. 11. Chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, is 19 hereby amended by adding the following new section 135 20 thereto: 21 "~ 135. Urban area traffic operations improvement pro. 22 grams 23 "(a) The Congress hereby finds and declares it to be 24 in the national interest that each State should have a con- 25 tinuing program within the designated boundaries of urban PAGENO="0122" 112 13 1 areas of the State designed to reduce traffic congestion and 2 accidents and to facilitate the flow of traffic in the urban 3 areas. 4 "(b) To accomplish this objective the sums available 5 for expenditure for the purposes of this section shall be used 6 for projects which include but are not limited to those which 7 directly facilitate and control traffic flow. 8 "(c) The sums available for expenditure for the pur- 9 poses of this section shall be apportioned in accordance with 10 section 104 (b) (3). 11 "(d) The Federal share payable on account of any 12 project authorized by this section shall be that provided for 13 in section 120 (a) of this title. Sums available for expenditure 14 for the purposes of this section shall be used to finance the 15 Federal share payable under this section. 16 "(e) The provisions of chapter 1 of this title relating 17 to the obligation, period of availability, and expenditure of 18 Federal-aid primary highway funds shall apply to the sums 19 available for expenditure for purposes of this section." 20 SEc. 13. The analysis of chapter 1 of title 23, United 21 States Code, is hereby amended by adding thereto, in the 22 appropriate numerical order, the following: "135. Urban area traffic operations improvement programs". PAGENO="0123" 113 90Th CONGRESS 2o SESSTON . R. 1 71 34 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MAY 8, 1968 Mr. FALLON (for himself and Mr. KruczrNs1~I) (by request) introduced lie following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Pul)lic Works A BILL To authorize appropriations for the fiscal years 1970 and 1971 for the construction of certa.ii~ highways in accordance with title 2:3 of the United States Code, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SHORT TITLE 4 SECTION 1. This Act ma.y be cited as the "Federal-Aid 5 Highway Act of 1968". 6 REVISION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPJIOPRTATTONS FOR 7 INTERSTATE SYSTEM 8 SEC. 2. Subsection (b) of section 108 of the Federal-Aid 9 Highway Act of 1956, as amended, is amended to read as 10 follows: I PAGENO="0124" 114 2 1 "(b) AUTHoRIzATIoN OF APPROPRTATIOXS.-For the 2 purpose of expediting the construction, reconstruction, or 3 improvement, inclusive of necessary bridges and tuxinels, of 4 the Interstate System, including extensions thereof through 5 urban areas, designated in accordance with the provisions of 6 subsection (d) of section 103 of title 23, united States Code, 7 there is hereby authorized to be appropriated the additional 8 sum of $1,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, ~ 1957, which sum shall be in addition to the authorization 10 *heretofore made for that year, the additional sum of $1,700,- 11 000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1958, the addi- 12 tional sum of 82,200,000,000 for the fiscal year ending 13 June 30, 1959, the additional sum of 82,500,000,000 for the 14 fiscal year ending June 30, 1960, the additional sum of 15 $1,800,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, 16 the additional sum of $2,200,000,000 for the fiscal year end- 17 ing June 30, 1962, the additional slim of .92,400,000,000 18 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963, the additional sum 19 of $2,600,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, 20 the additional sum of $2,700,000,000 for the fiscal year end- 21 ing June 30, 1965, the additional sum of $2,800,000,000 22 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, the additional sum 23 of $3,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, 24 tile additional sum of 83,400.000,000 for the fiscal year end- 25 ing June 30, 1968, the additional sum of $3,800,000,000 PAGENO="0125" 115 3 1 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, the additional sum 2 of $4,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, 3 the additional sum of $4,000,000,000 for the fiscal year end- 4 ing June 30, 1971, the additional sum of .$4,000,000,000 5 for the fiscal year endiug June 30, 1972, the additional sum 6 of $4,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, 7 and the additional sum of $2,225,000,000. for the fiscal year 8 ending June 30, 1974. Nothing in this subsection shall be 9 construed to authorize the appropriation of any sums to carry 10 out sections 131, 136, or 319 (b) of title 23, Tjnited States 11 Code, or any provision of law relating to highway safety 12 enacted after May 1, 1966." 13 AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF COST ESTIMATE FOR APPOR- 14 TIONMENT OF INTERSTATE FUNDS 15 SEC. 3. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized 16 to make the apportionment for the fiscal years ending June 17 30, 1970, and 1971, of the sums authorized to be appro- 18 priated for such years for expenditures on the National 19 System of Interstate arid Defense Highways, using the 20 apportionment factors contained in table 5 of House Docu- 21 ment Numbered 199, Ninetieth Congress. 22 EXTENSTON OF TIME FOR COMPLETION OF SYSTEM 23 SEC. 4. (a) The second paragraph of section 101 (b) 24 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking out -f" "sixteen years' " and inserting in lieu thereof "eighteen PAGENO="0126" 116 4 1 years" and by striking out "June 30, 1972", and inserting 2 in lieu thereof "June 30, 1974". 3 (b) The introductory phrase and the second and third 4 sentences of section 104 (b) (5) of title 23, United States 5 Code, are amended by striking "1972" where it appears and 6 inserting in lieu thereof "1974", and such section 104 (b) (5) 7 is further amended by striking the three sentences preceding 8 the last sentence and inserting the following: "Upon the 9 approval by the Congress, the Secretary shall use the Federal 10 share of such approved estimate in making apportionments 11 for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1970, and June 30, 1971. 12 The Secretary shall make a final revised estimate of the cost 13 of completing the then designated Interstate System after 14 taking into account all previous apportionments made under 15 this section, in the same manner as stated above, and transmit 16 the same to the Sena.te and the House of IRepresentatives 17 within ten days subsequent to January 2', 1970. Upon the 18 approval by the Congress, the Secretary shall use the Federal 19 share of such approved estimate in making apportionments 20 for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1972, June 30, 1973, 21 and June 30, 1974." 22 AUTHORIzATIONS 23 Sue. 5. For the purpose of carrying out the provisions 24 of title 23, United States Code, the following sums are here- 25 by authorized to be appropriated: PAGENO="0127" 117 5 1 (1) For the Federal-aid priimuy systeiri and the 2 Federal-aid secondary systeni and for their extension 3 within urban areas, out of the highway Trust Fund, 4 $1,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 5 1970, and $1,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending 6 June 30, 1971. Nothmg in this paragraph shall l)e con- 7 strued to authorize the appropriation of ~my sums to 8 carry out sections 131, 136, or 319 (h) of title 23, 9 United States Code, or any provision of law relating to 10 highway safety enacted after May 1, 1966. The sums 11 authorized in this paragraph for each fiscal year shall 12 be available for expenditure as follows: 13 (X) 45 pm centuin for projects on the Federal- 14 aid primary highway systelim; 15 (B) 30 peicentum for projects on the Federal- 16 mui(l seeoiidiiry highway sysleni; aiid 17 (C) 25 per cciituiii for ~rojects oii extensions 18 of the Federal-aid primary and Federal-aid secon- 19 dary highway systems in urban areas. 20 (2) For traffic operation projects in urban areas 21 as authorized in section 135 of title 23, United States 22 Code, on extensions of the Federal-aid primary and 23 secondary highway systems in urban areas, the additional 24 sum of $250,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 25 1970, the additional sum of $250,000,000 for the fiscal PAGENO="0128" 118 6 1 year ending June 30, 1971, the additional sum of $250,- 2 000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, the 3 additional sum of $250,000,000 for the fiscal year end- 4 ing June 30, 1973, and the additional sum of $250,000,- 000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974. 6 (3) For forest highways, out of the Highway Trust 7 Fund, $33,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, S 1970, and $33,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. 10 (4) For public lands highways, out of the High- 11 way Trust Fund, $16,000,000 for the fiscal year end- 12 ing June 30, 1970, and $16,000,000 for the fiscal year 13 ending June 30, 1971. 14 (5) For forest development roads and trails, $125,- 15 000,000 for fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and 16 $125,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. 17 (6) For public lands development roads and trails, 18 $3,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, 19 and $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 20 197.1. 21 (7) For park roads and trails, $30,000,000 for the 22 fiscal year endIng ,Tune 30, 1 971. 23 (8) For parkways, $11,000,000 for the fiscal year 24 ending June 30, 1971. 25 (9) For Indian reservation roads and bridges, $30,- PAGENO="0129" 119 7 1 000,000 for the fiscal year cndiiig June 30, 1970, and 2 $30,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. 3. ATJTHORTZATION FOR STATE AND COMMUNITY 4 hIGhWAY SAFETY PROGEAMS 5 Si~c. 6. For the purpose of carrying out sectioii 402 of 6 title 23, United States Code, there is hereby authorized to 7 be appropriated tile sum of $50,000,000 for the fiscal year 8 ending June 30, 1970; and $75,000,000 for the fiscal year 9 ending June 30, 1971. 10 AUTHORIZATION FOR hIGHWAY SAFETY RESEARCH AND 11 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 12 SEC. 7. For the purpose of carrying out sections 307 (a) 13 and 403 of title 23, United States Code, there is hereby 14 authorized to he appropriated to remain available until cx- 15 pended, the a;dditioiiai siun of $30,000,000 for the fiscal 16 year ending June 30, 1970, and the additional sum of $40,- 1.7 000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. 18 AUTHORIZATIONS FOR IT1GIIWTAY BEAUTIFICATION 19 SEC. 8. (a) Section 131 (m) of title 23, United States 20 Code, is amended to read as follows: 21 " (iii) rIlli(~r&~ is authorized to J)e appropriated to carry 22 out the provisions of this section, out of any money in the 2) rIlfl~lsi 1 ~V hOt otherwise ilpproplin tcd, iiot to exceed $2( ),000,- 24 000 for the fiscal veai ending June 30, 1966, not to exceed 25 $20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, not to 96-030 O-68---9 PAGENO="0130" 120 8 1 exceed $5,000,0()U for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, 2 iiot to exceed 85.000.000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 3 1970, and not to exceed 85.000,000 for the fiscal year ending 4 Juiie 30, 1971. The provisions of chapter 1 of this title relat- 5 lug to the obligation, period of availability, and expenditure 6 of Federal-aid priniarv highwav funds shall apply to the 7 funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 8 after Juiie 30, 1967." (b) Section 136 (in), title 23, United States Code, is 10 amended to read as follows: 11 "(m) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry 12 out this section, out of any money in the Treasury not 13 otlier~vise appropriated, not to exceed $20,000,000 for the 14 fiscal year eiiding Jane 30, 1966, hot, to exceed $20,000,000 15 for the fisc~il year eiiding June 30, 1967, not to exceed 16 ~j (L000,00() for the fiscal year eiiding Juiie 30, 1069, itot 17 to exceed $10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending Juiie 30, 18 1970, and not to exceed $10,000,000 for the fiscal year 19 ending June 30, 1971. The provisions of chapter 1 of this 20 title relating to the obligation, period of availability, and 21 expenditure of Federal-aid primary highway funds shall 22 apply to the ñuids authorized to be appropriated to carry 23 out this section after June 30, 1967." 24 (c) Section 319 (b) of title 23, United States Code, is 25 amended by striking the last two sentences and inserting in PAGENO="0131" 121 9 1 lieu thereof the foflowing: "There is authorized to be appro- 2 priated to carry out this subsection, out of any money in 3 th.e Treasury not otherwise appropriated, not to exceed 4 $120,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, not 5 to exceed $120,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 6 1967, iiot to exceed $70,000,000 for the fisea~ year ending 7 June 30, 1969, not to exceed $70,000,000 for the fiscal year 8 ending June 30, 1970, and not to exceed $70,000,000 for 9 tile fiscal year ending Juiie 30, 1971. The provisions of 10 chapter 1 of this title relating to the obligation, period of 11 availability, and expenditure of Federal-aid primary high- 12 way funds shall apply to the funds authorized to be appro- 13 priated to carry out this subsection after June 30, 1967." 14 (d) Funds authorized to be appropriated by this see- 15 tion to carry out the provisions of sections 131, 136, and 16 319 (b) shall be subject to a deduction for necessary ad- 17 niinistrative expenses which shall not exceed 5 per centum 18 of the aggregate total of amounts authorized for any fiscal 19 year. 20 ADVANCE ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY 21 SEc. 9. (a.) That section 108 of title 23, United States 22 Code, is amended to read as follows: 23 ¶` (a) For the purpose of facilitating the acquisition of 24 rights-of-way on any of the Federal-aid highway systems, 1I.R.. 17134-2 PAGENO="0132" 122 10 1 including the Interstate System, in the most expeditious and 2 economical manner, and recognizing that the acquisition of 3 rights-of-way requires lengthy planning and negotiations if ~ it is to be done at reasonable cost; to facilitate the orderly ~ relocation of persons, businesses, farms, and other existing 6 users of property; to minimize right-of-way costs by fore- 7 stalling development of bind ultimately required for highway 8 purposes, and to achieve a rational development of corn- 9 munities, the Secretary, upon the request of the State high- 10 way department, is authorized to make available the funds 11 apportioned to aiiv state for expenditure on any of the 12 Federal-aid highway svsteiiis. im'ludiiig the Interstate Svs- 13 tern. for acquisition 1)1 nglits-of-w~iv ill aiiticipation of eon- 14 struction arni under such rules and regubitiomis as the 15 Secreta iv may i )leS('liJ )e* 16 " (b) Iii addition to funds available under subsection 17 (a) of this section. the Secretary is authorized to allocate 18 to each State, subject to the provisions of section 124 (h) of 19 this title. an additional amount equivalent, to 2 per eentum 20 of the aggregate sums apportioned to it under section 104 21 of this title for any fiscal veal. Within six iiionthis sub- 22 sequent to the allocation to a State of funds under this sub- 23 section the State shall (lenlollstrate to the satisfaction of the 24 Secretary that it will obligate such funds for the purposes of 25 this subsection. Any funds macic available under this sul)sec- PAGENO="0133" 123 ii 1 tion with respect to which a State has not made the demon- 2 stration required by the preceding sentence shall automati- .3 callv revert to the Secretary who may, in his discretion, make 4 such reverted fIllI(iS ~lVflihuJ)le for the p1111)05(5 of this sub- 5 section and on the basis of need to any other State requesting 6 such funds and making the requisite demonstration. 7 "(c) Before any funds may be made available to a 8 State pursuant to this section, the State highway department 9 shall enter into au agieeiiieiit with the Secretary which shall 10 provide (1) for the reimbursement of the costs of such 11 rights-of-way, and (2) for the actual construction of a road 12 on such rights-of-way, both within a period not exceeding 13 seven years following the fiscal year in which such request 14 is made or by the terminal date of the Highway Trust Fund, 15 whichever occurs first. 16 "(d) Federal participation in the cost of right-of-way 17 acquired undeu sul)section (a) of this section shall not cx- 18 ceed the Federal pro rata share applicable to the class of 19 funds from which Federal reimbursement is made except for 20 advance payments that are to be repaid under the provisions 21 of section 124 (c) of this title." (b) That section 124 of title 23, United States Code. 23 is amended by relettering the first paragraph as s11l)SeetiOuE 24 " (a) ", substituting the word "subsection" for the word PAGENO="0134" 124 12 1 ``section" in the tiurd seIltcll(P Of 511(11 5ll1)S('CtiOfl ~` (a) " and 2 adding at the end thereof the following new subsectioiis: 3 " (b) For the purpose of carrying out the provisions 4 of section 108 (b) of this title relating to the allocation of 5 additional amounts to the States for the advance acquisitioli 6 of rights-of-way, there is hereby authorized to be appropri- ~ ated from the highway trust fund such moneys, not to exceed 8 $100.000.000. as may be necessary for the initial establish- 9 ment of a fund and for its replenishment on an annual basis. 10 which may be used by the Secretary. upon the request of any State. for payment of the total cost of rigl~ts-of-w;Ly 12 acquired in advance of construction, including any iiet cx- 13 penses of property management, on aiiv of the Federal-aid 14 systems. Pending such appropriatioii. the Secretary may ad- lo vance from any cash heretofore or hereafter appropriated 16 from the highway trust fund to Federal-aid highways (mist 17 fund) for liqthdation of contract authority, such sums as iuav be necessary for payments to the States for the rights-of- 19 way acquired in advance of construction. that appropriation to I ~e rem ii )ursed from the appropna tions herein authorized 01 when made. 22 "(e) Before any funds are made available to a State 23 under suhscctioii (b) of this sectionS the respective State 24 hiighwziy department shall enter into an agreement with ~ the Secretary which shall provitie for repayment by the State PAGENO="0135" 125 13 1 of its 1)10 rata share of fuiids iiiadc available under section 2 108 of this title. Before actual construction commences on 3 rights-of-way acquired under section 108 of this title, repay- 4 ment by the State of its pro rata share of the costs applicable 5 to such project shall be credited to the highway trust fund 6 and the Federal pro rat;t share of the costs applicable to such 7 project shall be charged to the irnobhgated balance of 8 regularly apportioned fimds available to the State for im- 9 provement of the Federal-aid system for which the right-of- 10 wa.y was purchased. 11 "(d) The provisions of subsection (d), (f), and (g) of 12 section 209 of the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 13 374) shall be applicable to section 108 (b) of this title and 14 to subsection (b) of this section." 15 DEFINITIONS OF FOREST ROAI) OR TRAIL AND FOREST 16 DEVELOPMENT ROAI)S AND TRAILS 17 SEC. 10. The fourth and fifth paragraphs in section 101 18 (a) of title 23, United States Code, are amended to read as 19 follows:: 20 "The terms `forest road or trail' means a road or trail 21 wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the na- 22 tional forests a.nd other areas under Forest Service Admin- 23 istration. 24 "The term `forest development roads and trails' means PAGENO="0136" 126 14 1 those forest roads or trails of primary importance for the pm- 2 tection, administration, and utilization of the national forest 3 and other areas under Forest Service adrniriistratioii or where 4 necessary, for the use and development of the resources U~O11 5 which communities within or adjacent to the national forest 6 and other areas administered by the Forest Service are de- 7 pendent." 8 FOliEST I)EVELOT?ME~T EOADS ANT) T1~AILS 9 SEC. 11. Subsection (c) of section 405 of title 23, 10 Uiiited States Code, is amended to read as follows: 11 " (c) Construction estimated to cost 815,000 or more 12 per mile or $15,000 or more per project for projects with a length of less than one mile, exclusive of bridges and engi- 14 iieering, shall be advertised and let to contract. If such esti- 15 mated cost is less than $15,000 per mile or $15,000 ler 16 project for projects with a length of less than one mile or.if, 17 after proper advertising, no acceptable hid is received or the 18 bids are deemed excessive, the work may be done by the 19 Secretary of Agriculture on his own account." 20 URBAN AREA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS IMPROVEMENT 21 PROGRAMS 22 Si~. 12. Chapter 1 of title 2%~ Tlnited States Code, is hereby aniemided by adding the following iiew section 1 35 24 thereto: PAGENO="0137" 127 15 1 "~ 135. Urban area traffic operations improvement pro- 2 grams 3 " (a) The Congress hereby finds and declares it to be 4 in the iiatioria.l interest that each State should have a con- 5 tinning program within the designated boundaries of urban 6 areas of the State designed to reduce traffic congestion and 7 accidents and to facilitate the flow of traffic in the urban 8 areas. 9 " (b) To accomplish this objective the sums available for 10 expenditure for the purposes of this section shall be used for 11 projects which include but are not limited to those which 12 directly facilitate and control traffic flow. 13 "(c) The sums available for expenditure for the par- 14 poses of this section shall be apportioned in accordance with 15 section 104(b) (3). 16 "(d) The Federal share payable on account of any 17 project authorized by this section shall be that provided for 18 in section 120 (a) of this title. Sums available for expendi- 19 ture for the purposes of this section shall be used to finance 20 the Federal share payable under this section. 21 " (e) The provisions of chapter 1 of this title relating to 22 the obhgatiori, period of ava lahiIit~, and expenditure of ~ Federal-aid priniarv higli~vay funds shall apply to the SUIIIS 24 available for expenditure for purposes of this section." PAGENO="0138" 128 16 1 SEc. 13. The analysis of chapter 1 of title 23, United 2 States Code, is hereby amended by adding thereto, in the 3 appropriate numerical order, the following: "Sec. 135. Urban area traffic operations improvement programs." 4 FRINGE PAI~KIXG FACILITIES 5 Si~c. 14. Chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, is 6 hereby amended by adding the following new section 139 7 thereto: 8 "FEINGE PAIIKING 9 "S~c. 139. (a) It is hereby declared to be in the 10 national interest, in furtherance of the orderly development U of balanced transportation systems l)ased on a continuing 12 coniprchensive transportation plaiining piocess, to encourage 13 and assist the States iii time development of publicly owned 14 parkimig facilities outside central business districts to reduce 15 tratlie volume and increase time mobility and safe flow of 16 traffic on higliways and streets within urban areas of more 17 than fifty thousand populatiomi. 18 "(b) The Secretary may approve, as a project under 19 this title, the acquisition of land adjacent to the right-of- 20 way on any Federal-aid highway system outside a central 21 business district., as defined by the Secretary, and the con- 22 struction of publicly owned parking facilities thereon or 23 within such right-of-way, including the use of the air space 24 above and below the established grade line of the right-of- PAGENO="0139" 129 17 1 way, to serve an urban area of more than fifty thousand 2 population. Such parking facility shall be located and designed 3 to permit its use in conjunction with existing or planned 4 mass transportation facilities. In the event fees are charged 5 for the use of any such facility, the rate thereof shall not be 6 in excess of that required for maintenance and operation. 7 "(c) The Federal share payable on account of any 8 project authorized by this section shall be 75 per centum. 9 Sums apportioned in accordance with section 104 of this 10 title shall be used to finance the Federal share payable under 11 this section. 12 "(d) The Secretary shall not approve any project under 13 this section until the following conditions have been satisfied: 14 "(1) The State highway department has provided 15 assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that the State, 16 or a political subdivision thereof, or a public parking 17 authority, is authorized and capable of constructing, 18 maintaining, and operating the facility; 19 "(2) The design standards for construction of the 20 facility have been concurred in by the Secretary, which 21 shall be developed in cooperation with the State high- 22 way department; and 23 "(3) The Secretary and the State highway depart- 24 ment or other appropriate public agency have entered PAGENO="0140" 130 18 1 into an agreement, governing the financing, maintenance, 2 and operation of the facility. 3 "(e) The term `parking facilities', for purposes of this 4 section, shall include access roads, buildings, structures; equip- 5 ment, improvements, and interests in lands." 6 "(f) The Secretary shall not approve any project under 7 this section unless he determines that it is needed for carry- 8 irig out a. plan, completed or under active preparation, for a 9 unified or officially coordinated urban transportation system 10 as part of the comprehensively planned development of the 11 urban area.." 12 SEc. 15. The analysis of chapter 1 of title 23, United -L~ States Code, is hereby amended by adding thereto, in the 14 appropriate numerical order, the following: "Sec. 139. Fringe parking." PAGENO="0141" 131 Secretary Boyd, it is a pleasure to have you. Will you and your as- sociates please take the chair and you may proceed. STATEMENT OP HON. ALAN S. BOYD, SECRETARY OP TRANSPORTA- TION; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. LOWELL K. BRIDWELL, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA- TION; FRANCIS C. TURNER, DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS; DR. WILLIAM HADDON, JR., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGH- WAY SAFETY BUREAU; AN]) DR. ROBERT BRENNER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HI(+HWAY SAFETY BUREAU Secretary BOYD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is always a pleasure to appear before this committee. This morning I would like to testify on the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968. I have with me Mr. Lowell K. Bridwell, Federal High- way Administrator, Mr. Francis C. Turner, Director of the Bureau of Public Roads, Dr. William Haddon, Jr., Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau, and Dr. Haddon's Deputy, Dr. Robert Bren- ner. We have prepared for the record a detailed analysis of H.R. 17134, introduced by request, which comprises the administration program; and by reference, H.R. 16994, introduced by you, Mr. Chairman, and the chairman of the full committee. I shall confine my remarks to a summary of the significant proposals and the reasons behind some of the new proposals. The ABC program continues unchanged from the 1966 level, with $1 billion annually requested for fiscal years 1970 and 1971 for the Federal-aid primary and secondary systems and their urban exten- sion. We are asking the Congress to extend the completion date for the Interstate System from 1972 to 1974 and to add $8.340 billion to the present interstate authorization. That will give us a final cost figure for the Interstate System of approximately $50.640 billion. The administration bill would revise the schedule of authorization of appropriations to make possible the completion of the 41,000-mile Interstate Highway System. It would increase the amounts for fiscal years 1970, 1971, and 1972 to $4 billion annually. It also would add new authorization of $4 billion for fiscal year 1973 and $2.225 billion for fiscal 1974. About 6,000 miles of the Interstate System are in metropolitan areas and about half of that mileage remains unbuilt, partly because of its high cost and partly because people who live in the cities have asked us to take another look at the functions of an urban highway from their standpoint. This we have done and some of the results are evid- ent in this proposed legislation. On a more comprehensive basis than ever before, this omnthus bill recognizes that population trends have made city problems national problems, and therefore provides Federal funds for various solutions to urban highway problems. So what we are proposing are new programs-programs to improve the traffic capacity of existing roadways, to provide Federal funds for fringe parking spaces, to permit States to buy land for highways as PAGENO="0142" 132 long as `1 years in advance of need, and to expand the new highway safety programs and supportive research. Not part of the administration bill, but basic to it is a necessity for devising a new formula for compensation of homeowners dislocated by Federal-aid highway construction. When we sent the authorization bill to Congress, we stated that the admmistration would present a position on this important question. This has been done by both testunony and letter by Philip Hughes, Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget. We fully subscribe to the principles expressed by Mr. Hughes and urge their incorporation in the Federal-aid highway legislation. We believe that the Federal Government should require a uniform system by which decent, safe, and sanitary housing is provided to those who must be relocated as a result of federally assisted highway construction.. Federal aid has previously emphasized the improvement of prin- cipal urban arterials through construction. Our preliminary experi- mentation with a program known as topics-traffic operations program to increase capacity and safety-~convinces us that we can increase the traffic-carrying capability of existing heavily traveled city streets and highways by 20 to 25 percent through traffic engineering and oper- ational improvements. They would include projects that directly facili- tate and control traffic flow in and through urban areas, such as left- turn lanes and reserve lanes for buses; special turnout areas where trucks can load or unload; pedestrian overpasses; traffic channeliza- tions; and installation or modernization of traffic control and surveil- lance systems. We are asking for $250 million a year for this program beginning in foal year 1970 through 1974. The program will be administered on a 50-50 matching basis, in much the same manner as the regular Federal-aid ABC programs, fol- lowing generally the same guidelines previously issued by the Bureau of Public Roads, but also taking into account new approaches to traffic engineering as they evolve from research and experience. To coordinate the urban highway program with the urban mass transit program being transferred to our Department July 1, we are proposing for the first time to provide Federal assistance for fringe parking in large urban areas. I note with regret that this provision is omitted from the committee bill. The administration bill, however, would make it possible for us to pay 75 percent of the cost of fringe parking spaces if they were tied in with mass transit systems that would distribute people to the down- town area. Such parking facilities would have to be adjacent to Fed- eral-aid highways serving urban areas of more than 50,000 population. This program will encourage increased use of mass transit by pro- viding conveniently located, economical parking facilities. Where au- thorized, the parking facilities can be built on, over, or below the highway right-of-way. No increase in appropriations is provided ~ut States have the option to designate land acquisition and facility con- struction for fringe parking as a highway project by encouraging the use of mass transit facilities. PAGENO="0143" 133 The primary purpose in Government financing of inexpensive fringe parking is to reduce the number of vehicles using overloaded highways in the downtown area. This could in turn reduce the need for extensive improvements on these facilities. Available studies in- dicate that about 10 percent of total downtown work trip demand may be transferred to fringe parking in cities between 500,000 and 1 mil- lion population. This would have an added benefit of reducing the overload on downtown parking and freeing street lanes for vehicle movement. The estimated need is for 367,000 fringe spaces by 1975 at a cost of $387 million. Another "first" in the bill would make it possible for States to spend up to 2 percent of their allocation for advance acquisition of prop- erty for highways. The law now forbids this. As a result, highway planners often are forced to watch industrial or commercial construc- tion proceed on land they know is part of a long-range highway pro- gram. This bill would make it possible for them to buy land as many as 7 years in advance of actual need. It will cut eventual costs in many cases and will make it easier for cities to practice effective land-use planning. As I am sure you know, we have not yet received authorization for fiscal 1968 for the highway beautification program. Since it is so late in the fiscal year, the bill proposes to pick up the program in fiscal 1969 with authorizations of $85 million in each year for 3 years. This would put these authorizations on the same fiscal year basis as the biennial ABC highway program authorizations. The bill would provide $5 million for outdoor advertising control programs; $10 million for screening junkyards; and $70 million for landscaping, the purchases of scenic easement;s, and other measures. Last year your committee held very comprehensive hearings con- cerning the Highway Beautification Act, with particular emphasis on outdoor advertising control. These hearings clarified the issues and removed the uncertainties which had inhibited the implementation of the program up to that time. Since then we have been making steady progress. In the past year some 17 outdoor advertising control agreements have been signed, and we are close to agreement with a number of other States. Thirty-one State legislatures have enacted laws provid- ing for control of outdoor advertising and the legislatures of other States are presently considering such legislation, or will do so dur- ing their next regular session, many in early 1969. This progress has been brought about, I am pleased to say, without invoking the penalty provision in section 131(b) of the act. The De- partment stated last year that we had no expectation of imposing any penalties during the year 1968, or even in early 1969 if a State legis- lature would not have an opportunity to act during 1968. Section 8(c) would authorize the sum of $70 million for each of the fiscal years 1969, 1970, and 1971 for landscaping and scenic en- hancement of Federal-aid highways. Of the three titles in the Highway Beautification Act, the land- scaping and scenic enhancement provision has had the most immediate and favorable impact upon the public. All States are participating in PAGENO="0144" 134 the program, and obligations to date total $120 million in Federal funds, as follows: $31 million for landscaping; $29 million for 5,400 scenic easements, and $60 million for 510 roadside rest areas. We are requesting an authorization of $33 million for forest high- ways and $16 million for public lands highways in each fiscal year 1970 and 1971. We are again recommending, however, that these programs be financed from the highway trust fund rather than the gen- eral funds since the highways are similar in character and use to Federal-aid highways and logically should be financed in the same manner. Finally, on safety, we are asking for an increase in the budget for safety research a.nd for a continua.tion of the automobile and highway safety programs. These programs are beginning to save lives. But in order to maintain their effectiveness, we must continue to invest in research. For that reason, we are proposing a gradual increase in research funds to a level of $40 million by 1971. Under the highway safety program we have published standards covering driver education, vehicle inspection, alcohol, highway design, and other areas. If you just read the figures in section 6, you might get the impression that the program tapers off in 1971. What the figures actually mean is this: Congress has already authorized us t.o obligate a total of $267 million-$67 million of that authorized for fiscal 1967, and $100 million each for fiscal 1968 and fiscal 1969. These authoriza- tions extend for 2 years each, so we now have authorization to obligate funds through the end of fiscal 1971. We will have obligated through June 1968 only $27 million of that mnoney-partiy because of a limit of $25 million that was placed on this year's budget. So we still have $240 million. We are asking the Congress to add $50 million in fiscal year 1970 and another $75 million in 1971. I emphasize this because the amounts requested in 1970 and 1971, if taken by themselves, would seem to indicate a tapering off of the program. Actually because of the carry- over of the authorization, we expect to have the authority to obligate a total of $225 million in 1970. To qualify for assistance under this program, each State is required to improve safety programs in conformance. with national standards promulgated by the Department. The Department has been pleased with the way the States have responded to the highway safety program. For example, 34 States have enacted enabling legislation implementing the motor vehicle inspection; nine States adopted legislation for emergency medical services; 10 States have enacted implied consent laws; 13 States have enacted special motorcycle licensing laws; 26 States and the District of Columbia have enacted laws to strengthen general driver licensing statutes; 13 States have enacted laws for licensing of commercial driver training schools and instructors; and 33 additional States have adopted motorcycle helmet laws. Mr. Chairman, this completes my discussion of the provisions of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968. We believe the bill lays out a comprehensive program for attacking urban highway problems. It is not ours alone. It reflects months and years of study and thought by the Congress, by highway engineers, by PAGENO="0145" 135 architects and city planners, by just about everyone concerned with relationship between transportation and the city. The shape of the future highway program will depend in large de- gree on the decisions of the Congress on this legislation. May I re- spectfully urge this committee to make these decisions in accord with the provisions of H.R. 17134. Thank you for permitting me to appear before you. My colleagues and I are ready for questions. Mr. KLUCZYN5KI. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for that fine state- ment. Mr. Secretary, you refer to a letter and testimony by Mr. Hughes of the Bureau of the Budget. To whom was the letter sent? Where and when was the testimony presented? And what did Mr. Hughes say? Mr.~ BRIDWELL. Mr. Chairman, may I respond to your question? Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Bridwell. Mr. BRIDWELL. The letter referred to was sent by Mr. Hughes to the Senate Subcommittee on Government Operations, chaired by Senator Muskie of Maine. We will supply for the record a copy of the letter of report on legislation under consideration by that committee and a copy of the statement made by Mr. Hughes. We do not have those copies with us. However, we are prepared to discuss the contents of that. (Material referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF PHILLIP S. HUGHES, Dm~t1rv DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we `are here to discuss S. 698, "The Intergovernmental `Cooperation Act," which was introduced by the Chair- man of `the Subcommittee, and other related measures which `have as their pur- pose the enhancement of our system of federalism and the improvement of the quality of American Government. The purpose of iS. 698 is to make more workable the machinery of our Govern- ment through achieving the fullest possible cooperation and coordination of activities at the Federal, State, and local levels in-as the bill phrases it-"an increasingly complex society." To achieve this purpose the bill as introduced is designed to: (a) improve the administration of grants-in-aid to the States; (~b) permit provision of reimbursable technical services by the Federal, Government to State and local governments; (c) establish coordinated intergovernmental policy and administration of grants and loans for urban development; (d) provide for periodic congressional review of grant-in-aid programs; (e) author- ize the consolidation of certain grant programs; (f) provide for the acquisition, use, and disposition of land within urban areas by Federal agencies in con- formity with local government programs; (g) establish a uniform relocation assistance program, and (h) establish a uniform land acquisition policy for direct Federal and federally aided programs. Finally, the measure as recently amended by `Senator Muskie would aim at improving the accounting, auditing, and financial reporting requirements `asso- ciated with Federal assistance funds. The present legislation before this Subcommittee is the direct lineal descendent of previous congressional consideration over the last several years of intergov- ermental cooperation acts, all of which have been sponsored by the Chairman of this Subcommittee. Last year the Advisory `Commission on Intergovernmental Relations requested our assistance in developing an intergovernmental cooperation act. After dis- cussions with the various affected Federal agencies and with the Advisory Com- mission, agreement was reached on a measure transmitted by the AOIR con- taining five titles which are identical or substantially similar to corresponding titles of `S. 698. My testimony today will also take into account this measure as it relates to the relevant titles of S. 698. 96-030 O-65-----lO PAGENO="0146" 136 Previous Bureau testimony in 1965 and 1966 emphasized the growing impor- tance of cooperative federalism reflected in the significant enlargement of Fed- eral aid to State and local governments to deal with problems of national con- cern. In the fiscal year 1969, the total of Federal grant programs dealing with national goals in a joint endeavor by Federal, State, and local units of government will exceed $20 billion dollars. In that fiscal period, such Federal financial as- sistance to State and local governments under existing and proposed programs will total an estimated $20.3 billion, of which there will be net expenditures of $15.5 from regular budget accounts and $4.8 from the Highway and Unemploy- ment Trust Funds. In ten years, total Federal aid will have more than tripled, rising from $6.7 billion in 1959 to an anticipated $20.3 billion in 1969. It is estimated that, in the same decade, expenditures by State and local funds also will have more than doubled. The fastest growing grants are those to advance the war on poverty, to pro- vide decent medical care for the needy, to improve the facilities and services in our urban centers, and to upgrade the elementary and secondary educational opportunities available to children of low-income families. Between 1965 and 1969, grants administered by the Office of Economic Opportunity will show an increase of $1.3 billion, and those for the new elementary and secondary educa- tion program will rise by $1.4 billion. During the 1967-69 period alone expendi- tures for Medicaid will grow some $949 million, and those for housing and com- munity development will rise $1 billion. Total aids for metropolitan or urban areas have risen from $4 billion in 1961 to an estimated $12 billion in 1969. Thus, Federal aids benefiting urban areas have grown by about $8 billion-nearly tripling in less than a decade. The effective administration of Federal aid programs has received increasing attention in the last several years. The Bureau's concern has been both with the budgetary impact of grant expenditures, and with the means of coordinating the growing number of grant programs as well as devising measures for the more effective management of cooperatively financed Federal programs. The Bureau of the Budget has consistently supported the purposes of an Inter- governmental Cooperation Act. My testimony will be directed almost entirely towards those portions of 5. 698 where significant problems or issues arise. I intend now to turn to discussion of the individual titles of the bill. Title I deals solely with definitions, and we continue to support Title II, designed to improved the administration of grants-in-aid to the States. We also favor the provisions of Title III which would authorize all Federal departments and agencies to provide speciali~ed or technical services on a reimbursable basis to State and local governments. We are fully in accord with the proviso that such services shall include only those which are not reasonably and expeditiously available through ordinary business channels. Title IV of S. 698, dealing with coordinated intergovernmental policy and administration of grants for urban development, differs slightly in language from the provisions of Title IV of the ACIR bill. it would be our suggestion here that the provisions of S. 698 be conformed to the Commission's bill. The Bureau is in accord with the aim of assuring periodic congressional ré- view of Federal grant-in-aid programs, as is provided for in Title V, and in S. 458 and S. 735~ We doubt, however, either the feasibility or desirability of an arbitrary five-year termination date for such programs. Also, I wish to reaffirm our earlier views that t.he Congress itself should con- duct the periodic reviews. We believe that periodic review of grant programs by the Comptroller General or other bodies could not be as effective or serve the same purpose as a review by the relevant congressional committee, and that any review of grant programs should be initially limited to new programs. Title VI of the bill would authorize the President to follow a procedure based on the Reorganization Act of 1949 to consolidate grant-in-aid programs. Thus, it attempts to deal with one of the most significant problems affecting inter- governmental relations-the multiplicity of narrow- categorical grants. Under Title VI, the President would be authorized to prepare plans to con- solidate individual grant-in-aid programs within the same functional area when he finds consolidation to be desirable or necessary. Each plan could provide for a single consolidation and would have to place responsibility in a single agency and specify the grant formulas for the consolidated pro~ram. Such plans, like reorganization plans, would be transmitted to the Congress by the President. Congressional action would be governed by a procedure similar to that under PAGENO="0147" 137 the reorganization statute, expect that the Congress would have 90 days to reject grant consolidation plans rather than the 60 days provided for disapproval of a reorganization plan. If Title VI is narrowly interpreted, it adds very little to the authority which the President already has under the reorganization statute and might conceiv- ably be construed as a limitation on that authority. Under the reorganization statute, the President has the authority to propose plans which may transfer functions involving any number of grant-in-aid programs. For example, Reor- ganization Plan No. 2 of 1968 transfers authority for a series of urban mass transportation grant programs from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the Department of Transportation. Under Title VI each plan may deal with "only one consolidation of individual grant programs," and that must be within the same functional area. Section 602(a) (2) of Title VI appears to be the only specific addition to the President's existing authority. It states that each grant consolidation plan "shall specify in detail the formula or formulas for the making of grants under the con- solidated program. . . ." If that language is intended to `authorize the President to include changes in matching and apportionment formulas in a grant consolida- tion plan, it goes beyond the authority contained in the reorganization statute. However, that authority by itself may not be useful since program consolidation would generally also require changes in eligibility, planning, and other require- ments as well. In addition, we believe the Committee should carefully consider the use of the type of procedure set forth in Title VI to deal with matters which go beyond questions of the internal organization of existing executive branch functions with which `the President may deal under the reorganization statute. Grant consolidations, in most cases, would have to involve changes in existing func- tions and substantive law which are of major concern outside the executive branch. While we have reservations about the approach used in Title VI, we share your concern about the current multiplicity of narrow grant programs. We be- lieve some consolidation into broader progi~am grants is desirable and have been working with various agencies to explore the possibility of developing such grants. Title VII amends the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act by adding a't the end thereof a new Title Vill-Urban Land Utilization. This Title would' require the Administrator of General Services to give advhnce and "reasonable notice" to a responsible official of local governments before of- fering for sale any Federal real property located within an urban area as de- fined in the Act. The Administrator also would `be required to provide available zoning informa- tion to prospective purchasers of such property. He would additionally be re- quired `to the extant practicable to comply with local zoning requirements, to give advance notice of plans to acquire additional Federal property, and to consider objections by local governments to proposed Federal acquisition and use of real property in urban areas. The Bureau of the Budget generally supports provisions of Title VII of this bill but believes that the provisions should be conformed to those contained in `the Advisory Commission's bill Title VIII of 5. 098 is to establish a uniform policy for the fair and equitable treatment of owners, tenants, and other persons displaced by the acquisition of real property by Federal and federa'liy assisted progrsms. This policy would be as uniform as practicable as to (1) relocation payments, (2) advisory as- sistance, (3) assurance of availability of standard housing, and (4) Federal reimbursement for relocation payments under federally assisted programs. Generally, we believe that Title VIII would establish a workable, uniform sys- tem for fair and equitable treatment of those displaced by such land acquisi- tions. However, we believe that it could be substantially improved in `a number of respects to meet more adequately its objectives. If it is agreeable to `the Com- mittee, I would like to present for inclusion in the record at an appropriate point a statement containing detailed comments on Title VIII and at `this time address our more significant recommendations. First is the question of the method of financing the cost of relocation ex- penses for federaliy assisted programs and for programs which require State agencies to furnish land incident to a Federal public improvement project. This subject is covered in Sections 804 and 807(b). The net elfect of both pro- PAGENO="0148" 138 visions is to require the Federal Government to pay 100 percent of the cost of relocation in most cases. We agree that under these programs the same type of relocation payments, services and assurances as are required for Federal programs should be fur- nished. However, we believe that the cost of relocation should be considered as a part of the cost of the acquisition of land and should be borne by the party responsible for land acquisition. Where acquisition of land is a prerequisite to a project and the State agency normally would pay for the cost of the land, we believe that the cost of relocation should be the responsibility of the State agency. Where the cost of the land is shared on some type of a previously agreed-ujx~n basis, or prescribed by law. we believe that the costs of relocation should be shared on the same basis. Second, section 803(e) (2) requires assurance of the availability of adequate substitute dwefflngs within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement for all individuals displaced by the Federal Government. This assurance may be waived in periods of national emergency proclaimed by the President. We believe that there may be other cases when it will be in the national interest to proceed urgently with a land acquisition and that, therefore, the Government must have some additional flesibility in this regard. For example, we have been advised by the Department of Defense that there have been a number of times when it has been necessary to acquire property for urgent national defense purposes when the President has not proclaimed a period of national. emergency. There may well be other situations in addition to the national defense when the Government must move swiftly to protect individuals or a community. We recommend revision of Section 803(c) (2) to provide that the President may prescribe by regulations those situations when such assurances may be waived. Third, Title VIII does not r~cognize the problem of the owner-occupai~t of r~al property which is acquired, but for which the fair market value paid is not sufficient to enable the previous owner to obtain a decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling adequate in size to meet his needs. This most frequently occurs as a result of the private market no longer producing a significant volume of new housing in the price ranges comparable to that being acquired under Federal and federally assisted programs. We believe this problem should be dealt with in Title VIII by providing for a payment of up to $5,000 which would represent an amount which, when added to the acquisition payment, equals the average price required for a decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling of modest standards available on the private m~rket. Tourth, Section 802(b) provides that a displaced person who moves or dis- continues his business may elect to accept an optional payment of up to $5,000. If, as we understand it, the intent of this provision is to recognize both the cost of moving and the economic impact of displacement, we recommend that 4t be clarified by ~tuthorizing the payment of (a) actual moving expenses plus (b) a payment equal to the average annual net earnings of the business or $2,500, whichever is the lesser. Fifth, Section 80S(d) would make three changes in Section 7(b) (3) of the Sniall Business Act. Under the current law some businesses are eligible for long `term low interest loans, if they have suffered substantial economic injuries as a result of displacement by a federally aided urban renewal, or highway con- struction program, or by any other construction conducted by or with funds provided by `the Federal Government. Title VIII would extend this loan program (1) to cover not only small businesses displaced, but also non-clisp1ac~d small businesses which suffer economic injury, (2) to cover businesses injured not only by urban renewal and highway or other construction programs, but by also ". . . any other public improvement progi~am. . ." and (3) to cover not only businesses injured by Federal or federally aided programs, but also busi- nesses injured by wholly State or local programs. We are opposed to these amendments to the Small Business Act. We believe it is impractical to provide assistance to other than those who are actually displaced, and we believe it inappropriate for the Federal Government to assume responsibility for reloca- tion for displacees from other than Federal or federally aided programs. Title IX of the bill would establish a uniform policy on land acquisition prac- tices. We concur in the objectives of Title IX; but believe that certain amend- ments are desirable for purposes of clarification, permitting greater flexibility and more fully protecting the Government's interest. PAGENO="0149" 139 Section 901(a) (3) concerns the establishment of a fair and reason'able price to be paid for property acquired. We interpret this provision as assuring that the Government will reimburse landowners in an amount which is fair and reasonable, commensurate with the appraised value of the land, and arrived at through mutual negotiation. We do not believe that the proviaion is intended to preclude effective negotiation or to establish a "one price" policy. Since some of the administering agencies so interpret the s~ction, we recommend that the legislative history make it clear that a hard and fast "one price" policy is not intended. Section 902 provides that when real property is acquired, the fair market value for such property should be paid therefor unless it is the intention of the seller to convey the property for less than fair market value. We concur with this provision. Section 903(c) provides that in determining the extent of real property to be acquired and the evaluation thereof, we should pay for tenants' improvements even though the tenant may be required to remove the improvements by a con- tract with the owner of the land. The Department of Justice and some of the major land owning agencies point out that the present language might cause the Federal Government to pay both the property owner and the tenant for the improvements. We will be glad to provide language to assure that the interest of the United States will be protected and the objective of the provision accomplished. Section 904 provides that an acquiring agency shall reimburse the seller for all reasonable expenses incidental to the transfer of title to the Government. We favor the objective of this provision, but recommend certain minor amend- ments concerning the timing of the payment and limitations on reimbursement to sellers for mortgage penalty costs. We will provide language to improve this section. Section 905(b) details those land acquisition policies that State agencies will be required to follow after January 1, 1970 to obtain approval of grants, agree- ments, or contracts for Federal financial assistance where acquisition of land or of any public improvement is part of the cost. We recommend that this pro- vision be amended to defer the effective date of the requirement for three years after enactment to allow State and local governments sufficient time to make necessary changes in their laws. Section 905(b) (3) provides for the acquisition of tenants' improvements in federally assisted programs. The purpose of this section is identical to the purpose of section 903(c) which is applicable to Federal programs. We have already recom- mended certain revisions to section 903(c). We believe that the two sections should be identical. Section 906 provides that effective January 1, 1970, certain specified sections of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 are repealed. We have al- ready recommended that the effective date for the requirements of Federal aid specified in Section 905(b) be changed to three years after enactment. We would make the same recommendation concerning repeal of the specified sections of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965. The purpose of Title X is to encourage simplification and improve coordination of accounting, auditing, and financial reporting requirements of Federal assist- ance programs, and to provide for a survey of the adequacy and effectiveness of the accounting and auditing systems of recipient jurisdictions. Additionally, this title of the bill places new responsibilities upon the Comptroller General of the United States in respect to the financial administration of grant programs at the State and local levels, including the promulgation of rules and regulations for using State and political subdivision accounting and auditing in meeting fi- nancial management requirements of such programs. This title of the bill would also require a joint study by the Comptroller General of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, looking towards improvement of the financial administration of grant programs at the Federal and local levels. We agree that there is need for improving the financial management of grant programs through more simplification and better coordination of accounting, auditing, and reporting activities. The Committee may be interested to know that in 1965 the Bureau of the Budget issued Circular No. A-73, the purpose of which is to promote improved audit practices and to achieve more efficient use of man- power through improved coordination of the efforts of Federal, State, and local government audit staff. PAGENO="0150" 140 In this regard the Committee may also be interested to know that just last week the Comptroller General, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget agreed to launch, under the auspices of the joint financial management improvement program, an interagency study in this area. We rec- onimend deferral of legislative action on this title of the bill pending completion of the interagency study. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I simply reiterate that the Bureau of the Budget believes the objectives of the intergovernmental Cooperation Act are most meri- torious and will make a positive contribution to a stronger and more effective American federalism. TITLE VIII-UNrFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE Title VIII of the bill would establish a uniform policy for the fair and equitable treatment of owners, tenants, and other persons displaced by the acquisition of real property by Federal and federally assisted programs or by related activity in public improvement programs. Title VIII states that this policy would be as uniform as practicable as to (1) relocation payments, (2) advisory assistance, (3) assurance of availability of standard housing, and (4) Federal reimburse- ment for relocation payments under federally assisted programs. The House Public Works Committee's Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition issued a staff report in 1965 which clearly documents the case that the Federal, State and local governments are faffing far short of equity in treat- ment of those displaced by governmental programs. The Bureau of the Budget favors enactment of legislation which would minimize inequities which exist when land is acquired for use in a Federal or federally assisted program. Generally, Title VIII would establish a workable, uniform system for fair and equitable treatment of individuals displa~ed by acquisition of real property in Federal and federally assisted programs. However, in an effort to improve the bill, we have a number of recommendations and also offer some technical suggestions. Section 802(b) provides that under certain circumstances, a displaced person who moves or discontinues his business may elect to accept an optional payment of up to $5,000. We understand thaat the intent of this optional payment is to cover both (1) the cost of moving and (2) a readjustment aflowance payment to assist small businesses in making up for the economic: impa~t of displacement. If this is in fact the intent, we recommend that Section 802(b) be revised to treat these two purposes more clearly by providing for two separate payments; one for actual moving expenses and one for economic readjustment. Accordingly, Section 802(b) should be amended as follows: Delete the first sentence in Section 802(b) be- ginning on line 19, page 33 "If" and ending on line 2, page 34 with "lesser." Sub- stitute the following for this sentence: "In addition to the payment authorized by Subsection (a) of this section an additional payment is authorized for any displaced person who moves or discontinues his business provided the average annual net earnings of the business are less than $10,000 per year. This payment shall be in an amount equal to the average annual net earnings of the business or $2,500, whichever is the lesser." Section 802(c) (3) provides that should a displaced person who moves from a dwelling select an optional payment in lieu of reimbursement for fair and reason- able expenses. as provided by 802(a), he would receive $300 in addition to the allowances provided by 802(c) (1) and 802(c) (2) if he purchases a dwelling for purpose of residence within one year from the date of actual displacement. This payment would be made only if the displaced person selects the optional payment. We would like to invite the Committee's consideration of whether or not this payment should also be made to a displaced person who elects to receive fair and reasonable relocation payments as provided by Section. 802 (a). The provisions of Title VIII fail to recognize the problem of the owner-occu- pant of real property which is acquired, but for which the fair market value paid is not sufficient to enable the previous owner to obtain a decent, safe and sunitary dweffing adequate in size to meet his needs. This most frequently occurs as a result of the private market no longer producing a significant volume of new housing in the price ranges comparable to that being acquired under Federal and federally- assisted programs. Accordingly, we invite the Committee's consideration of the following amendment to be inserted as subsection 802(f), with the present sub- section (f) redesignated (g). "(f) (1) In addition to amounts otherwise authorized, the head of such Federal agency may make a payment to the owner of real property which is acquired for PAGENO="0151" * 141 the project and which is improved by a single- or two-family dwelling occupied by. the owner for a period of not less than one year prior to the initiation of negotiations for the acquisition of such property. Such payment, not to exceed $5,000, shall be an amount which, when added to the acquisition payment, equals the average price required for a decent, safe and sanitary dwelling of modest standards adequate in size to accommodate the displaced owner, reasonably ac- cessible to public services and places of employment and available on the private market: Provided, that such payment shall be made only to a displaced owner who purchases and occupies a dwelling within one year subsequent to the date on which he is required to move from the dwelling acquired for the project. "(2) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall make the determinations under this subsection on the prices prevailing in the locality for dwellings meeting the requirements of paragraph (1) above for all agencies makng such payments." Section 802(f) of the bill would make all functions performed under Sec- tion 802 subject to the provisions of the Act of June 11, 1946 and judicial review. The Department of Justice and the major real property acquiring agencies ad- vise that this provision would unnecessarily burden property acquiring agencies with the expense of making a record upon which defense of their determinations may be based and will add to the litigation load of the Department of Justice. Furthermore, it appears that under Section 802(f) only the publication, public inspection, and judicial review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act would' be applicable, although the "all functions performed under this section" language carries the implication that administrative determinations must be made in accordance with all the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. In the latter circumstance the expense to agencies would be considerable, and delays in making payments would detract from some of the intended benefits of the bill. The primary purpose of Section 802(f) is to give recognition to the principle that the payments authorized by Section 802 should be viewed as rightful com- pensation of persons displaced by Federal programs. The need for this provision would appear to be more theoretical than practical. The Department of Defense advises that during 15 years it has administered thousands of applications for payments for relocation costs under its broad authority (10 U.S.C. 2680) with a negligible number of appeals from displaced individuals to the Department. We believe that the objective of this provision can be achieved by making clear that the provisions of Section 802 as regards relocation payments would represent congressional policy and that the heads of agencies would be responsible for its faithful execution. For the language now in Section 802 (f) we recommend substituting: "Any person aggrieved by a determination as to eligibility for a payment authorized by this section, or the amount of a payment, may have his application reviewed by the head of the agency, whose determination shall be final, and no provision of this section shall be construed to give any person a cause of action in any court." Section 803(a) of the bill provides for a relocation assistance program not only to individuals actually displaced from the acquired property but also to those who occupy property adjacent to the acquired property and who are caused ~ubstantial economic injury by the acquisition. We believe it is impractical to determine where to stop Government assistance if indirect effects of Government acquisition are to be considered. For example, a business operating one block (or farther) from the property taken might be affected more than one adjacent to it. Suppliers or customers of businesses adjacent to such property may also be adversely affected if those businesses move or cease operations. Moreover, it wouuld often be impossible to determine whether the decreased profits or losses suffered by an adjacent business were actually caused by the property acquisition or by other factors. We are convinced that aid to those indirectly affected should be confined to that generally available, such as loans and advisory services from the Small Business Administration or as- sistance under the Manpower Development Training Act. We therefore recom- mend that the balance of Section 803(a) beginning with "If the head of such agency" on line 18, page 38, be deleted. Section 803(c) (2) would require Federal agencies to assure the availability of adequate substitute dwellings within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. The last clause of Section 803(c) (2) provides for waiver of the assurance requirement in periods of national emergency proclaimed by the PAGENO="0152" 142 President. We believe that there may be other cases when it will be in the national interest to proceed with a land acquisition project even though the Government cannot assure comparable housing within an individual's financial means. For example, we have been advised by the Department of Defense that there have been a number of times when it has been necessary to acquire real property for urgent national defense purposes when the President has not for- mally proclaimed a period of national emergency. This situation arose during the Cuban crisis when it was necessary to obtain certain properties and thou- sands of cableline easements were urgently required for the installation of Minute Man Launching Sites and easements for the control of such launching for the protection of this Nation. Under the then existing world situation, any delay which would have resulted to enable assurance of housing could have re- sulted in incalculable dangers or risks. There are other situations in addition to the national defense of the country when the Government must move swiftly to protect individuals or a community. Some of these may be caused by natural disasters such as floods or earthquakes, or sometimes it has been our experience when excavations are made for the basement and piles are driven for the new building, large timber supporting footings of adjacent buildings are endangered. Such is the case surrounding the new Foley Square Courthouse, an office buildiig in New York City, New York. We believe it is desirable to provide sufficient flexibility in the relocation re- quirements of the bill to enable a distinction to be made when circumstances similar to those described above may arise. Therefore, we recommend revision of this section to provide that the President may provide by regulations situations when such assurances may be waived. This can be accomplished by deleting the balance of Section 803(c) (2) begin- ning with "such assurance" on line~ 18, page 39, and substituting the following: "the President may prescribe by regulation situations when such assurances may be waived; . ." Section 803(d) would make three changes in Section 7(b) (3) of the Small Business Act. Under the current law, small businesses are eligible for long term, low interest loans if they have suffered substantial economic injury as a result of displacement by a federally aided urban renewal or highway construction program or by any other construction conducted by or with funds provided by the Federal Government. Title VIII would extend this loan program (1) to cover not only small businesses displaced, but also non-displaced small businesses which suffer economic injury, (2) to cover businesses injured not only by urban renewal and highway or other construction programs but also by ". . . any other public improvement program . . ." and (3) to cover not only businesses injured by Federal or federally aided programs but also businesses injured by wholly State-run programs. The Bureau of the Budget is opposed to these amendments to the Small Busi- ness Act. As noted in our comments on Section 803 (a), we believe it is imprac- tical to provide assistance to other than those who are actually displaced. Fur- ther, we do not believe it is appropriate for the Federal Government to assume responsibility for relocation for displacees from other than Federal or federally assisted programs. Accordingly, we recommend that Section 803(d) be deleted. ~ectiom 804 provides that when lands are acquired by a State agency for a Federal public improvement project, such acquisition shall be deemed to be an acquisition by the Federal agency having authority over the project for pur- poses of providing relocation payments, assistance and assurances. The staff report of the House Public Works Committee's Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition included a bill with such a provision. That report states that the reason for this provision is to assure relocation assistance for individuals displaced when local interests provide the necessary lands for Federal projects, as in the case of flood control projects. The Corps of Engineers requires localities to furnish lands, easements, rights of way, and relocation of utilities in these and certain other water resource projects. We agree with the intent of Section 804 to provide relocation assistance for displaced individuals in public improvement projects. as in the case of acquisi- tions of property by a Federal agency. However, when land is furnished incident to a Federal public improvement project, relocation should be the responsibility of the State agency as a prerequisite to the acceptance of the properties for project purposes. Relocation expenses should be considered an essential cost of the acquisition and borne by the party responsible for land acquisition. PAGENO="0153" 143 In addition, we do not believe that the present arrangements for cost sharing should be disturbed because the study of the Water Resources Council (estab- lished by P. L. 89-80) on this subject is no.t complete. Pending the outcome of the Council study, present cost sharing arrangements should not be disturbed and the relocation expense should be considered part of the land acquisition cost for Federal public improvement projects and be borne by the local agencies. Accordingly, we recommend that the following be substituted for Section 804: "Sec. 804. Whenever real property is acquired by a State agency for a Federal Public improvement project, the Federal agency having authority over such project may only accept such property in those cases in which the acquiring State agency has made relocation payments, provided relocation assistance, and provide assurance of availability of housing as required in the case of acquisitions of real property by a Federal agency, such payments and assistance to be con- sidered a part of the real property acquisition cost." Section 805 would authorize the President to make such rules and regulations determined necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act and also would prescribe minimum legislative guidelines. Section 805(a) (2) (A) would limit reimbursement to acual and reasonable expenses in searching for a replacement farm to those individuals who are displaced from a farm operation. The De- partment of Defense advises that it has followed the policy of reimbursing per- sons in locating all types of replacement property and can find no reason to limit the reimbursement to farms. The General Services Administration also recom- mends reimbursement for searching for all types of replacement property. Ac- cordingly, we recommend that this provision be amended on page 42, lines 5 and 6 by deleting "in the case of a farm operation," and on page 42, line 7 by substituting "property" for "farm".. Sectioi~ 805(a) (2) (B) would authorize a payment to businesses and farm op- erations which dispose of their personal property and replace such at the new location. This payment would be made whether or not any expense is actually incurred by displaced persons. The Department of Defense, under its present authority to make relocation payments, only authorizes the payment of the difference between the sale price and the cost of comparable replacement prop- erty, but not in excess of the cost oct moving the property or its market value, whichever is less. Under the present language, the owner would be entitled to an amount equivalent to the full cost of moving irrespective of any difference between the disposal and replacement amounts. A displaced person who would dispose and replace personal property of a very low value, which is very bulky, heavy and costly to move might receive an unintended "windfall" if the present language r~mains in the bill. We believe that the present practice of the Depart- ment of Defense should be made applicable to all programs and We recommend that this provision be amended to read as follows: "(B) if he disposes of personal property on moving his business or farm opera- tion and replaces such property with comparable property at the new location at a price exceeding the sale price, the amount of the difference of such prices, not to exceed, however, the estimated cost of moving the property or its market value, whichever is less." Section 807 details the requirements for approval of contracts or agreements State agencies must meet for Federal financial assistance, the type of relocation payments and assistance to be provided, and how the program is to be financed. Section 807(a) (2) requires State agencies to make fixed relocation payments in the same amount and under the same terms and conditions as are required to be made by a Federal agency by subsection 802(b), (c), (d), and (e) of this title. We believe there should also be authorized for federally assisted projects the payment for owner-occupants which we recommended as a new subsection 802(f). However, we understand that several States are considering legislation which would permit such payments as a part oct the acquisition price under eminent domain rather than as a separately determined relocation payment. We believe this bill should prevent the possibility of double payment without, however, eliminating an area of experimentation. This can be accomplished by a provision prohibiting Federal assistance for a payment under this section if the owner- occupant receives a payment under state law which the head of the Federal agency determines to have the same purpose and effect and for which Federal assistance is available. Accordingly, we recommend the following language be inserted as subsection 807 (a) (5) PAGENO="0154" 144 "(5) A payment for owner-occupants under the same terms and conditions as are required to be made by Federal agencies by subsection 802(f) of this Act: Provided, That no such payment shall be required or included as a proj- ect cost under subsection 807(b) if the owner-occupant receives a payment re- quired by State law of eminent domain which is determined by the head of the Federal agency to have substantially the same purpose and effect as subsection 802(f) and to be part of the cost of the project for which Federal financial assistance is available." Section 807(b.) provides in the case of federally assisted projects that costs of relocation would be included in project costs and Federal financial assistance would be provided to the same extent as other project costs, except that the Federal agency would contribute the first $25,000 of the cost of providing a relo- cation payment to any displaced person. The effect of the proposal would be to have the Federal Government assume almost all relocation payments. We believe that relocation payments are an essential element of project cost and see no reason to exempt the first $25,000 from the usual sharing requirements. Moreover, these relocation provisions will be administered by local agencies. They can be expected to administer the provisions more economically and efficiently if they are also required to bear the same portion of these costs as of other project costs involved. We believe strongly that relocation payments should he shared as other project costs. Accordingly, we recommend that the comma after "project costs" on line 24, page 45, be changed to a period and the balance of the sentence on lines 24 and 25 of page 45 and 1 of page 46 be deleted. We believe that a new section should be added to this title to provide for the effective date of this title. This amendment is necessary to provide sufficient time for the assignment of responsibility and for drafting of regulations for direct Federal programs and to allow State and local governments sufficient time to make necessary changes in their laws and possibly their constitutions to permit the agreements required as a condition of Federal aid. We recommend the new Sec- tion 811 should read as follows: "This Act shall become effective 180 days after enactment, except that Sections 807, 808, and 810(a) (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) ,and (10) shall become effective three years after enactment; Provided, that, commencing 180 days after enact- ment, the provisions of Sections 807 and 808 shall be applicable with respect to any contract, grant to, or agreement with a State agency, where such State agency is able under State law or local ordinance to agree to the requirements set out in Section 807(a) and the provisions of law governing relocation payments and assistance otherwise applicable to the provisions of Federal financial assistance to such State agency shall be superseded by this Act." BUREAU OF THE BUDGET PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 903(c) ~i~D 904 SECTION 903(0) Change the period at the end of1~he section to a comma and add as follows: "which determination of fair value and method used by the agency head shall be final and conclusive. Provided, (1) that payment hereunder will not result in duplication of any payments otherwise authorized by law; (2) that the fee owner of the land involved disclaims any interest in the improvements of the lessee; and (3) the lessee in consideration for such payment shall assign, transfer and release to the United States all his right, title and interest in and to such im- provements; Provided further, that no provision of this section shall be con- strued to deprive the lessee of his right to reject the payments hereunder and to obtain payment for his property interests of just compensation as otherwise de- fined by law." SECTION 904 (1) On line 1 of Section 904(a) after "agency," delete "not later than" and substithte "as soon as practical after." (2) On line 14 of subsection 904(a) (2), after "property" delete "; and" and add as follows: "provided that such mortgage shall be of record as required by law on the date the official announcement of the project is made by the authorized Federal agency; and" Mr. KLuczri~s1TI. What did Mr. Hughes say in the letter? Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Hughes stated a position for the administration on a uniform relocation assistance policy to be applicable to all Fed- PAGENO="0155" 145. eral or Federal-aid programs throughout the Federal establishment. The testimony and the position as expressed by Mr. Hughes had the following principal points: No. 1-and I will address this, if I may, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the highway program,- rather than all Federal or all Federal-aid programs. Even though Mr. Hughes' testi- mony was addressed to all Federal or Federal-aid programs, I would prefer, if I may, to put it in the context of the highway program. He stated the following principal points: That each State would be responsible for assuring that it will provide fair and reasonable re- location payments, rent supplements, and replacement housing pay- ments prior to the approval of projects by the Secretary under sec- tion 106, that relocation assistance programs would be offered-that is, relocation assistance in the form of advice, help to individuals in finding replacement housing. And that a State highway department could rely upon any other State or local organization having an estab- lished organization for conducting relocation assistance programs to carry out this responsibility. That the Federal share of the cost of this program would be in the same proportion as, in this instance, the highway program to which it applied. The Secretary would have the authority to establish criteria for decent, safe, and sanitary housing for relocatees, and that would deter- mine the eligibility for any one of the assistance programs-namely, rent supplement or a replacement assistanc~ amount. The replacement assistance amount would be limited to a maximum of $5,000, and the amount that a relocatee could claim would be that amount of difference between what he received for the purchased or condemned property under the traditional fair market system and the amount that he would have to pay for a decent, safe, and sanitary replacement dwelling. In the instance of a tenant as distinguished from an owner-occupant, the Secretary would be authorized to supplement rents up to a maxi- mum of $500 per year for 2 years; again the amount would be based upon the difference that he paid in rent for the place from which he was removed and the amount that he would have to pay for a new residence under the criteria of decent, safe, and sanitary housing. Those are the principal modifications from the report which we previously submitted last year to the committee in response to its direction to make a study of right-of-way acquisition and relocation assistance policies and practices. Mr. KLUOZYNSKI. Mr. Bridwell, you are talking about the relocat- ing of tenants, families, and businesses? Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, sir. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Also businesses. What is the amount toward the business for relocation? Mr. BImmwELL. The business is actual moving cost up to a maxi- mum-it is actual moving cost and in addition to that, an additional payment would be authorized for any displaced business, the owner of which has an average annual net earning of less than $10,000. And that the additional payment to the business for this group would be an amount equal to the average annual net earning of the business or $2,500, whichever is less. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Did you say $2,500? Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, sir. So it is actual moving cost plus up to $2,500 extra payment for businesses, the average annual net earnings of which are $10,000 or less. PAGENO="0156" 146 Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Tinder the urban renewal and HTJD, isn't there a HUD figure of $10,000 for the relocation of business? Mr. BRIDWELL.: Under existing law, you are correct, Mr. Chairman, that under the urban renewal program there is a maximum of $25,000 for the relocation of a business. This is what we are pointing out is different in this sense, that instead of saying a maximum of $25,000, Mr. Hughes testified before the committee that the Federal Govern- ment should pay the actual moving cost and then, in addition to that, for businesses which earn net earnings of less than $10,000 a year, they should pay up to $2,500 in addition. Mr. KLUOZYNSKI. Thank you. Mr. Bridwell, it is my understanding that the future before any further construction can get underway within urban areas you plan to be in a position to have persons or businesses who would be forced to move as a result of such construc- tion already moved completely out of the way before any construction is undertaken. Would you explain to the committee how you intend to operate this phase of the program? Mr. BRIDWELL. I believe, Mr. Chairman, you are referring to a sec- tion in which the Secretary, by statute, would be required not to ap- prove any project until he received a series of assurances. These assurances would be that fair and reasonable relocation pay- ments, rent supplements, and replacement housing payments would be offered to those persons, families, businesses, which meet the criteria established in the proposed legislation; that relocation assistance in the form of advice, service, that type of thing, would be offered to these persons; that the State or its agency operating under contract would provide a feasible method for the temporary relocation of fam- ilies and businesses required to move, and that over a reasonable period of time there would be available in areas not generally less desirable decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings as defined by the Secretary. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Now, Mr. Secretary, I note you spoke about "I note with regret that this provision is omitted from the Committee bill." That is on the fringe parking. True, the chairman of the full committee and J introduced H.R. 16994 on May 2 and we deleted the fringe parking and the beautification from the bill sent to us by the administration. On May 8, Mr. Fallon, chairman of the full conmut- tee, and myself had introduced H.R. W134, and we included beautifica- tion and fringe parking. Now Mr. Secretary, fringe parking is completely a new program and a new concept. Would you care to elaborate in further detail beyond your prepared statement what is intended by this program? Secretary BoIYD. What is intended by this program primarily, Mr. Chairman, is to help the viability of cities particularly during the periods of peak-hour congestion. There are two parts to this highway transportation system. One is the highway and another is a place to park the automobile. And there is rather severe shortage of parking facilities in most cities of this country today. There is an opportunity to provide through this program we are submitting substantial parking facilities on the fringes of the cen- tral business district, or of the urban area, where primarily buses can pick up the people who park their cars there, get them downtown, without having all of the congestion which those cars would other- PAGENO="0157" 147 wise cause on the street, and provide them with a better service than they will be able to get if they continue to use their automobiles, as they are doing m increasing numbers, in the central business district. In addition, the fact that the streets are being so heavily overused now and increasmg the costs of maintaining those streets, we feel that this would provide both a better service to the public and, second, reduce by some extent the expenses of maintaining the existing city street system because of this heavy overuse. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Secretary, we have heard some talk about, having in the future construction of highways, a separate lane for buses only. That is just in the talking stage? Secretary BoYD. Yes, sir. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. But I wonder if you could elaborate on that? Secretary BoYD. Yes, sir. This is included as one of the areas that would ~ pursued under the TOPICS program, which is also men- tioned in my testimony. To give you a specific example, we have been talking to the New York Port Authority and the State of New Jersey about the possibil- ity of reserving a lane in the Lincoln Tunnel during rush hours for the movement of buses. This would increase very substantially the number of people who can get in and out of the city within a specified period of time over the number of people who could move strictly by private automobile. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. That was my next question. Another program you presented to the committee was the so-called Topics program. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland at this time. Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, I have a question with regard to your discussion of fringe parking in the suburban areas of the city. Are you aware of an experiment that was made in Baltimore several years ago just out of the central city area where the Baltimore Stadium is located? They have an area there around the stadium where you can park about 5,000 cars, `and because the ball games are mostly played at night, except on weekends, this great big parking area was available for the experiment. They could bring their cars from the north and northeast into the sec- tion of the city which is very heavily populated by thousands and thou- sands of cars in the inner city each day. The city provided free parldii~g and the transit company buses were available there to take Them into different parts of the central city. When it was first inaugurated it looked like it was going to be a success but gradually fell `off. It fell off to a point where the transit company couldn't afford to furnish the buse~ any longer. So what you are talking about, we have extperimented with and failed. I am wondering if it is not going to be the same, after these areas are built, `if people are still going to want to use their automobiles, like they have, from their homes closer to the business where they won't have to get on a bus, and walk four or five squares, and back to the bus in the evening. It didn't work out in Baltimore. What makes you think it will work out any place else? Secretary BoYD. I am glad you raised that point, Mr. Chairman. The fact of the matter is not only did it fail in Baltimore, it failed in Los Angeles, Calif., where they attempted the same thing at Holly- PAGENO="0158" 148 wood Bowl which has a tremendous parking lot. I don't know the capacity. Aiid it failed in Miami, Fla. Now, there are several reasons for the failure, as best we can identify them. First and foremost, in a number of these cities, what happened was that you on would drive to the parking lot, many times in an air- conditioned automobile, and we would get out, and we would wait a few minutes, maybe have to walk several blocks; and then we would get on an old junker of a bus which burned gasoline and stunk to high heaven, wasn't air conditioned, was hot and dirty, with a driver who was sweating under his collar and very much upset about the world in general; and the frequency of the service was not the way it should be because people don't like to wait. Incidentally, though, this same thing is working very well in New York. The New York Port Authority has a tremendous parking lot just across the river in New Jersey from the Lincoln Tunnel and that parking lot, which holds-I don't know; several thousand cars-ifils up early every morning. Then buses take those people directly into the Port Authority Bus Terminal. So it is working in some cities. Now this, I think, really gets to the heart of what is important about the Department of Transportation and it gets to the heart of what we have been talking about-a total transportation system. There has got to be comparable service provided if people are going to use this service. Comparable service, in my mind, means buses that are clean, that are air conditioned, that have comfortable seats, and that moves with frequency. Now with the transfer of the Urban Mass Transit Administration from the Department of Housing and Urban Development into the Department of Transportation, if we are able to get these fringe park- ing programs set up, we will be able, simultaneously, to work out the kinds of support for the community which will permit this kind of bus service to operate. Mr. FALLON. Well, Mr. Secretary, I don't know the conditions of the buses in Baltimore, but from observation at the time the buses seemed to be a little bit more adequate than the buses you described. I have passed there many mornings-I wasn't going downtown but I was going to the railroad station-but from observing the buses they seemed to be new buses, air conditioned, and very comfortable. Secretary Bo~m. May well be. Mr. FALLON. I don't think that was the reason in Baltimore. I think the reason was after the persons got off the bus, they didn't want to walk three or four squares to their office when they were used to parking much closer. Secretary Bo~n. Well, thatmay well be, Mr. Chairman, but I think the facts are also that if we continue to rely on the private automo- bile, these people are going to be walking three or four squares any- way, as new office buildings go up with insufficient parking space and no office building to my knowledge is putting in the parking space sufficient to take care of, (a) the tenants in the building, and (b), the business visitors to the building today. Every time our chamber of commerce goes out and brings in new business and generates new downtown construction, they are making it more and more difficult for the individual to get in and out of town in his own automobile. PAGENO="0159" 149 Mr. FALLON. Mr. Secretary, getting away- Secretary Boin~. Would you mind, sir, Mr. Bridwell wants to shore up what I said. Mr. FALLON. We will hear from Mr. Bridwell. Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Chairman, I am not personally familiar with the demonstration project that was attempted in Baltimore. We per- haps can obtain information On that and find why it didn't work. Presumably there is a reason why it didn't work. We are, however, familiar with a number of cases where it has worked and worked quite well. Two particular instances that I would cite, Mr. Chairman, are in Cleveland, Ohio, and in Milwaukee, Wis. However, without taking a lot of the time of the committee to go into them in detail, we do have documents which explain the fringe parking program and its combination with public transportation services for both Cleveland and Milwaukee, and I would like to offer them for reference if I may, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman wants to ask unanimous consent to furnish the material. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Without objection it will be made a part of the subcommittee files. (The material Teferred to may be found in the subcommittee files.) Mr. FALLON. Mr. Secretary, I understand the reorganization plan is about to go through the Congress in the near future, the reorganiza- tion plan No. 2. Secretary Bon. Yes, sir. Mr. FALLON. And there will be no objection to it? Secretary Bo~rD. Yes, sir. Mr. FALLON. At least the time has already expired for objection? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. FALLON. What effect will the transfer from HUD to DOT have on the urban highway program? I mean, will it remain under the Federal Highway Administrator or will something else be set up to take care of it? Secretary Bo~m. The only effect of reorganization plan No. 2 is to transfer elements from the Department of Housing and Urban Development into the Department of Transportation. There is no reverse flow. Mr. FALLON. Well, will the transfer and the people that make up that complement, both in HTJD and in the Bureau of Public Roads- will that be put under the Administrator? Secretary Bon~. The people who are in the Bureau of Public Roads will remain in the Bureau of Public Roads. Mr. FALLON. I mean the supervision, the authority? Secretary Bow. There is no change within the Department of Transportation, Mr. Chairman, except for the fact that we are creat- ing a new administration which is the Urban Mass Transit Adminis- tration. And all of the positions of the Urban Transit Administration of the Department of Housing and Urban Development will transfer en masse into the Urban Mass Transit Administration of the Depart- ment. Mr. FALLON. Including the highway program in urban areas? Secretary Bo~. There is no highway program in the Urban Mass Transit Administration in HUD. PAGENO="0160" 150 Mr. FALLoN. Well, will there be? Secretary Born. No, sir. That urban mass transit program is author- ized under the omnibus housing bill and has no provision for highway design, acquisition, or construction. It is strictly an urban mass transit program and it is related primarily to two things, to two operations. One is grants and loans for operation of bus systems; one is grants and loans for operation of rail rapid transit systems. In addition, there is provision in the authorization for research into urban. mass transit technology. Mr. FALLON. Mr. Secretary, in a letter to me on October 2.5, you stated that HUT) would certify to the Department the adequacy of the continuing transportation planning processes in urban areas, that certification to your department by RUT) would be advisory only. Secretary BoYD. That's right. Mr. FALLON. And you would not be bound by the recommendation of HUD. Secretary BoTim. That is correct. Mr. FALLON. Secretary Wood testified before the Government Oper- ations Committee just 3 days before in which he made several state- ments that certification by HTJD was the requisite and no plan could go forward without that certification. Now there seems to be a conifict there in- Secretary Borr. That is incorrect. The fact of the matter is that the certification of the continuing comprehensive planning process is a requisite but it is a statutory requisite in the Federal Highway Act and there is no jurisdiction being transferred by the reorganization plan No.2 from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Mr. FALLON. Let me see if I get that clear. That means that although it is not certified by HUD, the planning and the building of highways is continuing on under the Federal Highway Administrator without that certificatiop? Secretary Boyn. That is correct, but I want to go on and make very clear that we expect HUD to participate with us in looking at this whole area of activity. Mr. FALLON. Well, in what manner? How far does that go? Secretary Bom. It does not go to certification. It is an advisory situation. Mr. KLTTCZYNSKI. Thank you very much. The gentleman from Flor- ida, Mr. Cramer. Mr. Ci &MER. Mr. Secretary, on that same subject, we presently have the highway planning agencies established under the existing law, which you just mentioned. They have been certified as planning agencies. H1JD, of course, in some instances, has now certified areawide planning agencies. *Are the presently certified-by-your-department_planning agencies going to continue to have that function? Does HUD have to recertify those same agencies? Secretary BoYD. No. No. However, where there are different agencies involved I expect to try, in conjunction with HUD, to get our opera- tion so that we are dealing with the same planning agency for the area. PAGENO="0161" 151 Mr. cRANER. Well, that is exactly what I am concerned ~hç~it.~Pinel- las County has, as you know, under your authorization, a planning agency in existence, statutory, as a matter of fact, by State law Then there is an areawide planning agency certified by HTJD Who is going to have the final say so relating to, No 1, which agency shall be certified for highway planning and, secondly, on the local level, which agency shall have the authority? Secretary BoYD. There is nothing, I repeat, in reorganization plan No. 2 changing any of the responsibility or authority of the Depart- ment of Transportation. However, I must say that the local planning agencies, whether they be HIJD certificated or BPR certificated, are dealing with the same general responsibility, which is land use plan~ ning, and transportation within that land use planning concept. And there are not, to my knowledge, many instances where we have dif- ferent agencies dealing with these two things. Mr. CRAMER. Well, I gave you a specific example where, under sec- tion 204, of the model cities approach, an areawide agency has been established for the west coast of Florida, certified by HTJD. Secretary Bom. I understood what you told us. Mr. CRAMER. We have Pinellas County-wide area certified by Trans- portation. Who is going to make a decision? Secretary Boiro. As it stands, they each make their own decisions and I think this puts the Federal Government in a fairly ridiculous situation if we get into conflict. Mr. CRAMER. It sure does. Secretary BoYD. I would hope this is the sort of thing that we can work out. I do not see the relationship of transportation and land use planning as being one of~onstant confrontation. Mr. CRAMER. Well, I would hope that those agencies which have been certified or operational or financed or statutorally established have been working. I would hope that they would be given an opportu- nity to continue that certification and that work without having piled on top of that another agency, areawide, that also has to review and certify or submit plans already certified by the county agency. It looks to me like it is going to end up with endless redtape and nobody is going to have the final say-so. The areawide agency isn't even tooled up with finances or personnel qualified, in my opinion, to do the job. Secretary Bom. Of course I was just checking with Mr. Bridwell- my recollection is that section 204 today provides for review by the agency of the highway planning projects. Mr. CRAMER. I would trust you would look into that matter and give it some pretty careful consideration, because otherwise we are going to have so many review agencies we won't get any construction done. Secretary BoYD. This is already in the law, Mr. Cramer. And I agree with you that we ought not to have a proliferation of agencies. I do not think the Federal Government ought to be sending out and supporting field organizations whose main purpose in life is to fight each other. I think that what I have told the Department of Housing and Urban Development is this: That there should be a great deal of commonsense applied to how we go about relating land use to transportation. 90-030-68-----ii PAGENO="0162" 152 Now, actually t lot of this stuff we are talkmg ibout is just `i bunch of hurrah, because if the job is done right it is gomg to be decisions at the local area on what kinds of communities they want and what kind of transportation system they want. And, so far as I am concerned, the Federal Government has got. little business sitting up here in Washington and trying to figure out whether a boulevard should go northeast or southwest in Clearwater. Fla. I think the people in Clear- water who are elected andY who decide on their own planning agency should have that decision and we would be well advised to get out ofit. Mr. CRAMER. It is too bad you don't administer 204 as well, that beingyour attitude. As you know, I have raised this question before, and I trust that now that you have this mass . transit authority and so forth that. you will continue the same attitude. Mr. BRThWELL. Mr. Cramer, may I introduce just one additional comment here. Mr. CRAMER. Yes. Mr. BRIDWELL. I am sure you are aware that under section 204 the designated transportation planning agency in any given urban area has only the authority to review and comment upon any project sub- mitted to it under the highway program or any other program~ And that it has no decisive authority or, in effect, veto authority. Mr. FALLON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CIi~rER. Yes. I will yield. Mr. FALLON. Just that point, we have been getting correspondence from several States. As a matter of fact., all but. four States have asked the Congress to fully explore it. What is apparently happening is that the executive branch no longer accepts the concept. of the relationship that has been going on for years between the local level and the Fed- eral level. They seem to be exercising their will and control more and more all the time to a point where the States are complaining that it impedes progress of not only location bu~ construction, ~ nnmg, and engineering. Are you aware of that, Mr. Secretary, of this feeling among many of the States in the country? Secretary Bo~m. I don't know to whom you are referring as States. Mr. FALLON. I am referring to the State highway officials. Secretary Bo~rn. My conversations are normally with the Governors of the States and to this date I have had no complaint from any Governor. Mr. FALLON. Well, I might say mine hasn't come from the Governor but from the people who have to do the job, the State highway officials, their engineers, their planners. There certainly is not. the same relationship there wa~s in the past that many decisions are made at the local level now are being held up to he. reviewed and decided at the Federal level. Secretary Born. We have been very deeply involved in some local situations, there is no question about that. We have been directly in- volved in a situation in San Francisco. We have been directly involved in a situation in Nashville, Tenn., I believe at the request of the Governor. I won't say that for sure, but I believe so. We have been directly involved in a situation in New Orleans, and in Memphis, Baltimore, San Antonio, Boston, Chicago, and several PAGENO="0163" 153 others, either at the request of the Governor or at the request of the city. Now, my philosophy is one that I want to make very clear-as long as I am Secretary of Transportation, I expect to pursue this philos- ophy-that is that insofar as transportation in a city is concerned, the mayor and city council have a definite voice in what that transporta- tion should be. Mr. FALLON. I found that out in Baltimore. Secretary Bori. I have asked in every case where we have become involved in these local situations for the Governor to provide us with his views because I believe that, no matter what I happen to think about the wisdom or unwisdom of any particular design, location, or anything else, the people who are going to use it and live with it should have the final say. Mr. FALLON. Well, I am glad to hear you say that, Mr. Secretary, because I think what happens is the communication is between the highway officials and the Bureau. Secretary BoYD. Part of it is, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FALL0N. I think what they told me to do, when the highway departments have a complaint, is go to the Governor, because the communication with you is only with the Governor. Secretary Boirr. That is because the highway officials who told you this haven't bothered to get in touch with me. One of the things that I must admit that scratches me a little bit is some highway officials in this country put out information about what I do and what I think which has no relation to the fact and they never come talk to me about it. And my belief has been and is, very simply, this: If I have got a complaint with you, I am going to knock on your door and say I would like to talk to you about it. I am not going to go tell Lowell Bridwell what I think about George Fallon. Mr. FALLON. I know, Mr. Secretary, but you couldn't deal with all these problems, in lower positions, minor problems. They are irritating and they tend to slow up the work in States. Now, I have had lots of complaints but I imagine they were to the district offices and so forth and they were not properly complying with the intent of Congress, the relationship that Congress wants between the Federal level and the State level. Secretary BOYD. Let me say this, Mr. Chairman- Mr. FALLON. Yes. Secretary Bom (continuing). I spent a great deal of my time in the city of Tallahassee, Fla., the State capital, between 1955 and 1959, and I was not officially but I was directly and deeply involved in the oper- ations of the State highway department during that period of time under a completely separate Federal administration. And a great deal of that time I spent sitting talking to the chairman of the State road board and State highway engineer, who were complaining about the trouble they were having with the Federal Government. So this is nothing new. It is just we have a new cast of characters here. Mr. FALLON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Thank you. The gentleman from Florida~, Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. In how many instances have you, in dealing with the cities, in the areas you suggested, overruled the recommendations of PAGENO="0164" 154 the State road board relating to a location of the highway or those highway problems? Secretary Bore. I would have to submit that for the record I do not at this moment recall a single instance (The following was received ) CASES WHERE STATES WERE OVERRULED ON LOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS (IN FAVOR OF CITY RECOMMENDATIONS) In practice, the Bureau of Public Roads does not dictate the location of high- ways, although it can withhold approval of a particular State proposal and, by refusing to approve route alternates, indirectly influence State location decisions. In a few instances, the Bureau has been quite infiuentiai in the determination of locations favored by cities rather than by States. The extent of any such action is quite small considering the number of new highway improvements within urban- ized areas each year. Excluding the freeway problems in Washington. D.C., with which the committee is already familiar, there are several cities throughout the country where State proposals are not being fully advanced principally because of Public Roads or Federal Highway Administration's rulings which could be construed to favor a particular city. Recent examples are: MASON CITY, IOWA The Bureau of Public Roads required restudy of a 90-mile section of Interstate Route 35 from Williams, Iowa, to Albert Lea, Minnesota. The location ultimately approved was similar to that recommended by Mason City, Iowa. CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS The Federal Highway Administration requested additional study of the nec- essity for the Boston Inner Belt (1-695) after the State submitted its recommen- dation for a route through Cambridge opposed by city. This study is now underway. PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA The Pennssylvania Department of Highways has been recently requested by the Bureau of Public Roads to abandon planning and right-of-way acquisition for an interchange between the proposed Crosstown Expressway and 1-95 which in effect could defer construction of the Crosstown Expressway indefinitely. This expressway has been strongly opposed by Philadelphia officials because of displacement problems. SAN FRANCISCO, OALH'OR~1A This controversy involves a 4.2-mile segment of 1-280 in San Mateo County through watershed lands along Upper Crystal Springs Reservoir which are owned by the City of San Francisco. The disagreement is between the California Highway Commission and the City of San Francisco. Issues include water pollu- tion, costs, scenic and recreational values, highway-user benefits and safety. The Federal Highway Administration recently withdrew a 1958 Bureau of Public Roads location approval and asked the California Division of Highways to recommend an alternate location for its consideration. * * * * * * * Section 134 of Title 23 provides for a "continuing comprehensive transportation planning process" in urban areas over 50,000 population, and Section 128 provides for hearings to be conducted by State highway departments on projects involving incorporated or unincorporated communities of any size. The effective use of these highway planning and hearing processes promotes a measure of review and cooperative planning with local governments. Pursuant to the urban transportation planning requirement, the Bureau requires each highway department to execute a memorandum of understanding with local governments in the urban area. This is not intended to create a local veto over location decisions. If there is an unwillingness on the part of a local political unit to participate in the transportation planning process in such area, the Bureau makes determination as to whether the percentage of the urban area affected is such to negate an effective planning process for the whole area. PAGENO="0165" 155 Under secondary road procedures the State highway departments must comply with section 103(c) of Title 23, U.S. Code, regarding cooperation with appropriate local authorities. The manner and extent of such cooperation are to be deter- mined by the State. Where all public roads and highways in a county or other political subdivision of a State are under the control and supervision of the State highway department, the State highway department is considered the local road authority and cooperation with other local authorities of such political subdi- visions is not required. In Montana, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, the State highway departments may exercise their powers in an incorporated town subject to the consent of the municipal government. In Arkansas, Delaware, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Dakota, the State highway departments are authorized to lay out limited access highways "pro- vided that within cities and towns such authority shall be subject to such municipal consent as may be provided by law." In Minnesota and Washington, arbitration procedures are available to munici- pal governments when agreement cannot be reached on freeway locations. In California and Oregon, municipal consent is based upon statutes which require the highway departments to reach agreement with municipality to close off local streets for freeway construction. Mr. CRA~iER. How about the Tennessee situation? Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Cramer, I will respond to that, if I may, by relying upon memory and not upon any documents before me. In terms of location of a highway, to the best of my knowledge there has not been any instance in which a location has been dis- approved; that is, a recommendation from a State highway depart- ment has been disapproved in favor of one recommended by a city. There are perhaps two or three cases that I can recall offhand which remain unsettled in which there are very decided differences of opinion between the State highway department and the city on location. But at this point, of those decided, to the best of my recollection there has not been any instance in which a recommended location by the State has been overridden in favor of a location or of a location pro- posed by a city. There have been several instances- Mr. KLTJOZYNSKI. Pardon me just a moment. We have a call to the floor. We obtained unanimous consent to sit this afternoon. So some of us will leave and vote on this and we will continue the hearings. (At this point, Mr. Edmondson assumed the chair.) Mr. CRAMER. With regard to final say of the local area, I guess Washington, D.C. would be one exception to that rule. Secretary BOYD. Yes, yes. Mr. BRIDWELL. I said of the ones decided, Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. I see. We have understood there was to be a report submitted of the future highway needs on April 1. Secretary BOYD. That is overdue. It is in the process of what is euphemistically called "executive coordination." We hope to get it out very shortly. Mr. CRAMER. Do you think it might be out before we have a mark- up of the bill? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. I am sure you are aware of the interest of a number of members ~ ho sent out `~ request to a number of States concerning additional mileage on the Interstate System `md many States replied they had additional mileage they were interested in. I trust the report will include that aspect of future highway needs? PAGENO="0166" 156 Secretary Boyn. I believe there is* a rather comprehensive state- ment-there will be a comprehensive statement of the administration's views of future requirements and the approaches to them. Mr. CRAMER. Well, do you contemplate it will recommend addi- tional mileage to the Interstate System? Secretary Born. I would rather not speculate on that, Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. You are going to have to make a decision now. You haven't made up your mind yet; is that the present position? Secretary Born. The executive coordination is a very interesting procedure. [Laughter.] I wouldn't want to leave any inferences, but it is an interesting procedure. Mr. CRAMER. As you know, as do other States we have a pretty serious problem that. needs to be looked into and hopefully some direc- tion result in the very near future. I am sure you are familiar with the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Miami missing link on the interstate. You are familiar, also, with the fact there is a contemplated bobtail toll ioad section being discussed? Secretary Born. Yes, sir. Mr. Cita~r~n. Research, surveyed. I am sure you realize under those circumstances it is extremely important to the State of Florida, for instance, and there are other instances, to have some guidance as to what is going to happen relating to the possibility~ of that becoming a part of the Interstate System, at least after the present system is completed. Secretary Born. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Now do you think this study you have underway and expect a report on will give some guidance relating to that problem? Secretary Born. We certainly hope so. Mr. CRAMER. I would hate to see a toll road constructed on a bob- tail basis when there was the prospect, which I trust there will be, of it becoming a part of the Interstate System. On this subject that was discussed previously concerning the reloca- tion problem, is it your preference we not dally with this subject at all in this legislation contemplating maybe something will be done in general legislation concerning all fields? Secretary Born. This is something that is certainly up to the good judgment of the committee. Mr. CRAMER. You wouldn't be adverse, then, to our considering the matter as relating to this legislation and under your discretion and control and not that. of HTJD relating to highway relocating? Secretary Born. We certainly would not like to be responsible for suggesting the committee inhibit its areas of activity. Mr. CRA~rER. Sir? Secretary Born. I am not sure I can repeat that. [Laughter.] We would not want to be responsible for suggesting that the com- mittee inhibit its areas of activity. Mr. CRAMER. That is pretty clear. [Laughter.] You suggest that on April 20, in a submission to the committee, to the Congress, relating to the authorization bill, and I quote, we expect to submit a draft bill on this subject, meaning relocation, to the Con- gress in the next 2 weeks to implement objectives of the "Highway Relocation System." PAGENO="0167" 157 Secretary BoYD. Yes, sir, that was our contemplation at that time. Mr CRAMER What has happened since Secretary BOYD. Mr. Hughes, for the administration, has taken a position before the Government Operations Subcommittee in the Sen- ate as outlined by Mr. Bridwell, and we fully subscribe to the prin- ciples and the statements made in Mr. Hughes' testimony. Mr. CRAMER. Where would the money come from for the relocation cost? Secretary BOYD. As I understand it, Mr. Cramer, the statements made by Mr. Hughes were broad general statements about all grant programs and the assumption would be that the relocation costs for each program would come from the authorized funds in that program. Mr. CRAMER. In other words, the trust fund in this sense? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Was any estimate made, to your knowledge, of what that contemplated cost would be under Mr. Hughes' suggested ap- proach? Secretary BOYD. I have no knowledge. I will examine the tran- script and advise you. (The following information was received:) The Federal Highway Administration estimated the annual cost of the high- way relocation provisions recommended by Mr. Hughes for the Administration to be $173 million. This estimate consists of the following items: $75 million for replacement housing assistance (21,000 eligibles averaging $3,500) $19 million for rental assistance payments (38,000 units averaging $500) $14 million for cost of transferring property to the State (56,000 units aver- aging $250) +$5 million for business relocations in excess of amounts recommended in Highway Relocation Assistance Study $60 million for recommendations of Highway Relocation Assistance Study $173+ million total These costs should decline in the next several years as land acquisition for the Interstate System tapers off. Mr. CRAMER. Were you not asked for advice concerning what might that cost be concerning highway relocation? Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Cramer, as you are aware, we made a study which we submitted to the committee last year in response to a statutory request for such a study. We did estimate the costs of the recommenda- tions contained in that report. The position taken by Mr. Hughes, representing the executive branch before the Senate Government Operations Subcommittee, is not identical with the recommendations in the study which we submitted to the Congress at the request of this committee, so that the estimates of cost are much less firm for the modifications advanced by Mr. Hughes. However, recognizing that the estimates are not as definitive, we can give some information to the committee-if I can find it among all these blue tabs-on the estimated costs. Under the existing pro-~ gram-that is, the one that was enacted in 1962-and then projecting that type of assistance in the States, the 37 States and the District of Columbia which have implemented it, we estimate the cost to be about $12 million annually. In other words, that is approximately what we believe the cost will be under existing law, and assuming no additional PAGENO="0168" 158 States opt for implementing it, and then prOjecting that against th~ needs-needs in the sense of the number of relocatees or dmsplacees- Mr~ CRAMER. That is the $200 for moving costs? Mr. BRIDWELL. Three thousand for businesses. Mr. CRAMER. Three thousand businesses, present cost, right? Mr. BRIDWELL. And then projecting against the recommendations in the 1967 report and using the same estimates for dislocatees, we are estimating that the cost would be about $60 million annually. As I say,, we have less firm costs relating to the modifications sug- gested by Mr. Hughes, but we believe that the additional cost would be something slightly over $100 milliOn per' year. Mr. CRAMER. Additional cost? Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. So it. would be approximately $160 million a year; is. that right? Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes. I would not place too heavy reliance upon those figures, Mr. Cramer, because they are pretty rough. Mr. CRAMER. All right. And that, too, would come out of the. trust fund? Secretary Bo~. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. So we obviously are swiftly running into problems of what we are going to do for more money in the trust fund. Actually, that is coming out of the Interstate System, isn't it? Because ABC is fixed and surplus goes to Interstate so anything else that goes to ABC has to come out of Interstate; is that correct? Mr. BRIDWELL. That is correct. Secretary Bon. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. So what are we going to do about more money for the trust fund? There has been a recommendation, I understand, by the administration for more taxes. Secretary BoIYD. We have submitted proposals for additional user charges, Mr. Cramer. So far there have been no hearings. Mr. CRAMER. There has not really been considerable drive for en~ act.ment, even to the extent of getting hearings? Secretary Bom. Well, it certainly does put in perspective some of the "vaunted" power of the executive branch of the Government when we look at our ability to get hearings on various pieces of legislation. Mr. CRAMER. Am I wrong in my observation there hasn't been a real drive to request hearings? Secretary Bom. I don't Imow what you mean by a "rea.l drive." I have sought hearings personally. Mr. CRAMER. Well, they have considerable drive behind t.he 10- percent surtax. I don't see that kind of drive behind the request for trust funds. That is my observation. Secretary BoYD. A matter of priorities. Mr. CRAMER. Relating to the Topics program, traffic operat.ions program to increase capacity and safety, that is $250 million a year, 1970-74, also to come out of the trust fund; right? Secretary Bom. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Therefore, also to come out of the Interstate System? Secretary BoYD. Yes, sir. PAGENO="0169" 159 Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Cramer, this may be a matter of semantics, but the trust fund will obviously suppirt the authorization of $250 million a year for the years requested in addition to the `uithorizations ~s e are ~recommendmg for the Interstate System So in that sense it does not take away from the Interstate S~ stem Mr. CRAMER. Well, you have to reduce what you are requesting for Interstate because you are requesting all those other things; right? Mr. BRIDWELL. Well, that logically follows, then, if you take away ABC you can make more money available for Interstate. Mr. CRAMER. Let's get to ABC. That is an interesting subject. A. lot of States have asked for increases in the authorization for ABC and we did have $25 million for a considerable period of time. V\Te got to the billion. Your recommendation is against an increase re- lated to ABC system; is that right? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Would you oppose this committee increasing ABC authorizations? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Isn't it true that is where some of the chronic prob- lems are, and it is obvious that ABC has been downgraded for years, as compared to Interstate, for instance? Mr. BRIDWELL. We, of course, are asking in effect for an increase in ABC, Mr. Cramer, by the request of the $250 million for TOPICS pro- gram, because that would be applied to what we usually refer to as primary, secondary, and urban extensions of primary and secondary. That got kind of fouled up. Let me say that again. The $250 million would be for the urban extensions of primary and secondary. So it is an increase in funds for ABC. Mr. CRAMER. Your bill, of course, would permit expenditure of funds on any city street even though it is not a part of the Federal-aid system; right? Mr. BRIDWELL. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. So actually that is another-could be termed another diversion from the trust fund so far as it relates to Federal-aid high- ways presently designated? Secretary BoYD. Yes, sir, if one desired to so characterize it. I am at a loss to understand this business of diversion from the trust fund because the trust fund, as I understood it, was set up for the Federal- aid highway system. And the Federal-aid highway system is a part of a national system and the whole purpose of the Topics program is to increase the utilization and efficiency of that highway system. Mr. CRAMER. Well, these roads are not on the system that we are talking about and as I recall, the funding act that sets up the trust fund spectfically restricts expenditure of those trust funds to Federal- aid highways. How are you going to get around that? Secretary BoYD. Designation as a part of the system. Mr. CRAMER. As I read your bill it doesn't provide any such designation. Secretary BoYD. I will have to provide you an answer for the record. I am sure legal counsel has advised us on this. PAGENO="0170" 160 (The information is as follows:) Our proposal contemplates that the "TOPICS" funds would be expended on the Federal-Aid systems, but that arterial city avenues and streets in need of capital improvements not now on the existing urban extensions of a Federal- aid system would be eligible for future inclusion on a system and thereby be able to benefit from this new program. This explains why no amendment to expend highway trust funds off Federal-aid systems is included in our proposal. Mr. CRAMER. Have you recommended an amendment to the High- way Trust Fund Act to permit expenditure of undesignated highway trust funds? Secretary Bo~. No. Mr. CRAMER. I suggest you take a look at the language-I am not trying to be argumentative; I am trying to be helpful-because I think the language submitted would not get around the restriction on the fund for Federal highways. Secretary Boirn. We will do so. Mr. CRAMER. You have to designate- Secretary Bo~m. That. is what I suggested we were prepared to do. Mr. CRAMER. I see. Relating to fringe parking, you suggest $387 million by 1975. Where is that going to come from? Secretary Bo~m. The trust fund. Mr. CRAMER. That poor old Interstate System is really going to suffer, is it not., if all these extra trust fund expenditures are used for other purposes? Secretary Bo~. We live in an aura of eternal optimism, Mr. Cramer, and believe that the Congress will rise up in it.s wisdom one day and assess additional user charges. Mr. CRAMER. I would like to see the administration put some real fire. behind that effort.. It. might. be successful. Why should not some of this cost. of the fringe parking come out of mass transit? It benefits mass transit just as much as it does high- way users, does it not? You are going to shift these people from the roads, parking to mass transit? Secretary Boim. I do not think it benefits mass transit at all. I think mass transit is not something that you should look at in the light of either being benefited or injured. I think mass transit is an essential link to the life of the city. I furthermore do not think that mass transit is going to be a money- making proposition in the. cities in this country. But I do thmk it pro- vides a.n essential service and will become more essential as our popula- t.ion grows. Mr. CRA~rER. I think it is quite obvious it is intended to encourage people not to drive into the cit.ie.s, but to park in the fringe areas. Secretary Bo~. No question about it. Mr. CRAMER. And take other tra.nsportation facilities. It so states at page 17. Secretary Bo~i. That is the stated purpose of it. Mr. CRAMER. "Such parking facilities shall be located and designed to permit its use in conjunction with existing or planned mass trans- portation facilities." So you would not contemplate any of that c.ost coming out of anything other than the highway trust fund? Secretary BoYD. That is correct, sir. PAGENO="0171" 161 Mr. CRAMER. Now; this advance acquisition of right-of-way, do you contemplate $100 million as the annual authorization for advance acquisition? Secretary Boyn. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. That too will come out of the trust fund? Secretary Bo~m. Yes, sir; but for later reimbursement. Mr. CRAMER. Now, are you setting up a revolving fund concept or just reimbursement to a general trust fund? Secretary BOYD. We contemplate a revolving fund. Mr. CRAMER. Well, the language you submitted I would suggest does not accomplish that. The reason I suggest that is I drafted a bill, and introduced it, that does specifically set up a revolving fund, and your language in my opinion does not accomplish that. Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Cramer, we would be glad to look at the lan- guage of the bill you introduced. The concept, of course, is to authorize an amount, and when any land acquired in advance of project status, goes to project status, the land acquisition cost is transferred to the project cost and that amount credited to the advance acquisition fund. Mr. CRAMER. Does the revised section 108 (a) pertaining to right- of-way acquisition authorize the advance of cash Federal funds to the States, or does it merely authorize the obligation of a portion of Federal-aid funds to the right-of-way acquisition? Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Cramer, no. I think the language specifies that 2 percent in addition to the apportioned amounts will be available to the States up to a period of 6 months, and that if a State does not choose to use that additional 2 percent within the 6 months, then it can be allocated to other States which do request it. Mr. CRAMER. I think you are talking about 108(b) and my question was with reference to 108(a). Mr. BRrDWELL. I believe my response is the same. It is an additional amount equivalent. On line 19 of the bill, Mr. Cramer, it says: an additional amount equivalent to 2 per centum of the aggregate sums appor- tioned to it under section 104. Mr. CRAMER. Subsection (b) says: addition to funds available under subsection (a) of this section. I am talking about subsection (a), which is the found which the 2 percent is in addition to. The reason I am concerned is that subsection 108 (a) is the revision of the amendment that I wrote into the law some time ago providing for 7-year acquisition of right-of-way. It says: (Provision referred to was read by Mr. Cramer.) Mr. BRIDWELL. Well, it is obligational authority in the same sense that obligational authority is really what is apportioned to the States, and this obligational authority can be liquidated in the same sense that obligational authority can be liquidated for a contract. Mr. CRAMER. The reason I asked the question is why do you require reimbursement on line 8, page 11, subsection (c), "Before any funds may be made available to a State pursuant to this section," meanino (a) and (b), "the State highway department shall enter into an ao~re~ ment with the Secretary which shall provide for the reimburse~ient PAGENO="0172" 162 of the costs .of such rights-of-way." Now, you do not have to reimburse under that 7-year provision. = Mr. BRIDWELL. I will have to provide an answer for the record, Mr. Cramer. I have not gone over this specific language in the sense you are asking it. Mr. C~R. Well, I also find it very difficult to understand subsec- tion 0(a) at all as compared to the present 7-year advance acquisition law. 0 Secretary Bo~ri. The .conèept as I understand it, Mr. Cramer. is to provide a revolving fund for the stated limitations from which the States can borrow without. interest against the date. when they under- take the project, which must be within 7 years. At the time they under- take the project, any moneys that they have utilized in that fund for that project must be credited back to the fund. That is the concept.. Now, the language creates some problems perhaps in how it is worked out, but that is what we are trying to accomplish. Mr. CRAMER. It would be my observation the bill as drafted does not accomplish that and it is sufficiently confusing that, frankly, I cannot understand it. I read it half a dozen times. Well, let me ask you this question: Does subsection (a) authorize an initial hundred percent advance of right-of-way acquisition? Mr. BRThWELL. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. I know (b) does, but does (a) as well? Mr. BIUDwELI4. Yes. (At this point Mr. Kluczynski resumed the chair.) Mr. CRAMER. Why does it not say so? You say so in (b), but you do not say so in (a). I wish you would look into that. Secretary Bo~rn. All right, sir. Do you have any other questions rela- tive to these sections? Mr. CRAMER. Yes. What I am going to do is submit some questions in writing. I will write a series of. questions if the Department will be kind enough to supply us with some answers. Secretary Born. Right, sir. (The following was received for the record:) TUE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, Washingon, D.C.. July 2. 1968. Hon. Wn~LIAM C. CRAMER, House of Representatives, 0 Washington, D.C. 0 0 DEAR Mn. CRAMER: Thank you for your letter of June 7, 1968, to which you appended a series of questions related to recent hearings by the House Roads Subcommittee. 0 The attachment provides replies to each of the questions in your letter. Should there be any additional materials whieh you would wish from us, or more extensive discussion of any particular subjects, please let me know. Sincerely, ALAN S. BOYD. REsPoNsEs TO QUEsTIoNs IN YOUR LETTER 1. Would section 108(a), pertaining to right-of-way acquisition as it would be revised by section 9 of H.R. 17134, authorize the advanc~e of cash Federal funds to the States, or would it merely authorize the obligation of apportioned Federal- aid funds for right-of-way acquisition? 0 Answer: No. The provisions of section 108(a) would be broadened by the insertion of the following phrase immediately after the words reasonable :". to facilitate the orderly reloctalon of persons, businesses, farms, and other exist- PAGENO="0173" 163 ing ~üser~ of property; th minimize right-of-way costs by forestalling development of `land~ultimatèly r~qiiired forhigh~*ay lihrposes, md to achieve a rational development of commimities. .. ." 2. Would revised section 108(a) authorize initial 100% Federal financing of right-of-way acquisition? Answer: No. The financing provisions as now contained in existing law would remain in effect. 3.. Could money under section 108 (b) be used for making payments on account of relocation costs of displaced persons? Answer: Yes. 4. I would appreciate your clarification of section 14 of H.R. 17134 with respect to fringe parking facilities: (a) Reference is made in the proposed new section 139 of title 23, United States Code, to the "established grade line of the right-of-way." In practical- ly all instances there is no established grade line of the right-of-way, although there is an established grade line of the highway structure itself. Should sec- tion 14(b) be amended to refer to the established grade line of the highway, rather than the right-of-way.? Answer: Yes. (b) If a proposed fringe parking area is located equi-distant from a Federal- aid primary highway and an Interstate highway, how will it be determined whether the funds for the construction of such fringe parking facility will be taken from Federal-aid primary apportionments or from Interstate apportion- ments? Answer: This would be determined by the route that the transit service is ex- pected to use in reaching its final destination. (c) The proposed new section 139 would authorize the use of Federal funds for the construction of fringe parking facilities upon the right-of-way of a high- way, or upon property acquired for that purpose. Would this narrow language preclude the use of Federal funds to aid in the construction of a parking facility upon land which may have been previously owned by the State or municipality involved, or may be received as a gift or otherwise? Answer: We do not interpret the language as prohibitive of the use of lands acquired for highway or other purposes for fringe parking provided the other requirements of this section are met. 5. Section 131, title 23, United States Code, as enacted by the Highway Beau- tification Act of 1965, provides a penalty for failure to control outdoor adver. tising through the means of reducing the apportionment of Federal-aid high- way funds. Federal-aid funds for fiscal year 1970 will probably be apportioned in late summer or early fall of this year. You are on record as stating that there will be no penalty for failure to comply with the requirements of section 131 during 1968. Funds authorized for fiscal year 1971 are expected to be appor- tioned in the late summer or early fall of calendar year 1969. (a) If the prescribed penalty is imposed upon a State would it be done at the time of apportioning funds authorized for fiscal year 1971 or at some other time? Answer: Section 131(b) provides in substance that Federal-aid highway funds apportioned on or after January 1, 1968, to any State which the Secretary determines has not made provision for effective control of outdoor advertising shall be reduced by amounts equal to 10 percentum of the amounts that would otherwise be apportioned to such State under Section 104 until such time as the State shall provide for such effective control. However, the Secretary, whenever he determines it to be in the public interest, may suspend for such periods as he deems necessary the application of this subsection to a State. The language of this section provides sufficient latitude for the Secretary to reduce the State's apportioned funds by 10 per .centum of the amounts appor- tioried. either at the time of apportioning or at~ some later date when the Secre- tary. determines that such action may become necessary. (b) If a penalty can or may be imposed at a time other than the time of ap- portionment of funds authorized for fiscal year .1971, in what manner and by what means would such a penalty be imposed? . Answer: If a 10 per centum reduction in apportioned funds becomes neces- sary at the time of apportionment of funds authorized for fiscal year 1971 or at any other time, the manner and. means employed to institute such a reduction will be in accordance with Section 131 (1) which, in addition to various other ~detai1ed. procedures, provides that not less than. sixty days before .making a PAGENO="0174" 164 final determination to withhold funds from a State under subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary shall give written notice to the State and shall pro- vide the State an opportunity for a hearing on such determination. S. 2658-VEHICLE WEIGHTS AND DIMENSIONS - 1. Itis'clear.is it.notthat:"~ . . `. .~ S (a-) S. 2658 and H.R. 14474 aptly' only to the `Interstate-System; amd (b) the States would not have to permit the operation of vehicles `having the weight and dimensions set forth in those bills, b9t could establish lower limits? S Answer: S S 5 (a) It is clear that S. 2658 and H.R. 14474 would apply only to the Inter- state System, and S (b) that the States would not be required to come up to the maximum specified limits but could do so at their option. In this regard, Senate Report No. 1026 on 5. 2658, stated: "The committee most emphatically reaffirms `that the responsibility for legal maximum allowable limits and control of sizes and weights of vehicles operating on the Interstate System, as well as on all the other road systems of the United States, rests with the individual States." S 2. 5. 2658, as passed the Senate, would increase the weights of vehicles per- mitted to operate on the Interstate System from 18,000 to 20,000 pounds on one axle. from 32.000 to 34,000 pounds on a tandem axle, and would change the overall gross-weight limit from 73,280 pounds to a weight determined by a formula based on the number and spacing of axles. (a.) As the bill is written, there is no maximum limit on the overall gross weight of vehicles which would be permitted to operate on the Interstate System. Does this present a danger to structures on the Interstate `System? Answer: The bill as written, with no maximum limit on the overall gross weight (or on overall length of vehicle or combinations) would' present no danger to the H-20S-16 structures on completed sections of the Interstate System, since the equation controls permitted weight on axle groups in relation to their spacing. (b) Do you think the bill should be amended to include a limitation on the maximum overall gross weight? Answer: No, as per the preceding answer. 3. The bill as written contains no limit on the maximum length of vehicles. Would this create a problem with respect to negotiating on and off ramps at interchanges? Answer: The omissiOn of length control, as noted in 2(a) above, could pose operational problems on ramps with certain types of equipment. 4. The length of vehicles has a bearing on highway safety. Taking for example, `an automobile travelling at 70 miles per hour passing a truck travelling at 60 miles per hour, if the truck is 65 feet long, the passing maneuver can be completed in 18.92 seconds and over a distance of 1,942.5 feet. If the truck is 98 feet long `(the length of some combinations currently `being operated), the time to com- plete the passing maneuver is 21.16 seconds and the distance will be 2.172.5 feet. The difference between the passing time and distance in this example is 2.24 seconds and 230 feet. (a-) Would this increase the potential safety hazards on four-lane highways? Answer: The passing maneuver on four-lane divided highways with access control would not appear to have a significant effect on safety hazards. (b) There is still a considerable mileage of two-lane highways on the Inter- state System. Would the additional time and distance to complete a passing maneuver of a 98-foot long combination of vehicles unduly increase the hazards on `these highways? Answer: The longer combination would materially influence both safety and capacity on two-lane, two-direction highways, both adversely. In our opinion, such operation should be restricted to completed segments of the Interstate System or equivalent S (o) During recent hearings of the Special Subcommittee on the Federal-aid Highway Programs, we heard considerable testimony about inadequate signing, particularly advance signing of exits. In a congested urban area with inter- changes closely spaced, would this additional time and distance required to com- plete a passing maneuver create a safety hazard? Answer: If exit signing is inadequate due to insufficient lead time. it does not appear that this deficiency would be made worse by the longer combination as contrasted to lesser vehicles hauling the same tonnage. Much of the criticism PAGENO="0175" 165 of urban interchange signing may possibly be attributed to the maintenance of rural speeds in urban environments At 60 miles per hour a vehicle w ill traverse the distance between two interchange exit ramps spaced at one-eighth of a mile in less than 8 seconds. (d) Depending upon the height of the vehicle and the location of signs, it might be that a motorist would not be able to see the sign ~lesignat1ngthe exit he wants to take. How can this problem be solved? Answer: It does not appear that vehicle height would deter motorists' vision of properly located signs unless he is travelling too fast or tailing too close behind a maximum height vehicle He can always slow down to avoid over shooting his exit destination Advance consultation of maps can be helpful to tourists in strange environments. Additional audio means to supplement visual aids are being extensively researched as part of the problem of what kind of information the motorist needs in what circumstances and how it may best be imparted to him. Broadly included in the problem are the elements of route guidance, emergency alert, and advisory information as to the availablity of traffic-oriented services. 5. Do you think the bill should contain a limitation on: (a) vehicle length? Answer: No, not at this time. Further studies are necessary on the economic and safety implications in the various regions of these United States. (b) vehicle height? Answer: Yes, a height limit of 13 feet, 6 inches is desirable to ensure safety margins in the vertical cleararree of overhead structures, with due allowance for resurfacing requirements, :SflQW and ice accumulation, and the like. Even more compelling is the maintenance of vehicle s1~bi1ity, inherent in the preserva- tion of a limiting height to width ratio. 6. The present law limits the weights and dimensions of vehicles permitted to operate on the Interstate System to either specified limitations or limitations established by State law or regulations in effect on July 1, 1956, whichever is the greater. S. 2658, as it passed .the Senate, would permit the operation of vehicles on the Interstate System which could be operated on the public l~ighuays under laws or regulations in effect on January 1, 1968. (a,) How many States have increased the weights or dimensions permitted to operate on public highways other than Interstate Highways since 1956? Answer: Numerous States have made changes. in limits on other than Inter- state highways since Fuly 1, 1956, many by specific exception of certain products, on certain designated highways, and by. special permit authorization, such as would preclude a precise answer to this part. Five States have increased width for certain vehicles on certain highways beyond the 96-inch limit of Sec. 127, Title 23. All but twenty States have increased the height* limit, not restrained by Sec. 127. Length limit increases tabulate as follows: States Truck 14 Bus 23 Truck tractor semitrailer 34 Other combination 30 Nine States have increased either smgle or tandem axle limits acro~s the board or in limited application in excess of the Sec 127 restraint for either desig nated or non-Interstate highways. One State increased axle limits permitted on the Interstate System. These axle limit increases suggest that the nine States now permit gross weights on non-Interstate highways in excess of those permitted on the Interstate System. All States that were below the Sec. 127 gross weight limit of 73,280 pounds have come up to that limit for operation on the Interstate and the generality of highways. Tables of permitted sizes and weights as of July 1, 1950, and December 31, 11167, are attached. (b) According to the Senate Report on S. 2658 (Senate Report No. 1026) 15 States allow the operation of motor vehic'es with axle weights over 20,000 pounds. 24. States allow the operation of vehicles having a tandem axle of over 32 000 pounds, and 8 of these States allow tandem axle weights over 36,000 pe~nds. Would this create a problem for those States which*have lower weight 1imit~ ~jrn~? Answer: All States would retain the prerogative to deny legal entry of such of such vehicles of the 15 States enumerated as permitting axle limits in excess of proposed Interstate limits, or for that matter, of all vehicles with . axle loads in excess of those in accord with the determined capability of their highways. PAGENO="0176" 166 7 S 2658 does not define the term axle or tandem axle Do you think tht~' bi1L~ho~tjbea~nended.to definetjiese terms? Tn~iöOr~ItiO Our vi~w that all such required d~finitions má~ be included,. appropi~iatelyiu Sec. 101 of.Title 23, andthe,bffl should be amended tc~ provide. S. ~The bill provides for measurement of weight to the nearest 500 pounds Do yOu think it wOuld be helpful, to provide for iiieasurement of Iength "totbe nearest!oot?'? A~wer,~Yes, bOth the weight and the, measurement of length. it should be made `clear. thO~t~the teihn "L" in the gi~Oss weight* equation i~ defined' as the diztaiicé in' feOt betweefi the centers of the eitreme~ axles of any grotqi. of two ormore consecutive axles, measured to the nearest foot.~ 9~ If a State violates the weight and size limitation of State and Federal law, inadvertantly or otherwise. it can be penalized 100 percent of its Federal-aid~ highway funds, although the weight and dimension limitations apply only to the Interstate System. Do you think an adjustment in this penalty provision is needed? Answer: A State does not violate State size and weight limitations although it may, inadvertantly or otherwise, permit or condone violations. If we,are to secure enforcement by letting the punishment fit the crime, some adjustment may be needed in the penalty provision. QUESTIONS ON H.R. 17134 ~$ection 2-Revision of Authorization of Appropriations for Interstate, ,S'ystem' 1. Section 2 of the bill would increase the total amounts authorized for the' Interstate System from the $42.3 billion authorized by existing law to $50.64 billion (an increase of $8.34 billion) to reflect the increased Federal cost indi- cated in the 1968 cost estimate. Is that right? Answer: Yes. 2. Can the Highway Trust Fund support expenditures resulting from these increased authorizations, together with other required expenditures, from reve- nues provided by existing law? Answer: Revenues provided under existing law through the present termina- tion date of the Trust Fund, September 30, 1972, would not be adequate. However, if the Trust Fund termination date is extended by 33 months to June 30, 1975, to receive revenues from the sources and at the rates provided by existing law, recepits would be adequate to cover complete disbursement of all funds authorized for fiscal year 1975 and prior fiscal years for programs presently financed and proposed to be financed from the Fund, including the $50.64 billion cost of the Interstate System. 3. Last year the Administration recommended legislation to increase the re- ceipts of the Highway Trust Fund, but the Congress took no action. On April 22, 1968, the Administration again transmitted to the Congress recommended legis- lation to provide additional revenue for the Highway Trust Fund and to extemi it for two years, but no action has been taken, no hearings have been held. and none are scheduled. (a) What are the prospects for enactment of the Highway Trust Fund legis- lation this session of Congress? Angwer: (a) The prospects are slim at this date. (b) What affirmative action is being taken by the Administration to assure its enactment? Answer: (b) Representatives of the Department have discussed the proposed legislation with Chairman Mills `and members of his staff. 4. The cost estimates indicate that the Federal share of the estimated `cost of completing the Interstate System has increased from $42.0 billion in 1965 to $50.64 billion in 1968-an increase of $8.64 billion or 20.57%. Can you tell me how there could be this wide disparity in estimates made just three years apart? Answer: The increase in the estimate between 1965 and 1968 is attributable to many factors including changes in unit prices, increased allowance for reserve mileage, costs of engineering and right-of-way, change in legislation requiring a minimum of 4 lanes throughout the system, additional interchanges, crossing structures, traffic lanes, pavement design, safety features, and other elements which reflect the great increase in use of this system as completed sections are opened to traffic. The cost differences between the estimates for thésé itémg PAGENO="0177" 167 1965 1968 Item lotal cost Federal share Total cost Federal share 1 Interstate mileage in State estimates 1965 estimate (40,886 miles):::: 44, 744 40,100 1968 estimate (40,969 miles) 54, 234 48, 538 2. Remaining system mileage: 1965 estimate: Reserved forspecific routes (93 miles) 465 420 - Held for final measurement(21 miles) 105 95 1968estimate: Held for final measurement (31 : miles) 310 280 Subtotal, 41,000-mile system 45,314 40, 615 54, 544 48, 818 3. State highway planning and research 640 579 790 704 4. Public roads adrtiinistration and research 511 511 663 663 5. Contingencies , 335 295 503 455 Grand total 46, 800 42, 000 56, 500 50,640 The 1968 estimate total cost is shown in table 7 to be $56.5 billion as compared to $46.8 billion reported in the 1965 estimate. The difference in cost, $9.7 billion, includes `a $310 million allowance for reserve mileage totaling 31 miles which had been estimated in 1905 at $5 million per mile-an increase of $155 million. Also included in the estimate differences is an increase in the allowance made in this estimate for State Highway and Public Roads planning, administration, and research and for contingency items. The increase in the 1908 estimate for these categories is $470 million. The remaining net increase in preliminary engineering, right-of-way, and construction items totals $9,075 million. The following is a brief `summary and tabulation of the costs which make up the differences between the 1965 and 1968 estimates. [In millions of dollars} Unit price chauge~: (a) Ohange in cost due to the increase in unit prices between the base year 1963 and the year 1966 1, 875 Added construction items: (b) Additional interchanges and grade separation's, plus improvements in design of ramps and structures-costs not included in 1965 estimate 990 (c) Additional lanes over those reported in 1965 estimates but not in- cluding the conversion from 2 to 4 lanes in item (k), an increase to meet greater traffic needs 340 (d) Heavier design of roadway base surface and shoulder areas to accommodate heavier traffic volumes and increased `load factors, reflecting changes in design knowledge and procedures over 1965 estimate data 1, 045 (e) Extra stage of pavement structure on earlier opened sections of Interstate System to `adequately accommodate design year traffic 200 (.f) Added landscaping, erosion control features, roadside rest areas, `and rest area facilities, not included in 1965 estimate, and not subsec. 319(b) costs 555 (g) Additi~nal safety features on work under construCtion, or work remaining to be obligated-including flatter slopes, wider bridges, additional guardrail, safety posts, and light standards- not a part of 1965 estimate 845 (h) Added `safety features on segments previously opened to traffic_.~. 685 Subtotal 4, 660 are shown in House Document 199, 90th Congress, 2d'S6s~iot,O~'p~ges 11 and 12 The cost items are repeated below for ct3nvensent reference TABLE 7.-COMPARISON OF'TFIE l9~5 AND THE 1968 ESTIMATES OF TOTAL C0STO~ THE 41,000-MILE I~4TERSTATE SYSTEM [In millions of dollarsj 96-030-68----12 PAGENO="0178" 168 Preliminary engineering and right-of-way: (i) Increase in right-of-way costs over 1965 estImate for segments not included in items (1) and (k)___~.~~ 890 (j) Increase in preliminary engineering costs over 1965 estimate, for segments not included in items (1) and (k) plus overruns in preliminary engineering and right-of-way projects previously considered fully financed for 1965 ~stimate purposes 385 Subtotal 1,275 Four-lane minimum design requirement: (k) Added cost to provide a minimum of 4 lanes for previous 2-lane segments of the Interstate Sy~stem, in accordance with sec. 5 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1966 System changes: (1) System additions and significant system adjustments, including deleted system segments, total $1,345,000,000 which is offset by an allowance of $5,000,000 per mile for 83 miles included in the 1965 estimate-Increase 030 Grand total__ - 9,075 5. According to the 1968 Cost Estimate, some $4.66 billion of the increase, more than half, is attributable to added construction items not included in the 1965 estimate. (a) Why were these items not included in the 1965 Cost Estimate? Answer: The 1965 Estimate was prepared on the best judgment then available to State and Bureau people as to the needs of the system to provide the service expected to be rendered for transportation requirements. It was not apparent in 1964 that these needs would be as great as they were shown to be in 1967 when the new estimate was being prepared. The Bureau and the States are constantly being requested to approve new interchanges, to provide crossing for local service roads, to provide new service ramps, to provide additional lanes, etc. As more and more of the system is completed these needs become more established and the later estimates reflect this change in concept. In addition, it has been recognized the early pavement designs in many instances were not capable of carrying the traffic loads to be imposed by 1975 and later years. Further, there is obvious need now for changes involving added safety features needed to give optimum protec- tion t~ the traveling public. All of these elements are included in the $4.66 billion increase and are itemized in the listing under Question 4. (b) Can we look forward to comparable additional construction items in the next cost estimate? Aflswer: These items of additional construction needs should be minimized by the time of the next estimate since this is a "pick-up" really, of earlier oversight or miscalculation as to the real impact of the Interstate System on traffic service requirements and demands. There will be some increase, of course, but it is our judgment this will be a diminishing factor as the system draws nearer to a status of total completion. 6. The 1968 Cost Estimate was based on calendar year 1966 prices. We have now passed the first quarter of 1968. (a) How much have prices increased since ealendar year 1966? Answer: The Bureau of Public Roads quarterly report on construction price index shows the following trend during 1967 and early 1968. The four quarters of calendar 1966 are shown for comparison purposes. Composite Year: inder 1957-59 (base) _~:2~i~~ 1966: 1st quarter 109. 0 2d quarter 113. 7 3d quarter 6 4th quarter 112.8 Year averaa~e 113. 0 PAGENO="0179" 169 lear: Composite 1967: index 1st quarter 113. 2 2d quarter 112. 3 3d quarter 123. 0 4th quarter 119. 2 Xear average 117 6 1968: 1st quarter - 120.. 6 (b) Would you recommend that the authorizations for the Interstate System be revised to reflect that increase? Answer: In the Appendix to the 1968 Estimate report (House Document 199) the following information was furnished regarding bid price escalation during the remaining program period. The 1968 estimate cost summary, shown in tables 6 and 7, does not contain any factor for future trends in highway unit prices. It is based on 1966 oalendar year weighted average unit .prices in each State. In re~,ponse to the request of congressional committees for an estini'tte of the additional future cost which may be in~o1ved in completing the Intetstate System, an effort has been made to project prices for construction and materials and for right-of-way in order to anticipate increased needs which may be met, and which are not a part of the State reports. The Bureau of Public Roads price trend since 1960 shows a steady increase exceeding 21/2 percent per year. This increase in construction cost has been ac- companied by an increase in the cost of preliminary engineering at approximately the same rate. Right-of-way costs, meanwhile, show an increase of from 5 to 10 percent per year. The combination of these trends for use in forecasting an escalation in total costs is, of course, speculative. However, if an increase were to occur in the cost of preliminary engineering, right-of-way and construction from January 1967, through the remaining years of the program based on cur- rent revenues, at the rate of 3 percent. per year compounded annually, the result- ing cost increase would be estimated to be $3,350 million. We would recommend the authorization for completing the Interstate System include allowance for this item. 7. The 1968 Cost Estimate includes $555 million for "added landscaping, cr0- sion control features, roadside rest areas, and rest area facilities, not included in the 1965 Estimate. and not subsection 319(b) costs". (a) It is true, is it not, this $555 million would come out of construction funds and does not include amounts appropriated to carry out the Highway Beautifica- tion Act of 1965, which provides for financing of control of outdoor advertising, control of junkyards, and landscaping and scenic enhancement, out of the Gen- eral Fund? Answer: This is true. The $555 million reported here is for items of erosion control, landscaping, rest areas, and rest area facilities-which are a normal part of the highway construction and paid for from highway funds. (b) These expenditures would be for highway beautification items not included in the 1965 Cost Estimate. Please give me the present estimated cost of beautifica- tion items which were includedin the 1965 Estimate. Answer: These estimated expenditures ($555 million) are identified as "added landscaping, erosion control features, roadside rest areas, and rest area facilities. not mcluded in the 1965 Estim'ite In the 1965 Estimate there was included .a line item of cost identified merely by L-ine Item i3-Ro~4side Improvement. This item included costs for all features of roadside improvement beyond the cost of the basic grading reported under Line Item 5. These costs included top soil, sodding, seeding, and slope treatment for erosion control. Also included in this item were safety rest area costs. There was no breakdown for separate iden- tification of costs. The total costs reported by all States in 1965 for Line Item 13 costs was $445 million. In the 1968 Estimate the format for State reports was modified to include a breakdown of Line Item 13 costs Into the following categories-(a) Erosion Control (b) Landscaping (c) Rest Areas, and (d) Scenic Overlooks. The States reported costs to complete the system in these categories totaling $984 million in the 1968 Estimate. PAGENO="0180" 70 On. request to the States for information regarding cost comparison betss~een the. two estimates for landscaping and rest areas, the total reported was the $555 million itein'shbwn'in House Document 199: 8. The "1967 Highway Beautification Program" submitted to the Congress in January 1967 (Senate Document No. 6), suggests alternative program~ for land- scaping and scenic enhancement: Program A would involve only "top qua1ity'~ work, and the report states that, "Obtaining maximum benefit for minimum cx- penditure was the overriding concern in selecting this prOgram'work". Program B would include all work considered "desirable and feasible", and the report states that Program B: "could be considered as an ultimate program". The totat estimated cost ror Program A for the Interstate System is abOut' $506 million. The estimated cost of Program B for the Interstate System is about $876 million. Excluding the estimated cost of acquiring, scenic strips adjacent to the right-of- way of Interstate highways (to be financed largely, if;no,t entirely, by funds appropriated to carry out the Highway Beautification Act of 1965), the estimated cost of landscaping and scenic enhancement on Interstate Highways would be about $462 million under Program A. and about $800 million under Program B. According to the 1968 cost estimate. the estimated Federal share of the cost of highway beautification items (including those `items. `which were and those which were not included in the. 1965 ëost estimated) is about $984 million. Can you tell me why the estimated cost of beautifications items for the Inter- state System under the 1968 Cost Estimate is so much higher than the estimated cost of both Program A and Program B as set forth in the "1967 Highway Beautification Program"? Answer: There is no valid comparison which can be made between these two' reports since the instructions which covered the two estimates were totally different, the estimates were for different purposes, and the variables which con- trolled the ultimate costs reported in each case were many and different. As stated under Question 7 the Line Item 13 costs for the 1968 Estimate covered erosion control, landscaping. rest areas and facilities, and scenic overlooks. We can report a breakdown of the $984 million as follows: Erosion control $331. 000, 000 Landscaping 353. 000, 000 Rest areas and facilities 284, 000, 000 Scenic overlooks 16, 000, 000 Total 984. 000, 000 These values reflect the increased emphasis on landscaping and erosion control within the highway right-of-way, and the increased need for safety rest areas along the Interstate System. The great use being made of rest areas on com- pleted sections of the Interstate System points up the public need for these facilities. As shown in the tabulation. the cost of scenic overlooks reported by the States is not a large part of the total Item 13 costs. SECTION 4-EXTENSION OF TIME FOR COMPLETION OF SYSTEM 1. Under existing law, the 1968 cost estimate is to be used for apportioning funds authorized for fiscal year 1970, and the final cost estimate is to be sub- mitted in January 1969 for use in apportioning funds in fiscal years 1971 and 1972. Section 4 of the bill would provide for the 1968 cost estimate to be used for apportioning funds for both fiscal years 1970 and 1971, and would require the next and last cost estimate to be submitted in January 1970 for use of that cost estimate for apportioning funds for fiscal years 1972, 1973, and 1974. (a) If the price increase trend continues and the 1970 cost estimate is to be used for apportioning funds for three fiscal years, wouldn't it be badly out of date by the end of the program? Ansic r: Assuming a price increase, as reported in the appendix of House Docu- ment 199, is included in development of the new authorization schedule for com- pleting the Interstate `System; and assuming there are no major system changes which, require adjustment of apportionment factors-the 1970 Estimate should not be badly out of date if used for apportionment of funds for three fiscal years. (b) In the view- of the extension of time for completing the Interstate System, shouldn't an additional cost estimate be submitted to the Congress? Answer: The number of additional estimates needed to provide equitable ap- portionment factors for completing the Interstate System depends, of course, on the length of program time extension required. The Act provides for an extension to fiscal year 1974 with the 1970 Estimate used for apportioning funds for 1972, PAGENO="0181" 171 1973, and 1974. It might be preferable that there be made provision for admin- istr tti~ c re~ ision of appoitionment factors during the final two years of the Intci ~tite piogram period with the Secretary authorized to adjust program bal ances betw een St'stes as necessary to assure a proper distribution of available funds to complete the system. SECIION ~- ~TJTHORIZ &TIONS ron ABC PROGRAM Ai~ D PUBLIC DOMAIN ROADS 1 Duimg heaiings of this Subcommittee in Februiry of this year it was pointed out that there has been no increase in Federal-aid ABC authorizations since 1964. HR. 17134 would continue the practice of authOrizing funds for the ABC program at a $1 billion annual level. It was recommended by the American Rood Builders Association that, in view of price increases and relative neglect of tho ABC program because of emphasis on the Interstate program, the annual authorizations for the ABC program be increased to $1.5 billion for each of the fisco~ years 1970 and 1971. Would you comment on this please? Ansuer: Annual authorizations for the ABC highways were increased con- .sideraldy under the expanded highway program inaugurated in 1956, from $700 million authorized for the fiscal year 1956 to a $1 billion level beginning with the fiscal year 1966. This $1 billion authOrization level was continued for the fiscal years 1967 through 1969, and is further proposed for the fiscal years 1970 and ItYZ1. During the fiscal years 1970 and 1971 the major effort under the Federal-aid iiigbi~vay program will still be directed toward completion of the Interstate System, involving recommended authorizations of $4 billion annually. In addi- tion, a new TOPICS program is being recommended to supplement the ABC program, involving additional authorizations of $230 million annually for im- provement of the Federal-aid primary system in urban areas. In view of these circumstances, it is recommended that the ABC authorizations be continued at the $1 billion annual level for each of the fiscal years 1970 and 1971. 2. Section 5 of H.R. 17134 would authorize the appropriation of $250 million for each of five fiscal years, a total of $1250 billion, for "traffic operation projects in urban areas". H.R. 17134 would limit expenditure of these funds to extension of the Federal-aid highways in urban areas. I understand, however, that the Administration recommends that the money be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund, but without any requirements that the money be spent only on roads and streets on the Federal-aid system. (a.) It that correct? Answer: No. The TOPICS funds would be expended only on an approved Fed- eral-aid system within urban areas. (b) Isn't this a diversion of Highway Trust Funds from the purposes now prescribed by law? Ass wer: Arterial highways, major streets and most of the streets in the down- town areas would be eligible for addition to the Federal-aid primary system. All expenditures would be in accordance with the provisions of current Federal- aid highway legislation. 3. The bill would authorize the appropriation of funds for parkways and park roads and trails for fiscal year 1971 but not for fiscal year 1970. Why is this? Answer: This question should be referred to the Department of Interior since it relates to the programs and responsibilities of that Agency. 4. The authorizations for all public domain highways and park roads would be held at about the present levels or reduced, except for Indian reservation roads and bridges. Under existing law, $19 million was authorized for fiscal year 1965, and $23 million authorized for 1969 for Indian reservation roads and bridges. HR. 17134 Would increase this to $30 million for each of fiscal years 1970 and 1971. Why this increase? Answer: This question should be referred to the Department of Interior since it relates to the programs and responsibilities of that Agency. 5. Under section 204(g) of the Highway Revenue Act of. 1956, apportionments for the Interstate System must be reduced if the apportionment would result in expenditures which, together with all other expenditures from the Trust Fund, would exceed its receipts. In other words, all programs financed out of the Highway Trust Fund take priority over the Interstate program. (a) If enacted as recommended by the Administration, the $1,250 billion "traffic operation projects" would take priority over the Interstate System under the existing law, would it not? PAGENO="0182" 172 Answer: LTnder `existing, law (Section :209(g) of the Highway Revenue Act of `1956) `the- TOPICS' program as recommended for financing' `from the' Highway Trust Fund would take priority over the Interstate System program if Highway Trust Fund revenues were inadequate to finance all programs at the authorized levels. (b) Was this fact taken into account when it was decided to not limit the pro- grom to streets and highways on the Federal-aid system? Answer: The TOPICS funds would be expended only on Federal-aid system routes. TOPICS-type improvements on streets and highways comprising the Federal-aid system are urgently needed to expedite traffic in urban areas, and this was the major consideration in submitting recommendations for the TOPICS `program. (c) Under these circumstances, I would like to have your views as to the desir- ability of making the authorizations for the new traffic operation projects pro- gram and the provision for financing forest highways and public lands highwayn out or the Highway Trust Fund conditional upon enactment of legislation pro- viding revenues for the Highway Trust Fund in excess of that required to' com- plete the Interstate System. Answer: The Administration proposal for the continuing highway program is' for a complete package involving completion of the Interstate System, continua- tion of the ABC program, authorization of a TOPICS program, and continuation of the Forest Highway and Public Lands Highway programs, all to `be financed from revenues accruing to the Trust Fund under present and proposed legislation. No priority other than as prescribed by Section 209(g) of the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 has been established for one program over another-all are needed~ and it is recommended that all be financed from the Trust Fund. Revenues accruing to the Trust Fund under present legislation would be ade- quate to finance all of the programs at recommended levels for a period of several years in the future. The programs are needed now, and the necessary authoriza- -tions should not be conditioned upon enactment now of legislation to provide -revenues for the Highway Trust Fund in excess of that required at a later date- to complete the Interstate System. The Interstate System itself cannot be com- pleted except as there is legislation to provide additional revenues in the Highway Trust Fund. Section 6-Auth orizations for State and comm unity Ii igliway safety programs 1. Even if appropriation of money for this program is authorized by the Con-- gress, the funds cannot be apportioned to the States. The apportionment formula set forth in the existing law loes not apply to fiscal years after 1969. The Secretary is required to submit recommendations to the Congress by January 1, 1969 regard- ing `a non-discretionary apportionment formula. and until this is done and the- Congress acts, the funds cannot be apportioned. l's there any reason why we should not defer authorization of funds for this' program until the Congress considers the recommendation of the Secretary regarding the apportionment formula? Answer: Public Law 89-564, the Highway Safety Act of 1966, requires the- Secretary of Transportation to report to the Congress his recommendations for a nondiscretionary apportionment formula for State highway safety programs on~ or before January 1, 1969, and this will be done. The Department currently is studying various formulas which could be used for apportionment of authoriza- tions for fiscal year 1970 and thereafter. Authorizations are needed well in advance of usage so that the States may' comply with Section 105. Chapter I, Title 23, U.S.C-Highways, by submitting' a program or programs of proposed projects for, the utilization of funds. Enact- ment of the fiscal year 1970 and 1971 authorizations this year will permit the' States the latitude they need for advance planning. Section 7-Authorization for h igli way .satety. research and development programs 1. I notice that section 7 would authorize $30 million for fiscal year 1970 and $40 million for fiscal year 1971 for highway safety. research and development pro- grams. This compares with ~20 million and $2i million antborizel for 1i~al years 1968 and 1969 respectively. (a-) Why does the Administration ask for an increase in this research program while many of the other aspects of the highway program are to bt reduced? Answer: The answer to this question must first speak to the thesis that the other aspects of the highway safety program are in fact not being reduced. If PAGENO="0183" 173 the ares on .S~ction: 6are taken a1bne,~you'would~ get the impression th~.t the program tapers off in 1971. What those figures actually mean is this: Congress has already authorized us to obligate a total of $267 milllon-$67 million of that authorized for Fiscal 1967; and $100 million each for Fiscal 1968 and Fiscal 1969. These authorizations extend for two years each, so there now exists the authori- zation to obligate funds through the end of Fiscal 1971. We will have obligated through June 1968 only $27 million of that money, partly because of a limit of $25 million `that was placed on this years' budget. Thus, there remains $240 mil- lion authorized, $100 million of which is available for obligation through 1970 plus $100 million of which is authorized through 1971. We are asking the Congress to add $50 million in Fiscal Year 1970 and another $75 million in 1971. This is emphasized because the amounts requested in 1970 and 1971, if taken by themselves, would seem to indicate a tapering off of the program. Actually because of `the carry-over of the authorization, if the request is enacted we will have authority to obligate a total of $225 million in 1970. Secondly, the requested increase in R & D funding is directly rela:ted to the large variety of R & D requirements, in a field where basic exploratory effort has only been accomplished to date. Our initial, comprehensive research program undertaken and planned for FY67, 68 and 69 was intended to- Define the nature and magnitude of the problems to be addressed, Upgrade the understanding of these highway safety problems. Therefore, at the conclusion of this exploratory phase we must move to the applied and experimental phase of (1) developing systems, techniques, and devices to improve highway safety, and (2) to testing and demonstrating the systems. techniques, and devices in the laboratory and highway environment. As with any R & D program, when you move from pencil and paper to actual design and operation of a system or systems, you are experiencing increased funding requirements. (b) Can you give us a list of the Research Projects that have been undertaken under the Highway Safety Act of 1966 and those you would propose to under- take with these additional funds? A nswer: The attached Documents provide a listing of the projects undertaken during FY 67, 68 and planned for FY 69. These are contained in Attachments 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Attachment 5 contains the FY 70 and 71 program areas in which effort will be undertaken to expand upon the base established in the exploratory phase. The specific projects for FY 70 and 71 have not been refined at this point in time. ~Scction 8-Ant/i orization S for highway beantificat ion 1. Section S of H.R. 17134 would authorize the appropriation of $85 million for each of the fiscal years 1969, 1970, and 1971 for carrying out the Highway Be~iutification Act of 1965. Is the Administration seriously proposing that the Federal Government ex- pend $2~5 million for highway beautification purposes in addition to the $984 million included in the 1968 Interstate cost estimate, in view of the Vietnam war and the absolute necessity of curtailing nonessential government spending? Answer: It is expected that during the period in which the Interstate Systeth is to be completed, construction of the items represented in the $984 million reported in Line Item 13 of the 1968 Estimate will have been accomplished. These are the estimate costs for regular items for erosion control, landscaping, rest areas and facilities, and scenic overlooks; and during the remaining con- struction period we would expect this work to be completed. The concurrent program for highway beautification, for which authorizations are requested in Section 8 of H.R. 17134 is a separate consideration from the Interstate program and the items covered in these authorizations are those re- quired to carry out the provisions of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. 2. I have before me a copy of a letter dated March 29, 1968, from Secretary of Transportation Alan S. Boyd to a Mr. F. J. MacDonald, Chairman of the Governors Commission on Arizona Beauty. The letter addressed itself to the question of imposition of the 10% penalty for failure to comply with the High- way Beautification Act of 1965 in the event the Arizona Legislature failed to enact the laws necessary for compliance at its 1968 session. Mr. Boyd states, and I quote, "For these reasons, we feel that the Arizona Legislature will have, during its current session, ample opportunity to consider appropriate action. In the absence of some unforeseen development, I can see no reason to delay further PAGENO="0184" 174 the imposition of the penalty beyond January 1, 1969, should the legislature tail to act to provide effective control during 1968." As I understand this letter, Secretary Boyd has informed the State of Arizona that if its Legislature fails to act to come into compliance with..the Highway Beautification Act of 1965,' Arizona will be penalized 10% of its Federal-aid Highway funds apportioned in 1969. . ` . . (a) Is this correct? . . . . . Answer: The Secretary. stated, during the hearing on May 23, 1968, that at the end of 1968, the Federal Highway Administrator will prepare .for him a re- port on the status of the various States relative to the Highway Beautification Program. This report will contain recommendations which will be reviewed by the Secretary's staff. The Administrator and the Secretary will thereafter decide what is to be done to carry out their requirements under the law. (b) The Legislatures of Puerto Rico and 23 States met during calendar year 1968. Is it the intention of the Administration to impose the 10% penalty of those States whose Legislatures have met and failed to Act? How about those States whose Legislatures did not meet in 1968? Answer: The answer to Question 2(a) relates to how the question of the penalty with respect to all States will be handled. In addition, the Secretary in response to questions of Mr. McEwen stated that the possibility exists that the State of New York would lOse 10 percent of its Federal highway money unless it enacted outdoor advertising control legislation. This possibility exists for any State whose Legislature met in regular session during 1968 and failed to act during that session or prior thereto. With regard to those States whose Legislatures did not meet in 1968, the Secretary has previously stated that in such cases the suspension of the penalty will continue until the adjournment of the next regular session of the State's Legislature, presumably in early 1069. 3. Suppose a State that has entered into the bonus agreement provided for in section 12 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1958 does not come into com- pliance with the 1965 Act until say 1970 or, 1971. Would that `State remain eligible for the bonus payments on those projects completed before it complied with the 1965 Act? In other words, would the State lose its eligibility for the bonus on these projects entirely or would the bonus simply be deferred until the State is in compliance? Answer: Section 131 (j) provides that a State shall `be entitled to receive bonus payments as set forth in its bonus agreement, but no such State shall be entitled to such payments unless the State maintains the control required under such agreement or the control required by Section 131, whichever control is stricter. Section 131(b) of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 authorizes the Secretary to suspend for such periods as he deems necessary the application of this subsection to a State whenever he determines it to be in the public interest. The Secretary is fully authorized to suspend any sanctions against a State for failure to provide for "effective control" of outdoor advertising under Section 131(b) of the Act until such time as the State Legislature has had a reasonable opportunity to act on the basis of explicit information. This also applies with regard to the suspension of bonus payments under Section 131(j). Bonus States which continue to carry out their obligations to control outdoor advertising along the Interstate System in conformity with their existing bonus agreements may thus be entitled to receive bonus payments when the State has enacted appropriate legislation and entered into a suitable agree- ment to fully implement the 1965 Act. Section 131(j) further expressly provides that "The provisions of this sub- section shall not be construed to exempt any State from controlling outdoor adver- tising as otherwise provided in this section." Bonus States as well as non-bonus States are therefore required to implement and fully comply with the provisions of the' Highway Beautification Act of 1965, regardless of whether or not the bonus State elects to .remain eligible to receive bonus payments as provided by Section 131 (j). Additionally, if the Legislature of a bonus State has `not had a reasonable opportunity to act, prior to January 1, 1968, and the State acts administratively by entering an agreement under the 1965 Act contingent on later ratification or approval by the State Legislature the State's eligibility to receive bonus payments would be preserved without question. Bonus payments, however, would be deferred in such circumstances until the State Legislature actually ratifies or adopts a mutually satisfactory agreement. PAGENO="0185" 175 * 4. The Vermont Legislature recently enacted a statute which, in effect, social- izes the outdoor advertising industry in the State of Vermont. Briefly speaking, that statute (Chapter' 333, `Laws 1968) would prohibit all outdoor advertising signs except on-premise signs in areas adjacent to all highways within the State. In lieu of private enterprise outdoor advertising, the State Highway Department would erect and maintain official business directional signs, presumably upon the right-of-way of public highways. Each business within the~ State would be entitled to a maximum of four official business directional signs'. I am informed that there are approximately 10,000 registered businesses within the State of Vermont. ` (a) I would like to have your comments on the safety aspects' of erecting this clutter of signs within the highway right-of-way. Answer: `One of the stated purposes of' the 1968 Vermont law is~ to promote highway safety. The law contains specific safeguards with regard to the erection of official business directional signs. Provided the basic guidelines and goals of the law are followed in the administration and implementation tereof, we can foresee no ` traffic hazard resulting from the erection of these official signs'. (b) I would like to have your further comments on the aesthetic value of putting this clutter of signs within the highway right-of-way. Answer: One of the `main purposes of the Vermont law is the preservation of its scenic resources. Properly administered, following the goals of the laws itself, we fail to see how the official business directional signs will have an adverse effect on esthetics. (e) In view of the criticisms which have been directed toward the "fuel, food, lodging" signs erected on the Interstate highway, I would like to have your comments `as to whether adequate information can be communicated to highway users through this socialized advertising sign program. Answer: The official business directional sign system is only one means of communicating with the motorist provided for or contemplated under the Ver- mont law. Others include information centers or sign plazas, guide books, etc. We fail to `see that there will be any serious problem of lack of communication. (d) Should publicly ~owned highway rights-of-way be used for advertising private businesses? Answer: The official business directional signs are not advertising in the com- mon meaning of the term. They provide directional information and are similar in basic form and purpose to the signs authorized under Section 131 (f) of the Highway Beautification Act. This' section permits the erection and maintenance of these signs within the rights-of-way of the Interstate System. 5. I have before me `a leter dated February 12, 1968, from Federal Highway Administrator Lowell K. Bridwell to Governor Hoff of Vermont concerning this recent Vermont outdoor advertising law. Mr. Bridwell comments in part as follows: "We commend the Legislature of Vermont for considering this farsighted proposal. It is certainly consistent with the' overall objectives' of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and the' highway beautification program. We look forward to observing its development and implementation." In hearings before the Subcommittee on Roads in May of 1967, Mr. Bridwell testified with regard to the Highway Beautification Act of 1965, as follows: "It specifically recognizes the rightful place of outdoor advertising by stating that it shall be permitted and, in fact, promoted, within zoned and unzoned commercial and industrial areas subject to certain liinitatioi~s mutually agreed to between the Secretary and the States." (a) In view of this, and in view of the many pronouncements of Members of Congress to the effect that outdoor advertising is a legitimate business, which should be regulated and controlled `but not eliminated, how can it be consistent with the overall objectives of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 to pass a law which would socialize `the outdoor advertising industry and prohibit all outdoor advertising visible from any road or highway except on-premise signs and signs erected by the State? Answer: One of the specific provisions of the Highway Beautification Act is that nothing contained therein shall prohibit a State from establishing stricter limitations with respect to outdoor advertising than those established under Section 131. In effect, the Act provided minimum standards of control which were expected of every State. A number of States have enacted legislation ex- ceeding the requirements of the Federal Act; several have virtually eliminated PAGENO="0186" 176 off-premise outdoor advertising. Provided the State Legislature finds that this is in the best interest of the State, there is nOthing inconsistent with such ac- tion insofar as the objectives of the Federal Act are concerned. (b) In view of this commendation of the Legislature of Vermont for "consid- ering this farsighted proposal" would it be your policy to encourage other~ States to enact similar legislation? Answer: It is our policy to encourage all States to enact the necessary legisla- tion to comply with the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. The initiative for action similar to Vermont's must comefrom the State, and specifically the State Legislature, as it did in Vermont. If the State Legislature of any State felt that such action would promote travel and tourism by the pre- servation of its natural beauty, w-e feel that such action would be commendable. 6. If the Congress refuses to authorize additional funds for carrying out the Highway Beautification Act of 1965, what will be your position with respect to imposing the 10% penalty in 1969 against States which cannot comply with the requirements of the 1965 Act? Answer: As the Secretary stated to Mr. McEwen at the May 23 hearing, the threat of the 10 percent loss exists whether or not the Congress appropriates Federal funds for carrying out the Highway~ Beautification Act. See also the answers to questions 2(a) and (b). 7. Suppose that a State compiles with the junkyard control provision of the Act, but fails or refuses to comply with outdoor advetrising control provisions. Will a penalty be imposed upon such a State and, if so, in what amount? Answer: Should a State clearly and finally refuse to comply with Title I of the Federal Act, there is no question but that the penalty of 10 percent will be imposed. 8. Suppose that a State fails or refuses to comply with both the outdoor advertising and junkyard control provisions of the* Act, and penalties are im- posed. Will the penalty be 10% or 20% of the State's Federal-aid highway ap- portionment? Answer: Since most States have already provided for compliance with Title IT of the Act, and there has been very little opposition thereto, we cannot fore- .see that any State will be penalized for failure to comply with this section of the Act. For this reason, we think the question is academic and would prefer to defer an answer until such time as a specific situation of the nature described may arise. 9. It is my recollection that 25 States entered into agreements under the bonus provision of section 12 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1958. Is this correct? Answer: That is correct. 10. I understand that only 17 States have entered into agreements under the Highway Beautification Act of 196.5. (a) Is this correct? Answer: Eighteen States have signed agreements under the Highway Beauti- fication Act of 1965. (b) Could you give us the names of those States? Answer: Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Hawaii, District of Columbia, Con- necticut, New York, Kentucky, Minnesota, Maine, Utah, Puerto Rico, California, Maryland, Alaska, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Iowa. 11. I have been informed that of the 17 States which have entered into agree- ments, 4 of these have signed agreements not authorized by State legislation. These 4 States are : Delaware, Maine, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. Is this correct? Answer: Five States have signed agreements pending ratification or approval by the State Legislature. These are Delaware, Maine, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Iowa. 12. In 4 of the remaining 13 States which have entered into agreements, the agreements will result in the removal of a grand total of 155 signs. A table based upon information supplied by the Bureau of Public Roads, which I inserted at page 910 of the hearings of this Subcommittee in hearings on ~Re- view of Highway Beautification-1961" shows the following with respect to off- premise advetrising signs existing on October 22, 1965, which would have to be removed under the Administration's standards: PAGENO="0187" 177 Interstate State System ~ Other Federal- aid primary highways 0 96 1 20 1 29 Alaska Hawaii Puerto Rico DistrictotColumbia Total 2 153 Grand total It seems to me that the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 is not accomplish- ing much, at least in these States. Would you care to comment on this? Answer: It is true that compliance with the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 will result in tile removal of a relatively `small number of signs in the States mentioned. This i.s because *the States already had restrictive legislation and few if any signs were located in tile areas prohibited by the Federal Act. 13. It appears that of the 17. agreements entered into so far under the 1965 Act only 9 offer definite possibilities ~for results under. existing~ State laws. As I mentioned earlier, 25 States entered into agreements under the bonus provision of the 1958 Act. This indicates to me that the `bonus approach is a much more workable, acceptable way of handling thi:s than the penalty or `big stick" approach. Would you care to comment? Answer: The 25 agreements entered into under the bonus provision of the 1958 Act were signed over a period of about 7 years wheis that Act was in effect. `The 18 agreements signed to date under the 1965 Act have been negotiated and completed during a period of less than one year. The Department anticipates moreover that a number of additional agreements will be executed within the next few months. We feel strongly that the present Act is superior to the bonus approach. 14. When the Federaheid highway laws were codified a.s title 23, TJnited States Code, in 1958, it was intended to incorporate in title 23, only the substantive provisions of the law and not temporary provisions such as authorizations of appropriations. In the event the Congress should authorize appropriation for highway beautification, would it not `be preferable to enact that as a separate provision and not as part of title 23, United States Code? Answer: We think it would make no substantial difference whether the author- ization for highway beautification is contained in a sej)arate provision or included in title 23, United States Code. ~Section 9-Advance acquisition of rig/its-of-way 1. Subsection (.b) of section 9 of HR. 17134 would authorize appropriation from `the Highway Trust Fund for such money "not to exceed $100 million as fimay be necessary for the initial establishment `of a fund and foUr it's replenish- merit on an annual basis", to finance an advance right-of-way acquisition program. The language used in this subsection is not clear. Is it your intenti'on to limit total appropriations from the Highway Trust Fund to $100 million, or is this a limitation on the amount which is authorized annually? Answer: It is the intent of this language to authorize the appropriation from the Highway Trust Fund not to exceed $100 million to establish the fund and not to exceed $100 million `annually for its replenishment. This amendment fol- lows the concept of 23 U.S.C. 125 on emergency relief (repair and reconstruction of highways) and 23 U.S.C. 320(d) ,on bridges over Federal dams. 2. The bill `provides that "The provisions of subsections (d), (f), and (g) of section 209 of the Highway Revenue Act of 1956" shall `be applicable to the advance right-of-way acquisition program. Section 209 of the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 has to do with the creation and other aspects of the Highway Trust Fund, and it would seem to me th'at section 209 would apply without expressly so providing. (a) Will you please comment on this? Answer: The provisions `of section 209 of the Highway Revenue Act would apply to the advance right-of-way acquisition program. It may `be unnecessary to expressly so provide, as you suggest. (b) The bill refers to subsections (d), (f), and (g) `of section 209, but does not `refer to the other `subsections. I have specifically in mind subsection (e) of PAGENO="0188" 178 section 209, which relates to management of the Trust Fund. It seems to me~ that failure to mention these subsections raises the implication that they do not apply. Would you comment on this? Answer: If the conclusion is that section 209 applies in its entirety, nothing further is needed. (a) As I read the bill, if 209(g) is applicable in its entirety, portions of the amount equal to 2% of the apportionments to be allocated to a State that is con- strued to be "authorized to be appropriated for the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of the Interstate System" could not be made available if the Highway Trust Fund is inadequate to permit the apportionment of all author!- zations. In other words, this right-of-way fund would not take precedence in its entirety over Interstate System authorizations. Is that correct? Answer: Yes. 3. Subsection (b) of section 9 contains the following sentence. "Within six months subsequent to the allocation to a State of funds under this subsection, the State shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that it will obligate such funds for the purposes of this subsection." I have read the bill several times with considerable care and have been unable to find any statement as to the "purposes of this subsection." Would you please tell me what a State would have to demonstrate to the Secretary that it did not have to demonstrate under subsection (a), for example, which is a modification of the advance acquisition section which has been in the law for several years: and was included by an amendment which I offered? Answer: The reference to "subsection" should be changed to read "section". 4. Subsection (c) of section 9 states that before any funds may be made avail- able to a State pursuant to this sention, the State Highway Department must enter into an agreement which shall provide for the reimbursement for the costs of such rights-of-way and for the actual construction of a road on such rights- of-way within a period of 7 years. As I read it, this subsection would require the State to reimburse the Federal Government for 100% of the funds advanced even though a road is actually constructed thereon within 7 years, and even though the project is one in which the Federal-aid funds would normally partic- ipate in the cost of right-of-way acquisition at the applicable pro rata share. Can you explain this to me? Should the reference be to "subsection (b)" rather than "this section"? - Answer: First Part-Subsection (c) of section 108 [9] is intended to require an agreement by the State to reimburse the Federal share of costs of the right-of- way and to commence actual construction within seven years whether the financ- ing is under section 108 (a) with 100 percent financiiig from the State's funds or under section 10~ b) with 100 percent financing from Federal-aid funds pro- vided by the proposed additional 2 percent allocation from the trust fund. Under section 108(d) Federal participation in projects financed under section 108 (a) cannot exceed the Federal pro rata share applicable to the class of Federal funds involved, thus the State is reimbursed for applicable Federal share which the State originally supplied. For projects financed under section 108(b) the appli- cable provision as to Federal participation is in section 124(c) which requires. before actual construction commences on rights-of-way acquired, repayment by the State of its pro rata share of the project costs for credit to the trust fund. Second Part-No, for the reasons given in the first part. 5. As I read this bill, the money paid back by a State would not go into any advance right-of-way acquisition fund and, in fact, it is not a revolving finid such as you recommended be established in your report entitled "Advance Acqui- sition of Highway Rights-of-Way Study". Is that correct? Answer: Yes. The funding procedure for advance acquisition of right-of-way is patterned after that for emergency relief in section 125. Section 124(b) pro- vides for appropriation of not to exceed S100 million from the trust fund to establish the fund and for replenishment on an annual basis. Under section 108 (b) the repayment by the State of its pro rata share goes to the trust fund not to a so-called advance acquisition fund. When projects are under section 108 ( a), the Federal pro rata share would be provided as at present. 6. Do you agree that the language of this- section is garbled, and that it should be rewritten? -. Answer: No, see the answer to Question 5, above. 7. Are you familiar with H.R. 16622, introduced for myself and the other Minority Members of the Committee on Public Works, relating to an advance PAGENO="0189" 179 right-of-way acquisition program? Briefly speaking, H.R. 16022 would establish -a right of way revolving fund for advance acquisition purposes and has as its objective what I assume to be the same purpose as section 9 of H.R. 17134. Would you please comment on the diferences between section 9 of this bill, and H R 16622 and may I also have youi comments as to ~ hether H R 16622 might not be an acceptable substitute for section 9 of H R 17134'~ An~wei It is our view that H R 16622 would not establish an effective re ~ oh nig fund Appropi iations under that proposal would be authorized only for fiscal years 1970, 1971, and 1972. For the fund to become truly revolving, ad- varices made `from those appropriations would have to be repaid in order for additional advances to be made. However, under H.R. 16622 repayments could be delayed for seven yeais Hence it is not unlikely that the fund would be exhausted in three years and conceivably little or no funds would be available for advance acquisition for the next four years until the first advances would have to be repaid. `At the very least, the proposal of HR. 16622 `would make it difficult to know ahead of time just how' much would be available for advance acquisition and, accordingly, would make planning difficult. Section 12-Urban Area Traffic Operations Improvement Programs 1. A's I understand it, under the Administration's proposal, projects financed under the so-called "TOPICS" program would not have to be located on any Federal-aid highway system. I~ other words, Federal monies made available for this section could be expended upon any street or highway within an urban area. Is that right? Answer: No. Federal monies made available under Section `12 would not be expended on any street or highway within an urban area, but would be re- .stricted to the Federal-aid highway systems. The limited right-of-way available for major highway improvements and the increasing influence of the high volume intra-urban traffic has demanded a change in the traditional administrative pro- cedures~ for selecting streets for the Federal-aid primary system. Th'us since February 1967 the `States have been encouraged formally to select urban areas and study their needs on an area and network basis,' and to recommend additions to the existing Federal-aid primary system. These additions to the Federal-aid primary system would not include all streets but would be limited to: arterial highways and major streets not already on a Federal-aid system; most or all of the street grid in the downtown area; and, a limited street grid in other areas having particularly heavy concentrations of traffic. Similar restriction is contemplated in the administration of the subject proposed legislation. 2. The Administration has proposed that funds to carry out this section would be authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund. Isn't it true that under existing law projects not located on a Federal-aid highway system could not be financed out of the Highway Trust F'und since the Trust Fund is available only for expenditures "which are attributable to Federal-aid highways"? Answer: Existing law does not authorize the financing of projects from the Highway Trust Fund which are not on a Federal-aid highway system. (a) Wouldn't an amendment of section 209(f) of the Highw'ay Revenue Act of 1950 be necessa'ry tO permit financing of the "TOPICS" program out of the Trust Fund? Answer: No. It is not intended to finance projects not on a Federal-aid system from the trust fund. H.R. 17134, section 5(2) specifically provides `that traffic operation projects in urban areas authorized by section 135 are to be on exten- sions of the Federal-aid primary and secondary `highway systems in urban areas. 3. Isn't authorizing the expenditure of Federal-aid highway funds on projects not on a Federal-aid highway system entirely inconsistent with the concept of ex- pending limited Federal funds on a limited interconnected system of highways having national and regional significance? Answer: TOPICS funds would be available for expenditure only on Federal-aid system streets with heavy concentrations of traffic, such as arterials and major streets and streets in the downtown grid network. 4. It seems to me that permitting the expenditure of Federal-aid highway funds on projects not on a Federal-aid system would be a step away from developing a more rational and meaningful highway system classification. In the "1908 National Highway Needs Report," on page 31 of the Senate Com- mittee Print, it is stated that, "Fundamental to a larger Federal role in helping solve urban transportation problems, then, would be an expansion of size and a change of definition of the urban network on which Federal highway funds may be applied." PAGENO="0190" 180 Section 12 of the bill contains no definition at all of the "urban network" On~ which funds authorized for that section may be expended. Can you tell me why it does not? Answer: Federal-aid highway funds would not be expended off of the Federal- aid system. The Type I Federal-aid primary system comprises priority primary routes approved under traditional procedures. The Type II Federal-aid primary system is made up of tho.se streets of lessef priority, but of significance primarily because of their area and network influence. Federal-aid primary, Type I, and Federal-aid secondary systems will be revised, and Federal-aid primary, Type II,. systems will be added on a rational and meaningful basis. The Bureau of Public Roads in cooperation with the States is preparing for a complete rural and urban highway reclassification, but the effort has not ad- vanced sufficiently to propose legislation for an "urban system." The TOPICS leg- lislation should not be deferred until a reclassification is completed. The system approval procedures and network study requirements for the TOPICS program should expedite the reclassification efforts. 5. Subsection (e) of section 12 of the bill states that, "The provisions of chapter 1 of this title (title 23) relating to the obligation, period of availability,. and expenditure nf Federal-aid primary highway funds shall apply to the sums~ available for expenditure for the purpose of this section." What about the applicability of the other provisions of chapter 1, title 23? I have particularly in mind the provision of section 116 which requires that projects he properly maintained. There are other sections, including section 106 relating to approval of plans, specifications and estimates, section 10~ relating to standards, section 112 concerning letting of contracts, and section 114 having to do with construction. Would all or any of these sections apply miderthe language of the bill? Answer: Subsection (c) of Section 12 was included in the bill in order to indicate specifically the intent of Congress that the contract authority pro- visions of the Federal-aid highway legislation should apply to the TOPICS pro- gram. All other provisions of Chapter 1 would likewise apply to the TOPICS program. including Section 106 relating to approval of PS&E, Section 100 relating to standards, Section 112 concerning letting of contracts, Section 114 having to do with construction, and Section 116 relative to maintenance. 6. The bill states that funds available for expenditure for the purposes of the program, "shall be used for projects which include but are not limited to those which directly facilitate and control traffic flow." I would appreciate your giving to me examples of the kind of projects the funds can and cannot be expended upon. Answer: Examples of improvements to be included in projects on which funds would be expended to facilitate and control traffic flow include: a. Chalinelization of intersections to reduce accidents and create a m~ire orderly flow of traffic. b. Striping to provide definite traffic lanes, stop lines, turning lanes, parking spaces. c. Restriction of parking to increase safety and capacity. This can be done all day or only during specific times of day when traffic is heaviest. d. New and more modern signs and signals. e. Progressive signal systems which would decrease the delay caused by a non-progressive system and would aid in increasing the travel speed. f. Construction of bus bays which would remove the buses from the flow of traffic during loading and unloading periods, also the designation of specific bus lanes. g. Setting up one-way street pairs which increases the capacity and allows more orderly flow. h. Designating reversible lanes which increase capacity. i. Construction of pedestrian and highway grade separations at other highway or railroad crossings to eliminate major bottlenecks in traffic. j. Providing additional lanes approaching major intersections which re- moves the heavy amount of left and right turning traffic from the through lanes and thus increases the capacity and safety of the intersection. k. More modern highway lighting to those sections of streets which indicate large amounts of nighttime accidents. 1. Establishing traffic surveillance systems where traffic flow measure- ments and accident data at and between key intersections are evaluated to identify locations where corrective action is needed. PAGENO="0191" 181 m De~ eloping truck loading and unloading facilities to remove trucks now interfering with heavy traffic.. Some projects which would not be eligible. for expenditures. ir~clude: a. Total reconstruction of' a street which is `in need of repair. b. Resurfacing a rough pavement to provide a smoother riding surface'. c. Major widening of minor streets. 7. In the letter transmitting the proposed legislation to the Speaker of the House, it is stated that such funds may be used for ~`traffic control systems," "traffic surveillance systems," and "special facilities for the handling of com- mercial traffic." Thider these items, could Federal funds be expended for the salaries of police- men? For the maintenance and operation of traffic control systems? Would you please give me some examples of "special facilities for the han- dling of commercial traffic"? Answer: Federal funds would not be expended on such items as salaries of `poliéemen Or' traffic éngineèrs nor would "they be allowed for mnainitenance and operation of traffic control devices. All operation and maintenance costs would be the responsibility of the State or local jurisdiction. Specific examples of special facilities for the handling of commercial vehicles include: bus and truck bays for loading and unloading, establishing and mark- ing definite loading and unloading zones, flattening curb returns to facilitate turning movements `and designating truck and bus routes. 8. How would this program be administered? That is,. would the State high- way department be the applicant and the approving authority, as in the case of the Federal-aid highway program, or would the governing officials of urban areas deal directy with the Federal authorities? Answer: Time State-Federal relationships for this program would be the same as on all other Federal-aid projects. The State will initiate all action relative to the program and they will be responsible for selection of the cities, the route system, the design, construction and maintenance. rThe State may enter into agreements with their political subdivisions for certain aspects (studies and maintenance) of the program, however, the Federal authorities will deal directly with the States in all matters. 9. In the letter of Secretary Boyd transmitting the bill to the Speaker of the House, it is stated that projects under the urban area traffic operations im- provement program could include, "pedestrian overpasses and other measures to separte pedestrians from vehicular traffic." Give me some examples of these "other measures"? Could they include fences or guardrails between playgrounds or schools and city streets not on a Federal- aid system? How about the construction of elevated structures perhaps several blocks long, to keep vehicular traffic at one level and pedestrians at another? Answer: Examples of other measures to separate pedestrians from vehicular ~traflic would include curbs and sidewalksi and pedestrian underpasseC or overpasses. Fences or guardrails between playgrounds or schools and city streets could be provided. Under' the~ present program we do not contemplate constructing elevated structures several blocks long to keep vehicular traffic at one level and pedestrians at another `leveL Section 14-Fringe parking facilities 1. Section 14 of the bill would authorize' the use of Federal-aid highway funds for .the construction of publicly owned parking facilities. It is my understanding that the Federal share of such facilities would be 75% and that any apportioned Federal-aid funds, including Interstate funds, could be used for `these facilities. Is that right? Answer: Yes. 2. How do you arrive at the matching ratio of 75-25? Answer: The logic was that in order to place the fringe parking program on the same basis, whether the project was fund'ed from ABC or Interstate authori- zations, the Federal share should be greater than 50 percent and less than 90 percent. 3. Do you have an estimate as to the number or cost of parking facilities which would be financed under this section? Answer: While we have made estimates of fringe parking needs we have not estimated the number or cost of facilities to be financed under this section. The PAGENO="0192" 182 use of funds for this program depends largely on its acceptance by individual States and cities. We have made no inquiries relative `t~ such acceptance to date. 4. Since each State receives a specific amount of ABC funds, and since Inter- state funds are apportioned on the basis of need, it is a certainty that the States would seek to use Interstate funds to the maximum possible degree for these parking facilities. Do you have any estimate as to how much this would increase the cost of the Interstate System? Answer: In keeping with question 3 we have no estimate of total program cost and also, no cost: of the program as it relates to the Interstate System. The de- gree to which Interstate costs would be increased would again be primarily based on acceptance of the program by individual States and cities. 5. In approving projects for parking facilities adjacent `to highways on a Federal-aid system, how would the source of Federal-aid funds be determined? Would it be on the basis of classificatiOn of the highway adjacent to which the facility is to be constructed? Answer: Yes. 6. There seems to be no limitation in this section on dollars, percentage, or otherwise, upon the amount of Federal-aid funds which could be used for parking facilities. The Oapital Beltway, which encircles Washington, D.C., has some 38 interchanges constructed or planned. Suppose the States of Maryland and Virginia decide it would be desirable to construct parking facilities at each of `those interchanges, and since they would be adjacent to an Interstate high- way, to use Interstate funds for that purpose. Would this be permitted under the Administration proposal? Answer: Individual project submissions of the type suggested would be evaluated individually based on several criteria. One item bearing heavily on such a proposal and stated in the proposed legislation would be the probability of the usage of such facilities in conjunction: with existing or planned mass transportation facilities. If all applicable criteria are clearly shown to be met a project of this type could be approved. It would not seem reasonable to build facilities at all 38 beltway inter- changes as suggested in the question without determining the effectiveness of the proposal at a smaller number of sites, and this would undoubtedly be suggested to the States involved. 7. Projects for parking facilities would be approved "as a project under this title"-meaning title 23, Pnited States Code, "Highways." Title 23 defines the terms "highway," "Federal-aid system" and "project"-and by no stretch of the imagination are these definitions broad enough to include parking facilities. (a) Would you recommend amending these definitions? (b) Since section 209 of the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 limits the Highway Trust Fund to meeting expenditures "attributable to Federal-aid highways," would it be necessary to amend that Act to permit the use of Highway Trust Fund receipts to finance parking facilities? Answer: The language of proposed section 139(b) authorizes the Secretary to approve, "as a project under this title," the acquisition of land adjacent to the Federal-aid system right-of-way and construction thereon of parking facil- ities. We believe this language *in itself is sufficient to authorize the fringe parking facifities without further amendment. 8. Section 14 would permit the use of Federal funds for the acquisition of land "adjacent to the right-of-way on any Federal-aid highway system." What do you mean by the word "adjacent"? Does the land have to abut the right-of- way, or may it simply be in the general vicinity of a Federal-aid highway?. Answer: It is intended that the fringe facility have a definite orientation to a Federal-aid highway. If access is not controlled an abutting relationship would be required. If access is controlled we would use existing interchanges by location of the facility on a frontage road or, by connection to a crossroad in close proximity to an interchange consistent with safety and good traffic operations. 9. As I understand it, Federal funds can participate in parking facilities only if they are located outside a "central business district." Don't we have an equal or greater need for parking facilities in downtown areas? Answer: There is a definite need for additional downtown parking facilities serving the core areas of major cities. It is assumed that these facilities can be operated as a profitable venture, `and can be adequately handled through local programs involving a mix of private and municipal facilities. PAGENO="0193" 183 While the fringe facility does help meet basic parking demands its primary functions relate more to keeping automobiles off major radial routes, and out of the CBD with a resultant decrease in traffic congestion. Since such facilities seldom generate revenues it is unlikely that the need can be met by the local community. 10. If Federal-aid highway funds are to participate in fringe parking facilities, it seems to me that this Federal expenditure should be reflected in increased usable traffic lanes on Federal-aid highways. Would you object to a further condition in this section which would make approval of fringe parking projects conditional upon an agreement by the State to prohibit parking on space on a specific Federal-aid highway equivalent to that provided by the fringe parking facility? Answer: While we readily agree with the desirability of removing street parking to increase the capacity of major arterials during periods of higli demand such a proposal is rather inflexible. Appropriate parking restrictions may al- ready be imposed on the Federal-aid highway directly connected to the fringe facility. The condition would appear to restrict application of the program in many needed areas. 11. In this section we are discussing, it is stated that "In the event fees are charged for the use of any such facility, the rate thereof shall not be in excess of that required for maintenance and operation." Under this limitation, would the State be permitted to set fees at a rate suffi- cient to amortize the State's investment in the acquisition and construction of the facility as well as the cost of maintenance and operation? Answer: Under certain conditions a fringe facility might be able to produce revenue above that required for maintenance and operation and possibly suffi- cient to amortize the State's investment, but this will not be common. The pri- mary criterion we are seeking is maximum usage of these facilities, and the rate charged is basic to such usage. It would be highly undesirable if a State would require the recoupment of its investment to the detriment of the usage of any or all fringe facilities provided. 12. I note that the term "parking facility" as defined in the bill includes, among other things, "equipment." Would this authorize Federal participation in the cost of: (a) Cash registers, ticket issuing machines, and time stamp machines? Answer: This bill permits the collection of revenue to cover annual mainte- nance and operation. As this equipment will be necessary in the collection of such revenue, they would be eligible items. (b) Elevators and other mechanized equipment for moving motor vehicles and personnel? Answer: Standard mechanical equipment necessary for the normal opera- tion of the individual facility would be an eligible item. (e) Equipment commonly found in some parking facilities for the servicing of automobiles, such as car wash facilities, battery rechargers, mechanics tools, automobile jacks and other tire repair equipment, etc.? Answer: While these services might represent an added convenience to the user, they are not essential to the operation of the facility and would not be eligible for Federal participation. (d) Waiting rooms, rest rooms, and other facilities for the convenience of patrons? Answer: Convenience facilities would be eligible items; however, the extent of such facilities necessary to successful operation of the individual fringe facility would have to be determined. In some cases simple shelters would be adequate, while others might require modest structures with rest rooms. Criteria such as length of trip, size of facility, transit headways, etc. would determine these requirements. GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. In June 1966, the Special Subcommittee on the Federal-aid Highway Pro- gram, held exhaustive hearings on the Relationship of Toll Facilities to the Federal-aid Highway Program. During his appearance before the Committee on June 23, 1960, then Under-Secretary of Commerce Alan S. Boyd, was asked whether he would consider submitting legislation which would grant additional authority to the Federal Government with respect to toll facilities. Mr. Boyd's response was as follows: 96-030-GS---------13 PAGENO="0194" 184 ~`Yes sir. We are in the process of studying that at the moment, and I assure you we are not saying this as a delaying tactic. We are very diligently working on this. but as I tried to outline in my testimony, this tends to become more complicated the more we know about it. I am confident that at the next session of the Congress we will be presenting proposed legislation for consideration by these committees to deal with these policy problems." As I mentioned, that was in June of 1966, nearly two years ago. Can you tell me the outlook for recommendations concerning legislation on toll facilities? Answer: The effort to develop policy recommendations with respect to the very complex question of toll facilities in the U.S. is still in process. As you know, various ways of approaching the question of tolls have been suggested. Among them is the idea that the Federal Government should reim- burse States for toll facilities on the Interstate System so that they can be made toll free. This notion is embodied in 5. 2888 and H.R. 14962. Under those bills, the Secretary of Transportation would determine the amount of reimbursement to each State which in no case would exceed the original cost and which would be used to liquidate the cost of toll facilities including outstanding bonded in- debtedness. One problem with this approach is the total reimbursement to the States is estimated to be nearly $3 billion. In addition to the financial enormity of the problem, there are such problems as the fact that in some States the toll facilities that would be involved are covered by the same bond financing as other transportation facilities not on the Interstate System. Thus, major legal arid administrative problems would be presented in implementing such legislation or others of a similar purpose and intent. As you can appreciate the question of how to deal appropriately with this issue has many ramifications and implications for the Nation's transportation system. In any event, we hope and anticipate that by the next session we will have been able to analyze thoroughly all aspects of the toll facilities question. At that time, we will have determined w-hether and in what form legislative recommendations should be made to the Congress. 2. Under the provisions of section 209(f) of the Highway Revenue Act of 1956, amounts in the Trust Fund are available only for meeting those obliga- tions "which are attributable to Federal-aid highways (including those portions of general administrative expenses of the Bureau of Public Roads payable from such appropriations) ." Let me emphasize the phrase "general administrative expenses of the Bureau of Public Roads" which exists as a separate bureau within the Federal Highway Administration. The budget request for fiscal year 1969 shows an item of $11,468,000 to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund for "support of Federal Highway Administration." (a) The Federal Highway Administration includes two bureaus in addition to the Bureau of Public Roads: The National Highway Safety Bureau and, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. If Highway Trust Fund revenues are used for the "support of the Federal Highway Administration," Highway Trust Fund revenues are being used to pay at least part of the cost of administration of these two bureaus. Is that correct? Answer: That assumption is not correct. The Federal Highway Administration is supported by funds appropriated for Traffic and Highway Safety and Motor Carrier Safety as well as by the Highway Trust Fund. In fiscal years 1968 and 1969 each of the three appropriation accounts supports precisely the same num- ber of positions that were budgeted separately for the same functions before the activities were consolidated into the Federal Highway Administration. Should the staff requirements of the Federal Highway Administration change in the future, the increase or decrease will be reflected in a pro-rata adjustment among the three Bureaus and among the three appropriation accounts. (b) How can monies from the Highway Trust Fund be legally used for "sup- port of the Federal Highway Administration" when, by law, the Fund is available only for expenditures attributable to Federal-aid highways and for the admin- istrative expenses of the Bureau of Public Roads? Answer: That portion of the Highway Trust Fund being used to support the Federal Highway Administration is providing services required by the Bureau of Public Roads. As indicated above, each Bureau of the Federal Highway Ad- ministration's proposed legislation to extendthe life of the Highw-ay Trust Fund, charged to the Highway Trust Fund is solely for administrative expenses of the Bureau of Public Roads even though the services are provided through a central- ized organization. PAGENO="0195" 185 (c) The Administration recognizes this legal problem, does it not? In the Ad- ministration's proopsed legislation to extend the life of the Highway Trust Fund, it suggested a change in the language of section 209 to specifically authorize use of Trust Fund monies to pay part of the administrative cost of the Federal Highway Administration. Answer: The Administration does not consider that a legal problem exists with respect to this use of the Highway Trust Fund in financing the administrative expenses of the Bureau of Public Roads through the Federal Highway Admin- istration. The proposed change in the language of section 209 was submitted in order to clarify the organizational relationships with respect to financing the administrative expenses of the Bureau ~f Public Roads. Mr. CRAMER. Let me ask you this question relating to this. It is a policy question. Can money under section 108(b) be used for reloca- tion costs for displaced persons as part of the right-of-way costs? Secretary BOYD. That certamly was not contemplated. Mr. CRAMER. Well, the recommendations you sent to Congress did recommend that that be included in the cost, but the bill as drafted does not? Secretary Born. That. is correct, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Was there a policy decision to eliminate that? Secretary BoYD. That may have been an oversight. Mr. CRAMER. That is what I was trying to get at. Secretary Boyr~. But we will have to review that. However, I should say that our original thinking on this was that we would seek a sub- stantially larger amount of authorization, and it may be as a result of seeking $100 million instead of some other figure, we concluded that we could not afford to try to deal with relocation assistance in the stune process. Mr. CRAMER. Well, assuming it is an oversight and not a policy de- cision, I wish you would give consideration to the bill I introduced, and a number of other members of the committee, H.R. 16622, which I think pretty definitely carries out the recommendations that your report con- tained-in my language; the language you submitted does not. Secretary Bo~m. We will review that Mr. CRAMER. Now, you are suggesting on highway beautification, $85 million for 1969, in each year for 3 years. And I think it is rather inter- esting that for safety you are only proposing up to $40 million. Is it your position that safety is not of as much significance as beauty is? Secretary BoYD. No; but as I pointed out in my testimony, we have a substantial carryover in safety. Mr. CRAMER. Largely because they have not appropriated money authorized, is that correct? Secretary Boyr~. That is right, sir. Mr. CRAMER. And I doubt if we can contemplate there is going to be very substantial increase in safety recommended funds next year un- less we get some new budget breaks? Secretary BoYD. I certainly would not want to predict the action of the Appropriations Committee. Mr. CRAMER. Well, I was referring to the recommendations of the administration. I think the administration recommended approximate- ly what was appropriated. Now, I am concerned about this problem that is obviously develop- ing-that is the 10-percent penalty-in that a number of States have not conformed, by agreement or otherwise, to the basic beautification acts, particularly title I. Is that not correct? PAGENO="0196" 186 Secretary Bo~. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. No, I have before me a copy of the letter dated March 29, 1968, from Secretary of Transportation-yourself-to Mr. F. J. MacDonald, chairman of the Governor's Commission on Arizona Beauty. The letter addressed itself to the question of imposition of a 10-percent penalty for failure to comply with the Beautification Act. In that letter you state: For these reasons we feel that the Arizona Legislature will have, during its current session, ample opportunity to consider appropriate action. In the absence of some unforeseen development, I can see no reason to delay further the imposi- tion of the l)eflaity beyond January 1, 1069, should the Legislature fail to act to provide effective control during 1968. Now, we had an understanding, I thought, UI) until money was made available and an authorization provided, this penalty was not going to be imposed. Is it your intention to impose it as of January 1, 1969, in all instances where States have not acted? Secretary Bo~. No, sir. In fact, I think I stated in my testimony that there would be cases in 1969 where the legislatures had not had an opportunity to act. I do not recall any understanding on our part ether than a statement I made that we would not impose the penalties or attempt to impose the penalties during 1968. Mr. CRAMER. It is your intention of imposing it in 1969? Secretary Bori~. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Even though Congress does not authorize money for the program? It has not done so this year or last year. Secretary Bo~rn. Obviously, as I tried to state before, we are trying to use some commonsense in how we approach this matter, and I am not making any commitment to impose any particular penalty on January 1, 1969. I think at that stage the burden will be upon the States, however. Mr. CRAMER. Well, then if you feel that the States, such as Arizona, have had an opportunity to carry this burden and act of legislation has not done so, as you advised Arizona, it would be your intention to impose a penalty as of January 1, 1969; is that correct? Secretary Bo~. As long as I am in this office, I intend to carry out the provisions of the laws. Mr. CRAMER. Well, as I recall, the provision of the law was that it was supposed to be imposed this year. Secretary Bori. That was on the assumption that the legislature had a chance to operate, to act on it. Mr. CRAMER. Well, if Congress does not authorize money for 1969, you would still impose the penalty? Secretary Bo~m. I will look at that situation on the 1st of January. Mr. CRAMER. Well, I would just suggest that that would seem to be a. pretty clear implication of your letter, which did nOt relate to whether Congress authorized and appropriated money or not. It was strictly on the basis of whether Arizona enacted control legislation. Now am I misreading it? Secretary Bo~. I think the letter says, if I remember, there would appear to be no reason for not imposing the penalty. It may be that a reason develops. I am not prepared to meet that issue today, because it is not a current issue. PAGENO="0197" 187 Mr. CRAMER. Well, I would suggest that with the serious money problem that we have and with the suggestion that this money come out of the general fund, at least I am of the opinion, I do not know how in the world this beauty could have a high enough priority to justify appropriations in a money-pinched year like this and I frankly do not see the prospects of money for some time. Now, the other problem involved is the bonus payment. Secretary Bo~r. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. I have heard some suggestion that the bonus payments are also going to be affected by noncompliance. Suppose a State has entered into the bonus agreement provided for in section 12 of the present act. The act of 1958 does not come into compliance with the 1965 act until 1970 or 1971, for instance. Would that State remain eligible for bonus payments on those projects com- pleted before the 1965 act? Secretary Bon. I have had no discussion with anyone on this, Mr. Cramer, and have given it absolutely no thought. I would be happy to submit an answer for the record. (The information is as follows:) Section 131(j) provides that a State shall be entitled to receive bonus pay- ments as set forth in its bonus agreement, but no such State shall be entitled to such payments unless the State maintains the control required under such agree- ment or the control required by Section 131, whichever control is stricter. Section 131(b) of the Highway Beautification Act of 1065 authorizes the Secre- tary to suspend for such periods as he deems necessary the application of this subsection to a State whenever he determines it to be in the public interest. The Secretary is fully authorized to suspend any sanctions against a State for failure to provide for "effective control" of outdoor advertising under Sec- tion 131(b) of the Act until such time as the State legislature has had a reason- able opportunity to act on the basis of explicit information. This also applies with regard to the suspension of.bonus payments under Sec- tion 131(j). Bonus States which continue to carry out their obligations to con- trol outdoor advertising along the Interstate System in conformity with their existing bonus agreements may thus be entitled to receive bonus payments when the State has enacted appropriate legislation and entered into a suitable agree- ment to fully implement the 1965 Act. Section 131 (j) further expressly provides that "The provisions of this sub- section shall not be construed to exempt any State from controlling outdoor ad- vertising as otherwise provided in this section." Bonus States as well as nonbonus States are therefore required to implement and fully comply with the provisions of the Highway Beautification Act of 1905, regardless of whether or not the bonus State elects to remain eligible to re- receive bonus payments as provided by Section 131 (j). A bonus State which fulfills its obligations under its bonus agreement in connection with a project completed prior to enactment of the 1965 Act and is continuing to carry out its obligations with reference to all other highways on the Interstate System in accordance with the agreement would remain eligible to receive bonus payments for those projects. Additionally, if the legislature of a bonus State has not had a reasonable op- portunity to act, prior to January 1, 1968, and the State acts administratively by entering an agreement under the 1965 Act contingent on later ratification or approval by the State legislature the State's eligibility to receive bonus payments would be preserved without question. Bonus payments, however, would be de- ferred in such circumstances until the State legislature actually ratifies or adopts a mutually satisfactory agreement. Mr. CRAMER. I would hate to see the States lose their eligibility for bonus on these projects, because of problems relating to the Beautifica- tion Act, because that seems to me to be going in the wrong direction. PAGENO="0198" 188 You get beautification under bonus provisions, but you are not getting it under the Beautification Act because of a lack appropriations and So forth. Secretary BoYD. We have taken no position on this. As a result of your question, we will study it and provide you with an answer on what the provision is. Mr. CRAMER. I would appreciate that very much. I have some other questions, but I will yield to the other members at this time. Thank you very much. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. The gentleman from Oklahoma., Mr. Edmondson. Mr. EDMONDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask you initially with regard to your highway safety program whether you regard your authorization request on highway safety as minimum figures for an effective highway safety program in the fu- ture, or whether they represent in your view an ideal figure for activity in the future? Secretary BoYD. Clearly a minimum figure, Mr. Edmondson. I think this ~is an area, without any regard to the human side of this thing. as an economic investment, that is one of the best payoff pro- grains that the Federal Government is sponsoring. That is, in terms of return on investment. Mr. EDMONDSON. At what level do you think we would be providing authorizations for highway safety if you were operating on ideal pro- grams ? If we were to realize the maximum economic and human life return on our program how much greater an annual authorization figure would you have in this bill, do you think? Secretary BoYD. I would say 33 percent. Mr. EDMONDSON. In other words, thi~ in your view is just about a third below what an ideal program would be? Secretary BoYD. Given the present ability of our bureau to deal with the program and the allocation of the money, I would say "Yes." Ultimately I would think that figure would be low. But for this im- mediate period, I would say that it is about right. Mr. EDMONDSON. I would like to say, as one member of the commit- tee, I think this is an area where some very important and significanf things are being done in the States in cooperation with the Federal Government. even though you have been operating on a bobtailed budget. I certamly hope we will be successful in securing the author- ization figure. that you recommended. Secretary BoYD. I think with each year of experience, Mr. Edmond- son, we. will develop more and more information which will more clearly justify the value of this program. Mr. EDMONDSON. I would like to turn secondly to the beautification authorization figures that you have supported in your testimony and ask you if you regard them as an ideal level or as a minimum level for an effective beautification program? Secretary BoYD. Minimum level. This is just enough to keep life in the body. Mr. EDMoNDsoN. What higher figure do you think we should have for the beautification program if we had an effective or an ideal beauti- fication program operating? PAGENO="0199" 189 Secretary Bom. I think the cost of removing signs under the pro- gram, plus the full 3 percent for scenic enhancement, would be ideal. I would have to run these figures out for you and put them in the record. I do not have them in dollars. Mr. EDMONDSON. Would you submit those for the record? Secretary BoYD. Yes, please. Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask you to comment ma little more detail on the paragraph that appears at the top of page 5 in your summary statement in which you state: In the past year some 17 outdoor advertising control agreements have been signed, and we are close to agreement with a number of other States. Would you submit for the record the States with which you have concluded those agreements? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. EDMONDSON. Would it be possible to submit also for the coin- inittee files a copy of the control agreement that has been approved in each of those 17 States? Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that that list of States be made a part of the record at this point and that the control agreements may be part of the files of the committee. Mr. KLUCzYN5KI. Without objection, so ordered. (Information follows:) STATES WITH OUTDOOR ADVERTISING AGREEMENTS During the hearing on May 23, 1968, Congressman Edinondson asked the Secre- tary to submit for the record the States with which the Department has concluded agreements, and for the committee files a copy of each agreement. The following States have signed agreements with the Department providing for outdoor advertising control under the Highway Beautification Act of 1965: Rhode Island Maine Vermont Utah Virginia Puerto Rico Hawaii California District of Columbia Maryland Connecticut Alaska New York Pennsylvania Kentucky Delaware Minnesota Iowa A copy of each agreement is attached. Mr. EDMONDSON. Now, the next sentence in that same paragraph states: 31 State legislatures have enacted laws providing for control of outdoor advertising. Would you tell me whether these 31 State laws comply with the requirements of the Department with regard to beautification, or what percentage of the 31 State acts have been held satisfactory and ade- quate to comply with the law by your requirement? Secretary BOYD. May I provide that for the record? I do not have that information with me today. Mr. EDMONDSON. I would like to have these specifics on it. Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. Mr. EDMONDSON. Tell me, roughly, whether half of them are in compliance or not. PAGENO="0200" 190 Secretary BOYD. I would like to ask Mr. Bridwell to answer that. Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Edmondson, most of the implementing legisla- tion enacted by the State legislatures is in a form which makes possible agreements satisfactory to both the States and to the Federal Govern- ment, and several of our agreements have been concluded under that statutory authority. There are severa.l States-I am frankly unable to name them at this point-in which the legislation or the statute enacted by the legis- lature creates problems in terms of working out an agreement which we believe to be consistent with the Federal legislation, plus all of the additional clarifying statements that the Secretary has made as a part of the hearings, both before this committee and before the Senate Public Works Committee. At this point in time, there is no case in which we have said we will refuse to conclude an agreement, and that a State will have to change its law before we will conclude an agr~ement. In other words, there has been no final confrontation between the Federal Government and any State. Mr. EDMONDSON. When you refer to these 31 State legislatures that have acted, you feel that you are either in a position where you have approved their laws or where you are in a negotiating position with those 31 States? Mr. BRIDWELL. No, sir; not quite, Mr. Edmondson. I believe there are going to be a few of those States in which we are going to have great difficulty with the State operating under the constraints of its State statute and we operating lmder the constraints of the Federal law plus the interpretation that has been made in the course of hearings. Mr. EDMOXDSON. Well, I know that our State has enacted- Mr. BRIDWELL. Let me-without specifying the State, let me give you an example in which one State. zoned all land adjacent to the Federal-aid system for a distance of 660 feet from the edge of the right-of-way as commercial and industrial property for the purposes of erecting billboards, which is clearly inconsistent with the Federal law. It is inconsistent with what the. Secretary has stated and it is also inconsistent with what the committee has informally said is its interpretation of the Federal statutes. Sb that is the kind of problem. That is just one example. Mr. ED~Ioxisox. I know our State legislature passed a bill which the newspapers, at least those circulated in the larger cities, describe as a tough billboard bill. The State has not been informed whether it is in compliance, or the act is satisfactory to the Department. Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Edmondson, the agreement which will presum- ably result from the enactment of the Oklahoma Legislature has not come to me, so as of now I simply cannot say that we. are or that we are not in agreement, because it simply has not gotten to me. Mr. ED~roxDsox. Well, I think it would be a helpful thing if we could have supplied for the record, Mr. Chairman, the 31 States that have enacted laws and the enumeration of the States among the. 31 whose laws have been found satisfactory, and the basis for agree- n-ient. Could we have, that supplied for the record at this point? Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, you may. lYe will be glad to supply it. Mr. KLL~ZYNSKI. Without objection, so ordered. PAGENO="0201" 191 Mr. EDMONDSON. I would like also to have supplied for the record, if you reached a point of determination with regard to some States whose laws obviously are not the basis for an agreement, the identi- fication of those States. Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Edmondson, may I ask the committee's indul- gence in the latter category, to put it on the basis that our preliminary evaluation of a State's statute is that it is in conflict with the Federal law? And I ask that indulgence because, as I say, at this point in time we have not taken the position that any State law is in conflict and that we therefore cannot even attempt to negotiate an agreement. Mr. EDMOND5ON. Mr. Chairman, would that be satisfactory, to have it submitted on that basis, that there has been a preliminary finding by the Department that the law is not in compliance? Mr. KLLTCZYN5KI. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record. (Information follows:) As of May 30, 1908, 33 States have enacted some form of legislation for the control of outdoor advertising. Of this number, the following listed 19 States have enacted legislation to carry out all of the provisions of Title I of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and, in the opinion of the Secretary, appear to provide the designated State agency adequate authority as a basis upon which the States could enter into agreements. New York (not yet signed by Gover- nor) North Carolina Rhode Island Utah Vermont Virginia West Virginia District of Columbia Puerto Rico Texas, Colorado and New Hampshire have passed laws which are temporary in nature; the Texas legislature passed a resolution which authorizes negotia- tion relative to outdoor advertising controls under the Federal Act, while in Colorado and New Hampshire moratorium statutes restrict the erection of new signs for a designated period of time. North Dakota enacted a unique law which sets up a highway Corridor Board to regulate outdoor advertising in addition to other duties. This law appears to be reasonably susceptible to several alternate methods of implementation. Therefore, the adequacy of this law to fully comply with the Highway Beau- tification Act of 1965 will be contingent upon the State's interpretation and implementation of its provisions. Specific standards and provisions are written into the laws of the remaining 10 States listed below: Based upon a preliminary review of these laws, certain features contained therein raise serious questions as to the State's authority to fully comply with the Highway Beautification Act. Final determination as to whether these laws are in need of amendment or further legislative action will rest upon State interpretation of the various statutory provisions and the authority of the designated State agencies to negotiate satisfactory agreements with the Secretary to comply with the Federal Act. Mr. KL~ozYNsT~I. Any further questions? Mr. ED~roNDsoN. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Alaska Arkansas California Connecticut Hawaii Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Maryland New Mexico Georgia Indiana Kansas Michigan Mississippi Missouri Montana Oklahoma South Dakota Wyoming PAGENO="0202" 192 Mr. CRAMER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. KLUOZYNSKI. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. Are you interested on States enactmg State legislation calling for the removal of billboards that are not in conformity to the Federal law? Removal now or in the near future? Mr. BRIDWELL. We have not, Mr. Cramer, developed any model legislation in the sense that we suggest to the States or demand of the States what kind of legislation they should enact. There have been a few instances in which a State authority sponsoring legislation before a legislature has asked for our comments upon draft. legisla- tion, which has been provided. Other than those kinds of conditions, we have not tried to suggest or require, or any other kind of action, what the legislation should contain before a State legislature other than providing each of the States the Federal statute plus the clarifying policy statements that have been made by the Secretary. either before the committee or in exchange of correspondence with the committee. Mr. CRAMER. Well, you had some standards and we had some dis- cussions about them and disagreements and so forth. Mr. BRIDWELL. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. As I understand it, there have been no additional standards developed or promulgated or issued, as a guidance to the States, relating to their carrying out in particular title I. Mr. BRIDWELL. I think the committee made it very clear that it was somewhat less than enthused with our draft standards. Mr. C1t&MER. You have not tried to redraft them? Mr. BRIDWELL. So that you are quite correct, we have not attempted to redraft the standards for a very good reason, that the standards- if you may call them standards-apply individuaily in each State in accordance with the agreement reached with the State. So there are no such things as national uniform standards, but the standards result rather from the negotiated agreement with each of the States. Mr. CRAMER. The thing that bothers me basically is that if you are encouraging States-and I am sure you would not discourage them- to pass legislation to take down billboards, there is no money to do it. The State is going to have to pick up t.he cost, right? Mr. BRIDWELL. The State would have to pick up the cost or some other kind of action would haveto take place; yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. How many of the 17 agreements are with States whose legislatures have not yet acted? Mr. BRIDWELL. I will have to supply that for the record, Mr. Cramer. (The information follows:) OUTDOOR ADVERTISING AGREEMENTS WITH STATES WHOSE LEGISLATURES HAVE NOT YET Acr~ During the hearing on May 23, 1908, Mr. Cramer inquired as to how many of the agreements are with States whose Legislatures have not yet acted. These are: Minnesota, Maine. Iowa. Pennsylvania, and Delaware. The original agreement with New York was signed prior to the time that the Legislature had taken action. On May 25, 1968, the New York Legislature enacted an outdoor advertising control bill, which is presently awaiting the Governor's signature. This bill ratified and approved a revised agreement with New York, signed May 13, 1908. PAGENO="0203" 193 The original agreement with Maryland was signed prior to the enactment of State legislation. The Maryland Legislature later enacted a law containing substantially the same terms as the agreement. Certain minor changes were made by the Legislature in the standards; these are considered acceptable and a revised agreement will be executed in the near future. The agreement with Alaska was signed prior to enactment of State legislation. Subsequently, the State Legislature enacted a law ratifying the agreement. Mr. CRAMER. Some of them are? Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, the one that I am particularly familiar with right at the moment, because the legislature is in the process now of enacting legislation to carry out the agreement, is the State of New York, so that is one instance. Mr. CRAMER. Well, I think maybe the only way we will get to the bottom of what is being done, what judgments are being exercised, what importuning is taking place relating to the State, legislatively or otherwise, would be, Mr. Chairman, to suggest that they submit a State-by-State analysis of what has occurred and what the present status is. Mr. BRIDWELL. We will be glad to supply such an analysis, Mr. Cramer. We, I believe, routinely have supplied to the committee. copies of each of the agreements signed. Mr. CRAMER. We have that, I think. Mr. BRIDWELL. So that there has been a very positive attitude on our part that the committee should be fully informed of the progress of our program of attempting to reach agreements with each of the States. Mr. Ki~uczYNsKI. Mr. Bridwell, will you supply the committee with that information? Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, we will be glad to, Mr. Chairman. (The information follows:) OUTDooR ADVERTIsING CONTROL-STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS During the hearing on May 23, 1968, Mr. Cramer requested that the Depart- ment submit for the record a State-by-State analysis of what has occurred dur- ing the negotiations on outdoor advertising control, and the present status of said negotiations. Following the hearings before the Subcommittee on Roads in April and May of 1967, Secretary Boyd wrote to Chairman Kluczynski on May 24, 1967, outlining four points of policy which would be followed in administering Title I of the Act. Chairman Kluczynski released the text of this letter in a press release on June 2, 1967, and on June 8, 1967, the Secretary acknowledged the press release of June 2 and advised that he had on that ilate directed the Federal Highway Administrator to proceed as expeditiously as possible to work out, within the framework of the May 24 letter, agreements with the States for implementation of the Act. These three documents were transmitted to the States by Federal Highway Adminisration Notice of June 26, 1967, together with Mr. Bridwell's statement of May 2, 1967, before the Subcommittee. The pattern of negotiations has been virtually the same with respect to all States. During the initial meeting or correspondence with the State, the State has been requested to work out proposed standards and criteria which, in the State's opinion, would be reasonable and effective in the light of conditioas with- in the State. State officials have been informed of the status of negotiations in other States, and copies of agreements executed have been transmitted to all States shortly following signature. In this manner. the initiative in developing the standards has come from the State, and all States have been kept fully aware of the status of negotiations and agreements with their fellow States. PAGENO="0204" 194 ALABAMA On August 7, 1967, Administrator Bridwell wrote to Alabama Highway Di- rector Nelson asking that the State develop proposed standards for outdoor ad- vertising control for study and mutual discussion. Mr. Nelson replied by letter of August 17, 1967, that the State Legislature then had before it bills providing for highway beautification, including outdoor advertising control and the State did not consider it wise to attempt to enter into an agreement with the Federal Government while the Legislature was considering those bills. Several attempts were made in subsequent months to arrange for further negotiations; no affirma- tive reaction was received from the State until recently. A meeting is now scheduled for June 19 between State officials and Administration representa- tives in Montgomery. ALASKA On August 7, 1967, the Administrator wrote to Commissioner Gonnason of the Alaska Department of Highways, asking the State to develop proposed standards for outdoor advertising control in Alaska which could be used for study and mutual discussion. On March 4, 1968, a draft of a proposed agree- ment prepared by the State was receivedL This was determined to be satisfac- tory and the State was so advised. The agreement was executed by the State and signed by the Administrator on March 29, 1968. ARIZONA On August 7, 1967, Mr. Bridwell wrote to State Highway Engineer Price of the Arizona Highway Department asking the State to develop proposed stand- ards for study and mutual discussion. Mr. Price replied on August 17, 1967, in- dicating that the Governor's Commission on Arizona Beauty was planning to set up a Citizens' Committee, to be appointed by the Governor, for the purpose of drafting billboard and junkyard legislation for presentation to the 1968 Legisla- ture. Mr. Price continued that the assistance of a Federal representative would be requested at the appropriate time. On October 23, 1967, a Federal Highway Administration representative met with the Citizens' Committee in Phoenix, at the Committee's request. The Fed- eral representative explained the `requirements of the Federal Act of the Com- mittee, which represented a number of different interests, including the outdoor advertising industry. A second meeting at the request of the Committee was held on November 20, 1967, and there were a number of subsequent telephone conversations between State and Administration representatives concerning the provisions of the proposed outdoor advertising and junkyard control bills. Dur- ing these discussions, mutually satisfactory control provisions were worked out. On February 22, 1968, two representatives of the Administration appeared be- fore a joint committee of the Arizona Legislature and explained the Federal Highway Beautification Act and its requirements. The Arizona Legislature ad- journed its 1968 session, however, without acting on the proposed legislation. ARKANSAS Negotiations were commenced on June 5, 1967, when a Federal Highway Ad- ministration representative conferred with State officials in Little Rock. Mr. Bridwell thereafter wrote to Director of Highways Goodman on August 7, 1967, and requested the State to develop proposed standards for further study and mutual discussion. At the request of the State, an Administration representative attended a conference in Little Rock on October 26, 1967. to discuss proposed standards which had been developed. On March 27, 1968, the Arkansas Highway Commission authorized Director Goodman to hold a public hearing on the pro- posed standards and thereafter execute an `agreement with the Federal Highway Administration. This hearing was held in Little Rock on May 15, 1968. The State is now considering the information presented at the hearing. OAL~ORNIA Negotiations with California were commenced on July 24, and 25, 1967, when representatives of the Federal Highway Administration met with State officials, including members of the Legislature, in Sacramento. Details of size, lighting, and spacing standards were worked out and were included in a bill passed into law by the California Legislature. Subsequent meetings were held in Sacra- PAGENO="0205" 195 mento on September 5, 1967, and January 10, 1968. These, together with a num- ber of telephone conversations between the State and Administration repre- sentatives, concerned the definition of an unzoned commercial or industrial area and the wording of the agreement. The agreement was executed on Feb- ruary 15, 1968. COLORADO Negotiations were commenced on June 7, 1967. At that time a representative of the Federal Highway Administration met with State officials in Denver. These negotiations were continued in Denver on July 5, 1967, and on August 7, 1967, Mr. Bridwell wrote to Chief Engineer Shumate asking the State to develop proposed standards for outdoor advertising control for further study and mutual discussion. In reply, Mr. Shumate wrote on August 11, 1967, that it would be their intention to work closely with the Administration during the winter of 1967-68 in attempting to develop satisfactory legislation which could be recom- mended to the Legislature. On January 20, 1968, representatives of the Administration met with Senators Allott and Dominick, other members of the Colorado Congressional Delegation and Colorado State Legislators in the U.S. Capitol at Senator Allott's request. At that time the provisions of the Highway Beautification Act were explained and questions of the State Legislators were answered. On January 25, 1968, a representative of the Adniinistration again met with Colorado State Highway Department officials in Denver, at which time they reviewed proposed legisla- tion to be considered by the 1968 session of the Colorado Legislature. However, the Colorado Legislature did not enact the proposed legislation, but instead extended the previously enacted moratorium legislation. CONNECTICUT Negotiations were begun on May 25, 1967, when a Federal Highway Adminis- tration representative met with State officials in Hartford. Additional meetings were held in Hartford on June 20, 22, and 26, 1967, and on several occasions subsequent to June 26, State officials were telephonically in contact with Admin- istration representatives. The agreement with Connecticut was signed on Sep- tember 11, 1967. DELAWARE On August 7, 1967, Mr. Bridwell wrote to Director Davidson of the Delaware State Highway Department asking that the State develop proposed standards for study and mutual discussion. On August 18, 1967, representatives of the Federai Highway Administration met in Dover with Mr. Davidson and other State officials. On January 4, 1968, the State forwarded a draft of a proposed agreement. Generally, the draft was entirely satisfactory and the State was so advised. On April 11, 1968, a second draft of a proposed agreement was received. Several changes were suggested to the State for consideration prior to the preparation of the final agreement. The agreement with Delaware was executed on May 1, 1968. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA On June 1, 1967, an initial meeting was held between officials of the District of Columbia Department of Highways and Traffic an~I representatives of the Federal Highway Administration. Provisions of an agreement were worked out during this meeting, and were finalized in telephone conversations and an additional meeting between Department of Highways and traffic officials and Administration representatives. The agreement was signed on September 7, 1967. FLORIDA Negotiations were begun on April 14, 1967, when a Federal Highway Adminis- tration representative met with Chairman Jay W. Brown of the State Road Board and other State officials at Tallahassee. On August 7, 1967, Mr. Bridwell wrote to Mr. Brown asking that the State develop proposed standards for study and mutual discussion. In reply, Chairman Brown wrote on September 5, 1967, that their attorney was of the opinion that no agreement could be signed until the Legislature had given them legal authority to do so. Chairman Brown did request an additional meeting to discuss future implementation of the Act. This meeting was held on November 28, 1967, in Tallahassee, attended by two Admin- istration representatives, and on November 30, 1907, Mr. Brown wrote of their PAGENO="0206" 196 desire to cooperate in every manner possible in implementing the Act as soon as the Florida Legislature authorizes them to do so and Congress appropriates sufficient funds to proceed. GEORGIA Negotiations with Georgia were begun on November 29, 1967. On that date representatives of the Federal Highway Administration met with State officials in Atlanta. At the meeting the Georgia officials were advised that the existing Georgia law contained features which would be regarded as objectionable inso- far as forming the basis for an agreement. Subsequently by letter dated Decem- ber 28, 1967, the State submitted a proposed agreement, based on the existing Georgia law, for consideration. By letter dated January 29, 1968, Mr. Bridwell pointed out that certain features of the agreement would not be considered acceptable to the Secretary, and, in addition, certain provisions would conflict with the language and intent of the Federal Act. Mr. Bridwell offered to discuss the matter further or to negotiate an interim agreement pending further State legislative action. By letter dated April 24, 1968, the State accepted the offer to meet and negotiate, and a conference has been scheduled for June 18, 1968, In Atlanta. HAWAII Chief Highway Engineer Albert C. Zane advised in March, 1967, that the State highway department was agreeable to entering into an agreement pro- viding for outdoor advertising control in Hawaii. Hawaii wished to consider two different agreements, one incorporating the standards contained in the January 10. 1967. report to the Congress and the other to contain the more restrictive requirements of State law. In response to the State's request two sample agreements were prepared in the Washington office and transmitted for the State's consideration. The State elected to sign an agreement incorporating the more restrictive provisions of State law. This agreement was executed on July 13, 1967. IDAHO Negotiations were commenced on July 31, 1967, in Boise. On that date a Federal Highway Administration representative met with State officials. Negoti- ations were continued in Boise on August 22, 1967. and in compliance with their law the State held public hearings in late August 1967 in Boise and five other locations in Idaho concerning their proposed regulations. By letter dated Decem- ber 1. 1967. the State submitted a draft of a proposed agreement; on December 15, 1967. three signed copies of a proposed agreement were submitted by the State. On January 18. 1968, the agreement was discussed telephonically with State Highway Engineer Mathes and on January 26, 1968, Mr. Mathes wrote that the proposed changes suggested would be placed on the agenda of the Idaho Highway Board at its next meeting. On February 23, 1968, Mr. Mathes sub- mitted a revised agreement, which was under consideration when the State advised by telegram that they had been enjoined in State court from enforcing any provisions of their State outdoor advertising law and executing an agree- ment with the Secretary. The State's telegram revoked the offer to agree and the signed agreement forwarded by letter dated February 23, pending disposition of the suit. ILLINOIS Negotiations with Illinois were commenced on May 5, 1967, when a repre- sentative of the Federal Higaway Administration met with State officials in Springfield. Discussed at that time was an outdoor advertising control bill which had been drawn up by the Illinois Division of Highways for submission to the Legislature. On May 9, 1967, an Administration representative testified before a hearing of a committee of the Illinois Senate and stated that the Illinois Division of Highways bill would form a satisfactory basis for an agreement with the Secretary. A more liberal bill was reported out favorably by the Senate Committee and telephonic negotiations were commenced by Administration representatives and State officials as to points of acceptability in the bill under Lonsideration. These continued until June 1967 when the bill was defeated in the Illinois House. Since that time the State has declined to continue further negotiations. PAGENO="0207" 197 INDIANA Negotiations with Indiana will commence on June 6, 1968. On that date repre- sentatives of the Federal Highway Administration will confer with State officials in Indianapolis. IOWA Negotiations were begun in Ames, Iowa, on August 10, 1967. On that date, representatives of the Federal Highway Administration met with State officials. These negotiations were continued in Ames on September 28, 1968. At that time, a draft agreement was discussed. A draft agreement was submitted by the State by letter dated October 9, 1967, and was found generally acceptable; comments for clarification purposes were transmitted to the State. A second draft was sub- mitted by the State on December 6, 1967, and on December 18, 1967, a representa- tive of the Administration met with members of the Iowa Highway Commission in Ames. On December 20 the State submitted a signed agreement; by letter dated January 24, 1968, the Administrator advised the State that he found the terms of the agreement satisfactory with several exceptions, and suggested several changes. On February 16, 1968, the State forwarded a proposed amend- ment to its outdoor advertising control agreement. On April 12, 1968, Mr. Brid- well sent to the State an agreement which combined the amendment with the original agreement and clarified certain language contained therein. On May 20, 1968, the State submitted a revised draft, and by telegram of May 27, 1968, the State w-as advised that the draft was entirely satisfactory. The agreement was signed June 12, 1968. KANSAS Negotiations were commenced on August 7, 1967, when Adniinistrator Bridwell wrote to Director Montgomery of the Kansas State Highway Commission asking that the State develop proposed standards for study and mutual discussion. On September 6, 1967, a representative of the Administration met with State officials in Topeka. KENTUCKY Negotiations were begun on August 10, 1967, in Frankfort; on that date a rep- resentative of the Federal Highway Administration met with State officials. In November 1967 the State submitted a draft of a proposed agreement. Certain changes were suggested in telephonic conversations with State officials and in a meeting in Washington on November 29, 1967. On December 5, 1967, the State submitted a signed agreement, which was executed by the Administrator on December 11, 1967. LOUISIANA Negotiations were commenced on October 31, 1967. On that date representatives of the Federal Highway Administration met with State officials in Baton Rouge. These negotiations were continued on December 12, 1967, and on December 28, 1967, the State submitted an agreement for consideration. By letter dated Jan- uary 24, 1968, the Administrator advised the State of his reluctance to accept one provision of the agreement. This provision was further discussed in the State's letters of February 5 and April 1, 1968, and the Administrator's letter of March 4, 1968. The State's proposal is presently under consideration in the Administration at the present time. MAINE On August 7, 1967, the Administrator wrOte to Chairman Stevens asking that the State develop proposed standards for study and mutual discussions. On November 21, 1967, a Federal Highway Administration representative met wtih State officials in Augusta and on December 28, 1967, an attorney for the Maine State Highway Commission brought to Washington a proposed agreement. Cer- tain changes w-ere made in the agreement which was executed on that date by the Administrator. The changes made were later approved by the Maine State Highway Commission. MARYLAND Administrator Bridw-ell wrote to Chairman-Director Wolfe on August 7, 1967, asking the State to develop proposed standards for study and mutual discussion. On October 5, 1967, State officials met with Administration representatives in Washington. On January 15, 1968, the State held a public hearing on their PAGENO="0208" 198 proposed standards and on January 30, 1968, an attorney of the Maryland State Roads Commission visited the Washington offices to discuss the proposed agree- ment. Several minor language changes were suggested. The agreement was executed on February 15, 1968. MASsACHUSETTS Negotiations were commenced on July 26, 1967, when an Administration repre- sentative met with State officials in Boston. At that time, the State indicated, that a legislative study committee had been assigned the responsibility of drawing up proposed regulations and legislation. Although the Administration has offered to continue these negotiations on several occasions, no affirmative response has been received from the State. On April 8, 1968, Deputy Administrator Jamieson wrote to Commissioner Ribbs assuring Mr Ribbs that the Administration was ready to resume the negotiations begun on July 26, 1967. MICHIGAN Negotiations were commenced on December 5, 1967, when Administration representatives met with State officials in Lansing. The State, by letter dated February 16, 1968, submitted a proposed agreement which was based on the provisions of the existing Michigan outdoor advertising control law. By letter dated March 8, 1968, Highway Beautification Coordinator Fred S. Farr advised the State that be was of the opinion that certain provisions in the proposed agreement would not be acceptable as a basis for agreement with the Secretary, and in addition certain of the provisions appeared to conflict with the language and intent of the Federal Act itself. Mr. Farr's letter stated that the Adminisra- tion would be happy tO discuss the matter further with the State at their convenience. At the State's request, representatives of the Administration ap- peared before a joint committee of the Michigan Legislature in Lansing on April 23, 1968. The Administration's objections to the existing Michigan law were explained and the Administration again offered to meet with officials of the State to work out mutually agreeable terms which could be included in a proposed amendment to the existing law. The joint legislative committee asked that Federal and State officials meet with representatives of the outdoor ad- vertising industry in attempting to resolve the differences. The Administration representatives readily agreed to do so, provided State officials were also willing. MINNESOTA On August 9, 1967, representatives of the Administration met with officials of the State in St. Paul. These negotiat~ons were continued on November 20, 1967, when Administration representatives again met with State officials in St. Paul and discussed the provisions of a draft agreement. The agreement was prepared in final form by the State and submitted on December 4, 1987, and was executed by the Administrator on December 11, 1967. MISSISSIPPI Federal Highway Administration representatives met with State officials on November 1, 1967, in Jackson. Objections1 to certain provisions of the exist- ing Mississippi outdoor advertising control law were pointed out to State officials. By letter dated December 1, 1967, Chief Engineer Johnson submitted a pro- posed amendment and on December 13, 1967, Administration representatives met with Mr. Johnson and other State officials to discuss the provisions of the proposed amendment. Minor changes in the language of the draft were sug- gested. By letter dated December 20, 1967, Director Robbins submitted the revised draft for review; by letter dated January 22, 1968, the Administrator advised Mr. Robbins that the standards and criteria contained therein were felt to embody the minimum requirements under which an agreement could be entered into. At the re8uest of the State, an Administration representative met with officials of the Mississippi Highway Department and representatives of the outdoor advertising industry on April 4, 1968, in Jackson. Final details of a proposed amendment to the existing Mississippi law were worked out. the outdoor advertising industry indicating that it would support such an amendment. PAGENO="0209" 199 MISSOURI The State highway department, by letters of September 20, 1967, and Octo- ber 24, 1967, requested that their existing law be reviewed for compliance with the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. By memorandum of December 15, 1967, the Administration's Chief Counsel's office pointed out the objectionable features of the existing Missouri law, insofar as an outdoor advertising control agreement was concerned. MONTANA On April 9, 1968, a representative of the Federal Highway Administration met with officials of the State Highway Commission in Helena. At that time the Administration representative pointed out that the present Montana law raises serious questions as to the State's authority to fully comply with the Highway Beautification Act. On April 22, 1968, Administrator Bridwell wrote to Chairman Blewett detailing certain provisions of the Montana law which possibly would prevent agreement. Mr. Bridwell offered to have his represen- tatives continue to meet with State officials in further negotiations which could lead to a mutually acceptable agreement, to be contingent upon ratification by the State Legislature. Chairman Blewett, by letter dated April 30, 1968, indicated that the matter would be considered at the next highway commis- sion meeting. NEBRASKA On August 7, 1967, Mr. Bridwell wrote to State Engineer Hossack asking that the State develop proposed standards for study and mutual discussion. On Sep- tember 7, 1967, a representative of the Administration met with Mr. Hossack and other officials of the State in Lincoln. On January 19, 1968, Mr. Hossack dis- cussed a draft of a proposed agreement with representatives of the Federal High- way Administration while in Washington in connection with other matters: NEVADA On August 7, 1967, Administrator Bridwell wrote to State Highway Engineer Bawden asking that the State develop proposed standards for study and mutual discussion. Again on January 25, 1968, Mr. Bridwell wrote to Mr. Bawden, offer- ing to commence active negotiations. Mr. Bawden replied on February 9, 1903, stating that the State was at that time drawing up proposed standards which would be forwarded for the Administrator's review. NEW HAMPSHIRE Negotiations were commenced with New Hampshire on November 22, 1967, when a representative of the Federal Highway Administration met with State officials in Concord. By letter dated March 28, 1968, Commissioner Morton ad- vised that their attorney felt that it would be unwise to enter into an agreement at that time. Comniissioner Morton pointed out that the moratorium legislation enacted in 1967 had stipulated that an agreement could not be signed until the State stood to lose Federal funds. In reply of April 29, 1968, Mr. Bridwell pointed out that the moratorium legislation could endanger the State's bonus eligibility, since it might allow signs in areas restricted under the bonus agreement. Mr. Bridwell's letter offered to have representatives meet with the State to further discuss the matter. Mr. Morton by letter dated May 1, 1968, stated that the New Hampshire Legislature bad been reluctant to pass more complete legislation dur- ing its 1967 session because of the lack of specific standards. In reply, Mr. Bridwell wrote that an interim agreement could be valuable to the Legislature during its 1969 session, since it could be regarded as a recommendation to the Legislature as to what the specific standards should be in the light of conditions within the State Mr. Bridwell further pointed out that the terms of an interim agreement are not binding on the State or the Legislature and are only binding on the Federal Government. NEW JERSEY Negotiations were commenced on August 2, 1967, when a representative of the Federal Highway Administration met with State officials in Trenton. On August 14, 1967, Administrator Bridwell wrote to Commissioner Goldberg asking that 90-030-6S------14 PAGENO="0210" 200 the State develop proposed standards for study and mutual discussion. On March 29, 1968, Mr. Bridwell again wrote to Commissioner Goldberg offering to resume the negotiations begun earlier. On May 17, 1968, Mr. Goldberg submitted a pro- posed agreement. By letter dated May 29, 1968, the State was advised that the agreement was entirely satIsfactory. NEW MEXICO Negotiations were commenced on June 8. 1967, and continued on July 6, 1967. On these two dates representatIves of the Federal Highway Administration niet with State officials in Santa Fe. By letter dated September 5. 1967, the State forwarded a proposed agreement which was found to be entirely satisfactory and the State was so advised. At the request of the State, an Administration representative met with State officials on October 25, 1967, and at that time the proposed agreement was re- written to eliminate certain provisions objected to by the outdoor advertising industry. On October 26, 1967, the Administration representative spoke before the Highway Commission, explaining the requirements of the Federal Act. At that meeting, the Commission directed that the proposed agreement be given additional study by the highway department, the outdoor advertising industry, and the Federal Government. On December 21, 1967, the Chairman of the New Mexico State Highway Commission signed an agreement which was forwarded to the Federal Highway Administration on January 4, 19681 By letter dated January 24, 1968, the agreement was returned by the Administrator since the unzoned com- mercial or industrial area definition failed to require the existence of any com- mercial or industrial activity. Mr. Bridwell's letter pointed out to Chairman Trotter that this was contrary to the Secretary's policy as expressed in his letter of May 24, 1967, to Chairman Kluczynski. On February 23, 1968, negotiations were continued in a meeting between State officials and a Federal Highway Administration representative in Santa Fe. NEW YORK Negotiations were commenced on May 24, 1967, when a representative of the Federal Highway Administration met with State officials in Albany. These nego- tiations were continued on July 27, 1967, and by letter dated August 25, 1967, the State submitted for review a draft of an agreement. By letter dated September 1, 1967, the State was advised that the agreement was entirely satisfactory. The agreement, which required legislative ratification, executed on November 7, 1967. By letter dated April 4, 1968, the State submitted a revised agreement, the details of which had been worked out in conferences with the outdoor advertis- ing industry and representatives of the State Legislature. By letter of April 23, 1968, Highway Beautification Coordinator Fred S. Farr pointed out to the State those provisions of the proposed revised agreement which he felt would be un- acceptable to the Secretary. On April 30, 1968, representatives of the Federal Highway Administration participated in a conference in Albany with officials of the State Department of Transportation, the State Legislature, and the Outdoor Advertising Industry. Most of the provisions which were in controversy were worked out during the conference and the remaining controversial points re- solved during a series of telephone conversations between Washington office representatives and State officials. By letter dated May 13, 1968, the State sub- mitted a revised agreement, which was executed by the Administrator on May 29, 1968. On May 27, 1968, the State advised telephonically that the New York Legislature, during the prior weekend, had enacted a bill containing the provi- sions of the agreement and that the bill was then awaiting signature of the Governor. NORTH CAROLINA On August 7, 1967, Administrator Bridwell wrote to State Highway Admin- istrator Babcock asking the State to develop standards for study and mutual discussion. On August 23, 1967, Mr. Babcock advised that the North Carolina Highway Commission had instructed him to take no action towards an agree- ment until Congress voted an appropriation for highway beautification. By letter dated November 16, 1967, the State submitted a proposed agreement, which was discussed at a meeting in Raleigh on December 18, 1967. On April 9, 1968, negotiations with North Carolina were continued during a meeting in Raleigh. PAGENO="0211" 201 NORTH DAKOTA By letter dated December 7, 1967, the State forwarded a proposed agreement. Administrator Bridwell in his reply of December 15, 1967, pointed out that the unzoned commercial or industrial area definition would not require the existence of any commercial or industrial activity and for that reason would not be acceptable to the Secretary under the policy stated in the Secretary's letter of May 24, 1967, to Chairman Kluczynski. On January 11, 1967, representatives of the Federal Highway Administration met with State officials in Bismarck to further discuss a possible agreement. OHIO By letter dated August 7, 1967, Administrator Bridwell wrote to Director Masheter asking the State to develop proposed standards for study and mutual discussion. By letter of January 9, 1968, the State submitted a proposed agree- ment, which was discussed at a meeting in Columbus on January 16, 1968. By letter dated January 17, 1968, the State submitted two signed copies of an agree- ment. Administrator Bridwell, in a letter dated January 30, 1968, pointed out to Director Masheter that the agreement was entirely satisfactory, except that certain areas within commercial and industrial zones were excluded from any size, lighting, and spacing controls. Mr. Bridwell noted that he felt that the Administration was without legal authority to agree to such an exclusion. By letter dated March 29, 1968, the State submitted a revised agreement. The State's letter advised that the revision had corrected the exclusion noted in the Admin- istrator's January 30 letter. Certain additional changes had been made as a result of consultations with interested parties both within and outside of Govern- mental circles. In reply dated May 6, 1968, the Administrator pointed out his objections to several of the new provisions and forwarded to Mr. Masheter an agreement which would encompass most of the provisions of the agreement pro- posed by the State and at the same time correct those features of the Ohio proposal which had been found objectionable. OKLAHOMA On August 7, 1967, Mr. Bridwell wrote to Director Dane asking that the State develop standards which could be used for study and mutual discussion. On August 10, 1967, Secretary Boyd, Assistant Secretary Sweeney, and other Depart- ment representatives met with Congressman Edmondson and officials of the Oklahoma State Legislature and the State highway department in Secretary Boyd's office in Washington. Administration representatives explained certain features of the Federal Act and outlined the procedures under which negotia- tions were being conducted. On November 27, 1967, representatives of the Admin- istration again met with State officials, including those of the Legislature, in Oklahoma City. At this meeting a proposed bill providing for control of outdoor advertising in Oklahoma was discussed in detail and the Administration's objections to certain of its features were explained. OREGON On August 10, 1967, Mr. Bridwell wrote to State Highway Engineer Cooper asking the State to develop proposed standards for outdoor advertising control for study and mutual discussion. On April 2, 1968, an Administration representa- tive met with State officials in Salem during which time the preparation of a draft agreement was discussed. PENNSYLVANIA On August 9, 1967, the Administrator wrote to Secretary of Highways Bartlett asking that the State develop proposed standards for study and mutual discus- sion. On September 18, 1967, a representative of the Administration met with State officials in Harrisburg. Negotiations were continued on November 8, 1967, and standards developed by the State were discussed. On February 20, 1968, an additional meeting was held in Harrisburg between State officials and Adminis- tration representatives and the proposed agreement was reviewed. The agree- ment with Pennsylvania was executed on April 19, 1968. PAGENO="0212" 202 PUERTO RICO Negotiations were begun on June 25, 1967. when an Administration representa- tive conferred with Commonwealth officials in San Juan. It was determined at that time that the agreement would incorporate by reference the more restrictive provisions of existing Puerto Rico law and regulation. The agreement was signed on January 23, 1968. RHODE ISLAND Negotiations began on May 26, 1967, between State officials and an Administra- tion representative during a meeting in Providence. The State subsequently developed a proposed agreement, which was discussed at a second meeting on June 21, 1067. The agreement was signed on June 28, 1067. SOUTH CAROLINA On August 7, 1967, Administrator Bridwell wrote to Commissioner Pearman asking that the State develop proposed standards for study and mutual discus- sion. By letter dated December 12, 1967, the State submitted a draft of a pro- posed agreement, which was discussed in detail on January 17, 1968. at a meet- ing in Columbia attended by State officials and a representative of the Federal Highway Administration. By letter dated March 8, 1968, Highway Beautification Coordinator Fred S. Farr offered comments on proposed legislation which was being prepared by the State. SOUTH DAKOTA On September 27, 1067, the State submitted to the Secretary a copy of its law controlling outdoor advertising and requested a determination as to whether an agreement could be negotiated under the terms of the State law. By letter dated January 9, 1068, the State was advised that the existing law did not provide for the necessary control as contemplated under the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. Under date of January 16, 1968, the State submitted a proposed agreement based on the existing law and by letter dated March 7, 1068, Administrator Brid- well advised Director Olson that the agreement was unacceptable. Mr. Bridwell offered to have Administration representatives meet with State officials to dis- cuss this matter in further detail. TENNESSEE On August 7, 1967, Mr. Bridwell wrote to Commissioner Speight asking the State to develop proposed standards for study and mutual discussion. On Sep- tember 11, 1067, Administration representatives met with State officials in Nash- ville and explained the provisions of the Federal Act and the procedures which were being used in negotiations. On December 8, 1067, negotiations were con- tinued; however, Commissioner Speight indicated that a committee of the Ten- nessee Legislature was presently studying the problem and had not at that. time requested assistance from the Tennessee Department of Highways. Mr. Speight continued that under the circumstances he felt it unwise to enter an interim agreement. On January 26, 10~8, Administration representatives attended the Southern Regional Conference meeting of the Council of State Governments in Knoxville, Tennessee. The meeting was sponsored in part by the Tennessee Legislature and a number of Tennessee Legislators were present. An Administration spokesman explained the Department's policy in negotiations, stating that the Department desired the initiative to come from the States, but that the Department also felt strongly that it should be consulted in the development of the standards and criteria to be included in any agreement. TEXAS On August 17, 1067, Administrator Bridwell wrote to State Highway Engineer Greer asking that the State develop proposed standards for study and mutual discussion. On September 12, 1967, Administration representatives met with Mr. Greer and other State officials in Austin. In January 1968 the State was con- tacted to determine whether further negotiations were desired. By letter dated January 22, 1968, State Highway Engineer Dingwall pointed out that there were no Federal appropriations for highway beautification at that time, there were still indications that Congress might possible either change the legislation or the PAGENO="0213" 203 administration of such legislation, and there was at that time a cutback in Fed- eral highway funds. These and other factors, according to Mr. Dingwall created an atmosphere of uncertainty relative to State legislation with respect to out- door advertising control. UTAH On August 9, 1967, Governor Rampton submitted a proposed agreement to the Secretary. By letter dated September 29, 1967, Administrator Bridwell offered to have representatives go to Salt Lake City to discuss the agreement with tile Governor or his representatives. Several meetings were held between State offi- cials, including Governor Rampton, and Administration representatives, includ- ing Mr. .Bridwell, during the meetings of the American Association of State High- way Officials in Salt Lake City in October 1967. Governor Rampton submitted a revised agreement on November 10, 1967, and further negotiations were carried on telephonically with State officials in December 1967. The agreement was signed on January 18, 1968. VERMONT Negotiations were begun on June 16, 167, in Montpelier. On that date repre- sentatives of the Federal Highway Administration met with State officials. A proposed agreement was prepared, based primarily on the provisions of the then existing Vermont law. The agreement was signed on June 28, 1967. VIRGINIA Negotiations were commenced on May 19, 1967. On that date an Administra- tion representative met with State officials in Richmond. These negotiations were continued on June 15, 1967, and the agreement with Virginia was signed on July 13, 1967. WASHINGTON Administrator Bridwell wrote to Director Prahl of the Washington Depart- nient of Highways on August 9, 1967, asking the State to develop standards for study and mutual discussion. On August 21, 1967, representatives of the Admin- istration met with State officials in Olympia. Subsequent to that time the State has been involved in a suit testing the constitutionality of their existing law con- trolling outdoor advertising and has been reluctant to conduct further negotia- tions or enter an agreement pending settlement of the suit. WEST VIRGINIA Negotiations were begun on June 13, 1967, in a meeting in Charleston attended by State officials and a representative of the Administration. A second meeting was held on August 3, 1967, in Charleston and on August 25, 1967, State repre- sentatiVes traveled to Washington to discuss a draft agreement. Certain objec- tions to the State's proposal were explained to the State representatives at that time. By letter dated December 6, 1967, Commissioner Sawyers submitted a signed agreement, which was discussed in detail at a meeting in Washington on February 7, 1968, attended by Mr. Sawyers and other State officials representing the State and Administration representatives. Again, Administration objections to the prepared agreement were explained. On May 2, 1968, the negotiations were continued between State officials and Administration representatives at a meeting in Washington. WISCONSIN Negotiations were begun on July 13, 1967, in Madison. On that date Adminis- tration representatives met with State officials at the State's request. On Septem- ber 8, 1967, Secretary of Transportation Bakke advised that they had prepared a draft of an agreement which they intended to discuss with legislative leaders prior to submission. On May 17, 1968, Administration representatives again met with State officials in Madison and a draft of a proposed agreement was reviewed. WYOMING On January 24, 1968, a representative of the Federal Highway administra- tion met with State officials in Cheyenne at which time the representative pointed out those features of existing Wyoming law which could prevent agreement on outdoor advertising control. On February 16, 1968, Administrator Bridwell wrote PAGENO="0214" 204 to Governor Hathaway and urged that the State and Federal Governments work together in developing mutually satisfactory control provisions, which could be recommended to the Legislature at its next session. Governor Hathaway responded by letter dated February 23, 1968, welcoming the cooperation of the Administration. Mr. Ci~rE1i. Could I ask a question. how many States are being in- formed, as is Arizona, that you either enact legislation, you have had the opportunity to do so, or January 1, 1969, we will cut your 10 per- cent off? Secretary Boyu. That was in response to a letter from the State of Arizona. We are trying to respond to any request we get for informa- tion and opinion. Mr. CRAMER. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. KLuczyNsKI. Before recognizing the next gentleman who has some questions, Mr. Cleveland, the Chair wants to state that we are planning to go over until about 2:30. We will recess untill 2:30. Are there any members who cannot be present this afternoon who would like to a.sk some questions now? I want to recognize the gentle- man from New Hampshire first, because I promised that. Will you gentleman be here later on? Mr. CLAnSEN. Will the Secretary be back this afternoon? Secretary Born. Yes, sir. Mr. KLUCzYNsKI. Yes, sir. We tried to complete it this morning. It was impossible to complete this morning. The gentleman from New Hampshire. Mr. Cr lAND. Mr. Secretary, in reply to the questions from Mr. Edmondson, who asked you about what would be ideal for safety ex- penditure, I believe you said it was only; 33 percent of the ideal at the present time. Were you referring to authorization or appropriation? Secretary Born. I was referring tO authorizations. But I did not mean 33 percent of ideal. What I meant to say, Mr. Cleveland, was 33 percent more. Mr. CLEVELAND. 33 percent authorization? Secretary Bom. Yes, sir. Mr. CLEVELAND. So this would be a tremendous amount more that should be appropriated? Secretary Born. Yes, sir. Mr. CLEVELAND. There is a great deal of misunderstanding in the public mind, I am sure you realize, in the difference between authori- zations and appropriations. We authorize plenty of money for safety. If this is announced, thereis a great program, a lot of publicity, then when the crunch comes, the acimmistration only recommends spending a mere pittance compared to what has been authorized, after the bill has been signed and the pictures have been taken. There is an area where there is a good deal of misunderstanding and that is why I wanted to nail that point down. Mr. BRTDWELL. Mr. Cleveland. if I may respond for a moment, the administration has taken the position that the contract authority as originally written into the legislation by: this committee and enacted by Congress, should prevail. In other words, the full authorization would be available for obligation. Mr. CLEVELAND. The fact remains appropriations have been sub- stantially under authorization? PAGENO="0215" 205 Mr. BRIDWELL. That is right. Mr. CLEVELAND. I do not care what you call it, you cannot change that particular thing. Mr. BRIDWELL. That is correct. Secretary BOYD. That is correct. Mr. CLEVELAND. That is the point I am trying to make. Mr. BRIDWELL. But it was not upon the recommendation of the ad- ministration, Mr. Cleveland. Secretary BOYD. That is the point we are trying to make. Mr. CLEVELAND. Now, another question. I understood you to say, Mr. Bridwell, that you have not yet said that any State was in noncom- pliance, vis-a-vis this billboard and beautification situation. Did I un- derstand you correctly? Secretary BOYD. That is correct, sir. Mr. CLEVELAND. Then I understood you further to say-I think Mr. Bridwell said this-that some of these States have simply passed laws, which zoned everything on the interstate commercial; thereby, people could put up signs anywhere on the Interstate in those particular States. I think you said, Mr. Bridwell, that you considered that a clear violation of the law or intent of this committee. Secretary BOYD. Yes, sir. He did. Mr. CLEVELAND. Well, then, if that is the case, those States on the record we have here would be in violation of the beautification law? Secretary BoYD. Well, what Mr. Bridwell indicated, and I support, is that we have not yet reached the stage on contract negotiations where the elements of a particular State law have intruded to the ex- ent that we cannot reach agreement. Mr. BRIDWELL. I think I can clarify it in this way, if I may. In those instances, such as the one particular one I cited that we do not believe is in conformance with t.he Federal law and the intent of this committee as clarified, as I mentioned before, we are attempting to negotiate an agreement with the appropriate State authority with a clause contained therein that it iS subject to implementation by the State legislature; thereby giving the State authority-in this in- stance, the highway department-the opportunity to go back to the legislature and say, "Under your first enactment, we simply cannot arrive at an agreement. We have, however, arrived at an agreement which we think is fair and appropriate. We are now recommending new legislation to implement the agreement." This, to me, is a far preferable way to operate than to simply tell a State,~ "Your State law does not meet Federal standards, therefore you are out." Mr. CLEVELAND. I understand that. I also want to make the point, some of us predicted at the time the beautification bill was being de- bated here in this committee and on the floor of the House that there was this loophole in the law, and I think that those States that do pass laws that zone all the lands along the interstate right-of-way have found the loophole and are acting perfectly properly and acting perfectly legally. You may find they have violated your intent and perhaps the intent - of some people, but the loophole was there; it was predicted when we debated this legislation. PAGENO="0216" 206 Mr. CRAMER. Will the gentleman yield? The other loophole-I just traveled on some interstate roads a few days ago-appears to be they are just. building bigger signs beyond the 660-foot limitation. Mr. BRIDWELL. You may want to extend that lirnitatiou. Mr. CRAMER. The farther you get off the highway, the bigger the signs are going to be. It really does not- Mr. CLEVELAND. The richer you have to be to build one of those bigger signs. Mr. CR~IEn. The little guy cannot compete. That is what it amounts to. So all of these national chains, hotels and such, quality courts and national chain restaurants, they are in pretty good shape; they can afford those $600 a month gigantic signs on the hillside. But the little fellow is out of business. Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Cramer, as you recall, the 660-foot limitation was, in effect, a compromise figure. There was no particula.r magic about 660 feet. Speaking only for myself, I would be glad to include an amendment. which made it an effective distance. Mr. CRAMER. Like what? Mr. BPJDWELL. Whatever you believe to be adequate. Mr. CRAMER. I mean the farther you go, the bigger the signs get. Mr. BRIDWELL. Well, that obviously has limitations, too. Once they get over the hill, there is not much use in making a big sign. Mr. CRAMER. You suggest 1,000 feet? Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. That just means they will put a bigger sign 1,000 feet away tha.n one 660 feet. Mr. BRIDWELL. "Within sight" is a pretty good definition. [Laughter.] Mr. CLEVELAND. I do not have the time to make this in the form of a query, but, Mr. Secretary, I will tell you that, under a recent order of the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Roads, they are going to take down a lot of trees along the highway because they are fixed, immovable objects that cause a safety hazard. There has been brought to my desk, and I am sure other congressional desks, a great deal of mail and I will be in correspondence with you about this, and I want to warn you the queries are coming and these people are asking me questions: Why do we plant trees under the beautification program, when under the safety program, we are going to cut them down? That is one of the questions. Secretary Bon~. I can answer that. Mr. CLEVELAND. Excuse me. Why are you taking down the trees but not taking out the rock outcroppings, such as in Vermont, where they are closer to the Interstate Highway? l~'Ir. Secretary, this morning you read one statement and submitted another, and I would like to inquire if that statement, which was submitted but not read, is for the record? Secretary Bom. Yes, sir. The statement I read was a summary of the much longer statement, which is the total of my testimony. Mr. CLEVELAND. So, Mr. Chairman, I would move that that be made a part. of the record. Mr. KLUczYN5KI. Without objection, the statement will be made a part of the record, in its entirety. (Statement follows:) PAGENO="0217" 207 STATEMENT BY ALAN S. BOYD, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION I am pleased to appear before your Committee this morning to testify on the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968. I have with me Mr. Lowell K. Bridwell, Fed- eral Highway Administrator, Mr. Francis C. Turner, Director of the Bureau of Public Roads, Dr. William Haddon, Jr., Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau, and Dr. Haddon's Deputy, Dr. Robert Brenner; Since we last testified before you on authorization legislation two years and one month ago, dramatic changes have taken place in the field of transportation. The Department of Transportation has been created, and in operation for 13 months. This department includes among its modal agencies the Federal High- way Administration, which encompasses the Bureau of Public Roads and the new National Highway Safety Bureau established by the Congress to bring about in- creased safety on the nation's highways. The Federal Highway Administration and these two of its Bureaus now have the major responsibility within the De- partment for supervising the development of the finest, most efficient, and safest transportation network attainable, as a basic component of our national trans- portation system. DIFFERENCES FROM PAST Let me emphasize that the bill this year is significantly different from tradi- tional highway legislation in several important respects. Overall, it comprises the first comprehensive program for the solution of urban highway problems that has yet been written. It attempts to deal with the vast problems of urban con- gestion and highway safety now facing our cities and their restless populations. The extent to which the Department of Transportation is involved in these problems is indicated by the transfer to it of the urban mass transit authority of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The biggest part of the authorizations requested in the bill will be used for completion of the Interstate System. But what is of even more significance is the way in which we intend to spend the rest of it, as an outgrowth of the closer look that we are taking at the building of highways in cities in view of the millions of people who have to live with those highways. So what we are proposing are new programs-programs to improve the traffic capacity of existing roadways as an alternative to new construction, to provide Federal funds for fringe parkftig spaces, to permit States to buy land for highways as long as seven years in ad- vance of need, and to expand the new highway safety programs and supportive research. Not in the bill, but basic to it, is consideration of a new compensation formula for homes and businesses purchased for highway use. PROGRESS OF PROGRAM Before discussing the details of the legislation before you, I should like to report briefly on the progress of the Federal-aid highway program. The shape of future highway programs is now under active discussion, so it is important that we recognize what already has been accomplished. At present, work is underway orhas been completed on some 40,064 miles of the 41,000-mile Interstate and Defense Highway System, which is about 98 per- cent of the total. Almost 25,900 miles are now open to traffic, and construction is underway on another 5,678 miles. This means that about 64 percent of the system is now open to traffic, while only two percent has not been advanced beyond the preliminary status. Of the 25,892 miles of the Interstate system now in use by motorists, 20,325 miles comply with prevailing standards of adequacy for future traffic; 3,262 miles are fully capable of handling current traffic, but will require additional improve- ment to meet projected needs. Toll roads, bridges, and tunnels incorporated in the system total 2,305 miles. In addition to sections open to traffic, 5678 miles were under construction as of March 31, and engineering or right-of-way acquisi- tion was being performed on another 8,494 miles. Some $32.6 billion has been put to work on the program since 1956. Work com- pleted since July 1, 1956, has cost $22.93 billion of which $18.71 billion was for construction and $4.22 billion for engineering and right-of-way acquisition. PENDING BILLS Turning now to the pending legislation, may I note there are two bills before the Subcommittee. HR. 17134, introduced by request, comprises the Admninistra- PAGENO="0218" 208 tirni program. (Parenthetically, there are two minor errors in Sections 5 and 11 of the printed bill with which you already are familiar.) H.R. 16994, intro- duced by you, Mr. Chairman, and the Chairman of the full Committee, embodies portions of the Administration program but omits several sections. My testimony will relate to each section of the Administration bill, H.R. 17134, thereby also covering the provisions of H.R. 16994 as well, though under different section numbers. I will parenthetically identfy corresponding sections of H.R. 16994, where they differ with H.R. 17134, as I proceed. Section 1 of H.R. 17134 provides that the Act shall be cited as the "Federal- Aid Highway Act of 1968." INTERSTATE AUTHORIZATIONS Section 2 would revise the schedule of authorization of appropriations for the Interstate System by increasing the amounts provided therein for 1970, 1971, and 1972, and by adding authorizations for fiscal years 1973 and 1974. This is necessary in order to provide additional authorizations totaling $8.340 billion to cover the increased costs of completing the Interstate System as reflected in the 1968 Cost Estimate for the Interstate System (House Doe. 199, 90th Con- gress, 2d Session). Funds authorized by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1966 for 1969 and prior fiscal years have been apportioned to the States in the amounts authorized. The Interstate authorization for fiscal year 1969 was $3.8 billion, and the apportion- ment to the States was made on August 29, 1967. Interstate authorizations of $4.0 billion annually are proposed for the fiscal years 1970 through 1973, with a balancing authorization of $2.225 for the fiscal year 1974. These authorizations totaling $18.225 billion for the fiscal years 1970- 1974, together with the apportionments totaling $32.415 already made for prior years, would provide the total $50.640 billion needed for completion of the Inter- state System according to the 1968 cost estimate. APPORTIONMENT OF FUNDS Section 3 would authorize the use of the 1968 cost estimate for the purpose of making apportionments of Interstate funds for the fiscal years 1970 and 1971 on the basis of apportionment factors shown in table 5 of that document. We propose to furnish a revised set of apportionment factors, to replace the factors listed in table 5 of the 1968 cost estimate, in order to take into account the effect of the Howard Amendment (P.L. 90-238) in California and the cost to West Virginia of acquiring the West Virginia Turnpike. The 1968 estimate of the cost of completing the Interstate System was submitted to the Congress on January 12. Table 5 in the estimate report included no cost adjustments attributable to the Howard Amendment, nor costs relating to the West Virginia Turnpike which at that time were coded in a Toll Road category. The major adjustment in Interstate System cost, and in apportionment factor computation, will result in West Virginia as a foflowup to the Comptroller General's decision on the West Virginia Turnpike and the action by the House and Senate Public Works Committees in this regard. The estimated total cost to complete the West Virginia Turnpike to four-lane Interstate standards, based on the State's 1968 Estimate Report. is~ $96.1 million, and the estimated total cost of acquiring the West Virginia Turnpike is $90.0 million, for a total of $186.1 million. We will be submitting a revised table of Interstate apportionment factors to reflect the inclusion of additional costs for these items. EXTENSION OF TIME Section 4 would extend the period of Interstate authorizations through the fiscal year 1974, and would change the date for the submission of a final cost estimate from within 10 days subsequent to January 2, 1969, to within 10 days subsequent to January 2, 1970. This final cost estimate would be for use in mak- ing apportionments for fiscal years 1972, 1973, and 1974. AUTHoRIzATIONS Section 5(1) would authorize the appropriation from the Highway Trust Fund of funds for the Federal-aid primary and secondary highway systems and extensions thereof within urban areas (the so-called ABC program) for PAGENO="0219" 209 the fiscal years 1970 and 1971. Annual authorizations for the ABC highways were increased considerably under the expanded highway program inaugurated in 1956, and reached a $1 billion level beginning with the fiscal year 1966. This authorization level was continued for the fiscal years 1967 through 1969, and is further proposed for the fiscal years 1970 and 1971, when the major effort under the Federal-aid highway program will still be directed toward com- pletion of the Interstate System. The sums authorized would continue to be available on the basis of 45 percent for projects on the Federal-aid primary systeiii, 30 percent for projects on the Federal-aid secondary system, and 25 I)ercent for projects on the Federal-aid primary and secondary systems in urban areas. Apportionment factors for the ABC funds continue to be based on area, population, and post road mileage, in accord with present law. Section 5(2) would authorize the appropriation of funds from the Highway Trust Fund for traffic operation improvement projects in urban areas (the so- called TOPICS program), in the amount of $250 million for each of the five fiscal years 1970 through 1974. Our comments concerning this item will be offered later under the discussion of Section 12 of the bill. Sections 5(3) and (4) would authorize the appropriation for the fiscal years 1970 and 1971 of funds for forest highways and public lands highways in the annual amounts of $33 million and $16 million, respectively, as was authorized for prior fiscal years. It is proposed to transfer the financing of the forest and public lands highway programs from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund, since the highways are similar in character and use to Federal-aid high- ways and logically should be financed in the same manner as the regular Federal- aid program. About 88 percent of the Forest Highway System mileage is located on Federal- aid systems, and the remainder niay be placed on the Federal-aid systems as desired. The Public Lands Highway projects also are located on the Federal- aid systems or on routes that could be added to the Federal-aid systems. A separate bill, "The Highway User Act of 1968" has been submitted to the Congress which would provide additional revenues to the Highway Trust Fund and extend the duration of that fund by 28 months to January 31, 1975, Esti- mated revenues accruing to the Highway Trust Fund from existing sources over the extended period of time, together with the additional revenues from the so-called "equalization" taxes proposed in the bill, will be adequate to support the Interstate authorization schedule proposed in Section 2, the ABC authorizations proposed in Section 5(1), the TOPICS authorizations proposed in Section 5(2) and the forest highways and public lands highways authoriza- tions proposed in Sections 5(3) and (4). Sections 5 (5) through (9) would authorize appropriations of funds from the general fund of the Treasury for certain other highways in Federal domain areas. These programs are administered by other Federal agencies. STATE AND COMMUNITY HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS The Highway Safety Act of 1966 (Section 402) authorized to be appropriated for Federal aid to State and community highway safety programs the sum of $67 million for fiscal year 1967, and $100 million for each of the fiscal years 1968 amid 1969. Section 6 of the bill would continue the programs under Section 402 by authorizing the appropriation of $50 million for fiscal year 1970 and $75 million for fiscal year 1971. A cost estimate for the highway safety program has been developed in cooperation with the States and will be submitted shortly. Mr. Chairman, this is a new activity and there has been some misunderstanding as to its operation. May I therefore provide the `Committee with some of the essential `background. This is the activity under which, as directed by statute, we have established standards covering driver education, vehicle inspection, alcohol, highway design, and other areas in which States and communities are being assisted in creating or expanding their highway safety programs. Under Section 402, each State is required to be implementing an approved highway safety pro- grain under the standards by December 31, 1968. The authorization requests in Section 6, which provides Federal assistance for the State and local programs, should not be viewed as representing a reduction in such assistance. As I said, Congress has already authorized, in the Act itself, a total of $267 million for fiscal years 1967, 1968, and 1969. These funds are available for one year in advance of, and two years following, the year for which they are authorized- so that we now have authorization under the A4 t to obliga:te these funds: through PAGENO="0220" 210 the end of fiscal year 1971. By June 30, we will have obligated only $27 million, Largely because of a limitation of $25 million placed by the last session of the Congress on that authority for this fiscal year. Therefore, $240 million is still available for obligation at the beginning of fiscal year 1969. Of this amount, we plan to obligate $140 million during fiscal year 1969, leaving a balance of $100 million available for use in fiscal year 1970. The $100 million carryover, together with the request to the Congress to add $50 million in fiscal year 1970 and another $75 million in fiscal year 1971, or a total of $225 million, will be available for obligation in fiscal year 1970. Added to the carryover of existing authorizations, therefore, we expect to have the author- ity to obligate a total of $225 million in fiscal year 1970. In all parts of the country, State and local highway safety programs now being planned, developed, or expanded under the Highway Safety Act will lead to greatly accelerated requests for Federal-aid funds. With the resources available up to this point, States and communities, as well as the National Highway Safety Bureau, have only been able to get started in the direction of developing required programs. We received 87 project applications in the first quarter of fiscal year 1968, 94 in the second quarter, and 165 in the third. This acceleration continues: by April 30, we had received some 474 applications. As of the same date, grant applications had been approved with total costs of $77.2 million, of which $13.3. million is from Federal funds. Our current projections indicate that applications in fiscal year 1968 will request $32 million, and that we therefore will completely obligate the $25 million available in the year. The acceleration of applications,, as well as their increase in scope, indicates that the planned application level of $140 million for fiscal year 1969 is very realistic and, in fact, conservative. LTnder the $25 million available in fiscal year 1968, the allocation to each State was too small to cover more important, and often more expensive, projects. These projects-such as driver education, police services, and traffic records improve- ment-have for the most part been delayed by States and communities until fiscal year 1969 in anticipation that sufficient funds will then be available. We anticipate recommending an apportionment formula to you before January 1, 1969, as required in Section 402. This formula is now in the process of preparation. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT An authorization was also included in the Highway Safety Act of 19'i6 for the highway safety research and development programs provided in Section 307 (a) and Section 403 of Title 23. The Act authorized appropriations of $10 million for fiscal year 1967, $20 million for fiscal year 1968, and $25 million for fiscal year 1969. Section 7 of the bill would authorize appropriations for 307(a) and Section 403 Of $30 million for fiscal year 1970 and $40 million for fiscal year 1971. In order to increase the effectiveness of our and highway safety programs, we must continue to invest in research. This R&D program has three major objec- tives- An improved understanding of how and why highway crashes occur, and how and why people are killed and injured in them; The development of effective measures to avert crashes and minimize deaths and injuries; In1provement of State and community safety programs on the basis of these results. The authorized funds for fiscal years 1967, 1968, and 1969 are being used in contracts with universities, foundations, private industry groups, and other governmental agencies, for work in four key areas: accident and injury analysis; research, development, and testing; demonstration projects; and manpower de- velopment. This program must be accelerated, as provided in the bin, in order to support effective highway safety programs at national, State, and local levels, and to provide the far more specific scientific information we all need to reduce our present highway casualities of 10,000 injured each day in the nation. HIGHWAY BEATTIFICATION Section 8 of H.R. 17134 (omitted from HR. 16994) would authorize appro- priations from the general fund of the Treasury for the highway beautification program for fiscal years 1969, 1970, and 1971, thus putting these authorizations PAGENO="0221" 211 oIl the same fiscal year basis as the biennial ABC highway program authoriza- tions. The contract authority provisions of the Federal-aid highway legislation would apply to the highway beautification program, as provided by the Federal- Aid Highway Act of 1966 (79 Stat. 1030, 1032). Authorization is included for a deduction not to exceed 5 percent for admin- istration. A fiat percentage for administrative expenses would provide for the handling of administrative expenses under the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 in the same manner as for the regular Federal-aid highway programs and the State and community highway safety programs. Section 8(a) would authorize the sum of $5 million to carry out the pr'wisions of Section 131(m) of Title 23, United States Code, during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and like amounts for fiscal years 1970 and 1971. This section of the code provides for outdoor advertising control along Inter- state and Federal-aid primary highways, under Title I of the Highway Beauti- fication Act of 1965. Last year your Committee held very comprehensive hear- ings concerning the Highway Beautification Act, with particular emphasis on outdoor advertising control. These hearings served a special purpose in clarify- lag the issues and removing the uncertainties which had inhibited the imple- mentation of the program up to that time. Since then we have been making steady progress. About a year ago, I directed the Federal I-Iighway Administrator to proceed as expeditiously as possible to work out agreements with the States for imple- mentation of the Act. Since then, 17 outdoor advertising control agreements have been signed, and we are close to agreement with a number of other States. Thirty- one State Legislatures have enacted laws providing for control of outdoor ad- vertising under Title I of the Highway Beautification Act, and the Legislatures of other States are presently considering such legislation or will do so during their next regular session-many in early 1969. This progress has not been brought about, I am pleased to say, by the penalty provision in Section 131(b) of the Act. On June 27, 1967, 1 stated that we had no expectation of imposing any penalties during the year 1968 or, for that matter, in early 1969 if a State Legislature would not have an opportunity to act during 1968. Almost all of our agreements were negotiated and executed after my state- ment. Participating States are, like us, interested in progress, not penalties. The Committee will recognize that the amounts of money being requested are considerably less than the total needed to completely implement the outdoor ad- vertising control title of the Highway Beautification Act. In the light of the grave responsibilities facing the nation in other areas, this is at it should be. The passage of control laws by tIme various States, and the execution of con- trol agreements, has already begun to stem the tide of billboard blight by pro- hibiting new signs in areas affected by the Act. Most States, moreover, have elected to carry out the control operations envisioned in the Act through the granting of a permit at a nominal fee. This one feature alone will work to re- move many of the obsolete or uncared for signs which heretofore have been allowed to rot and decay in full view of the passing motorist. The initial outdoor advertising control legislation enacted in 1958 (§ 131 Title 23 U.S.C.) provided for payment of a bonus of ~/2 of one percent of the construc- tion costs for eligible segments of the Interstate System from a continuing authorization and special appropriation for this specific purpose. Pursuant to that legislation, 25 States entered into bonus agreements with the Secretary. The Highway Beautification Act of 1965 amended the earlier authorization to require payment of eligible bonus claims out of funds specifically authorized to carry out the provisions of the 1965 Act. The Federal Government is obligated to provide adequate funding to continue payment of bonus claims submitted by the States in accordance with their bonus agreements. We now have on hand for processing approximately $280,000 in pending claims, and are continuing to receive additional claims. As of May 13, 1968, we had available only $60,000 to pay bonus claims. Future bonus payments, after expenditure of the available $60,000, are required to be made from funds authorized to be appropriate under this section. Section 8(b) would authorize the sum of $10 million tO carry out the provisions of Section 136 (m) of Title 23, U.S.C., during each of the fiscal years 1969, 1970, and 1971. Section 136 (m) provides for the control of junkyards in accordance with Title II of the Highway Beautification Act of 1fi65. There has been ready acceptance by the States of this program, as evidenced by the fact that 40 States have thus PAGENO="0222" 212 far enacted legislation to conform with its requirements. Although the Federal legislation applies only to junkyards adjacent to the Interstate and Federal-aid primary system, 16 States have extended these provisions to apply to additional roads within their borders. Other States have imposed stricter limitations upon themselves than required by the Act. The junkyard control law requires the removal or relocation of affected junk- yards which cannot be readily and economically screened. Such removal or re- location need not be undertaken, however, until after June 30, 1970. Although only approximately $10 million in Federal funds has thus far been made available, the States have screened or removed approximately 1,500 junkyards, contributing 25 percent of the cost. As it was necessary for the States to organize for this endeavor, deferral of funds would cause a loss of impetus and interest. One of the greatest benefits attained under the Title is the fact that all 40 States have strong control of the location of new junkyards. Most now require licensing, renewable annually, to assure compliance and control; others control the sites on a renewable permit basis. In other words, since existing junkyards are properly screened from view-or removed-State legislation will continue the program without cost to the State or Federal Government. It should be further noted that the program has the support of the auto wreckers association, scrap metal producers and the general public. Many rep- resentatives of these directly interested parties appeared at the Congressional hearings to support the legislation. It is interesting to note that of the 50 States, only Delaware, Florida, and Louisiana did not take advantage of the Federal funds available to them for this part of the program. Section 8(c) would authorize the sum of $70 million for each of the fiscal years 1969, 1970, and 1971 to carry out the provisions of Section 319(b) of Title 23, U.S.C.. relating to landscaping and scenic enhancement of Federal-aid highways. Section 319(a) of Title 23, United States Code, provides Federal funds for landscaping, roadside development, and acquisition and development of publicly owned and controlled rest and recreation areas and sanitary facilities neces- sary to accommodate the traveling public, all within the highway right-of-way. Federal reimbursement is available to the States for such work at the pro-rata share of the cost, depending upon the Federal-aid system to which it has been applied. These costs are payable from the Trust Fund. Section 319b) provides 100 percent compensation to the States for the above types of work and permits such expenditure within or adjacent to the Federal- aid highway right-of-way. In addition, costs may be incurred for the acquisition of interests in and improvement of strips of land necessary for the restoration, preservation, and enhancement of scenic beauty adjacent to the highway. The 319(b) funds are appropriated from the general fund. Of the three titles in the Highway Beautification Act, the landscaping and scenic enhancement provision has had the mostI immediate and favorable impact upon the public. All States are participating in the program, and obligations to date total $120 million in Federal funds, as follows: $31 million for landscap- ing; $29 million for 5,400 scenic easements; and 860 million for 510 roadside rest areas. The rest areas are especially popular with the public as they provide a safe, comfortable stopping place. They are usually placed at locations where scenic and picnic opportunities are present, and they may also be used as visitor information centers where such tourist services as food, lodging, fuel direc- tories, and scenic route and map information may be made available. True beauty is a quiet thing-it is the raw and ugly which shouts. The acquisi- tion of scenic easements and landscaping within the highway right-of-way lines serve to make the highway complete, and removal of outdoor advertising and screening of junkyards are an important part of the beautification effort. But it is obvious that more can be done. Scenic vistas must be controlled to prevent non- conforming trespass; roadsides must be planted and naturalized to fit into the landscape; rest areas must be developed to make the traveler feel welcome and sheltered during his stay. Deferral of this program would result in its greater cost at a later date, as land values for rest area sites and scenic easement are constantly appreciating, and materials and construction cost indices for plant material and road and building costs are steadily rising. Added urgency for these activities stems from their promotion of more relaxed driving, and thus of greater safety. PAGENO="0223" 213 ADVANCE ACQUISITION Section 9 of H.R. 17134 (Section 8 of H.R. 16994) would authorize the acquisi- tion of rights-of-way on the Federal-aid highway systems in anticipation of con- struction, and would establish a fund to be used for payments to the States for such advance acquisitions. This implements the objectives of the "Study of Ad- vance Acquisition of Highway Rights-of-Way," sent by us to Congress on June 30, 1967. The study concluded that an advance acquisition program would facili- tate the orderly and beneficial relocation of persons, businesses, farms, and other users of property acquired for highway development, while at the same time en- abling more foresighted planning and minimizing rights-of-way costs. Advances of funds for this purpose would be made pursuant to agreements between the State highway departments and the Secretary, to provide for the actual construction of a highway within 7 years following the fiscal year in which a request by a State for such funds is made or by the terminal date of the Highway Trust Fund, whichever occurs first. The advance acquisition proposal would make available an amount equal to 2 percent of a State's apportionment for advance acquisition of rights-of-way. The State must satisfy the Secretary within 6 months of the date of allocation that it will properly obligate such amount for advance acquisition of rights-of- way. Where a State fails so to demonstrate, the availability of such funds will revert to the Secretary, who may in his discretion make them available to the other States at their request and on the basis of need. To implement this program, there would be authorized to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund an amount not to exceed $100,000,000 for the establishment of an advance acquisition fund and for its replenishment on an annual basIs. Pending such appropriation, the Secretary would be authorized to advance, from any cash heretofore or hereafter appropriated from the High- way Trust Fund, such sums as are necessary for payments to the States for rights-of-way acquired in advance of construction. Provisions of the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 relating to additional ap- propriations to and expenditures from the Highway Trust Fund and to adjust- inents of appropriations would be applicable to the advance acquisition of rights- of-way program. Appropriate regulations will be promulgated to insure that, in the adminis- tration of the program, no advance right-of-way shall be acquired for a project in an urban area unless the project is deemed to be consistent with the compre- hensive transportation plan developed for the metropolitan area as a whole under the provisions of Section 134 of Title 23, and Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities Act (42 U.S.C. 3334). FOREST ROADS AND TRAILS Section 10 of H.R. 17134 (Section 9 of H.R. 16994) amends the definition of "forest road or trail" and "forest development roads and trails" in Section 101 (a) of Title 23, United States Code, to include areas other than national forest areas under Forest Service administration. This amendment is made at the recom- mendation of the Department of Agriculture and is a part of their proposed legislative program. The present definition of "forest road or trail" and "forest development roads and trails" associates these two terms with the national forests only, not with the National Grass Lands and other areas administered by the Forest Service. However, 23 U.S.C. 205(a) authorizes use of funds avail- able for forest development roads and trails to pay for construction and main- tenance of roads and trails on experimental and other areas under Forest Service administration. This proposed amendment to 23 U.S.C. 101 (a) makes the defi- nition of the two terms consistent with 23 U.S.C. 205(a) and will avoid possible misinterpretation of the intent of both sections. The Department of Agriculture also recommends amendment of Section 205(c) of Title 23, United States Code, first t~ clarify the threshold of the limitation on force account construction and, second, to provide an opportunity for more efficient handling of small construction projects. At present, Section 205(c) re- quires the construction of forest development roads and trails costing $10,000 or more per mile to be advertised and let to contract. Section 11 of H.R. 17134 (Section of H.R. 16994) amends Section 205(c) to increase this cost limitation from $10,000 to $15,000 per mile and to require ad- vertisement for bids and letting of contracts where construction is estimated to PAGENO="0224" 214 cost $15,000 or more per project for projects with a length of less than one mile. Section 11 provides that if the estimated cost is less than $15,000 per mile or $15,000 per project for projects with a length of less than one mile, the work may be done by the Secretary of Agriculture on his own account. Considerable uncertainty exists as to whether the present requirement that construction costing $10,000 or more per mile be advertised and let to contract applies to projects of less than one mile in length but with a "per mile" estimated cost of $10,000 or more. For example, an access road of only .1 mile in length estimated to cost $1,000 could on a per mile basis cost $10,000 per mile. Under strict interpretation of 23 U.S.C. 205(c) such a road construction project would have to be advertised and let to contract. As a result, the theoretical advantages of advertising and contracting those small projects over force account construc- tion are offset by the procedures, time, and detailed plans and materials required for advertising and contracting any such project. The size of such projects often results in no bids or bids that are necessarily inflated to cover the costs of bid- ding, moving in and out, and meeting insurance, bond, and other costs to the contractor associated with such projects. On larger projects these costs can be so spread out as to make up a much smaller percentage of the total or per mile cost. Fast experience in construction of forest roads and trails has shown that $15,000 is approximately the point at which acceptable bids can be expected to be received in practically every case. Establishing $15,000 as the minimum esti- mated construction cost at which advertising and contracting is required will reduce the higher costs and administrative problems resulting from efforts to contract smail projects that are generally unattractive to most prospective con- tractors and which in most cases can be more efficiently and economically con- structed by force account. TOPICS Sections 5(2), 12, and 13 of H.Th 17134 (Sections 11-13 of H.R. 16994) would provide specific authorization for TOPICS, the program to improve traffic opera- tions on the major streets of our urban areas, which I mentioned briefly earlier. There has been a steady increase over the years in the attention and effort the States and Public Roads have directed toward improving transportation in urban areas. But the problem is stifi far from adequately met. The number of people living in our urban areas continues to grow at a high rate. Personal income-already at the highest level in our history-is also rising rapidly, in- fluencing living patterns in a way that generates a growing amount of travel on the part of the average family unit. Similarly, the trend toward dispersal in the pattern of land use development in urban areas generates additional travel as a way of urban life. The cumulative eftect of these trends is that the increase in vehicle miles of travel in many urban areas is increasing at more than double the rate of population growth. The reconstruction of principal roadways and the betterment of existing streets through application of traffic engineering principles to improve traffic flow and increase safety are objectives of any urban street and highway pro- gram. Federal-aid for urban highways has previously emphasized the improve- ment of principal urban arterials through construction or reconstruction. To develop a balanced urban street and highway system, attention must also be directed to other than the principal streets and highways in urban areas-to those that carry a heavy burden of local traffic and also control the efficiency of trip movements between main highways and ultimate trip destinations. It was against this background in February 1907 the Bureau of Public Roads initiated, on a pilot basis, a new program designed to raise the efficiency of existing street and highway systems in urban areas. It was termed the Traffic Operations Program to Increase Capacity and Safety (from which was derived the acronym TOPICS"). A copy of guidelines issued at that time is included for the record. The projects generally are limited to traffic engineering and operational types of improvements on a network of existing streets which are selected as a part of the transportation planning process. The types of improvements, most of which may be accomplished with existing right-of-way, which are eligible for Federal-aid participation, include the following: 1. Channelization of intersections. 2. Providing additional traffic lanes on approaches to signalized inter- sections. PAGENO="0225" 215 3. Construction of pedestrian grade separations or highway grade sep- arations at complex intersections or railway-highway grade crossings, where such an improvement is essential to relieve a crucial bottleneck along streets of otherwise adequate width. 4. Installation of control systems to make traffic signal operation re- sponsive to traffic conditions for diverting traffic from congested areas, for establishing part-time one-way operation, for reversing direction of traffic on selected traffic lanes, or for separate bus lane controls. 5. Addition and upgrading of highway lighting, traffic control signs, pave- ment markings and signals or other devices required to facilitate traffic movement and increase the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 6. Development of separate traffic lanes for loading, unloading or trans- ferring passengers at surface transit terminals and intermediate transit stops, including platforms and shelters within the street right-of-way. 7. Development of truck loading and unloading facilities where necessary to facilitate traffic movement. 8. Establishment of traffic surveillance systems, including traffic-operation data collection and analysis centers, where traffic flow measurements and accident data are continuously evaluated to identify locations where cor- rective action, is needed. Streets on which traffic engineering improvements may be made under this new concept include- 1. Arterial highways and major streets (radial, crosstown, and circum- ferential) not already on either the Federal-aid primary or secondary systems. 2. Most or all of the street grid in the downtown area. 3. A iiniited street grid in other areas having particularly high concen- trations of traffic. Of course, no additional Federal funds were available for this undertaking. The only Federal funds were, those apportioned annually to the State highway departments. Even so, this program concept has evoked widespread interest aiid we are satisfied with the soundness of this as one of the proper approaches to the urban traffic congestion program. The officials of the cities, State highway departments, and our own Public Roads are actively engaged in TOPICS programs in some 24 cities located in 19 States. No actual street improvements have yet been undertaken but prelim- inary activities are underway and soon will be completed in a few of the cities. Some of these preliminary activities are far enough along to permit the estimating of benefits which can be expected from these kind of street and highway improvements. They indicate that 20 to 25 percent increases in the traffic carrying capability can be expected with comparable improvement in the accident experience. As I said, we are satisfied as to the soundness of this approach and Section 12 of H.R. 17134 would add a new Section 135 to Title 23, United States Code, to specifically authorize a program of this nature. The program would be imple- mented by the authorization of $250 million from the Highway Trust Fund for each of the fiscal years 1970 through 1974. The estimated cost of correcting the deficiencies of our major streets to ac- coinmodate 1975 traffic is $2.5 billion. An authorization of $250 million per year for five years as provided in Section 5(2), matched equally by the States, will meet the need for that total amount. A continued program beyond that time would be necessary to stay abreast of the problem. The program will be administered in much the same manner as the regular Federal~aid ABC programs, following geherally `the guidelines previously issued by the Bureau of Public Roads. The program will be adm±n.istered on a 50-50 matching basis, in much the same manner as the regular Federal-aid ABC pro- grams, following generally the guidelines previously issued by the Bureau of Public Roads, but also taking into account new approaches to traffic engineering as they evolve from research and experience. FRINGE PARKING These TOPICS proposals make possible significant gains in the level of traffic service provided by existing street systems. More emphasis must also be placed on getting more service out of the vehicles, both public and private, that travel these systems, in order to meet growing traffic demands. To help accomplish this objective, Sections 14 and 15 propose tO amend Chapter 1 of Title 23, United 9G-030-GS-----15 PAGENO="0226" 216 States Code, to provide Federal assistance for fringe parking in large urban areas. (Omitted from ll.R. 16994.) A truly comprehensive urban transportation system must maintain a balance not only between automobiles and transit, but also between the volumes of traffic that seek to enter a city and the city's capacity to absorb such volumes. This balance cannot be attained until terminal facilities are accepted along with streets and highway as an integral part of the transportation system. The primary basis for using highway funds for fringe parking is to improve service by reducing the number of vehicles using overloaded highways to the downtown area by encouraging the use of mass transit facilities. This could in turn reduce the needs for extensive improvements on these facilities. As cities grow larger, increasing numbers of people find it desirable to drive part way to work or shop, park on the street or in other available space, and continue their trip by bus, train, or carpool. Provision of fringe parking spaces in suitable loca- tions will make such a choice even more desirable with a resultant increase in vehicle occupancy on arterials and a decrease in the number of vehicles on the road. Parked vehicles will also be removed from the streets in outlying areas with a consequent further improvement in street capacity. Traffic congestion in the central business districts of our major cities is also a pressing problem which can be relieved by the proper application of the fringe parking principle. Since fringe parking is most applicable to the work trip, re- moval of this long duration parking allows the more efficient use of present down- town parking facilities by persons making short duration business, shopping, and recreation trips. These trips represent the prime economic base of the downtown area. A significant portion of total downtown parking demand can also be satisfied by fringe facilities. A primary conclusion of most parking studies conducted as a part of the urban transportation planning process is that downtown parking demands have not been met, particularly in the core areas of our major cities. A similar conclusion can be reached by noting the "Sorry-Full" signs at parking facilities in the heart of the citiy during periods of peak parking demand. By removing some portion of downtown demand, fringe parking will also provide for the more effective use of existing downtown space. Fringe parking will encourage people to use public transportation. Parking associated with transit stops and terminals will provide important incentives to improve local and express transit service. Some such incentive will frequently be required to reverse the decline of such services. New facilities provided under this legislation will be operated at no cost, or at most with a minimal fee to cover the cost of maintenance and operation. Improvement of puhllc transporta- tion in this manner will serve to improve the mobility of those people most dependent on transit and least able to afford high transportation costs. The availability of funds for fringe parking will give added meaning to exist- ing programs to encourage multi-purpose uses of space over or under freeways. Parking is a logical and necessary adjunct to highway improvements in urban areas, and a desirable inclusion in proposals for joint development. The success of expenditure of funds for fringe parking will be dependent upon its acceptance by individual States and cities in the development of their own parking programs. Program needs are based on fringe parking demand derived from two sources; work trips downtown, and change of mode trips in large metropolitan areas. Available studies indicate that about 10 percent of total downtown work trip demand may be transferred to fringe parking in cities between 500,000 and 1,000,000 population. Further information shows that 1~/2 fringe spaces will be required to remove the demand for one parkingspace downtown. Additional need for fringe parking is evident from the number of change of mode trips now taking place in cities. Twenty percent of such trips could be accommodated by fringe parking in cities from 100,000 to 1,000,000 population and 10 percent in cities over 1,000,000 population. The 40,000 existing fringe parking spaces were subtracted from this total to determine the need for new facilities. There is need for 367,000 fringe spaces by 1975 at a cost of $387 million. Simi- larly, needs till 1985 are for 466,000 fringe spaces at a cost of $483 million. Availability of funds for fringe parking will provide the opportunity to search out locations for fringe parking and to provide it w-here desirable. Fringe park- ing will not be provided by others as it cannot be considered economical except as an integral part of the transportation system. Federal assistance provides a basis for the evaluation of fringe parking as a part of an improved urban trans- portation system. PAGENO="0227" 217 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE Though not a part of this bill, the problem of relocation assistance is vitally important in the Federal-aid highway program. There must be adequate funds provided to relocate large numbers of people, businesses, farms, and organiza- tions dislocated by highway construction. Mr. Chairman, this completes my discussion of the provisions of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968. The shape of the future highway program will depend in large degree on the decisions of the Congress on this legislation. May I respectfully urge this Committee to make these decision in accord with the pro- visions of 11.11. 17134. Thank you for permitting me to appear before you. Now my colleagues and I are ready for questions. Mr. KLtTOZYNSKI. Any other questions? Mr. CLEVELAND. Yes, sir. Getting back to Mr. Cramer's line of inquiry about the advance acquisition of rights-of-way, I am pleased that you have incorporated this into your legislation. There are some members of the minority that have been on this sub- ject for a good number of years, and I would like to ask you if you are familiar with the legislation that the minority has introduced- this is H.IR. 16622, and this has been called to the attention of your staff in a meeting which I had with members of your staff, and I would like to know if you do not feel that this would be a better legislative solution to the problem at hand? I might add that our advance taking of right-of-way legislation, H.R. 16622 includes relocation expenses, which is something that you feel is important but you have not given us anything solid on. Secretary BOYD. I advised Mr. Cramer earlier this morning that I was not familiar with that legislation, but that I would review it. Mr. CLEvia~&ND. My point is I am surprised, because last week I asked to speak to members of your department, to you, in fact, and your representative came over to my office. They went over the bill with me and they told me you would be prepared to g~ive me a statement at this time. Mr. Burke came over and I spent a couple of hours with him. Secretary BOYD. Well, I do not want to bore you with my personal itinerary, but I have been out of town from last Wednesday until Saturday night. I have been engaged in testfying every day this week, and I have also been required to fulfill speaking engagements out of town during this week, and I am afraid my staff has not been able to catch a hold of me to tell me what it is all about. Mr. CLEVELAND. Do you think there is someone in the room who could tell you now? This is important to us. We have been working on this problem for the past 6 years. Secretary Bo~m. I am sure Mr. Bridwell can discuss this. Mr. Brid- well has my full authority to speak for the Department of Trans- portation. Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Cleveland, I responded earlier to Mr. Cramer on this and said that we would immediately undertake a comparative review of the legislation that we have proposed and the legislation as introduced that you are referring to, and straighten out any technical differences between the two bills. Because with the exception of that one item of relocation assistance, I think that the concept between the two bills is identical. Mr. CLEVELAND. I would think you could almost do that by 2:30 this afternoon, because members of your staff did come over last week, sat PAGENO="0228" 218 in my office and went over H.R. 16622 and took away a copy of it with them. Secretary BoYD. We will do the best we can, Mr. Cleveland, and if we can respond about 2:30 this afternoon, we will do so. If we cannot, we will tell you when we can. Mr. CLEVELAND. All right. And I guess my question is already an- swered about another legislative item I submitted, which is H.R. 10276, and I asked the same people that came from your staff whether or not they felt that the purposes of this 1egi~lation, H.IR. 10276, were com- mendable and whether it would have your approval to be incorporated in this legislation as an amendment, and I can only assume that that message did not reach you either. Secretary BoYD. }lI.R. 10276? Mr. CLEVELAND. Yes, sir. This is a very interesting piece of legisla- tion. I will not bore you with the details now. I have no further questions. Mr. KLncz~sKI. Mr. Cleveland, the Secretary, Mr. Bridwell, and Mr. Turner will be here again at the end of the hearing. The gentleman from New York, Mr. McEwen. Mr. MOEwEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire into one mat- ter now and defer other matters until this afternoon. I believe it was you, Mr. Bridwell, who referred to this matter of States implementing legislation on the beautification. You referred to New York, as an illustration, legislation I take it that has to implement the existing agreement. Is that correct? Mr. BPJDWELL. That is correct, yes, sir. Mr. MCEWEN. In other words, in the case of New York State, you do have an approved agreement? Mr. BRIDWELL. We have an agreement, Mr. McEwen, which was signed between the Federal Government and the State government, which establishes the conditions under which the highway beautifica- tion program, specifically the outdoor advertising control, will be con- chicted in the State of New York. That agreement contained the clause which said, in effect, that its implementation was subject to authori- zation by the State legislature. The State legislature is now in the process-and I cannot give you the status as of today-is in the process of enacting implementing legislation. So far as I know, there is no particular reason to believe that the implementing legislation will not be enacted. I am told that there is agreement within the State of interested parties on what the legislation should contain. That is informal and secondhand infor- mation to me. Mr. M0EWEN. This would be legislation that will enable the State to meet the requirements of the agreement? Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, sir. Mr. MCEWEN. The gentleman from Florida brought up this Arizona situation. Has there been a similar letter addressed to New York? Mr. BRIDWELL. Not to my knowledge, Mr. McEwen. Mr. MCEWEN. Mr. Secretary, do you know? Secretary BoYD. Not to my knowledge. I have no recollection of the letters that have been involved in this. But I reiterate, we have not written letters except in response to requests, and I have no knowledge PAGENO="0229" 219 of any request for information or opinion from the State of New York. Mr. MOEWEN. Well, let me, if I may2 make it a little more broad question: I-las there been any communication to the State of New York, written or oral, indicating that if they do not enact the imple- menting legislation, they will be subject to a 10-percent penalty as of the first of the year, 1969? Mr. BRIDWELL. I will respond to that, Mr. McEwen. The answer is absolutely and flatly no, to the absolute best of my knowledge. What has occurred is a number of meetings between members of my staff and the responsible people in the Department of Transportation and the State of New York on the terms and conditions of the agree- ment. In addition to that, on two or three unresolved points, they were personally brought to my attention and were worked out by tele- phone conversation with the general counsel of the Department of Transportation of the State of New York, and it is upon that tele- phone conversation that I was informed that this constituted substan- tial agreement of all parties within the State of New York and that there was no reason why the legislation should not progress. So in the sense of has there been some kind of a warning or threat, or any other kind of language used concerning 10-percent penalty, the occasion literally has not arisen as it relates to the State of New York. Secretary Boyr. I think, Mr. McEwen, if you have information to the effect that there have been threats or intimidations in this area, it would be very helpful if you would advise us who was supposed to have made those. Mr. MOEWEN. I did not want to imply that, Mr. Secretary. That is not the purpose of my question, why there had been. But I was just concerned, in view of what the gentleman from Florida brought out- the letter that went to the Governor I believe of Arizona-if this had been a practice followed in other States; if there had been a similar indication that they were in serious jeopardy of 10-percent penalty being imposed in a matter of a few months. Mr. BRIDWELL. I think the significance of what I said, Mr. McEwen, is that the State of New York and several other States are perfectly pleased to negotiate such agreements. They are in favor of outdoor advertising control programs. This is not a case in which someone is hammering them over the head. They respond positively. Yes, they want agreement. Now, there is no question but what the title III portion, which relates to landscaping, scenic enhancements, the construction of road- side rest areas, scenic overlooks, that kind of thing, there is no question but that that is the most popular, and I think that is freely conceded by everyone. By the same token, I do not think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that the most difficult part of the highway beautifi- cation program is and always has been the control of outdoor advertising. We believe that we have demonstrated by the agreements that we have signed that we will work with the States on a fully cooperative 50-50 basis, in which they are absolutely equal partners in a negotia- tion, and that they can propose anything they want to propose and will bargain it out. So I frankly-I am not suggesting that you have implied any- thing, but the constant implication that comes to me, that somehow PAGENO="0230" 220 we are threatening and cajoling and intimidating, is just absolutely false. Mr. MGEWEN. WelL Mr. Bridwell, the law itself holds the threat over their heads, does it not, with the 10-percent penalty? Secretary BOYD. We have made no effort to prevent anybody from reading the law. Mr. MCEWEN. Thank you. Mr. BRIDWIELL. I think everyone should be completely clear in terms of what the Secretary has stated, in writing, and verbally before both committees, on what his policy would be, and I would suggest that it is a very liberal policy. Mr. CRAMER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. MCEWEN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. CRAMER. I can read plainly what was said to Arizona-whether that was the intent of the interpretation or not, it clearly says penalty January 1, 1969, if the legislature does not act, if the legislature has had an opportunity to do so. With regard to these agreements being entered into, is it not true that these agreements deal prospectively with the future erection of signs, control relating to areas to be zoned concerning future sign erection? Secretary Bo~. As Mr. Bridwell indicated, we have sent copies of every agreement to the committee. Mr. CRAMER. That is a correct analysis, is it not, that they deal prospectively with future signs? Mr. BRIDWELL. I am not sure that I understand exactly what you are saying, Mr. Cramer. Yes, they deal prospectively with future signs, but not to the exclusion of everything else. Mr. CRAMER. Well, are you requiring Federal signs to come down now without compensation? Mr. BRIDWELL. No, because. no sign is required to come down until 1970. Mr. CRAMER. You are requiring that they do come down in 1970, starting then? Mr. BRIDWELL. We are requiring what the law states; namely, they start to come down in 1970. And obviously that assumes that the Federal Government will meet its obligations. Mr. CRAMER. I understand that 5 States have signed agreements that have not been authorized by the State legislature: Delaware, Maine, Minnesota, New York, and Pennsylvania. And you have negotiated these agreements. Is that correct? Mr. BRIDWELL. Well, that is what I will have to supply for the record, Mr. Cramer. I have no reason to believe that you do not have accurate information. I have already referred to the one that is current in my knowledge of the process of implementing legislation, in the New York State Legislature at this time. There are a number of States about which there is no question in our mind that implementing legislation, adequately implementing legislation, has already been passed and in which we are negotiating agreements. Mr. CRAMER. Maybe the gentleman from New York knows. Is the legislature still in session in New York ? Mr. McE~x. Still in session. PAGENO="0231" 221 Mr. CRAMER. Let's assume they do not act this year. `What are you gorng to do? Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Cramer, in response to your question, I do not know that particular answer, because I do not believe that I can ac- cept your assumption, based on the information before me; namely, that those responsible for the legislation seem to believe that they will have no great difficulty in obtaining its passage. This is based upon what they believe to be a reasonable agreement and which is supported by many interested parties. I do not know whether all interested par- ties, but many interested parties. Mr. CRAMER. You said I think the Bureau sent out a letter related to the District of Columbia, after our hearing, suggesting the reloca- tion program for the District. Now, is it your suggestion the general bill, considered in the other body, take the place of that proposal? It differs in numerous respects. Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Cramer, I do not believe the Department of Transportation- Mr. CRAMER. Came up from the District of Columbia Government? Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, I am quite sure the Department of Transporta- tion did not submit any relocation program as it relates to the District of Columbia. As the Secretary has already stated, we fully support the testimony and presentation of position as expressed by Mr. Hughes before the Senate Government Operations Subcommittee. Mr. CRAMER. In preference to the action of the City Council in the District, submission they made to the committee? Mr. BRIDWELL. We are aware of it, yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Just one other question. I understand that the $68.6 billion estimate of available revenues upon which was based these authorization figures for the Interstate and contemplating continua- tion of primary and so forth, that that figure includes the suggested tax increases of about $1.2 billion over that period? Secretary BoYD. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. So, in effect, if those increased taxes are not approved, we will still have a stretch out beyond-what is it-1975? 1974? The date provided in this legislation? Secretary BoYD. We would have a short fall to that extent unless other taxes were enacted. Mr. CRAMER. So, in effect, we would be $1.2 billion short? Secretary BoYD. Yes, sir. Mr. MCEwEN. May I just came back, Mr. Chairman, to this New York situation. Do I understand Mr. Bridwell's answer before, if the New York Legislature does not pass this implementing legislation you cannot answer at this time-or you, Mr. Secretary-what might happen on January 1,1969? Secretary BoYD. I will tell you what is going to happen, Mr. McEwen. At the end of this year, Mr. Bridwell, the highway admin- istrator, is going to prepare for me a list of the status of the States relative to the program. He is going to make recommendations to me. These will come to my. staff. They will review them. Mr. Bridwell and I will then sit down and decide what we are going to do to carry out our requirements under the law. PAGENO="0232" 222 There will be no commitment on my part to do or not to do anything before that time. Mr. McEwu~-. In other words, Mr. Secretary, the threat of a 10- percent cut in the highway funds, whether this Congress appropriates the Federal money or not, still exists; is that correct? Secretary Box~. It is very subjective. Mr. McEw~x. Is that correct? Secretary Boim. The law is on the books and whether or not- Mr. MCEWEX. Is my question clear. Mr. Secretary? Secretary BOYD. Yes. The threat of 10 percent loss exists whether or not the Congress appropriates. That law is on the books. Whether or not it is a threat, I say, is a very subjective proposition. Mr. MCEWEX. Let me amend and take the word "threat" out. Secretary Boim. Yes, sir. Mr. MOEWEN. The poss~bility exists that the State of New York will lose 10 percent of its Federal highway money unless it enacts this legislation? Secretary Boirn. Absolutely. Mr. McEwrx. Thank you very much. Mr. KLvczYNsKI. The hearing will recess until 2 :30. (Whereupon, at 12 :32 p.m., the hearing recessed, to reconvene at 2 :30 p.m., the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. KLUOZYNSKI. The hearings will come to order. When we recessed this afternoon, we had on the witness stand the Secretary of Transportation. We also had Lowell Bridwell and Frank Turner. They have had a previous engagement, they are sitting in the anteroom now and may be there for 15 or 20 minutes. I thought, to save time, we would call on our good friend Mr. Nelson. Deputy Chief of the Forest Service. Mr. Nelson, please proceed. STATEMENT OF M. M. NELSON, DEPUTY CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OP AG-RICULTURE; ACCOMPAN~D BY RICHARD P. DROEG-E, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE Mr. NELsoN. Thank you very much. 1 have with me Mr. Richard Droege., who is associate Deputy Chief of the Forest Service and has responsibility for protection and development of the National Forest system including our en~ineerin~ work. Mr. Chairman and members ~of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to represent the Department of Agriculture in support of the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1968. H.R. 16994 and H.R. 17134 would authorize appropriations for the fiscal years 1970 and 1971 for the construction of certain highways in accordance with title 23 of the United States Code. First, we in the Department of Agriculture want to express our thanks for your keen interest in the transportation needs of the rural areas of our Nation. Particularly do we appreciate your consideration and response in past Federal-aid highways acts to the road and trail needs of our national forests and national grasslands. There is a vast PAGENO="0233" 223 area of 187 million acres located in 41 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico which are available to meet the recreational and eco- nomic needs of the Nation. Full use and enjoyment of this important public property is entirely dependent on an adequate transportation system of roads and trails. All Federal-aid highways serve the national forest system either directly or indirectly. The entire system serves as the vital connection between our forest and grassland resources and the people and indus- tries of the Nation. We have a very special interest in forest develop- ment roads and trails for which H.R. 16994 and H.R. 17134 would authorize appropriations. Section 5(5) of these bills would authorize the appropriation of 125 million for each of fiscal year 1970 and for fiscal year 1971 for forest development roads and trails. Funds under this authorization are appropriated directly to the Forest Service. We have the responsibility for maintenance of over 160,000 miles of existing forest development roads, and over 101,000 miles of existing trials and for construction of new roads and trails needed in the na- tional forest system. Many more miles of roads are needed for full development of the resources. In 1961, President Kennedy sent to the Congress "A Development Program for the National Forests." That program set forth the re- source management and development work needed in the national forests during the 10-year period 1963 to 1972. The estimated cost of road and trail construction in that program was approximately $1.7 1)illiOn, of which $1.2 billion was to come from appropriated funds. We are currently far behind in this program. We are behind planned needs while at the same time we are finding that the 10-year program was based on conservative estimates of excepted use of the national forest system. The nationwide importance of the national forest system continues to grow. For instance, recreation use has grown to almost 150 mil- lion visitor-days in fiscal year 1968. A "visitor-day" is the new term which has been adopted by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation for use by all Federal agencies to measure recreation use. Based on this meas- urement the Forest Service provides more recreation use than any other Federal agency. In the commodity field this year the national forests will produced 33 percent of all of the veneer and sawlog vol- umes used by the entire important timber industry in the United States. This is a dramatic increase over the 17 percent produced on the national forests in l955-only 12 years ago. It is approximately dou- ble. These increased contributions of the national forest system re- sources to the health, wealth, and economy of our Nation can only be sustained by the betterment and extension of the forest development road and trail transportation system. I believe I would be derelict in my duties as Deputy Chief of the Forest Service if I didn't point out to you that we are in some pretty challenging times in managing our transportation system. Your sup- port of this bill is needed if we are to continue to make progress. The problems are many and complex. They include building access roads to keep the dependent mills supplied with logs and thus have them add to our economy. They include replacing stock driveways with roads on which stock can be trucked to and from the national forest ranges to protect critical watersheds in such areas as the Boise National Forest PAGENO="0234" 224 in Idaho. They include constructing roads to provide access to new recreation areas on reservoir projects constructed by the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, private and public power develop- ments, State water agencies, and others. I know you are familiar with the existing roads to some of our existing recreation areas. Many of these roads have outlived their design life and need to be rebuilt to an adequate standard to accommodate the ever-increasing uurnber of visitors that use the national forest systeñi. I want also to point out that new acccess roads continue to be needed to provide ground support for fighting forest and range fires. We do not believe that new technology will eliminate, the need for adequate road access to fight fires. I want to emphasize that putting out fires requires on-the-ground work by men and machines. lYe need roads to get these forces to the fires fast. In fiscal years 1968 and 1968 under the Federal-Aid Highway Act. of 1966, we expect to construct 12,382 miles of forest development roads. Of this amount, we expect to build 2~414 miles out of appropriated funds. The remaining 9,968 miles will be built by timber sale. l~~- chasers. Government funds will be used for the required surveys, the plans and construction supervision of these operator-built roads. Although these roads may be constructed by timber operators as a part. of the sale contract, they are in effect an investment of Federal funds. We have to insure that these roads will be designed and con- structed insofar as possible in a. manner that will best meet the present and future public needs. We also expect to construct 726 miles of trails. We now have 101,500 miles of trails in the national forest system. This is 78 percent of all the forest and recreation trails in the Nation. Yet the demand and the need of trails continues to grow. The system must be improved, ex- panded, arid reconstructed. Consideration must be given to geograph- ical uses. Most of our trails originally served simply as a way through the country. Many now need to be relocated to take advant.age of scenic vistas, to provide access to special points of interest, to follow more attractive routes, and to provide better distribution of hunters and people seeking this type of recreation experience. I am sure you know that even the national wilderness system would have little use without a trail system. The Department of Agriculture also, support.s the forest highway system and the public lands highway programs which are adminis- tered by the Depart.ment of Transportation through the Bureau of Public Roads. Because of it.s relationship to the national forests, the forest highway system represents the main traffic arteries through or adjacent to the forests. Forest highways provide primary access to, and outlet from, our forest development road and trail system. Sec- tion 5(3) of these bills would authorize appropriation of $33 million for forest highways in each of fiscal years 1970 and 1971. Rural life cont.inues to be one of the major concerns of our Depart- ment. We must intensify our efforts to assure rural families their rightful share in the increased economic and cultural opportunities of our Nation. Their pattern of living must be. comparable to that of the rest of our citizens. The forest development road and trail program together with the program for forest highways are vital to the eco- nomic stability of many small rural communities near and adjacent PAGENO="0235" 225 to national forest lands. The timber, recreation, wildlife, and scenic resources of the national forest areas provide an important resource base upon which the associated community economies are developed. I would like to comment on two proposed language changes. First is in defining "Forest Road or Trail" and "Forest Development Roads and Trails." This proposed change will tie the definitions to the title 23 authorization language. This will avoid any possible inisunder- standing of what constitutes forest development roads and trails. It is important that all the roads for which the Forest Service has a re- sponsibiliy be included under the definition. The authorization lan- guage was included in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1964, and there is no authorization change needed. The second, a change from $10,000 per mile limitation to $15,000 per mile or $15,000 per project for projects less than 1 mile iii length, will permit us to efficiently construct some real small projects. Many of these small projects can be constructed at a cost less than the cost of preparing bids and advertising the project in accordance with for- mal contracting procedures. Our experience on such small projects has been that the small projects often result in no bids, or inflated prices, which are necessary for the contractors to recover the costs of bidding, moving in and moving out, and meeting insurance, bond, and other contractor costs associated with such road construction projects. On the small projects, these costs make up a very high percentage of the project cost and the contractors have no opportunity to spread out these fixed costs as they do have on larger projects. Often some of these small projects can be scheduled along with our regular road maintenance activities and therefore utilize equipment and personnel already in the area. I would like to end `my statement by saying that we have been and are continuing to do all we can to provide the best balanced forest development road and trail program possible with the limited funds currently available to us. We are restricting most of our recreation road construction to roads inside of camp and picnic areas. `We are postponing action on most of the many opportunities we have to pro- vide high quality roads for outdoor recreation travel. We have made program shifts when necessary to require more and more timber pur- chaser construction. `We are continuing to stretch the available funds as far as we can through cooperation with local, state and private organizations on roads which also serve other purposes thaii national' forest use and development. ~We now have many fine examples of joint road system development with timber landowners resulting in an efficient road system serving all owners at least cost to all participants. We now have 323 of these "share cost agreements" with timber landowners. These cover 3,544 miles of road with an estimated total value of $51,596,000. In enter- ing into these agreements the required road system needed to remove the timber of all ownerships in the "share cost" area is carefully planned and the costs are shared by the participating owners in pro- portion to their planned use of the roads. We are trying to stretch the road dollars that Congress makes avail- able to us over just as many miles of road as we can. We will continue to look for new ways to improve our performance. PAGENO="0236" 226 We agree with either one of the two bills and support the two bills insofar as they affect us that I have testified for. Mr. I r~uczi~wsi~i. Mr. Nelson, that is an excellent statement. We are always very happy to have you before this committee. But you are not going to ask at this time to take these funds from the trust fund, are you? I know 2 years ago you said you didn't care where it came from. Mr. NELSON. No; the portion of the road authorization that goes into the forest development roads and trails .is not proposed to be taken out of the trust fund, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KLUGZYNSKI. Well, Mr. Nelson, speaking for myself, I favor an authorization level in keeping with the 10-year program we are discussing in the 1966 act. I hope we can accomplish that. The Chair at this time recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time I want to express my apprecia.tion for your very fine testimony, and also to the chairman. Coming from an urban area like Mr. Kluczynski does, I do want to say this gentleman has evidenced more specific interest in the development of forest roads than anyone else I can name on this committee. I think it is appropriate to thank the chairman for his interest in the so-called road problems. Mr. Nelson, first of all let me ask you this: Reference has been made to maintaining this 10-year level of authorization that was pre- scribed, I believe, by the Kennedy administration. Now, how close are we to maintaining that level of authorization? Mr. NELSON. Mr. Clausen, as I recall the figures right now, we are about $270 million below where we should be if we were to finish that 10-year program by the end of the 10-year period. Mr. CLAUSEN. Wasn't that 10-year program initially established about 1963? Mr. NELSON. The program that President Kennedy sent to Congress in 1961 and it went from-yes, from 1963 to 1972 is what we con- sidered the 10-year program. Mr. CLAUSEN. So we are now in about the fifth year? Mr. NELSON. Yes. The figure of $270 million I gave you does not take into account increased costs and is based on 1961 dollar value. As you know, the index of cost has gone up regularly, too. I think it would be nearer $330 million of 1968 dollars when we take into account the new increase in costs or the change in the index of costs that have occurred. Mr. CLAUSEN. As you know, our greatest problem is one of money and the necessary control that must be established by the Congress. I am sure you are aware of the severe fiscal problem we face. Part of this problem is associated with the necessary expenditures of Govern- ment. I would like to develop a hypothetical case. If the Vietnam conflict were to be brought to a reasonable settlement, how large a program and what amount of money could you realistically handle? Mr. N~soN. Congressman Clausen, that may be a difficult question. On the other hand, we are ahead with our plans. We have road design plans on the shelf. We think it is a very desirable public development PAGENO="0237" 227 to be placing public money into a road system. In 1962 under the accelerated public works program, when it was found necessary to have some public works programs we were able to step in and do some excellent work with APW money. Much of it was badly needed road and trail construction. 1 think we would have no trouble at all in handling at least 50 percent more authorization than we are using in the present program. This would put us in the neighborhood of $160 million to $170 million. Mr. CLAUSEN. Well, I for one would certainly like to see you as an agency and hopefully our own committee give very serious considera- tion to establishing the necessary legislative or administrative frame- work for the program so that if and when there is a~n opportunity to ease these current fiscal problems or ease the current fiscal crisis that we have, that we would be geared up ready to move on this kind of a program. Here again, your comments relating to the problems in rural Amer- ica, I sincerely believe that a lot of the problems that are affecting urban America could somehow be resolved if we could reverse this population trend toward the urban areas. And one of the ways in which we can do this is through a formula we develop for road construction, as I am sure you are well informed on. Would you agree with this? Mr. NELSON. We certainly agree with that. And I know that is the part of the program that the Department of Agriculture, to reverse this business of the rural people going into t.he cities causing more problems there. And surely a proper transportation system in rural America would be very helpful on that. Also, Congressman Clausen, we look at it the same way you do. And, even though we took a substantial reduction in appropriations this year, in our road business, we have not reduced our surveying and engineering crews, because we feel it is very desirable to have the project properly surveyed, the plans made, and on the shelf, in case the financial situation changes and the budgetary situation makes it possible to move forward with this most desirable type of a program of expenditure of Federal funds for a capital investment. Mr. CLAtTSEN. Well, what part of the authorizations under the Federal-aid highway program were actually apportioned to you by the Bureau of the Budget? Mr. NELSON. Well, as you know, for this fiscal year 1968 and 1969, this committee had an authorization of $170 million. In 1968, our cur- rent fiscal year, we were allowed to go before the Appropriations Committee for funds to carry out a program at the level of $120 million. And then later on there was the rescissionary action by the Congress, which required some cutbacks in programs, and we lost $15 million at that time. This means that the current fiscal year we are at $105 million. We will use $105 million of the $170 million authorization. In fiscal year 1969 we had to take an additional cutback and our present use of the authorization as before the Appropriations Corn- mittee-and it was passed by the House the other day-would be at a level of $93 million. Mr. CLAUSEN. Well, in those communities that are dependent upon a continuing yield of the timber for their survival, particularly some PAGENO="0238" 228 of the smaller lumber organizations, I guess they are mostly in the West. As you know, they have a very difficult time in guaranteeing the flow of natural resources to keep themselves going. As I understand, it has contributed substantially th a number of organizations going bankrupt over the last few years and I think this current trend ha.s contributed partially to this, because these people must have the timber. I am wondering if you can comment on this. If we were able to have the necessary road program so that the land management pro- gram that you have, not only underway but contemplated, could be brought up to the maximum benefits-I am talking in terms of all of the multiple uses that are under your very fine program- Mr. NELSON. Yes. Mr. CLAUSEN (continuing). Do you not think this would reverse some of these bankrupt tendencies that have occurred? Mr. NELSON. I do not know if I can comment specifically on any specific bankruptcy, but certainly an adequate road system is neces- sary and desirable. It is particularly necessary to some of the smaller operators who do not have the capital or cannot get the capital to build the roads themselves, so it has a definite bearing on this. It also, as you know, Congressman Clausen, from your experience in the woods, means the Federal Government pays for those roads anyway. We get less money from the timber than we would otherwise. I testified before the Appropriations Committee on the level that we are talking about this year. I told them that in this fiscal year it would not make any difference in the amount of money that we receive from timber sales because this year they will be operating on roads that have already been constructed. But we are getting mighty close to the level where we are gomg to have to cut back on timber sale programs. And it will not only affect some of the small operators in certain areas, it will affect the income to the Treasury of the United States from timber receipts. In some areas, it is more pronounced than others, because it is on a more critical line as to whether or not the operators can afford to oper- ate in an area if they have to build the roads. In other areas, we almost have to build the roads or we would not be able to make the sales even though they are desirable from a stand- point of the economy of a local community and most desirable, of course, from the standpoint of managing a forest property. Mr. CLAUSEN. Well, I believe that this committee, frankly, led by our champion chairman, has more realistically recognized not only the benefits that come as a result of your being able to properly manage your forest for the timber yield that is available- Mr. NELSON. Yes. Mr. CLAUSEN (continuing). But I do want to bring to the atten. tion of the committee members here that we are considering, as you know now, the establishment of a Redwood National Park and there are many people in the Nation that are making the comment to the effect that we should have a larger and larger park in order to ac- commodate this vast population from the urban area that wants to come in for recreational purposes. Well, I would submit to you, each and every one of you on this committee, that this is one of the kinds of programs that will yield, PAGENO="0239" 229 in my judgment, the most benefits to the most people. If we will provide access to these vast recreational areas that could be put to the benefit of the people of the country through a proper and up- dated forest development roads and trails program, we will really be developing some benefits. And I can tell you that in our own area, for instance, we have some 5.6 million acres of Forest Service lands, and all we need is to have the opportunity for a road to be developed to give access to people. And you can minimize the number of dollars that are going to be required for creation of a very large national park. I just had to take advantage of this opportunity to bring this to the attention of our committee members. Mr. NELSON. If I may, I would like to say we have 20 million acres in the East. I do not want the members on this committee who are in the East to thing our road problems and road needs are all in the West. The same type of thing that you just spoke of for recreation development is very important in the eastern national forests also. Mr. CLATISEN. Now on page 14 of the draft of the bill that is before us, line 4, you have "for the use and development of the resources upon which communities within or adjacent to the national forest and other areas administered by the Forest Service are dependent." Now, that includes parts of a sentence. But could you tell me what is fully intended by that recommendation? Mr. NELSON. That deals only with the definitions. As you know, the Federal Highway Act has a section on definitions; it also has a section on the authorizations. And the intent of these recommenda- tions for a change here was to make the definitions the same as the authorizations that were authorized 4 years ago. Mr. CLAUSEN. I see. Recogthzing this is dependent on the success of your program. Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. Mr. CLAtTSEN. And you are making this recommendation legisla- tively to accomplish this? Mr. N~soN. That is right. Mr. KLUGzYNSKI. Any further questions? The gentleman from Texas. Mr. Roberts. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Nelson, what is the total for forest products in the United States? I am talking about from national parks. What is your total? Mr. NELSON. This past fiscal year it was $182,600,000. That includes our total receipts and most of that is from timber. About 95 percent of it is `from timber. Mr. ROBERT$. We are spending more than that for the roads. When you count what you work out with the saw people, timber people, and what we put in, we are spending more money on roads than we are taking in on the whole product, by far. Mr. NELSON. Our `appropriated funds for roads and trails in the budget for fiscal year 1969 will be `about $91 million and in addition to that we have the 10-percent fund, which will add about $18 million. The roads that will be built by the timber operators under the timber sales contract will be about $87 million. So you are correct that it will be more than the $180 million of direct receipts to the Treasury. PAGENO="0240" 230 Mr. ROBERTS. $170 million we are spending for roads and our whole total forest products total $180 million. That does not make very good business. We would be better off just to leave the trees alone, would we not? Mr. NEr~sOx. The roads are an investment in the land that will have other needs and will be used for not only additional forest management and the removal of forest products, but by recreationists as well as for the protection of the lands and resources. There are some areas we think it would be desirable to put in roads and would save us in the overall cost of firefighting, for example.. So a system of roads-actually if I recall right, if we looked at our receipts, counting the money that timber operators spend in the capital investment of roads as a receipt and subtract our costs of operation in the national forest, but looking at our capital investments the way a business does, and as a depreciation, we~ are operating the entire na- tional forest system at about the cost that we are putting into it. In fact, last year-I do not have my papers here, but last year there was about a $2 mfflion profit when you look at the outgo like a business does, of taking capital investments and considering that on a deprecia- tion basis. Mr. ROBERTS. You do not consider your administrative costs? Mr. NELSON. That would have administrative costs in it. Mr. CLAUSEN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. ROBERTS. Let me finish up this line, then I will be glad to yield. How are you tied into the wilderness program? I get a conflict here, because I agree with you, we want to build roads; but to go out into the wilderness, they are not only building roads but they are plowing up existing airports they could use for firefighting, and the Govern- ment pays for it. Mr. NELSON. The first wilderness setup in the United States was set up by the Forest Service in 1924, the Qua Wilderness in New Mexico. We have some 15 million acres of national forest land at the present time either in the national wilderness system or in primitive areas that the Wilderness Act requires be studied to be put into the wilderness system, so we are deeply involved in the wilderness program and the whole wilderness system and Wilderness Act here. There are a number of propositions before the Congress at the present time that are a result of the study of some of these primitive areas that would propose putting them into the national wilderness system. Even in the wilderness system, as I indicated, it requires some au- thorizations such as in this bifi, because the wilderness system is not very usable without a trail system. And all of the people who use the wilderness use trails. So it does take some funds, as authorized by this bill, for the trail system within the wilderness system. Mr. ROBERTS. But you have a ruling that you cannot take a chainsa.w or motorized equipment into the wilderness area, even if you have a heavy blowdown. Is this your ruling or your superiors' ruling? Even if somebody wants to go out a.nd help, he cannot do it unless he wants to do it with a handsaw. Mr. NELSON. I guess we would have to take part of the responsibility for that, but part of it I think would lay at the feet of Congress because the Wilderness Act does not allow the use of motorized equip- PAGENO="0241" 231 ment within the wilderness system. It does leave us the leeway of using motorized equipment for administrative purposes. If we had a blowd'own of that type, there is no question but what our people would use ch'ainsaws as the most efficient way of getting the trails opened. We have not allowed others, such as-oh, guides, to use chainsaws and motorized equipment because the Wilderness Act does not allow that. And we realize that there may be some situations where it would be easier for them to help us actually open up some of the trails. Mr. ROBERTS. One other short question; then I will yield to the gentleman from California. On your grasslands area, I have two lakes. Mr. NELSON. Yes. Mr. ROBERTS. Lake Davy Crockett and Lake Fannin, both very substantial, very good lakes, but there is no road between them, no usable road. Now if we appropriate the money for this-I was not aware of it- why are we trying to get EDA to build a road `between those two lakes that `belong to you? Why are you not building them? Mr. NELSON. As indicated here, we have not received the appropri- ations that would let us do all we would even be authorized to do under this `bill. We have many, many places where we could and would spend Forest Road and Trail Development funds. I am not acquainted with these particular lakes, Congressman, but we have many areas of that type where it could be and might be desirable to spend those funds, but we do not have them at this time and consequently we are using every process we can to extend our dollars as far as we can. And if they are able to handle the road some other way, we cooperate to get it built. Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you very much. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. `CLAUSEN. My comment will `be very brief. The gentleman from Texas, I believe, was relating `the amount of the authorization to the total amount of timber receipts, and the amount of income. Mr. ROBERTS. All forest products. Mr. CLAUSEN. For the forest, yes. I think the one thing that we should probably mention in `the proper perspective is as they have increased the authorization and the ap- propriation level, the yield from the timber sale receipts has not only increased, but frankly you will see an overall increase to the Treasury, because the organizations that are in need of roads also are paying increased taxes and that sort of thing. So I `believe `in order to maximize the use of these lands and timber that comes from it, it is going to be necessary to `have `the `best possible road system, rather than just `blocking the areas unnecessarily. Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you. Mr. 1cLuoz~sKI. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. You are a splendid wit- ness. We are very much impressed. You have all the answers, all the figures. And you have a good gentleman to work with you. The gentleman who represents the Northwest section of this great country, Mr. Clausen, as I happen to know, is an expert on forest 96-030----68-----16 PAGENO="0242" 232 roads and trails. It is a pleasure to be out in that great pare of the country. Mr. NELSON. Thank you. It is always a pleasure to appear before the committee. (The following was received for the record:) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY M. M. NELSON, DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOREST SERVICE, AS REQUESTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ROADS, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS ROAD IN RELATION TO COMPETITION FOR NATIONAL FOREST TIMBER The Forest Service is just completing a comprehensive study of timber sales in the Pacific Northwest to determine the facts of why we get increased bidding, and thus higher returns to the government, on some sales and not on others. The study concludes that a key factor to increase the competitive position of our timber sales would be to increase the level of road construction by appropri- ated funds. Studies made earlier by others also indicated this need of roads to engender full competition for timber. ADEQUACY OF HIGHWAY ENGINEERING ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM ROADS One industry witness expressed alarm concerning uniform grade, alignment, balanced cuts and fills and e~'cessiveiy detailed surveys. We are very much con- cerned with the most efficient use of available road dollars. We are also concerned with the road system providing functional, safe service at the lowest cost. These objectives must be met in keeping with the conservation and the enhancement of the Forest environment. In order to require that roads be built to meet these cri- teria, the roads must be adequately defined in plans and specifications. Specified roads (roads which are to become permanent Forest Development Roads) needed in the timber sale must be built to the required standards. We believe we must precisely prescribe the required construction or we are unfair to the timber pur- chaser who has to know what he has obligated himself to perform when he bids. We know of no way to accomplish this objective without definitive plans and specifications. "Flexible" requirements can only create uncertainty on the part of both parties to the timber sale contract. RELATIONSHIP OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES ON PRIVATE LAND U.S. ROADS CONSTRUCTION BY TIMBER PURCHASERS ON GOVERNMENT LAND We do not believe that the practices followed by private timber land owners in logging private lands for maximum profit are acceptable guides for management of the National Forests. A prudent manager of public lands must have different standards than would a prudent manager of private lands. We cannot, by our timber management prac- tices, "lock out" other legitimate users of the National Forests, nor can we un- necessarily detract from or fail to protect resource values such as aesthetics, soil and water. We do not know, nor have we been able to determine, how the actual cost of building private roads on private lands compares with the cost of National Forest roads. Our cost records are available for public scrutiny. We are proud of the many economies we have been able to incorporate into design and construction techniques. Private road costs on the other hand are generally unavailable. Some- times tax benefits make it more "profitable" to have costs appear as operating or maintenance expenses instead of amortization of construction cost. Also, we never know what elements are included as costs for the private land road, and whether or not they are the same elements that appear in National Forest timber sale appraisal data. For example, does the private land cost figure include identifiable allowances for executive overhead, equipment depreciation or right-of-way clear- ing? If we had access to accounts of such costs and could verify them, we would be glad to use them in timber sale appraisals for estimating costs when similar roads are appropriate on sale areas. For these reasons the comparability of "in- vestments" made in the public roads and private roads as well as a comparability of the "prudency" of these investments is difficult and usually impractical to make. We have been the target of many such comparisons in the past, and we do not consider them to be fair. PAGENO="0243" 233 "STAGE CONSTRUCTION" OF A ROAD IS NOT AN ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE Our records show that we have built, and unfortunately are continuing to build, too many miles of road which are not suitable for full multiple use management of Forest resources. At the present time the cost of bringing existing roads up to desirable standards would exceed $4,000,000,000. This situation exists at the same time we are faced with the necessity of opening up vast new areas to get presently unproductive timber stands under management. Quite contrary to some industry comments our primary roads deficiency has been our inability to build roads to handle even the present traffic volumes in the most economic manner. We do not consider stage construction as a desirable approach to developing an effective economic transportation system. RELATIONSHIP OF "PRUDENT OPERATOR" ROADS TO "MAXIMUM ECONOMY" ROADS The House Committee Report #1920 on S. 1147 Sept. 30, 1964 "Under its existing statutory authority to sell timber, the Forest Service may not require a purchaser of Federal timber as an incident of his timher purchase contract to build a road to a standard higher than necessary for harvesting the timber in- volved in the particular sale. Nor may the excess cost of such higher standard road be charged against the timber Sold, even if the purchaser agreed to build it. Roads which a prudent operator would deem necessary to harvest timber in a particular s:ale are called "prudent operator" roads. The prudent operator concept cannot be equated with practices by private timber land owners or purchasers of private timber on private lands. Certain practices such as improper clearing, inadequate drainage, impingement upon live streams and unstable cut and fill areas are incompatible with the man- agement of National Forest lands. Road construction by any Forest permittee, licensee, or purchaser of government timber must comply with minimum "pru- dent" management concepts on National Forest lands. These land husbandry requirements must be basic for any permanent facility constructed as part of a government timber sale. We must recognize, however, that we are developing and managing public lands and roads to be retained on the permanent road system which are used (or will be used) for more than one particular sale. Such roads must he planned, designed, and constructed to meet all of the needs (including future timber sales), and also to protect all the resources of the lands. Where the cost of such a "maximum economy" road is greater than that of a prudent operator road, we use the method of supplementing the construction with appropriated funds to develop a road system which will make its full contribution to the resources and users of the National Forests. RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING ROADS AS A REQUIRDMENT OF A TIMBER SALE CONTRACT Some timber industry spokesmen have taken the position that a road w-hich has been constructed as a condition of a timber sale could never in the future `be upgraded as a requirement of a future timber sale. Following are some examples of such situations: Following the first timber sale, which built the road and prior to additional sales Forest users such as hunters, fishermen and other reereati.on'ists start using the road and use it to nearly its full design capacity. When the next sale is proposed in the area there is a requirement that the purchaser of the government timber rebuild the exist- ing road to increase the capacity necessary for that sale prior to hauling timber over the road.. This condition may also occur when there is a larger sale or the haul distance is greater. This can occur where there is little or no "other" traffic but there is a change in the economic's of the haul, i.e., new types of haul- ing equipment, a higher rate of log r'emo~al is anticipated or a longer hauling seaSon. We know that the best cure for this problem is to build the "maximum economy" road in the first place. If we had the necessary financing this would be the usual procedure. Another alternative in some instances is `to close the road to all public traffic other than timber hauling. The third alternative would be not to make sales where the existing road is inadequate. The prudent operator concept should not prevent such a road from being rebuilt to a standard de- sirable to remove the timber from the current sale under existing conditions as a requirement of the timber sale contract. PAGENO="0244" 234 We try to do everything possible to mesh all forest uses together so there will be a minimum of closing roads and restricting other traffic. We wholeheart- edly believe in obtaining an adequate road system in the most economic manner possible while continuing to manage the National Forests for all uses. Mr. Kr~uczyNsKI. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Now we will have the Secretary and Mr. Bridwell and Mr. Turner again. For the benefit of the committee, I will ask a question. Mr. Secretary, there are some specific problem areas bothering a great many of the States. The specific problem for the most part turns on a general question of what the appropriate role of the Department at the Secretarial level, at the Federal Highway Administration, the Bureau of Public Roads-and the State-should be. Specifically, there is a great deal of concern about the extent to which section 4(f) of the Transportation Act should be decisive in determining highway location and design. There is also a great deal of concern about the very complicated re- quirements for public hearings. Mr. Secretary, we would appreciate your commenting in detail on these two areas. STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN S. BOYD, SECRETARY OP TRANSPORTA- TION; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. LOWELL K. BRIDWELL, YE~DERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA- TION; FRANCIS C. TURNER, DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS; DR. WILLIAM HADDON, ER., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGH- WAY SAFETY BUREAU; AND DR. ROBERT BRENNER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU-Resumed Secretary BoT~. Well, first and foremost, I would like to say that I think the relationship between the various officials, State and Federal, is an evolving one and will continue to be an evolving one depending upon the circumstances of the highway design and construction in the United States. Insofar as the determination of projects based on section 4(f), we are in the process of issuing a regulation on the procedures to be used in considering the 4(f) question. That regulation will be within the framework of the law and will be an attempt to follow the law estab- lished by the Congress. As to the complications of hearing procedures, one of the major complaints which I and many others have ~eceived about highway pro- jects is that the hearing procedure has been used purely and simply as a memorial for the record to approve a route alinement which has already been decided upon, and that the interested public have in effect had no opportunity to have any voice in influencing the location, the site, or the design of the project. We are working on a two-hearing procedure. We have sent our drafts, I believe, to the various States and requested their comments in connection with this two-hearing procedure which would permit PAGENO="0245" 235 the public to participate in location development and express their views on the location development of proposed projects. This is a complicating factor. There is absolutely no question about it. A two-hearing procedure is going to be more complicated than a single-hearing procedure. And I do not know what to say other than we think this is a very worthwhile thing from the standpoint of the general public and the general public is pretty much today the same as the automobile owning and operating population of this country. My own personal view is that there are many compliants, objections to highways, which could be mollified, explained, and understood if there were a better hearing procedure. And I am concerned to see that in the Department we undertake the development of those policies which will help make it possible to continue to build and improve the highway system in this country. And we cannot do that if we run into revolt. Mr. KLUCzYNsKI. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Fallon. Mr. FALLON. Mr. Secretary, I have one question. I understand that you have been quoted as saying that if the $6 billion cut in expenditures on the Federal budget is coupled with the 10 percent surtax, if that is adopted and becomes law, it will be neces- sary to make further drastic cuts in highway spending. Is that true? Secretary Boim. Yes, sir. Mr. FALLON. Well, Mr. Secretary, will you tell me what effect that has in the deficit spending of our budget? Secretary BoYD. Well, let me respond this way, Mr. Chairman. As I understand, the proposals which have tied together the tax bill and the expenditure cuts of $6 billion, the trust funds are not exempted. Mr. FALLON. Well, do you mean to say that the way that this will be drafted Secretary Boim. Sir? Mr. FALLON. If the legislation that is necessary to make these cuts as drafted will specifically state in there that there will be no exemp- tion on trust funds? Secretary Boim. There are exemptions, I believe, for social security. And of course we have interest on the national debt and we have veterans payments. I think whether or not they are exempted-and I do not recall-as a practical matter, they are not going to be invaded. Mr. FALLON. What effect will this have on the budget and the deficit spending? What effect will it have if we have stopped spending money out of the trust fund that cannot be used for any other purpose? Secretary Boim. I can only answer that in the sense that I did before, that highway trust funds are not exempted from the $6 billion which the Congress-which has been expressed as the desire of Congress to have cut. Mr. FALLON. It still does not affect the deficit spending of the budget; is that true? Secretary Boim. Well, sure it does, because the revenues in the trust fund appear in the administrative budget, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FALLON. But has no effect on the tax rate as such? PAGENO="0246" 236 Secretary BoYD. On what? Mr. FALLON. On the tax rate. Secretary BoYD. Well, the $6 billion is tied to the tax increase in the legislation. Mr. FALLON. I still cannot see where money out of a trust fund will have any effect on a tax rate of the general firnd. The taxes are going to continue to be collected under the 1956 High- way Act.. It will be put into a trust fund, and cannot be used for any other purpose other than fOr borrowing purposes, and we will have to pay the going rate of interest. Secretary BoYD. That is correct, sir. Mr. FAi~Lox. If you borrow money from the outside source, you would have to pay the same amount of interest. So I do not see where you are saving any money. Secretary BOYD. Well, all I can tell you is that I have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget, if the $6 billion expenditure cut is imposed under the bill as it is presently proposed, there will have to be substantial savings coming from the Highway Trust Fund. Mr. FALLON. They say that but they do not say that it will have any effect on the general tax rate? Secretary BOYD. No, sir; they have not discussed the philosophy with me; they just told me the conclusion.. Mr. FALLON. Chinese philosophy. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. On that same subject, what is this money that is not going to be spent? What is it going to be used for? Do you know? Secretary BoYD. I have no idea. The money which is generated by the ta.xes is a trust fund and there are statutory provisions on how it is dealt with. And whatever those statutory provisions are I am sure the Treasury will comply with. Mr. CRAMER. The~r plan on borrowing from it like they have done before, short-term borrowing. It has been done with the cutback before, has it not? Secretary Boyr. I would have to submit that for the record. I do not know. Mr. BR1DWELL. Mr. Cramer, I can respond to that. The answer is that the surplus; that is, the balance in the trust fund, is regularly invested by the Treasury and it is invested in Treasury notes which are required by the statute to bear the same rate of interest as though the Treasury went to an outside money source for borrowings. Now, what the Treasury uses that for when it borrows from the balance in the trust ftmd would be the~ same purposes that it uses money for when it borrows from outside sources. And I am assuming, without specifically knowing, that it would be a multitude of uses. Mr. CRAMER. I understand. The point I wa.s making is that any surplus created by- as I contemplated or understood it when that provision was put in, that surplus that would be created is expected to be funds that would be coming in that would not be expected to be spent in a reasonable period of time or excess funds coming in from revenues not expected to be spent. Mr. BRIDWELL. I think that is a fair statement. PAGENO="0247" 237 Mr. CR uu~. If it wasnot expected, then by the Presidential order it would result in additional cuts, borrowing. Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. `Cramer, I think the key to this is what the Secretary has already said, and that is the language which ties to- gether the expenditure reduction, proposed expenditure reduction of $6 billion. I am informed-I do not know of my own personal knowledge but I am informed-that there was a specific discussion on whether trust funds should or should not be exempt. It is my understanding that the only trust fund exempted from the language which would statutorily require a $6 billion expenditure- the only trust fund exempted was the social security trust fund. Secretary Bovi. And I also believe the statute requires that surplus funds in the highway trust fund account be invested. Mr. BRIDWELL. It does. Mr. CIL&MEII. That is right. Then you get the definition of what is meant by surplus. Surplus in my opinion, when this bill was drafted in 1956, did not contemplate a surplus artificially created by a cutback presidentially ordered. There is a difference of opinion. Of course, I understand the Attorney General has given opinions, legal and so on. But having helped draft that legislation, my understanding was that surplus in- tended was that created by funds being available not needed for expenditure under the authorizations and appropriations made or substantially increased funds coming in as a result of larger revenue receipts than anticipated or authorized and appropriated for, and not artificially created surpluses by presidential order. The language specifically is that- It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the trust fund as it not in his judgment required to meet current withdrawals. Such investments may be made only at interest-bearing obligation. But as you suggested, the key words are "required to meet current withdrawals." And Congress is supposed to determine what the cur- rent withdrawal level is in my opinion. Secretary Bom. Mr. Cramer, I see the Secretary of Treasury occasionally and I would be glad to transmit your opinion of the law to him. Mr. CRAMER. There is a bill pending, H.R. 14641, and others, which will have the effect of removing executive power unquestionably for the creation of artificial surpluses in the trust fund. Would you care to comment on the reaction to that proposal? Secretary Bovi. I do not believe we are supporting that at the moment. Mr. CRAMER. I will not hold my breath until you do. [Laughter.] Of course, that would be one way maybe of getting at the problem. Mr. CLAUSEN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAMER. Just a second. The cutback proposal, as I understand, of $6 billion and then some obligation authority reduction, and so forth, $6 billion spending reduction, is a figure within which the President shall decide exactly where the cut shall be. So he does not have to select the trust fund. If it is selected, he selects it; not the Congress. PAGENO="0248" 238 I would hope with all the cutbacks that we have had in the trust fund, $600 million now outstanding, that we would look elsewhere for some of these funds for programs that are not suffering as badly as this one at the present time. Of course, that is not your decision, I understand. But it is dis- cretionary with the President as to in what area the $6 billion shall come from. That is my understanding. Secretary Boyn. Yes, sir; and I think the President has made it clea.r in his judgment a cutback of $6 billion in expenditures will be catastrophic. It seems to me that if we are going to start laying the blame around here, there should have been some consideration given to the President's views on how much of an expenditure cut the budget could bear without crippling any number of programs. That is a decision the Congress is apparently in the process of making. Mr. CRAMER. Well, Congress, in attempting to manage the fiscal problems of the country, it appearing some management is needed, I might add-that is my opinion-it has got to set some kind of guide- lines. And of course that is what is being discussed at this time. How- ever, discretion as to where the cuts will come will rest with the executive branch. I would hope that in looking for cut areas, he might delve into some of the new programs that are not well underway and not as productive as this one, and some that have not been cut as deeply as this one in the past by the President. But I understand the statement has been made that $80 million is likely to come out of the highway trust fund in the $6 billion cut. Secretary Boi~. I do not know anything about that statement of a~uy precise figure. I do think it is a fair statement, Mr. Cramer, that the executive branch of the Government is going to be just as willing to take the blame for these cuts as the Congress is. Mr. CRAMER. It is interesting to me, when money is needed, they always look to the trust fund, which is supposed to be a trust, and set up in the interest of the highway users, with their tax money going into it for a tax base to build the highway, and that is the first fund they dip into. Secretary Bom. It is a reliable source. Mr. CRAMER. It has money in it, that is for sure. It also has head- ache expenditures. I will yield. Mr. CLAUSEN. I would appreciate it if the gentleman would yield. I have to go over to the floor. I did want to ask the Secretary and Mr. Bridwell this question, because in Caiifornia there is the Century Freeway that you are working on and one of their major concerns is the apportionment factors used for the Interstate Freeway System in draft legislation, compared with the Department of Transportation for the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1958, does not include the cost of the Century Freeway, which has been added to the Interstate System. Now, was this an oversight, or would you comment on that? Mr. BIuiwEri2. If I may, Mr. Clausen, I would like to comment on that. PAGENO="0249" 239 The Century Freeway had not'been added to the Interstate System at the tim.e the cost estimate was made and at the time the table was developed of the apportionment factors that you are referring to. So that it is a relatively simple job to recalculate the apportionment factors with the cost of the Century Freeway added in for California's total. Mr. ~LAUSEN. So I can tell them then-or will you state this, what can I tell them as far as their expressing concern? Mr. BRIDWELL. You can tell them we are very pleased to supply to the committee the estimated costs of the Century Freeway- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS, Washington, D.C., May 28, 1968. Mr. RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Chief Counsel, House Public Works Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. SULLIVAN: Mr. Bridweil requested that I prepare a revised table of apportionment factors to' substitute for Table 5 iii House Document 199, 90th Congress, 2d Session-Tie 1968 Interstate System Cost Estimate. The enclosed Table 5A. has been prepared as a revision of Table 5 to show apportionment factors resulting if the Federal share `of `the cost of constructing the Century Freeway in Los Angeles, California, (Total Cost $276.9 million- Federal Share $253.2 million) and the cost of acquiring and completing con- struction of the West Virginia Turnpike to' Interstate standards (Total Cost $186.1 million-Federal Share $167.5 million), were included in the apportion- ment factor calculations. Sincerely yours, F. C. TURNER, Director of Public Roads. [Enclosure] [From the U.S. Department of `Transportation, Federal Highwayi Administration, Bureau of Public Roads] U.S. GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Lowell K. Bridwell, Federal Highway Administrator. Date: May 28, 1908. From: B. H. Swick, for F. C. Turner, Director of Public Roads. Subject: 1968 Cost Estimate, Adjusted Apportionment Factors. In response to your memorandum of ~iay 15, we have prepared the attached Table 5A as a revision of Table 5 in House Document 199, 90th Congress, 2d Session, to show the apportionment factor which would result if the Federal share of the cost of constructing the Century Freeway and the Federal share of acquiring and completing construction of the West Virginia Turnpike to Interstate standards, were included in the calculations of apportionment factors. While your memorandum did not specifically request that the West Virginia Turnpike be included in these calculations, we consider this to `be a necessary con- sideration in view of recent action by both the Senate and House Public Works Committees in this regard. You will recall that `on February 7 I sent to you a table showing a similar "Table 5A" which provided for the California Century Freeway at a cost of $261.8 million. The attached table includes the Century Freeway at a cost of $276.9 million which is the estimate for this segment on the basis of its approved length providing connection to Sepulveda Boulevard. You suggested that I make arrangements with the House Public Works Com- mittee to substitute the attached table for the Table 5 submitted in the Report to Congress in January. Accordingly, I am sending the attached table to Mr. Sullivan, Chief Counsel for the Subcommittee on Roads of the Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives. PAGENO="0250" 240 TABLE 5A.-ESTIMATED FEDERAL-AID AND STATE MATCHING FUNDS TO COMPLETE THE SYSTEM, AND APPORTIONMENT FACTORS FOR DISTRIBUTION OF 1970 FISCAL YEAR AUTHORIZATION Estimated Estimated Federal-aid Federal : and State share of State matching funds re- quired to complete system (thousands) funds re- quired to complete system (thousands) Apportionment factors (percent) Alabama $366,163 $329,547 1.902 Alaska Arizona 277,587 262,014 1.512 Arkansas 119,091 107,182 .619 California 1,709,817 1,563,628 9.026 Colorado 264,804 241,872 1.396 Connecticut 347,110 312,399 1.803 Delaware 47,074 42,367 .245 Florida 330, 034 297,031 1. 715 Georgia 381,382 343,244 1.981 Hawaii 253,421 228, 079 1. 317 ldaho.._ 134,938 124,602 .719 Illinois 1,060,745 954,671 5.511 Indiana 374,719 337,247 1.947 Iowa 196,416 176,774 1.020 Kansas 156,715 141,044 .814 Kentucky 328,120 295,308 1.705 Louisiana 465,049 418,544 2.416 Maine 131,078 117,970 .681 Maryland 386,360 347,724 2.007 Massachusetts 484,574 436,117 2.517 Michigan 788, 828 709,945 4. 098 Minnesota 423, 189 380, 870 2. 199 Mississippi 199,481 179,533 1.036 Missouri 372.840 335,556 1.937 Montana 360,100 328,447 1.696 Nebraska 80.367 72,330 .418 Nevada 112,942 107,295 .619 New Hampshire 107,639 96,875 .559 New Jersey 540.145 406,131 2.809 New Mexico 194,347 179,790 1.038 New York 923, 130 830, 817 4. 796 North Carolina 250,707 225,636 1.303 North Dakota 115, 593 104, 034 - 601 Ohio 824,105 741,695 4.281 Oklahoma 145,375 130,838 .755 Oregon 403,217 372,008 2.147 Pennsylvania 973, 682 876, 314 5. 058 Rhode Island 99.794 89. 815 .518 SouthCarolina 208,564 187,708 1.084 South Dakota 110,338 100,430 .580 Tennessee 468,546 421,691 2.434 Texas 946,486 851,837 4.917 Utah 260,933 246,321 1.422 Vermont 134,988 121,409 .701 Virginia 454,683 409,215 2.362 Washington ._ 552,742 500,950 2.892 West Virginia 652,956 587,660 3. 392 Wisconsin 168,214 151,393 .874 Wyoming 109,813 101,950 .589 District of Columbia 353, 178 317,860 1. 835 Total 19,152,119 17,323,797 100. 000 No'e: Table 5A is~a revision of Table 5 in H. Doc. 199, 90th Cong., 2d sess. The 1968 Interstate System cost estimate, to show apportionment factors resulting if the Federal share of the cost of constructing the Century Freeway in Los Angeles, Calif., (total cost $276.9 million, Federal share $253.2 million) and the cost of acquiring and completing construc- tion of tho West Virginia Turnpike to interstate standards (total cost $106.1 million, Federal share $167.5 million), were included in the colculations. Mr. Cr~usEx. And this would be included in the report? Mr. BRIDWELL (continuing). To be included in the cost estimate to he recalculated in apportionment factors if the committee so desires. Mr. CLAtTSEN. Thank you. Mr. CRAMER. I just have one matter I would like to get as a matter of record, Mr. Chairman, then I will yield to the other members. PAGENO="0251" 241 I directed a letter to the Comptroller General, and he replied May 22, 1968, and I believe you have a copy. Secretary Borr. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. That deals with the question of the Executive order relating to compliance with the equal employment opportunity condi- tions, and in my letter I raised some questions concerning it. Basically the reply, the most significant paragraph begins on the bottom of page 4 and on the bottom of page 5, the conclusions. I am sure you are familiar with the problems created by the negotiation after the bid opening process relating to these matters. And the effect that might have on the bid-letting process and fixed-prices costs and so forth, and numerous objections raised. In effect, they say: In view thereof, there would appear to be a technical defect in an invitation's requirement for submission of a program subject to government approval prior to contract award which does not include or incorporate definite standards on which approval or disapproval will be based. We believe that the basic principles of competitive bidding require that bidders be assured that award will be made only on the basis of the low responsive bid submitted by a bidder meeting estab- lished criteria of responsibility, including any additional specific and definite re- quirements set forth in the invitation, and that award will not thereafter be de- pendent upon the low bidder's ability to successfully negotiate matters mentioned only vaguely before the bidding. We are therefore advising the Secretary of Labor that if the proposed order is adopted, it should be appropriately implemented, before becoming effective, by regulations, which should include a statement of definite minimum requirements to be met by the bidder's program, and any other standards or criteria by which the acceptability of such program will be judged. And the last paragraph says: In any event, we cannot conclude at this time that the proposed requirement for submission of acceptable affirmative action programs prior to awarding Federally assisted construction contracts, is a matter of law clearly compatible with competitive bidding requirements * * *, and therefore illegal, provided the proviso is the key- provided the implementing regulations discussed above are issued before the proposed order establishing such requirement becomes effective. Now, I would trust and hope that you will give this matter your consideration as a result of the General Accounting Office determina- tion, and as I understand it has been directed to you through proper channels, as well as to the Department of Labor and others involved. Also I would hope that your Department would so advise the States of this proposal by GAO. Do you see any problems relating to it or have any reservations about it? Secretary Bo~xm. No, I do not. I am very much in favor of this. I think the bidders ought to know what the requirements are. The Department of Labor, as you know, is the lead agency. Mr. Cn~j~iun. Yes. I understand. Secretary Bon. And we would certainly be in contact with them about this. I presume the Department of Labor will get a copy of this. Mr. CRAMER. Yes, they got it today. Now, what will be the attitude of your Department relating to the presently existing requirement until this matter is resolved by Labor, in view of this letter? Secretary BOYD. Well, I certainly expect an early resolution by the Department of Labor. And without checking with the various States, PAGENO="0252" 242 I would not know how many proposals are involved in the existing situation; but if it appears that there is going to be only a short period of time involved, I would not recommend any changes in the existing procedures. I do not see any point in trying to make two shifts in procedures. Mr. CRAMER. It is my understanding, is it not, as contained in the presently existing order, that they have a pilot project in three areas- St. Louis, San Francisco, and Cleveland-that are presently in exist- ence now; is that correct? Secretary Born. Not to my knowledge. The ones I know about are Cleveland and Philadelphia. Now, there may be others. Mr. CRAMER. Philadelphia may be a more recent one, but I under- stood that- Secretary BoYD. Mr. Bridwell is current on this subject. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Bridwell? Mr. BRmwi~I~I. I think the three areas that you have mentioned, that that is accurate, that there are pilot projects there. There is a fourth one which the Secretary has mentioned, Philadelphia. The problem that you were referring to as it relates to the highway program has been of significance only as it relates to the Philadelphia and Cleveland areas. Mr. CRAMER. I understand in the Philadelphia area that at the preaward conference prescribed by OFCC, Peter Kiewitt's repre- sentative refused to submit a maiming table, which OFCC requires as part of the active program, and he stated the reason for refusal was he had no way of knowing whether the local union would supply him with the number of members required, and because of the refusing to submit the manning table, OFCC did not approve the award. Secretary Born. I am not sure a.bout the reason of this stat.e of refusal. The fact is the gentleman did refuse and the State highway director indicated his support of the representatives of Peter Kiewitt. The Federal Government followed the position of the OFCC and the Governor of Pennsylvania, within a. very short period thereafter, ex- pressed his support of the preaward requirement.. Mr. cRAMER. Well, your agency. because. of the nonconformity to OFCC requirements. would not concur in the award? Secretary Born. That is correct. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. A similar situation developed with regard to the Cleveland Carl M. Gueppel Construction Co. Secretary Born. Yes, I think that is Gueppel. I am not sure that has been resolved yet. Mr. Bridwell. It has not. Secretary Born. No, I think there. is negotiation underway on the Gueppel contract. I do not believe that there has been a parting of the ways there. Mr. CRA~rER. Well, the reason I cite it is to indicate under the present procedures there have been at least to our knowledge one contract turned down, low bidder. Secretary Born. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Resulting from nonconformance. Possibly this approach, suggested by the General Accounting Office, will help resolve some of these problems. PAGENO="0253" 243 Secretary BoYD. We are all in favor of it. I think people ought to know what they are bidding on. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, could I ask following the Secretary's testimony that this letter by the Comptroller General of the United States to myself be made a part of the record ~ Mr. KLUOzYNsKI. Without objection, so ordered. (Letter follows:) COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, TVashington, D.C., May 22, 1968. Hon. WILLIAM C. CRAMER, house of Representatives, DEAR MR. CRAMER: Further reference is made to your letter of April 8, 1968, with enclosure, concerning requirements for acceptable "affirmative action pro- grams" for compliance with the equal employment opportunity conditions of Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965. You enclose a copy of a draft memorandum of a proposed order which was submitted for comment to the heads of all agencies by the Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCC), Department of Labor. We understand your request for our opinion is confined to the propriety of the proposed requirements, particularly with reference to the Federal-aid highway program, in view of the specific provision of 23 U.S.C. 112 that such highway projects shall be performed by contracts awarded by competitive bidding, and that you do not question generally the legality of the requirement for the in- clusion of nondiscrimination clauses, which was first imposed as to Government contracts by Executive Order No. 8802, June 25, 1941, and extended to construc- tion contracts under federally aided or financed programs by Executive Order No. 1114, June 22, 1963. You state that the procedures proposed by the Department of Labor contem- plate that the low bidder and its subcontractors, on contracts covered by the order, will be required to submit before award acceptable affirmative action programs to assure equal employment opportunities, but that the invitation for bids apparently would not include a statement outlining the details of an accept- able program. Further, that when an unacceptable program is submitted award will not be made until agreement is reached on an acceptable program. You say *that since bidders will not know what will constitute an acceptable program they will not be able to make a reasonable estimate of the probable cost of the program, and thus must run the risk of added costs, including possible addi- tional subcontracting costs, when the proposed subcontractors do not submit acceptable action programs. You also point out that a low bidder has the op- portunity to avoid entering into a contract by failing or refusing to submit an acceptable action program. Finally, you state that you believe imposition of the proposed procedures will cause added delay and cost to the Federal-aid highway program. The purpose and background for the proposed order is stated therein as follows: "1. Purpose "This Order is to insure that before contracts are awarded, Federally involved construction contractors provide affirmative action programs which comply with the requirements of Executive Order 11246 and with Rules and Regulations issued pursuant to it. "2. Background "For over one and a half years, acceptable affirmative action programs have been required before contract award ~by a number of Federal contracting and administering agencies. Detailed pre-award programs are now required by this Office in three specific geographical areas (St. Louis, San Francisco Bay, and Cleveland) for all Federal contracting and administering agencies. Experience has shown that such procedures are considerally more effective in implementing the Executive Order than exclusively post-award approaches. The pre-award requirement for nonconstruction contracts has been in effect since May 3, 1966." The following pertinent provisions of the proposed order are set forth under paragraph 3b: PAGENO="0254" 244 "On all projects for Federal or Federally-assisted construction, in which the total construction cost may be one million dollars or more: "(1) Each agency shall include, or require the applicant to include, in the specifications for each formally-advertised construction contract, a notice (the form of which is approved by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance) to all prospective bidders stating that, if its bid is one million dollars or more, the low bidder must submit, in writing, (an) acceptable affirmative action pro- gram(s) which will have the result of assuring equal employment opportunity in all trades and particularly the better-paid trades (such as electricians, plum- bers, pipefitters, sheet metal workers, ironworkers and Operating Engineers) to be used on the job and in all phases of the work, whether or not the work is to be subcontracted. "(2) Before each contract is awarded, the contracting or administering agency shall make an evaluation of the proposed affirmative action programs submitted with the bid. The evaluation shall be conducted by qualified specialists regularly involved in equal employment opportunity programs, in cooperation with the OFCC Area Coordinator if one serves the area where the contract will be performed." Under paragraph Sc each Federal contracting and administering agency is required to submit to the OFOC its program to implement the order. Existing regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the au- thority of the Executive Order, which appear in Title 41, Chapter GO, of the Code of Federal Regulations, require that federally assisted construction con- tracts shall include a clause under which the contractor and subcontractors agree to take various affirmative actions to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. 41 CFR 60-1.3 (:b). A proposed revision of 41 CFR Oh. 60 issued by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance pursuant to Executive Order No. 11246, was published in the Federal Register, Vol. 33, No. 32, on February 1~, 1~G8. Requirements for a similar clause in federally assisted construction contracts and subcontracts are stated under Section (30- 1.4 (b) of the proposed revision, and general requirements of satisfactory af- firmative action programs are set forth in Subpart C thereof. Other than the submission of an affirmative action program prior to award, and the require- ment for approval thereof by OFOC prior to award, we do not find a substan- tial basis on which to conclude that the proposed order contemplates that the affirmative actions required of contractors and subcontractors under federally assisted construction contracts will be materially different from those which have been required of such parties after award for several years. A review of the records of this Office does not show receipt of any cases in- volving undue restrictions on competition resulting from the requirement for affirmative actions by contractors to ensure compliance with the Equal Em- ployment Opportunity Program in federally assisted construction contracts, or involving contractors having encountered substantially higher costs in satis- factorily complying with equal opportunity requirements than were anticipated in the preparation of their bids. It is further noted that, in the background in- formation quoted above, it is stated that preaward acceptable affirmative action programs have been required by a number of Federal procurement agencies for over two years, and our records fail to show any cases presented to this Office wherein award was not made to the low bidder. because of his failure or refusal to submit an acceptable affirmative action program, or involving claims for un- anticipated costs resulting from such a program. While, as noted above, problems in the existing preaward acceptable affirma- tive action program have not been reflected in our contract work, statements contained in records of your `office which you have made available for examina- tion by representatives of this Office reflect that road contraOtors may `be en- countering serious problems in connection with the preaward program as it is being administered in the geographical areas mentioned in the proposed order. Such statements indicate that the .pr~aw'ard procedures have in some instances resulted in extended periods of delay in the awarding of contracts; that bidders are furnished inadequate guidelines for the development of an `acceptable af- firmative action program, and the low responsive (and otherwise responsible) bidder may therefore be required to enter into negotiation procedures on an acceptable program in order to obtain the award; tha.t a program which is acceptable on one contract may not be acceptable on another; that a program which is acceptable `at the time the contract is awarded may be unacceptable PAGENO="0255" 245 when the project is half completed; and that a bidder operating under nego- tiated labor agreements would in some cases be required to violate these agree- ments in order to comply with the proposed order. Statutory provisions, such as that contained in 23 U.S.C. 112, for competitive bidding in `the award of contracts have been interpreted to require award after advertising to the lowest responsible bidder whose bid is responsive to the terms of the invitation, and it is elementary that bidders must be adequately advised beforehand of all material requirements which will affect their costs or ability to perform. Invitation for bids were designed to secure a firm commitment upon which award could be made for securing the Government's requirements described therein, and not as a first step for subsequent negotiation procedures. In view thereof, there would appear to be a technical defect in an invitation's requirement for submission of a program subject to Government approval prior to contract award which does not include or incorporate definite standards on which approval or disapproval will be based. We believe that the basic principles of competitive bidding require that bidders be assured that award will be made only on the basis of the low responsive bid submitted by a bidder meeting es- tablislicd criteria of responsibility, including any additional specific and definite requirements set forth in the invitation, and that award will not thereafter be dependent upon the low bidder's ability to successfully negotiate matters men- tioned only vaguely before the bidding. We are therefore advising the Secretary of Labor that if the proposed order is adopted it should be appropriately imple- mented, before becoming effective, by regulations which should include a state- ment of definite minimum requirements to be met by the bidder's program, and any other standards or criteria by which the acceptability of such program will be judged. `As to any added delay or cost to the Feder'abai'd highway program which might be occasioned by the requirement for acce~viable affirmative action programs by contractors and subcontractors, such factors would not negate the apparent legality of the `requirement. As indicated above, one `of the basic requisites in awarding contracts pursuant to competitive bidding is that `award be made to a responsible `bidder, and added delay and cost in determining the responsibility or acceptability of the low responsive bidder are matters commonly associated with the `awarding of such con:tradts. Although, as you state, imposition of the procedures proposed by the Office of Federal Contract compliance will no doubt create other legal and practical problem's, we believe that many areas of such contemplated problems may be subject to resolution or disposition by regulations promulgated by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance or by implementing regulations of the agencies as provided for in "the proposed order. In any event, we cannot conclude at this time theA the proposed requirement for submIssion of acceptable affirmative ac- tion programs prior to awarding federally assisted construction contracts is as a matter of law clearly incompatible with competitive bidding requirements of 2 U.S.C. 112, and therefore illegal, provided the implementing regulations dis- cussed above are issued before the proposed order establishing such requirement becomes effective. We trust this serves the purpose of your `letter of April 8. Please `let us know if we can be of any further assistance in this matter. Sincerely yours, FRANK H. WEITZEL, Assistant Comptroller General of the United States. Mr. CRAMER. Thank you. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Are `there any questions on my right? Mr. CRAMER. May I also ask, the other letter that was read earlier, submission of Mr. Hughes on relocation Secretary Boi~. We have not, we do not have that letter, Mr. Cramer. Mr. KLUCzYN5KI. T'he gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roberts. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Secretary, we have a problem on right-of-way acquisitions. I am not sure the problem is not statutory and I seek your advice. Under our State highway procedures, an appraisal is made by an employee of the highway department. After this appraisal has been PAGENO="0256" 246 made, a highway department land acquisition man contacts the owner and says in effect; "We are going to take this piece of property for highway purpose.s and we are prepared to make you an offer in line with our appraisal." In a speciflc case, the appraisal was $87,000. Regardless of the appraisal, the owner usually says that's not enough. Eventually, the land acquisitioii maii secures a counter offer. Again. in this specific case the counter offer was $100,000 against an orioinai offer of SST.000. Then the acquisition people. say that they have no authority to exceed the appraisal. So the owner ified a suit and received an out of court settlement., not the 100.000 which the owner was willing to take, but for $~50.000. This has happened many, many times. Now, Mr. Secretary, is it the fault of the statute or the fault of the procedure that there can be no adjustment after the original appraisal? In almost every case we have taken a tremendous shellacking once an owner goes to court. If we authorize a 10 percent adjustment or some other flexible figure over the original appraisal which would be less than the court costs involved, we could save a substantial amount of money. I can give von four or five specific cases where the award was more than double. the amount for which the landOwner was willing to settle. I hope some flexibility can be granted. Secretary Bovu. That may raise some question about the quality of the appraisers that are used, Mr. Roberts. But the answer-do you want to know specifically whether State law prohibits going above the appraisal or whether Federal law prohibits going above? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, whether our basic law is at fault. Secretary Bo~m. I think we will have to submit this for the record. Mr. ROBERTS. I will withdraw it and take it up with Frank later. Mr. Secretary. Secretary Bom. All right. Mr. KLnczvxsKI. Any questions on my left? Mr. CLEVELAND. Yes. Mr. KLUCzYNSKI. The gentleman from New Hampshire. Mr. CLEVELAND. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Schwengel. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you here with the committee. Secretary Bov~. Thank you. Mr. SOUWENGEL. I had the pleasure of working with you on the tremendous problem of building roads. I listened with increasing interest to yOur testimony and compliment you on your presentation. But I have some questions. Some of the questions have been asked and have been clarified, but on the testimony relating to safety and research on safety, it quickened my interest because of some experience we had had in Iowa. A year ago you h!adl some rules and regulat~ons where Federal money was involved and those regulations had not been relaxed, changed. You put about seven small counties who have respon- sibility for building roads in the country out of business, and it occurred to me. that, frankly, you relax and change your position. but not without stirring up agony-and there is still apprehension about what you may do. PAGENO="0257" 247 I am very much in favor of research on safety, but I just want to make the suggestion and ask whether or not a better approach could not be taken to the reso~ution of the problem on safety? I suggest to the committee that you set up a system whereby you involve counties and cities and States who have experience here. Let them share in the experience. We then would find some better answers and avoid some of the very obvious mistakes that you have made. Secretary Boivm Mr. Turner is familiar with this situation, Mr. Schwengel, and I would like to ask him to respond to you. Mr. SOHWENGEL. All right. Mr. TURNER. The situation is just about as you have described it, Mr. Schwerigel. But since that time, we have had considerable discus- sion with the counties that you have referred to, with the State highway department, with representatives of the National Association of Counties. And I believe we have developed a satisfactory relation- ~hip very similar to the kind that you have suggested. I hope that similar situations in the future will not produce the amount of noise and storm that that one did in Iowa. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Now, do you involve these people with your research or do they have a voice, an opportunity to make testimony, and opportunity to make suggestions on what should be researched on safety and an opportunity to present their experience and so on? I am basing my question specifically on the county road system. Mr. TURNER. No, the situation that you described was a study that was made by a special committee of the American Association of State Highway Officials. It did not include any representatives of the county groups at that time. The booklet report that was prepared as a result of the study was passed on by the American Association of State Highway Official as a guide with respect generally to roadsides, the obstructions and the shape of the cross-section, and things of that nature that might have an influence on safety. And it is because AASHO had approved the results of the study and the Bureau of Public Roads, we also adopted it and made it applicable to the extent possible on all projects sub- mitted after the date of the adoption of the study report, and this was made applicable to secondary projects as well as to the Federal- aid, primary and urban projects. Now, I believe that while the county officials did not, either per- sonally or through their representatives, participate in that original study, we do have at the present time a working relationship with them, which is an outgrowth of that experience, and I do not believe that in future we will have a repetition of that same kind of situation. Mr. SOTIWENGEL. You had a working arrangement. I appreciate that much. But would it not be better to get the actual representation, let them have a voice in the research and the explorations; and continuing interest in it? It seems to me now that they are heard, but they still have no voice in it. Is that not right? Mr. TURNER. Well, they do not have a voice in the sense of having a vote with respect to whether or not you approve an individual pro- ject to be researched. In that sense they do not have a part in it. But they do have an input into the discussions on programs, items that they consider to be a high priority with respect to research on any subject, safety or anything else. 96-030-68----17 PAGENO="0258" 248 We have, as you know, a board of ~tdvisers from the county engineer group, and they meet regularly with us as our employees. They are consultants to us in the Bureau of Public Roads. And we meet with them about twice or three times a year to exchange views with them and get their recommendations to us as representatives Of the county group on county problems. And we use that in connection with our administrative selection of research projects, design standards, and the general control of the Federal-aid secondary program. I believe that is a good working arrangement and a. better relation- ship possibly than trying to get some sort of an ad hoc input to it from a committee on the outside representing the county people. Mr. BRIDWELL. I would like to supplement. that, if I may, Mr. Chairman. I think it is appropriate to the comment that Congressman Schwe.n- gel has made, or the question that lie has raised, and it. also goes to questions raised by the chairman. For over a. year, we have attempted for the first. time. to send out for comment and suggestion to the State highway departments, council of State governments, and in some instances county officials and mayors, proposed regulations or proposed policies, proposed procedures, for their comments, so that they could have an input into the actual policy and procedures of the views in carrying out the highway program. So that., as a matter of fact., is why you received the comments you did from the States regarding the 4(f) and two-hearing process, because we asked them for their comments and suggestions on this kind of material. Mr. KL~czvxSKI. Mr. Schwengel- Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. Mr. KLuczYxsKI (continuing). There is a very important rolicall and I know that the Secretary and his associates will appear before we wind up the hearing and you will be the No. 1 man. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Thank you very much. Mr. KLIJCZYNSKI. Thank you. The meeting is adjourned until May 28 at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to recon- vene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, May 28. 1968.) AMERICAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION, TVasliington, D.C., June 12, 1968. flon. GEORGE H. FALLON. Chairman, Committee on Public Works, Re yburn House Building, Washington.. D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN FALLON: Enclosed please find a Prepared statement by our association regarding Section 14 of HR. 11134. As we mentioned in our state- ment, it is our belief that this legislation constitutes an important step towards relieving traffic congestion in our major cities. We request that this statement be made a part of the printed record. Yours very truly, ROBERT SLOAN. STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN TRANSIT ASSOCL&TION This statement is submitted on behalf of the American Transit Association, a voluntary trade association of privately owned companies and publicly owned systems engaged in transporting passengers by rapid transit cars, streetcars, and motor buses, in urban, suburban, and interurban service. The members of A.T.A. transport more than 80% of all local transit riders throughout the United States. PAGENO="0259" 249 In connection with the Subcommittee on Roads' consideration of the Federal- Aid Highway Act of 1068 the American Transit Association wishes to take this opportunity to give its wholehearted support to Section 14 of H.R. 17134, the section which proposes fringe parking facilities. Section 14 of the bill would authorize Federal assistance for fringe parking facilities in urban areas with a population of more than fifty thousand. The land used for the facilities must be part of, or adjacent to, the right-of-way of a Federal-Aid highway. The section further requires that the facility be integrated with existing or planned mass transportation facilities. The section sets Federal participation at 75%, such funds to be provided from the Highway Trust Fund. Parking fees may be charged for the use of the facilities, however, the rate cannot be in excess of that required for maintenance and operation. Today our urban centers are confronted with many problems but none is more serious than that of congestion-population congestion, bou~iiig congestion, and traffic congestion. It is our belief that the fringe parking principle, as presented in 11.11. 17134. if enacted will significantly alleviate the traffic and parking congestion which i~ now so commonplace in the central business districts of our nation's major (itiO~. In turn, congestion in population and housing will also be benefited by allowing better utilization of limited available downtown space. In its present form, H.R. 17134 would require that all fringe parking facilities be integrated with existing or planned mass transportation facilities. Such a requirement recognizes and helps implement the underlying philosophy behind such an undertaking. Namely, that for such a program as this to be successful the parking facilities must be located away from the downtown area. To do other- wise would simply provide supplemental downtown parking and thereby cause more, not less, congestion on the approaches leading to the downtown area. It is, therefore, respectfully requested that this Subcommittee give favorable consideration and approval to the Fringe Parking Section of HR. 17134, which we feel is an important step toward relieving a major concern facing our cities. It would be appreciated if this statement would be made a part of the printed record. PAGENO="0260" PAGENO="0261" FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT-1968 TUESDAY, MAY 28, 1968 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUmOOMMITTEE ON ROADS OF THE COMMITTEE ON PuBLI0 WORKS, Was1th~gton, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn Building, Hon. John C. Kluczynski (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. The subcommittee will come to order. The Sub- committee on Roads is continuing hearings today on various matters concerning the Federal aid to highways program legislation, which was introduced by myself and Mr. Fallon. As I indicated in my opening statement the other day when testi- mony was received from the Department of Transportation wit- nesses, we intend to cover all phases of the hio~hway program and all matters related to it, directly and indirectly. T~ierefore, I might advise all those present today, as they have already been notified, they may comment on any matter of interest concerning the bill and its effect on the highway program. I am delighted to have as our opening witnesses Mr. John 0. Morton, president of the American Association of State Highway Officials, from the State of New Hampshire, and Mr. A. E Johnson, executive director. Gentlemen, will you kindly take the witness stand? Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add a word of personal greeting to the first witness, John Morton, who has been before this committee so many times that he hardly needs any further in- troduction. I think you will agree with me that he always has some- thing worthwhile for our consideration. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Where is Mr. Morton from? Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Kiuczynski, this is a State that is beautiful without Federal aid. STATEMENT OF JOHN 0. MORTON, PRESIDENT (NEW HAMPSHIRE), AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY OFFICIALS; AC- COMPANIED BY A. E. JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; AND ROSS G. STAPP, CHAIRMAN, AASHO COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT Mr. MORTON. I thank you for your kind introduction. Our associa- tion was requested to make some comment on vehicle sizes and weights and therefore I would like to make just a brief statement. Mr. KLUOzYN5KI. Do you have a prepared statement on this? Mr. MORTON. Yes. (251) PAGENO="0262" 252 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we know that time is short and the subject of allowable vehicle sizes and weights is ex- tremely important, so we will file two of our three statements with the attached supporting material for the record and respectfully a.sk that you review it carefully before taking any final action. I refer specifically to my forma.l statement with the attached AASHO recommended policy, and the statement of Mr. Ward Good- man, direc.tor of highways of Arkansas, and chairman of the committee on bridges and structures. We would like to have Mr. Ross G. Stapp, chief administrative officer of the Wyoming department, and chairman of our committee on transport, read his statement, for it goes into many of the things that we found out in the AAST-IO road test project in Illinois con- cerning the effects of vehicle weights and frequency of loadings on highways. In general, the bill, as passed by the Senate, is generally accept- able to us as it referes to the maximum allowable single- and tandem- axle loadings, as well as the use of the bridge gross weight. formula, and its application not. only to the extreme front and back axles of a vehicle or combination vehicles, but also to the intermediate-axle groupmgs. From our work at. the AASHO road test. research project, we found that the loads specified in the Senate version, which includes all tol- erances, is at. the upper limit that we can accept. `We do call to your attention that the Senate version does not put in limits on vehicle lengths and we must take issue with the so-called grandfather clause in the Senate bill, because it would furnish a means of further escalation of weights and sizes. `We recommend your consideration of the one included in the AASHO recommended policy winch would, by 1975, make all vehicles conform with the maximum limits that would be included in federally established ceilings on vehicle weights and sizes. If it is agreeable, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have our Mr. Stapp read his statement. Mr. KLuczYxsKT. You may proceed. Mr. STAPP. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the AASHO transport committee, which has been the group that over the years has developed recommended policies for vehicle weights and sizes using the Nation's highways, has the following official assign- ment in our association: To investigate and evaluate the various transportation needs that should be served by the highway system of the tnited States: determine the degree to which such needs are made by the highway system in its current state of improvement under existing regulatory laws: and recommend such policies, regulations, laws and practices as may contribute to improving the efficiency of highway transportation with due regard for the conservation and cost of the highway plant. The membership of this important. committee is made up of four chief administrative officers from each of the four AASHO regions, and was first established in~ 1922. At. that time, highway engineers and administrators were learning of the interaction between highw-ay design, vehicle weights, and road life. PAGENO="0263" 253 This was also at a period when the first research along these lines was initiated, such as test road projects in Virginia, California, and the Bates road test in Illinois. During that time, the AASHO committee worked in joint session with representatives of the National Automobile Chamber of Com- merce and the American Investment Bankers Association. The latter had generally handled bonds for highway construction work, which was the usual way of financing highway construction until the newly created motor-fuel tax became the major source of highway funds. In 1925, the AASHO committee extended its activities to include the classification of highways on the basis of the traffic carried, the regu- lation of bus and truck traffic, utilization of the highways with refer- ence to measuring the capacity of the roads, recommendation of uniform vehicle laws, `and the principles that should govern the determination of widths of right-of-way, provisions regulating extra- heavy-load movements, seasonal load restrictions, and certain general regulations including vehicle sizes using the highways. Our commit- tee developed weight and size policy drafts in 1932, 1942, 1946, 1964, and 1968 that were adopted by AASHO. Early in the 1950's, the AASHO transport committee developed a project statement for an AASHO road test research project. This very complete and detailed document spelled out the objectives of the research, the general requirements of the project, and specifica- tions as to its location. The project was finally activated by AASHO on February 22, 1955, and was located near Ottawa, Ill., because the annual rainfall, frost l)enetration, and native fine-grained cohesive expansive clay soils all satisfied the general site specifications for the project as being fairly average of conditions found throughout the United States. AASI-IO asked the Highway Research Board of the National Aca- demy of Sciences to undertake the administration and conduct of this very important project. The Highway Research Board then established a National Advisory Committee made up of approximately 30 out- standing experts from universities, industry, Federal agencies, and State highway departments who could contribute to the success of the project. Basically, the motivation of AASHO in starting such a road test was to get the best possible information for reviewing and measuring the equity of vehicle weight and size regulations, as well as checking on structural design techniques for payments, evaluate bridge design procedures, and to get the best. information available that could give the optimum balance between the best use and best life of the highway. In setting up the project, each of the five traffic. loops were half bituminous pavement and half portland cement concrete pavement. The various sections of pavements making up the loops were statis- tically designed as to randomization and overlap of design from one loop to the other to make comparison and analysis possible and accurate. The controlled loading that traveled over these loops for a period of 2 years were trucks utilizing five sets of so-called companion single- and tandem-axle loadings. The project was originally designed with four major loadings, but because of the studies directed by sections 108 and 210 of the Fed- PAGENO="0264" 254 eral-Aid Highway Act of 1956, the Bureau of Public Roads financed a smaller ioop to determine the requirements of the so-called basic vehicle to help develop the incremental type of analysis pertaining to contribution to highway costs. For the four major loops, it was decided to have one set of loadings at 18,000-pound single and 32,000-pound tandem, respectively, as per the AASHO 1946 recommendation. Another set of loadings was 22,400 pounds single and 40,000 pounds tandem as the maximum range that was actually allowed in any State. We then established a set of loadings below ~and one above these in order to give four points on any curve for a more exact analysis. The loadings on this small fifth loop that was added by the Bureau of Public Roads were 2,000 pounds and 6,000 pounds, respectively. We will not attempt to go into all of the detail that came from this $27 million research project, but the general conclusions and con- sensus developed by the highway departments are outlined in the AASHO statements being presented here today. The section 210 requirement of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 directed the Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with other Federal offices and agencies, and the State highway departments, to make a comprehensive study of: (1) the effects in design, construction, and maintenance of Federal-aid highways from the use of vehicles of different dimensions, weights, and other specifications, and the fre- quency of the occurrences of such vehicles in the traffic stream; (2) the proportionate share of design, construction, and maintenance costs of Federal-aid highways attributable to each class of user on such highways; and (3) any direct or indirect benefits occurring to any class, in addition to the benefits from the actual use of highways, which are attributable to highway expenditures. In undertaking the study, four different approaches were used. These were: (1) the incremental method, (2) the differential-benefit method, (3) the cost-function method, and (4) the gross-ton-mile method. There is still a fifth approach that could have been used as a modifying factor, especially to the incremental method. We refer to the highway geometric space requirement of the various size vehicles in the traffic stream under varying conditions of traffic density, geometric layouts, and terrain as related to grades and sight distances. In other words, the equivalent space that a large vehicle actually re- quire.s, as related to an equal number of automobiles, because of their weight-power ratios, and the grades and alinement of the highway. On a level piece of highway, where the truck is able to travel at highway speeds, it actually requires the equivalent space of two auto- mobiles, but when sustained upgrades are involved, and when passing is not possible, the truck may act as an impediment to the traffic and cause the practical capacity of the highway to be reached because of congestion queuing up behind the slow vehicles. In rolling or mountainous terrain, one truck may actually require an equivalent space of 18 to 20 automobiles under such an evaluation. The incremental method is based on the concept that the cost of providing a highway increase with the weights of the vehicles to be accommodated, and with the frequency with which they appear in the traffic stream. PAGENO="0265" 255 The cost of the highway adequate for the basic vehicle is. allotted to all of the vehicles on a uniform basis, and the `successive additional structural costs are assigned successively to those vehicle groups that require the heavier construction increments. No cost allocation method `actually gives a. final and indisputable answer for the problem has many ramifications, `but the incremental method is `so thoroughly grounded in results of `highway engineering research and logic, that its findings command respect and confidence. Basically, the incremental method shows that the larger trucks, even at their present sizes and weight's, and not those that would `be `allowed under S. 2658, do not pay their total share of the highway cost. We also observe, that the trucks count their Federal excise taxes as part of their contribution to highway financing, and `this is not the case for the automobile component of highway traffic, although cars too pay such excise taxes. We do not raise this as a criticism, but point it out as a f'act. In all four methods that were probed by the Bureau `of Public Roads in the 210 study, two basic facts appeared: (1) that the heavier trucks `and truck combination's should be paying more in relation to the payments m'ade by the lighter trucks, and `(2) that vehicles using diesel fuel generally shoul'd be paying more than like vehicles using gasoline. It was noted that the 210 study recommended `that the findings of the differential-benefit study should be used to supplement those of the incremental study, but they should not replace the incremental findings nor is there any reason for averaging the cost allocation in- dications given by the `two methods. Permissible axle-load and gross-load limitations must, of economic necessity, be related to the capabilities of the pavements and the bridge structures to carry `such loads and survive for a reasonable life expectancy. Any contemplated revisions in such load limitations also must be viewed from the effects that they will `have, n'ot only on new construc- tion, but on existing facilities which must remain in `service. Some significant results were obtained from the AASRO road test project regarding the reduction in pavement life that can occur from an increase `in axle loadings. The work at the project developed `a method whereby various loads can be brought to a common denominator, such as equating any axle load with relation to the "equivalent number of 18,000-pound, single- axle load applications." The results of such studies indicated that the increase from the 18,000-pound to the 20,000-pound load can result in an average loss of the remaining life `of between 25 to 40 percent. To increase it to 22,000 pounds can result in the loss `of pavement life `of close to 60 percent. To increase it to a 24,000-pound, single-axle load- ing can result in the loss of remaining life of about 70 percent. In reviewing the effect of increased tandem-axle loadings, `they should be equated as against their "companion `single-axle loadings," that was also developed from the road test project. The most part of our main highway system was designed for a maxi- mum 18,000-pound, single- `and a 32,000-pound, tandem-axle loading. In fact, this was the recommendation of our 1946 policy, and it is still PAGENO="0266" 256 the statutory limit in over 30 States at the present time. We might even state that it is also the general basis for the design of the Interstate System.. The AAS}IO road test also showed the frequency of allowable axle- loads is also a matter that must be taken into consideration. Work at the road test. developed a method of converting any axle loading into an "equivalent number of 18,000-pound, single axieload applications" as a standard reference. It was demonstrated that the 2O,000-pound, single-axle load is equivalent to 1.60 applications of the l8,000-pound axle; the 22,000- pound, single axleload is equivalent to 2.37 applications of the 18,000- pound axle; and that. the 24,000-pound single axle is equivalent to 3.45 applications of the 18,000-pound single axle. The results of the increasing frequency of loadings can be seen from the following table developed for rigid pavements which, in turn, is measured by the number of applications required to bring about. fatigue failure in pavements of certain thicknesses. Flexible pave- ments perform in a somewhat similar pattern, and it is readily apparent that increasing loads seriously shorten the remaining life of the pavements. Our table on required pavement thickness in inches shows: NUMBER OF SINGLE AXLE LOAD APPLICATIONS TO BRING PAVEMENT TO UNSATISFACTORY CONDITION fin inches) Applied axle load (hips) ioo,ooo 1,000,000 10,060000 18 3.8 5.8 8.4 20 4.3 6.2 9.0 22 4.6 6.6 96 24 4.8 7.1 10.2 The foregoing common denominator techniques used in conjunction with traffic forecasts are used in cleterminiiig remaining life of high- ways and in determining when funds will be needed for heavy mainte- nance or strengthening operations or for replacement.. Recognizing the need to optimize the use of the extensive existing highway plant, AASHO, through the transport committee, developed a draft. policy of maximum weights and dimensions in 1964. At the time of the balloting by AASHO, in 1964. the transport. com- mittee. offered the State highway departments the option of voting on either the 32,000- or 34,000-pound tandem axle, on the basis that the optimum balance of the best use of the highway lay somewhere in that range, and with the supposition that the Interstate System might. be completed before too long, which would make the highway funds then available to rebuild and modernize the some 200,000 miles of mainline primary highways in this country within a reasonable time. At. the present time, however, it. appears that the completion of the Interstate, and eventually being able to turn our efforts to beefing up the primary system, seems to be moving further and further into the future, and that much of our highway system may have to accom- modate increasing traffic densities and weights longer than we had hoped. PAGENO="0267" 257 At the last annual meeting of the. association in Salt Lake City, it was the recommendation of the transport committee that the State highway departments have another opportunity of voting on a 34,000- pound, tandem axleioa.d limitation. This was the top figure that came out of our studies at the test road, that would give more liberalized Use of the highways in transporting goods, but still get an acceptable ren'iaining life of the highway investment. In this most recent balloting, more tha.n half of the States approved of t.he 34,000-pound figure, but it lacked a few votes getting t.he necessary two-thirds approval to become an AASHO policy; there.- fore, our official position remains at the 32,000-pound, tandem-axle figure. Very often you hear the statement that the structural capacity of a highway can be beefed up relatively easy by adding some resurfacing to an existing pavement. This is not as simple as it might sound, for these additional layers of resurfacing do not develop nearly the additional pavement strength that they would have if they had been incorporated as a monolithic part. of the original pavement design and construction. Also, the effective and serviceable life of such resurfacing or over- lays is hard to predict, but generally the history of their effectiveness is limited to about 10 years. Using the information that we had learned from the test road. the AASHO transport committee made a survey in 1962, in which ~28 States participated, for evaluating the remaining life of representative existing highways, and the effects of increasing load mcrements ~ them. The survey resulted in a cost estimate of resurfacing the ma.]or below-st.rengt.1i highways at. a billion dollars, if tandem axieloads were increased t.o 35~000 pounds. It was assumed t.hat such an expendi- ture would be spread over a 10-year period. In other words, such a program would require at least two-tenths of our present. ABC authorizations. To increase the strength or beef up t.he pavements by resurfacing to accommodate ~2,000-pound, single- and 38,000-pound, tandem axieloads would run the cost t.o about 2 bil- lion, and could be expected to be a recurring cost every 10 years until the road could be rebuilt. In developing the bridge formula a.t the AASHO road test project, it was assumed that because of the rather conservative allowable stresses assigned to concrete a.nd steel at the time that our 11-15 design bridges were built., which is the predominant bridge on the State high- way systems, we could probably overstress these structures up to about 30 percent and still be safe, but with a sacrifice in remaining life of t.he. structure. After 1942, brid~es on major highways were designed for an 11-20 loading, and a modification of this, the HS-20 loading, has been used in designing t.he bridges for the Interstate System. but the allowable desi.~n stresses a.re nearer the yield strengths and do not have the built-in safety factor of the older 1-11-15 structures. These loadings assume a maximum axle loading of 32,000 pounds, so anything in excess of this would, in effect, be overstressing these bridges. The 11-15 bridge was designed for a- maximum axle loading of 24,000 pounds. PAGENO="0268" 258 The bridge formula is not only important in developing a maximum allowable gross weight for the vehicle, but alsomust be used to control intermediate axle groupings under the vehicle because of the effect of such group loadings on bridge floor design, and especially the effects on negative moments on the large number of continuous bridges that are in use. In a study undertaken by the AASHO Bridges and Structures Committee in 1964, the following results were noted: PERCENTAGE OF AREA OF BRIDGE DECKS DESIGNED FOR LOADINGS lb percenti System 11-15 or less -1-16 to 1-20 115-20 or greater Interstate 6.7 4.4 88.9 ABC 53.3 24.0 22.7 We want to point out that there is no easy or economical way to upgrade an existing bridge structure for either increased axle or gross loads. Generally, such bridges of low structural capacity must be replaced if the gross or axle weight allowances are substantially increased. Of course, when a section of highway is rebuilt to modern standards, sub- standard bridges that are either structurally or functionally obsolete are replaced as part of the project. The bridge investment in our highway system is indeed a large figure running about 25 to 30 percent of the total highway investment. There are two factors that appear in our new policy for the first time. One has to do with maximum allowable tire inflation pressures. This is included because of some tire developments that could cause exten- sive damage to certain types of pavements. The specified maximum tire inflation pressure that appears in the AASHO recommended policy does not affect any tires currently in operation. The other factor has to do with weight-horsepower ratio of vehicles to discourage the use of grossly underpowered vehicles that would impede traffic. This part of our recommended policy was developed from discussions with truck manufacturers and truck operators. We wish to make one point very clear. Specified maximum axle. and gross weight limitations must be all inclusive for we have found too many enforcement problems in attempting to allow tolerances in addition to so-called maximum weights. In reviewing S. 2658, as passed by the Senate, it is our opinion that the 34,000-pound, tandem-axle weight is the maximum that we can accept. We must, however, disagree with the so-called grandfather clause provision which would establish January 1, 1968, in place of the July 1, 1956, date originally specified in section 127 of United States Code 23. This action, instead of encouraging uniformity in vehicle sizes and weights, would add encouragement to further escalation. We recommend the provision contained in our recommended policy of 1968. which would require all vehicles in operation to conform with the so-called maximum weights and sizes by July 1, 1975. PAGENO="0269" 259 We also note that S. 2658, in its present form, is silent on the matter of overall length Of vehicles. `Inasmuch as the State highway depart- ments do not agree with: separate limitations on the interstate high- ways and the rest of the State `highway. systems, a maximum overall length `of a combination vehicle was set at 65 feet by our balloting procedure. In some of the Western States, vehicles in excess of this are currently being operated, especially on interstate and similar highways.' We certainly want the maximum use made of our modern highways for hauling goods and people, but the Interstate System should not be turned into freight-hauling arteries to the point that passenger traffic is inconvenienced or crowded. Multibottorn truck operation has been tried in various parts of the country and no serious problems have been ~encountered on divided highways where the normal traffic is not heavy. It may be that in the judgment of your committee you may wish to specify an overall length of combination vehicle that might travel interstate and similar highways, but the AASHO recommendation, we believe, is logical :for the balance of the State highway systems. We still voice some cOncern about being `able to have two separate sets of `stands: one for the Interstate, and one for the balance of the system. Regulations pertaining to vehicle dimensions usually specify that tire bulge and approved safety devices can extend beyond the. maxi- mum specified width of the vehicle. It is understood that in some of the recent experimentation with multibOttom operat'ion that rear-view' mirrors extend outside the `vehicle for a considerable distance, which could cause problems when two such vehicles were using adjacent lanes. This matter deserves con- sideration and approved safety devices, such as rear-view mirrors should `probably be limited to current practice. in closing, we ask that you study the AASHO recommended policy thoroughly before taking any'final action in your committee. We are certain that the trucking industry has developed facts and figures on `the operating costs, based on payload ton-mile unit, as the size and gross weights of the vehicles are increased. We would like, however, to refer you to Highway Research Board Bulletin No. 301 entitled, "Line-Haul Trucking Costs in Relation to Gross Vehicle Weight," dated 1961. This study indicates that beyond a certain point increases in the `maximmn gross weights do not yield corresponding savings in operat- ing costs on a payload basis. The bulletin indicates that the curves flatten out and show a de- creasing' or almost no additional benefit after the maximum gross weights are reached that are recommended `in the current AASHO policy. in this statement we have attempted to give you some of the back- ground of weight and size limitations, some of the interactions between loads and facility life, the economies of highway transportation, and the need for having weight: and size regulations. ` ` Thank you. ` Mi KLuozYNsT~I Thank you for your splendid statement PAGENO="0270" 260 Do the members have any questions or any comments? Mr. CRAMER. I think you have answered some of the questions that I had in mind with your statement. However, I had a couple of matters I would like to get your expert advice on. The Senate bill, as passed, as you indicated, increased the weights of vehicles permitted to operate from 18,000 to 2'2,000 pounds maximum and from 32,000 to 34,000 pounds for tandem axle. It would change the overall gross weight limit from 73,200 pounds to a weight determined by formula based on the number of axles. As the bill is written, there is no limit on overall gross weight. that would be permitted to operate on the Interstate System. Do you think this presents a danger to the present structures? Mr. STArr. Yes, sir; I think there should be an overall weight and an overall length. I would like to have Mr. Johnson elaborate a little more on that. Mr. Jonxsox. Gentlemen, at the time we developed the recom- mended policy by AASHO, it was the feeling of the highway depart- ments that. we should not have separate weight and size limitations between the Interstate and the rest of the highway system. They an- ticipated serious enforcement problems in so doing. But you will remember that the original section 27 was silent on length, also. As a result of the balloting, the State highway depart- ments suggested a maximum of 65 feet. We find quite a difference in the. eastern part~ of the country and the western part of the country in this regard. In the eastern part you have more serpentine alinement on your highways. You have narrower roads, you have more of the roads going through cities. So there is a difference of attitude as to what should be the maximum length. We do recommend that on the State highway systems it be 65 feet. In Mr. Stapp's State of Wyoming, and in some of the other States, the triple bottom is currently in operation on an experimental basis. That is 105 feet long. I think Mr. Stapp can tell you more about how it is working out there than anyone else. Mr. STAPP. Mr. Cramer, we have nm tests~ on that this last winter, and we will run more this summer on the three bottoms on the four lane, 105 feet in length. I will have to admit that they track better than some of the semis that are on our highways. I have recommended to our commission that they be allowed on the four-lane divided, but not on many of our narrow three-lane roads, because of the problem of passing gets into a traffic hazard with 105 feet on some of the narrow two-lane roads. Mr. CRAMER. Do you think that setting a length limit, in effect, would result in a maximum limit providing the pressures that would then be exerted possibly against the State legislatures to go to that mnaximum? Mr. MoRToN. Mr. Cramer, if I may make this comment, I think the setting of length would have this tendency to regulate the weight and control it along the lines that our association believes it should be controlled. Mr. CRAMER. Whatever maximum limits we set, it appears that it is a.n open invitation to go to that. maximum on the part of the legis~ PAGENO="0271" 261 latures. I think we have to consider that in determining whether a maximum should be set in all respects; that is, the length, the overall weight, and so forth. Secondly, relating to the length, there is considerable mileage of two-lane highways in the Interstate System. With the additional time and distance required for passing by a 98-foot-long vehicle, do you think that would cause any undue hazard? Mr. STAPP. Yes, sir; I do. Mr. MORTON. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. Of course, we have provided, as I recall it, that those two-lane highways must become four lane; so we are looking in the distant future, and it might not be a serious problem on the interstates. Mr. STAPP. That is right. Mr. CR~1i~n. On this grandfather clause problem that you brought up in your testimony, do you know how many States have increased the limits on motor vehicle weights since 1956? Mr. MORTON. I am advised that in the statement I am making we have incorporated information to the effect as to what the States are currently using. We can develop that information and file it directly with you. Mr. CRAMER. Can you provide us with that information? Mr. MORTON. Yes, we can. Mr. CRAMER. The grandfather clause in the Senate bill would limit the width of vehicles permitted to operate on public highways. You have a copy before you. On line 19 it says, "Using the public highway of such State under the laws and regulations established." This grandfather clause is contained in the bill. Should it not refer to weights and widths permitted by State law on the interstate rather than on noninterstate highways? This applies to all highways. If you will look on page 2, you will find it specifically refers to public high- ways rather than interstate, meaning all public highways. Mr. MORTON. Our recommendations really are to the effect that they apply to all of the highways that are on the State highway system, whether they are interstate or noninterstate. Mr. CRAMER. We are talking here about the grandfather clause, where the States have increased these weights and widths on other than the Interstate System, perhaps sometimes in excess of what is permitted on the interstate. Mr. MORTON. That is so. Mr. CRAMER. Would you give some further consideration to that question, relating to whether that should be limited to the Interstate System? I have just one other question in view of our other witnesses and our time. If the State violates the weight and size limitations of State and Federal law, whether it is inadvertent or otherwise, it can be penal- ized 100 percent of Federal-aid highway funds. Although the weight and dimension limitations apply only to the Interstate System, they can be penalized on funds for all systems. Do you think any adjust- ment to the penalty provision is justified? Mr. MORTON. Yes. Tinder the present regulation, that is the case. PAGENO="0272" 262 Mr~Om~i~n. mother words, do you think they should have penal- ties on all systems? Do you think that is a. soimd policy position? In other words, the State could lose 100 percent of their money, ABC a~ well as interstate, if they do not conform to. interstate standards. Mr. MORTON. I think my personal view is tha.t our interstate is built to the highest standards of: any highway system that we have. These encroachments that have gone toward increasing the weight on other parts of our State highway system are not completely desirable, by any means. Mr. CR~n~n. Because these are such technical questions, but we will have to deal with them, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that I ask the asso- ciation to answer this series of questions for our purposes when we get into further consideration of it. Mr. MORTON. We will be most pleased to do so. Mr. Cn~rnR. Thank you. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Harsha? Mr. HARSHA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. WTouJd it not be better to let the States continue to handle the problem of weight and size limitations rather than the Federal Gov- ernment? Mr. STAPP. We like to have the top ceiling in the States control that, because, for example, it is the States in the East who do not like as long a load as we do in the West; and I: think it would be well to have an upper limit and let the States follow through with their own regulations. Mr. H~&RsB~&. But that at least gives an incentive to the States to go to the maximum limit. Mr. Smm. If you do not have an upper limit, it gets to the place where one State will go higher and then the pressure is put on to get the other States to that top limit, until you have a ceiling on the upper limit. Mr. HARSHA. Do you propose to have the same ceiling on interstate and primary roads? Mr. STAPP. It is my personal opiniOn that we should have less on a two-lane highway. Of course, we still must have one system. it is hard to control. According to the balloting of the AASHO repre- sentatives, whom I am representing today, they say 65 feet should be the maximum, so that is what we have to use. Mr. HARSHA. For both highways? Mr. STAPP. Yes, that is the maximum. Mr. HARSHA. Then if you limit the length to 65 feet for two lane, you do not employ the full maximum use of the four-lane highway, do you? Mr. STAPP. That could be, but I can only represent the majority of AASHO, which is a two-thirds majority, and they voted for the 65 maximum length. Mr. HARSHA. How many voted for the 65 maximum? Mr. STAPP. It was in excess of two-thirds. It had to be at least a minimum of 36. I do not Imow exactly,~ but there were at least that number. Mr. HARSHA. Thirty-six of the 50? : Mr. STAPP. Yes, sir. PAGENO="0273" 2.3 Mr. HARSHA. Back on page 5; of your testimony you said that ballot- ing on the 34,000-pound-weight figure lacked a few votes of getting the necessary two thirds Theiefore, your position w `ts on the 32,000 pound `~xle flgiue * How many voted on that particular issue? Mr. STArr. It lacked two of getting the 36 votes. It was either 33 or 34 votes in favor of the 34,000 pounds. It was very close. Mr. HARSHA. Did all 50 States vote? * Mr. JOHNSON. All 52 member departments voted. Mr. STAPP. The District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are also in- cluded in AASHO. ,* . S Mr. CLAUSEN. On that very point, I do not know that I fully under- stand exactly what you are trying to get at. You are trying to suggest that your own position is to recognize a 34,000-pound figure as the real desire of AASHO, or what is your position? Mr. STArr. That is the maximum, Mr. Claussen, that we could ap- prove, due to the test road results; but we have to stand on the 32,000 because the 34,000 did not receive a two-thirds majority. The maximum we could agree to under any circumstances would be the 34,000. Mr. CLAUSEN. Additionally, you cannot recognize anything over 32, but you have a personal desire to recognize 34; is that right? Mr. STAPP. That is right. Mr. CLAUSEN. Is that not what is in the Senate version? Mr. STArr. That is right. Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Stapp, you say there had to be 36 members voting for the 65-foot length? Mr. STArr. Yes. Mr. MARshA. Can you tell me whether it was 36 or 37 or what? Mr. STArr. We do not have the results here; but they can be obtained and sent to you, if you would like. Mr. MARSHA. Was that also a close vote? Mr. STArr. I do not believe so; but it can be sent to you, if you would like, Mr. Marsha. Mr. Il-TARsHA. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KLUCzYNSKI. Mr. Dem~y? Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman; .Ihad one more question. On page 2 you indicated that the. site specifications for the project had been fairly~ average of conditions found throughout~ the United States. Out in California, particularly in the northern part of California, we have rather extraordinary rain conditions. I would like to have you give me an indication of something other. than just the clay soils, and also the amount of frost penetration that you consider to be average. S * *~ 5 Mr. MORTON. I believe we will have to take the position that in run- nmg a test we try to get some `~rea where conditions basically iepresent the average conditions in the country. Frost action and excessive mois- ture could be influential in deteriorating the stability of the subsoil to support these heavy loads. S Then you would have to treat that particular locality by adding to your foundation under your pavement or with the thickness of your p'tvement 96-030-6S----iS PAGENO="0274" 264 My particular State is subject to extremely heavy frost action. The results of the test road, where they form a good basis for evaluating pavement thickness, basic thickness and so forth, again for your own particular special conditions, we have to take this information and then interpret it in the form of how much frost penetration do we have, what is the type of soil, which actually requires us to go much heavier in foundations than would come out from the test road, a rec- ommendation from the test road. Am I making myself reasonably clear? Mr. CLAUSEN. Partially, except. for the fact that you did not answer the question about the amount of precipitation. Mr. JoHNsoN. Mr. Clausen, at the time we started the test road, we took an average of frost penetration in the ground, rainfall for the United States, and we also specified that the site would have to be a clay soil, a cohesive, expansive clay soil, because those are the soils that give you some of your greatest design problems in highways. We went to the various States with this specification and asked them to submit a site for our consideration to carry on this big road test project. Illinois submitted a site in the vicinity of Ottawa, in the south, and it did meet those specifications; so it was average frost penetration and average rainfall. I believe it was 20 inches of frost penetration and 40 inches of rain- fall; but I am not certain as to those exact figures. Mr. CLAvSEN. I will not prolong the question on this, but I think we ~re treading on rather thin ice in trying to arrive at average condi- tions in one selected site for any form of testing. It seems to me that the States themselves are going to have to be given maximum consider- ation in their own recommendations on this. Mr. Jonxsox. Part of the test road project itself was satellite tests, to relate the test road in Illinois to their own particular conditions. Mr. MOEWEN. In your statement you referred to the problem of the mirrors that sometimes extend way out. Does AASHO take a position regarding the maximum width of the vehicle? Mr. MORTON. Yes. Mr. STAPP. Yes. Mr. MGEWEN. Was that in your statement? Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir; it is in the policy. Mr. MCEWEN. That is in the testimony that was included in the record? Mr. MORTON. Yes. Mr. MCEWEN. I will defer further questions for the time being. Mr. PENNEY. Mr. Chairman. Mr. KLucz~xsKI. The gentleman from Nebraska. Mr. PENNEY. Mr. Stapp, in your testimony you say: Basically, the incremental method shows that the larger trucks, even at their present sizes and weights, and not those that would be allowed under S. 2658, do not pay their total share of the highway cost. You list four other methods up above. Did you try a.ny other tests with reference to this statement as to the larger trucks paying their total share of the highway cost? Mr. *STAPP. This was the 210 study made with the Bureau of Public Roads, with material they requested and information they requested PAGENO="0275" 265 from the State highway departments. This was the result, and it applied equally to all other categories. Mr. DENNEY. But that is the only test you did make; is that correct? Mr. STAPP. That is correct. Mr. DENNEY. Then you said: In all four methods that were probed by the Bureau of Public Roads in the 210 Study, twO basic facts appeared: (1) that the heavier trucks and truck com- binations should be paying more in relation to the payments made by the lighter trucks, and (2) that vehicles using diesel fuel generally should be paying more than like vehicles using gasoline. Is that based on the fact that they must use more gallons of gasoline? Mr. STAPP. That is right. Mr. DENNEY. You recommend they should be paying more. How would you recommend to this committee we should be determining how much more they would pay, through license fees or what? Mr. STAPP. We did not make a recommendation on this. That is for the wisdom of you people. Mr. PENNEY. You are not recommending any method of collecting more. All you are saying is that they should be paying more; is that right? Mr. STAPP. Yes, sir. Mr. PENNEY. Could that be covered under the weight limitations that you have recommended in your statement? In other words, what I am trying to get at, what weight limitations did you use, and what. overall length limitations, in arriving at the conclusion that under the incremental method they were not paying their total share of the cost? Mr. !STAPP. Mr. Joimson is closer to this ~21O study. Mr. JoHNsoN. This ~lO study actually made a study of the trucks actually in use on the roads at that time. Mr. PENNEY. There are some trucks that have a 98-foot length; is that not correct? Mr. JohNsoN. Yes, but this did not have any particular relation to that length. There is a certain number of over-the-road trucks, the heavy trucks, some propelled by gasoline and some propelled by diesel fuel. This reference has to do with those that pay diesel fuel at the same tax rate that they pay for a gallon of gasoline. They actually get a little better mileage out of the diesel fuel. So, therefore, they are not paying, really, as much into the trust fund as a like truck, a similar weight truck, that uses gasoline. Mr. DENNEY. You are not recommending to this committee that we put in the regulations a law having to do with gasoline and diesel fuel, are you? Mr. JOHNSON. No, and I would imagine if there was anything to be considered on the matter, it would be in another jurisdiction. Mr. PENNEY. I am trying to find out why such a statement was made. Mr. JOHNSON. We were asked to outline what we found out on the test road before this committee. Mr. PENNEY. I see. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KLtTCZYNSKI. Are there any other questions? If not, thank you, Mr. Stapp. PAGENO="0276" 266 Mr. MORTON. Mr. Chairman, if you are agreeable, I will proceed to~ read my statement made in connection with H.R. 17134. Mr. lcLtrczyNsicr. Mr. Morton, do you want to ret~d the full state- ment or do you want to cover the highlights? Mr. MORTON. I feel it would be more appropi~inte if I read the full statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KL~CZYNSKI. You may proceed. Nr. MORTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am John 0. Morton, commissioner of highways for the State of New Hampshire, and president of the American Association of State High- way officials. The AASHO testimony today is based on the results of a survey made of our member departments after they had reviewe;d H.iR. 17134~ We will also comment on some related subjects. A copy of the above-mentioned bill was sent. to the States for their review on April 25 and to date we have received replies from 47 of the State highway departments. The following comments refer to the sec- tions of H.R. 17134. Section 2: Interstate autlwrizations.-Seventeen of the States felt that this section was acceptable as written. Eighteen wonder why the Interstate authorizations were set at. $4 billion a year after the 1970 fiscal year, and whether or not it should increase in line with expected trust fund income, so as to complete the Interstate program as early as possible. Some of the States were of the opinion that ~4 billion might be. too high, and that more of the money should probably be channeled into mounting urban problems and updat.ing our primary system which are becoming extremely pressing needs. The interstate authorizations for 1970 and 1971 are generally satisfactory. Section 8: Approval of the 1968 Interstate cost estimate for appor- tioning funds for the 1970 and 1971 fiscal years.-Affirmative action on this matter is required by your committee in order that the 1970 fiscal year interstate funds can be apportioned to the States during the coming summer months and not delay the program. Section 4: Extension of time for the. completion of the Interstate program.-The specified date of June 30, 1974, is unrealistic and inac- curate when one considers the latest interstate, cost estimate for com- pleting the Interstate System, the amount of money that will be avail- able in the trust fund, and the continuing factors that increase the cost of building highways. Based on the trust fund revenues and the 196~ interstate cost esti- mate, and with $1 billion of the trust fund being assigned annually to an ABC program, with the balance going to the Interstate System as now designated would probably be late in the 1975 calendar year. Considering the additional cost introduced by the 1968 cost estimate, and making the same assumptions, the completion date will probably be somewhere around 1978 or later. ~Section 5: ABC and other authoni~ations.-Eighty percent of the member departments feel that the section pertaining t.o the ABC pro- gram is generally satisfactory, except some would not be disappointed if more moneys would be made available for the ABCcategories. How- ever, t.hey realize this would extend the actual completion date of the Interstate System further into the future. . PAGENO="0277" 267 We recommend that if Congress gives consideration to the authori- zations proposed in section. 5(2) on `the subject of traffic operation projects in urban areas, that your action be for a biennial period oniy in line with ABC program practice. ` .` . . . Many of the States feel that the increase in funding included in this subsection should not be limited .to a `TOPICS program alone, but should also .be~ available for improvements on the ABC systems. In fact some of the States are of `the opinion that the cities involved in the proposed TOPICS activity would not be able to furnish match- ing money at the present time and, of course, the States are limited `to expending their own `funds for matching purposes and for main- taining and operating these roads' that are included `in their official State highway systems. The proposed program~ as outlined in I-LR. 17134, would include many streets off the State highw.ay systems. In regard to the proposal for providing authorizations for the traf- fic operation program in urban areas, we would strongly suggest. your committee give consideration to make any additional funds available for establishing and helping finance necessary improvements on a new Federal-aid category which our After 75 Comin'it;'te.e on a continuing Federal-aid highway program calls a Federal-aid metropolitan arte- rial street system. Such a system would `be developed in the 233 metropolitan areas through the 3C planning process in accordance with section 134, `title ~3, LTnited States Code: Highways, and would give to the cities the same kind of participation in the Federal-aid highway program that is now available to the counties in the secondary program. AASHO, the National League of `Cities, and the National Associa- tion of Counties are all in accord that such a system is essential and `should be provided for as soon as possible in light of the expanding transportation needs. AASHO `has agreed with the National League of `Cities that a sep- ara.te Federal trust fund, separate and apart from the highway trust fund, would be a desirable thing to help provide money `to the cities for transportation purposes for which the highway trust fund is not allowable. The National League of Cities `has been `talking in the neighborhood of a billion and a half dollars annually. We make no recommendations as to how the money would `be raised, `but we agree that something of this nature is desirable to cope with the ever-expanding transportation needs of the cities and could be used for furnishing parking facilities, su'bsidizing mass transit operations, and o'ther things that are outside the scope, purpose, and intent of the highway trust fund, but are needed. We do not want such a new trust fund to `be a `part or special account in the present highway trust fund or to be financed from any of the present revenues assigned to the highwa,y trust fund. Since our after 75 committee will be talking to your committee on June 3 on the subject of our after 75 recommendations, we will go into more detail on this and other items mentioned later in this state- ment at that time, which we understand will `be `before the time that the record is closed on these current hearings. PAGENO="0278" 268 The State highway departments are generally, in accord with the recommended authorizations for roads and trails in the public land highways coming from the highway trust fund. The most conservative estimate of highway needs is so much greater than available highway funds in sight that we must oppose anything that might further dilute the highway trust fund. Section 6: Authorization of the highway safety prograrns.-About half of the States that responded felt that. the. proposal was generally acceptable as written; however, seven were of the opinion that too much was recommended for the second, year. It is interesting to note that 18 States made no comment at all on section 6. It is unusual for the State highway departments to offer no corn- rnent on legislative proposals, and in our responses relative to this bill under considerat.ion we had several such reactions. Section 7: Authorization, for highway safety research and develop- ment pro grarn.s.-We received the same reaction from the State high- way departments on this section that we received on section 6. Some of this attitude may be the result of a lack of adequate dialog at the State level between those handling the State safety programs and the State highway departments. Section 8: Authorization for high way beauty.-T'wenty-six States felt that the language as written was generally acceptable; however, there. was considerable. feeling that the penalty clause in the present beautification language should be eliminated. Some suggested a slowdown of the program until it. is determined the general direct.ion in which the highway beautification program is to take and until it is better defined and stabilized. Nine States made no comment on this section. The Sta.te highway departments are for an effective beautification program and they would like to stop the growing ugliness along our highways, but. we feel that something more definitive, could be done in defining the program to make certain that. the funds expended do not produce disappointing results in the long run. Section. 9: Advance acquisition of rights-of-way.-The State high- way departments generally are in accord with the purpose of this section, how-ever, eight. opposed it.. Some felt that the 7-year limitation should be lifted. The AASHO After 75 Committee has been developing a. proposal along this same subject. In essence, it. provides a. ~1OO million revolving fund to be financed from the highway trust fund, with no interest being charged a State for using the revolving fund. It would be made available to a State upon application, and could be. used only if con- struction were 5 years or more in the future, a.nd it. was desirable to ob- tain the right-of-way in advance, and without the State using current funds needed for construction. The States supported the AASHO-developed version by a 91-per- cent vote. T\~\Te will be explaining this in greater deta.il when our After 75 Committee appears before your committee. Section 10: Defi.nition.s of forest roads and trails and forest develop- ment roads and trails.-Roads and trails under these categories do not involve all of the highway departments, but only about half. As a PAGENO="0279" 269 result, we..fou.ndthathalf f the Sthtes felt the definitions as written are generally acceptable. The other half offered no comment.. Section 11: Amendment dealing with forest development roads and trails pertaining to the sire of project where bids would be solicited for construct ion.-The comments received on this section from the State highway departments were almost identical to those pertaining to sec- tion 10. Section 12: Urban area traffic operations improvement programs, TOPICS pro gram.-In response to this section, we received the same type of replies from the State highway departments that we got per- taining to the authorizations for the same purpose. Less than half the States felt this proposal as written was acceptable, and an equal number felt that it should not be tied specifically to a TOPICS program, but the legislation should make the money availa- ble for improving the ABC systems. Four felt the proposal was not spelled out in sufficient detail to clearly understand the intent. Five States offered no comment. In general, much can be accomplished through the TOPICS type of program. Section 13.-Whether or not this section is enacted would depend on whether or not your committee saw fit to provide for an urban area. traffic operations improvement program. Section 14: Fringe parlcing.-Only five of the State highway depart.- ments felt that this proposal is acceptable as written. Eleven States are completely opposed to it on the grounds that it is further fragmenting or diluting t.he highway trust fund, which was intended originally for constructing an Interstate System and to main- thin a certain minimum level of development on the ABC systems dur- ing the time the Interstate System was being built. Thirteen States would accept. such a. program, if the financing were not. to come from the t.rust fund, or in case the parking facilities could be self-financing and self-sustaining. Eighteen States offered no comment whatsoever on sect.ion 14. To have any chance of success, fringe parkiiig must provide con- venient, adequate, safe parking, and be served with convenient, ade- quate., comfortable, and attractive commuter service at reasonable costs. This is t.he type of program that. might be included in a separate trust fund program, as proposed by the National League of Cities. It has generally been the policy of the State highway departments that. parking facilities should be included in overall transportation planning in urban a.reas, and that t.hey are a. necessary part of trans- port.ation, but. since conventional highway needs a.re so much in excess of available highway funding, some other means must be found to supply the facilities, especially since t.hey are generally patronized by repea.t users and the.y are for the almost exclusive benefit of the local community or urban area. AASHO will make recommendations on t.his subject at the time that our After 75 Committee reports to your committee. During the time of the annual meeting of the Mississippi Valley Conference of State Highway Departments, in March of this year, that regional highway association adopted a resolution entitled PAGENO="0280" 270 "Proliferation of Activities and .Memdranda," in which it states that the Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Adminis- tration are delving into new areas in transportation and particularly in highways, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that many studies and investigations are being made in these new areas and each new study and investigation results in time-consuming conferences on the part of the State highway personnel and apparent expansion of Federal staff, and that each of the aforementioned activities result in greatly increased numbers of instructional memorandums, policy and procedure memorandums, and circular memorandums, to the extent that it is becoming increasingly burdensome on the administrative staff of the respective highway departments to read and analyze such memorandums and respond thereto, and that many of. the memoran- dums are apparently written by individuals having limited experience in the respective area covered, and that many of the new areas involved matters which are within the authority and responsibility of the respective States and their State highway departments. A copy of this resolution was sent to tiie American Association of State Highway Officials. As a result, the State highway departments were polled as to their attitude on this matter and, as a result, 46 States have responded a.nd 46 States are of the opinion that Congress must define the respective roles of the State highway departments and the Federal Government in carrying out the Federal-aid highway program if the partnership concept is to survive. They are all concerned over new philosophies of nonhighway people in authority that are being forced on the highway departments, the fragmentation of authority to others having no official responsibilities in the program, and the eroding of responsibilities assigned by the States to their highway commissions. We ask your committee to direct the Federal Highway Administra- tor, in cooperation with the State highway departments, to study this matter thoroughly and to come to your committee with joint recom- mendations as to the responsibilities prerogatives and actions that will be assigned to the State highway departments and those of the Federal Government. In order to speed up the Interstate program, we would also recom- mend that the Congress write some language in title 23, United States Code: Highways, that the Secretary and the State highway depart- ments shall reach agreement before December 31, 1969, on the ap- proved location of all remaining segments of the Interstate System, that are included in the 1968 cost estimate, House Document 199, 90th Congress, second session, and in case such agreements vary from the location actually used as a basis of estimating the cost in the 1968 estimate, the Secretary shall obtain the concurrence of the Public Works Committees of Congress, before approving any funds herein authorized to be expended on such revised locations. In case approval of a location or segment of the Interstate System upon which the above cost estimate was based has not been reached or a revision in the location has not been cleared, as provided above by the date of December31, 1969, the funds contained in the above- mentioned cost estimate for financing such segments of the Interstate System shall lapse, and shall not again be included in a subsequent PAGENO="0281" 271 cost estimate submitted to the Congress in compliance with section 104, title 23, United States Code Highways We believe that we are far enough along in the interstate program that our cost estimates should be based on logical locations, and when your committee approves an estimate that you have the right to assume that any portion of the estimate is based on a suitable or logical location. We believe that such action on your part would resolve some of the controversy that now exists as to highway locations. At the risk of being charged as insensitive to recreation conserva- tion and historical sites, we believe there is an overemphasis and over- enthusiasm in administering section 4(f) of the Transportation Act of 1966, to the point that needed highway improvements are being delayed and complicated and that section 4(f) is being used to re- open decisions previously made or to slow down the program. We can assure the committee that as responsible State agencies, we must answer to the public, and we are closer to the public, and we are as interested in preserving esthetics and historical sites as any- one else. We believe that the Congress wrote its intent regarding the administration of section 5(f) in the legislative history, but now we feel that that intent should be spelled out in legislation. We are conscious of an involvement by nonhighway oriented attor- neys and policy planners in the Department of Transportation in writing minutia and details in instructional and procedural memo- randums pertaining to section 4(f), and that much of this detail dei~nitely enroaches on the authority and responsibility vested by the States in their highway commissions. The same thing that applies to section 4(f) also applies to memo- randa regarding public hearing procedures. The procedures go into complete detail and would over-legalize every component of the pub- lic hearing procedures. Under the draft memorandum, any highway opponent could stop a highway project for an almost indefinite period. The public hearings required by the Congress were originally in- tended for the public to have a highway proposal explained to it by its highway department, and for the opportunity to comment on the proposal and on a basis that it would not require witnesses to be ac- companied by legal counsel. The detail in the 20-8 memorandum on public hearings practically strips the State highway commissions of any prerogatives in this area, and fragments the control of a highway program to almost any group that might wish to become involved. Under the new philosophy in the Department of Transportation, there is a failure to recognize the 50-year old Federal-aid highway program as a joint partnership program with the States having the right of initiation of projects and realizing that the States are putting some sizable chips into the program themselves. There seems to be an overriding philosophy that the highway pro- gram is a Federal program, and that the States should be told what to do and how to do it in detail. In fact, the basic Federal-aid law prescribes that a. State must have a competent and adequate highway organization to participate in PAGENO="0282" 272 the program and we believe that this should still be the requirement and that the State highway commission should be allowed to exer- cise their basic responsibilities and be accountable to the public. ~Te are not suggesting that we should be allowed to operate without any controls for such regulations are essential to protect the Federal interest in the Nation's highways, and to coordinate a. joint venture program. We have not known too much about how the recent Reorganization Plan No. 2, involving an agreement between the Departmetn of Trans- portation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, might affect the urban transportation planning process, as contained in section 134, title 23, United States Code: Highways. We have studied such material as is available to us and, at the present time, have a special committee in AASHO studying the mat- ter now and in the coming weeks to help us develop a policy position on the subject. We did, however, find the letter from Mr. Cecil Mackey of the Department of Transportation to Chairman Fallon, and Secretary Boyd's recent statements before your committee assuring, but in some degree seemed to conflict with our understanding of some of the agree- ments between the two Federal agencies. We would hope that~ the role of HUD, which we agree has a part in urban planning, would be only advisory to the Department. of Trans- portation as it might. affect. the approval of highwn.y proposals. The State highway departments and the Bureau of Public Roads have been the pioneers in developing highway planning techniques and procedures. The State highway departments have insisted, over the past half century, in dealing with one Federal agency only. If other Federal agencies have an interest in the project or the program, we depend upon the Federal agency administering our program to deal with the other Federa.l agencies at an interagency level, but that these other agencies would have no direct veto authority over the States' proposals. Planning is the fundamental tool which the State highway commis- sions must utilize to carry out their assignments of creating, building, maintaining, and operating a. State highway system. Recently, we sent to you a. resolution adopted by our executive com- mittee regarding some complications that we were having in regard to the bidding procedures in the highway program in complying with the equal employment opportunity program. We believe that. the objectives of the Federal equal employment opportunity program can be accomplished without eroding the com- petitive bidding process that has been used over the years in the highway program, and without adding to the cost. of the highway program. Highwa.y bidding procedures developed over the past 50 years are very precise, sophisticated, and competitive. They are definitely in the public interest and we feel they must be protected. In this regard, we believe that the matter has now been straightened out due to the efforts of Congressman Cramer and others. Much of the problem was brought about by attempting to apply the same type of negotiation with low bidders used in supply-type Government. con- tracts to the highway program type of bidding. PAGENO="0283" 273 There seems to be a current tendency to downgrade experienced highway professionals in favor of people in other fields that are relatively inexperienced in highways, thus failing to utilize fully the~ vast resource and background already available to solving essential highway transportation problems. This is causing severe morale problems in the highw'a.y departments and even in the engineering schools. It seems to be the "in" thing to criticize the highway program and the highway engineer, even though both are an essential part of the future of this country. We are still looking at the "design concept team" approach, and will be interested in the results that it might produce, and as to the time and money that might be involved. We are also concerned about the tendency to deal directly with dissident groups by going around State highway departments instead of going through channels. The Federal role should be one of ap- proving or denying a States' proposal in whole or in part and not making agreements directly with local people or officials. We are also concerned over the philosophy that local lay people have a more prominent role in highway location and design. Some of these particular problems are in declining corridors where the new highway improvement will surely reconstruct the entire corridor because a new highway is a very real catalyst. We should not attempt to conform too greatly to the existing community that is almost certain `to change. We are firm believers that local people should have a role through the public hearing and have recourse through their appropriate elected officials who, in turn, should and must participate fully in the planning process at the project. development stage. To allow local people to have a greater voice in the highway location and design for which they are not trained, w-ould negate the expertise `of trained highway professionals. Highway officials are unlikely to insist on a project that does not have the approval of appropriate elected local officials. Highway officials certainly will insist that t.heir project not only serve the pri- mary purpose of the facility, but that it will be an attractive and good neighbor `to the community traversed. We would suggest that Congress also give consideration to strength- ening the role of the Bureau of Public Roads by putting the highway and traffic engineering portion of the safety program into that. agency, and lodging the remainder of the safety program dealing with vehicles and other items in the relatively new National Highway Safety Bureau. We believe that the public works committees should give attention to amending Title 23, U.S. Code, Highways, to require all levels of government., including the Federal, to hold public hearings before reserving lands for any purpose where such a reservation might create physical barriers to fut.ure transportation needs, and that such a proposal would have. t.o receive the approval of the Sta.te highway department involved, and the Secretary of Transportation. At the present time, highway departments must hold hea.rings regarding their programs and we believe that .the same should hold true for other agencies when their programs might `affect present or future highway transportation needs. PAGENO="0284" 274 At the present time, certain reservations, such as the establishment of a primitive area, can be made unilaterally by an executive depart- ment without a hearing and before congressional action might for- malize it is a wilderness area reserve. We believe t.hat similar hearings and approvals should be required where major changes in zoning are involved that could obsolete existing facilities on a Federal-aid route or require extensive improvements. on that route, especially where such change in zoning was unantici- pated and unirnown at the time that the highway facilities were provided. At the present time., highway departments must hold hearings regarding their programs and we believe the same should hold true for other agencies as their programs might affect present and highway transportation needs. At the time our "after 75" committee appeared before your corn- mittee last June 7, 1967, we called your attention to the numerous planning reviews, consultations, coordinations, concurrences or approvals, either required by statute., Executive order or other means,, affecting the conduct of the highway program. It wa.s contained on pages 30 a.nd 31 of the Preliminary Report of AASHO on the Federal- aid Highway Needs after 1972 (90-6) 90th Congress, first session.. We would ask that you again review that tabulation. This particular comment is not intended to reflect on the men hol ding' the positions a.t this time, both of whom we hold in high esteem, hut looking to the future and considering some of the contemporary phi- losophies surrounding the highway program, we. would suggest that your committee might wish t.o spell out certain qualifications and duties for the Federal Highway Administrator a.nd the Director of Public Roads, to make certain that they have the qualifications, interest, and background for administering t.he highway program. At the time we appeared before your committee on February 21 of this year, we submitted some dra.ft language that would stabilize the' financial aspects of the highway program, or at least minimize some of the uncertainties of cutbacks and threatened cutbacks. It would also specify a time that the States would receive their fiscal year apportionments, and suggests language intende.d to strengthen the contractual obligation feature of t.heihighway program which the' States consider essential if a. Federal-aid highway partnership pro- gram is to continue. As we remember, at the time of the joint hearings on the subject of the November 1966 cutback, the Department of Transportation intro- duced an Attorney General's opinion which, in effect, stripped this basic contractual obligation of `some of its meaning. We recommend that your committee study this submission we made on February 21 and take steps to strengthen the contractual obligation feature of our program to the point that we have believed existed and upon which the States made their financing and construction plans. as well as awarding contracts. We also recommend to you that you direct the Bureau of Public Roads, in cooperation with the State highway departments, to make a functional classification of the Federal-aid primary and secondary systems, to treat the States equitably, and to be assured that the right road is in the right system, and that after this is done that there be a PAGENO="0285" 275 highway needs study made on those revised systems on the basis of a manual developed jointly by the Bureau of Public Roads and the State highway departments. A better cost estimate on total highway needs than now is available is needed. Although the ones presently available do give us valuable information as to the enormity of the problem, as compared to the funds available, there has always been some variation in the estimating procedures used by the States in estimating needs on the Federal-aid systems, other than the interstate. There is quite a variation from State to State as to the percentage of the public roads included ;~fl the Federal-aid secondary system which has been reflected in the respective estimates. You have sdlicited comments from the several State highway depart- ments regarding additions to the Interstate System. At the time our "After 75" Committee appears before your committee, we will go into this mat;ter and give you the position on this important subject, and the reasons behind that position as developed by our member depart- ments. We have spent a great deal of time on the matter of a functional reclassification and adding to the Interstate System, and we believe that we will have something constructive to offer. We believe the State highway departments would be content if your committee were to decide to report out at this time a simple, uncluttered authorization bill that wOuld approve the 1968 interstate cost estimate for apportioning purposes, and provide for the necessary biennial authorizations to keep essential existing programs going and to con- sider some of the other proposals that are before you at a later time. Thank you for the opportunity of appearing before your committee to express the views of our member State highway departments. Mr. KLuozYNsKI. Thank you, Mr. Morton. It is always a pleasure to have AASI-iO before this committee. You have been very helpful to this committee at all times. Do the committee members `have any questions? Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Morton, `I have appreciated very much your state- ment, particularly your referei~ces to the `continuation of the partner- ship contract and obvious `problems we `are getting into with new programs and new moneys coming out of the trust fund and so forth. My first question relates to some of those subjects. On page 1 of your statement you referred to a million dollars annually for the ABC system, with the balance going to the Interstate System. Actually, the balance under this proposed bill and other proposals being made, including the TOPICS program, transferring the forest highways and public lands highways to come out of the trust fund, means, in effect, does it not, that this actually ends up coming out of the interstate money? In other words, ABC sticks to a million a year, and what is left goes to everything else. When you start adding to those everything elses, in addition to the Interstate System, then you automatically reduce what goes to the interstate, do you not? Mr. MoRToN. You extend the time it takes to complete the Inter- state System. Mr. CRAMER. So, in effect, the Interstate System, by the operation of the program, out of the trust fund, gets last priority? PAGENO="0286" 276 Mr. MORTON. That. is right. Mr. CRAMER. Everything else comes before it, such as beautification and safety, and so on. The suggestion of the administration is that this Topics program, $2.5 million a year for 5 years, for forest highways $33 million, and over 5 years $166 million, and public lands $16 million a year or $80 million over a 5-year period, and whatever fringe parking costs, that without fringe parking is about $1.5 billion. They have no hesitancy in recommending that coming out of the trust fund, with the result that it stretches out the Interstate System further. What is your reaction to that? Mr. MORTON. I think I should speak personally. I think the import- ant thing here would be to complete the Interstate System and make this a usable system as quickly as we possibly can. I recognize that we have the tremendous population trends toward suburbia, and that. there is more and more attention that must be given to the highway problems in the cities. When you start to take it away from the trust fund, you will just dilute your ability to com- plete the Interstate System. I think a completed Interstate System will do a great. deal for this country. We are perhaps 65 or 68 percent complete at the present time. Mr. CRAMER. Maybe if we set up a second priority for interstate, they would not be so anxious to recommend new programs. Mr. Johnson, would you care to comment on that.? Maybe that is the way to solve this problem of constant new programs to take funds out of the trust fund, is to give interstate a second priority. Maybe it would also give more money to the trust fund. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Cramer, I believe in the language of the 195~ act~ that was what was intended. It said the. ABC authorizations would come out first in the apportionment. process, and the rest of it would go to the interstate. I think that was what we were talking about at that time. Mr. CRAMER. At that time we had only two major programs, the ABC arid interstate, so there wasn't a-ny problem. It is now being interpreted in view of new programs being l)r0P05ed and enacted, that the interstate, in effect, has last priority. Perhaps we coukl solve this whole problem by giving the interstate the priority it was intended in the first place. Mr. JoiIxsoN. I think there is a great deal in favor of such a state- ment. Mr. CRAMER. And then provide the a:lternative that these other pro- grams come out of whatever surplus is left in the trust fund, or out -of the general fund. We could dream up programs here, and they have for some time, as to how to spend this trust fund money at the expense of the Interstate System. It is my opinion that completion of the Interstate System is one of the highest priority items, and was so established in 1956; but it is losing its priority. Mr. MORTON. I agree with your statement. Mr. CRAMER. When we get cutbacks from the trust fund, a good por- tion of that comes out of the interstate. Mr. MORTON. That is right. PAGENO="0287" 277 Mi Cii ~MER You suggest that the funds foi this ~ progr'irn should be made available for projects on ABC as well. Is it your understanding that such funds would not be available under the present wording of the bill? Mr. MORTON. I believe that under my interpretation of the bill these funda:would not be available for ABC sections of highway. Mr. CRAMER. Do you agree with that? Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Cramer, I believe that under the present lan- guage a TO~JC5 program can be carried on through the regular ABC authorizations under the Federal-aid system, and comes out. of the regular ABC. If they are going to have some additional authorizations, another quarter of a billion, we have made some recommendations that the use should be expanded to use on interstate and not. on the Topics alone. One State called us and indicated that their cities could not match this sort of program at the present time. Mr. CRAMER. If these funds are expended on the TOPICS program, as I understand they can be, on non-Federal-aid highways, do von think that expenditure should come out of the trust fund where they are spending this money in non-Federal-aid highways? Mr. JOJNs0N. We are recommending that at some time there he another Federal-aid system program created in the cities which would be off the Federal-aid system and give them the same deal t.he counties have in the Federal-aid secondary. ~The way this is written here in the bill, it. would apply to roads off the Federal-aid system ai~d off the State highway systems, which would require matching on the part of the cities. The States could not match it. It would be coming out of the Trust Fund. Mr. CRAMER. The trust fund that otherwise is used for Federal-aid highways? Mr. JOHNSON. That is right. Mr. CRAMER. So it appears this trust fund has become quite a grab-bag. They keep dreaming up new programs to come out of the trust fund, even though it means less highways being built. Mr. JOHNSON. I think any program in history, after so long a time, has ha,d all sorts of appendages and sophistications added to it, even before you took care of the. basic requirements of the program. Mr. CRAMER. On page 4 you discussed advance acquisition of right- of-way and indicated that eight States oppose the legislative proposal before us of $100 million. Can you indicate why, in your understanding, those States opposed the setting up of $100 million for advance acquisition? Mr. JOHNSON. These eight States wereof1h~ opinion this program was not needed, or at least not in their States. We did not say that we approved the language in the bill in that first sentence, but ~ye said that the States generally were in accord with the purpose of this section. MV. ~ As you know, I was the author of the 7-year advance acquisition position, but it has not been taken advantage of by too many States, because most of them would rather spend the money on construction. That is understandable, because th.~e is not enough money to do the construction anyway. PAGENO="0288" 278 Mr. JOHNsoN. The advance acquisition program could be:helpeU along if we were able to get this right-of-way at an earlier period, in the project development At the piesent time we almost have to have final construction plans before it can be used. Mr CRAMER Do you not think m the long run it ~s ould end. up saving far more money than it actually costs by acquiring in advancer? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I think in California, for example,. where4hey have a $30 miffion revolving fund, they have saved $600 or $7~00 million all told as a good estimate over the years. Mr. Ci~n~n. You have discussed a revolving fund. I am sure yofi ~. are familiar with the fact that the administraton bill does not pro- vide for a revolving fund. Mr. JOHNSON. That is right. Mr. CRAMER. I have introduced a bill, H.ZR. 16622, along with a number of other members of this committee, providing for a revolving fund, carrying out the acquisition of right-of-way recommendations with the study which this committee directed, the 100 million for a 3- year period, giving us a total of 300 million to put into a revolving fund. What is your reaction to that proposal? Mr. JoHNSoN. In talking this inatte~' over with the State highway departments, the State that has had the most experience in the re- volving fund, California, recommended that we not get it above $100 million, and that would be a revolving fund, that is, used, that it be brought back up to $100 million; and, as it is repaid, it will be repaid into the Trust Fund. They are of the opinion that if you get too large a total in the revolving fund there is a tendency on the part of land developers and others to come in and make certifications about their intentions which are not entirely right in order to get some money to operate on. Mr. CRA~xEn. As I see it, the basic problem with regard to the $100 mi]iion linjitation is that if that* is absorbed in the first couple of years, which I would anticipate it would be, then you might have a substantial waiting period before the moneys paid back in con- struction occurred. Mr. JOHNSON. That is right. Mr. Cn~j~j:i~n. So there is a question on that. I assume you support the concept. Mr. JOHNSON. We do, and we do not think that the money ought to be apportioned to the States. It ought to be used when a State needs it. It ought to be used on application. Mr. Cu~!ER. Relating to fringe parking on page 5, you say that oily five States favor the fringe parking proposal as written. Could you indicate what those States are? Mr. JOHNSON. ~o. We can furnish that to the committee. Mr. ~nA~rnR. That is another area wlie~ we do not imow what the cost is going to be, where it ends up as a Trust Fund expenditure. Is that right? Mr. JOHNSON. Indirectly it is out of the Trust Fund, yc~ It could be used out of an authorization for any of the Federal-aid sysLen-~s. Mr. CRA~rER. So it comes out of that money? PAGENO="0289" 279 Mr. JoHNsoN. Yes. I believe the statement was 466,000 spaces at about $1$)O0 a space, was the estimate made by the Department of Transportation.. Mr. CRAMER. To the extent to which it relates to the Interstate Sys- tern, it would thus increase the cost of that system and be further stretching that out; is that correct? Mr. JOHNSON. It would be estimated at about half a billion dollars. Mr. CRAMER. I can foresee in the Washington area, with this cir- cumferential, where there are something like 36 major interchange areas, where they could ask for such parking at all of these places. You are talking about probably some very substantial funds out of the Trust Fund. My own reaction is that I do not think enough study and careful preparation were given to that proposal. Nobody suggested where the money ought to come from. Mr. JOHNSON. Historically the highways departments have never felt this sort of thing should come from the Trust Fund. Mr. `CRAMER. There is no definition relating to what fringe parking is in the proposal, is there? Mr. JOHNSON. I think some of the States brought that up. I do not know whether we mentioned it or not. Mr. CRAMER. You have referred to overemphasis in administering section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation, having to do with park lands. This has been raised by a number of people and of course 4(f) reads, in the first sentence, "The -Secretary shall cooperate and consult with the Secretaries of Interior, Housing, Urban Develop- ment, Agriculture, and of the States developing transportation pro- grams," and so forth. Then it goes on to a `discussion of minimizing harm to such park and recreation areas, and so forth. This is interpreted as not permitting the use of these lands for highway purposes, the comparative costs notwithstanding; is that correct? Mr. JOHNSON. That is right. Mr. CRA~1IR. Could you explain to us what your overemphasis is, what you mean by that? Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we might cite the particular instance here in Washington where the Virginia Department has an agreement about the location of the Three Sisters Bridge. We might cite the situation in San Antonio, Tex., where the city actually voted a bond issue to get the right-of-way which involved getting a little section of a park area, and they were asked to come back and consider a location taking several hundred houses instead. There is a situation south of San Francisco, which I am certain the California people could talk on. There are others around. That is the type of thing we are talking about. We have got one down in Memphis, Tenn., dealing with a park. Mr. CRAi~tEn. Do you know how much more it is going to cost the State of Colorado, for instance, for 1-70 if it cannot go across the primitive area? 96-030-68------19 PAGENO="0290" 280 Mr. JoHNSoN. No, but that was the major reason ~or which we made. this. recommendation for hearings before primitive. a2~eas could be set' asid~. Mr. OA~EER. I understand it is substantial. .~ - Is it your position that you feel that the comparative costs and advantages and disadvantages should be considered rather than this being administered as a prohibition, in effect? Mr. JOHNSON. The States should take a look at every alternative location. In this matter that we had down in San Antonio, where the local people actually approved the location and ordered the bond issue to buy the right-of-way, I do not think it should have been opened up again. Mr. CRAMER. That was a city park, was it not, not a federally owned park? Mr. Joiixsox. That was a city park. Ase I understand it, there were close to 500 houses that would have to be moved in the alternative location that was asked to be considered. Mr. CRAMER. Do you have some language you suggest relating to this section that would put it in proper focus in your opinion? Mr. JOHNSON. Congress wrote a pretty good legislative history on that section. Mr. CRA3r~. It is being ignored, so I thought we might write some- thing into law. Mr. JOHNSON. I think if that legislative history were put into the act, a condensation of it, it would do the job. Mr. CRAMER. I would like to ask you to consider perhaps embodying that language in some manner in the legislation. You have, referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity program. I presume you are aware of the fact that the Comptroller General has recently provided that specific regulations must be adopted by the Department of Labor. With specific criteria established as a condi- tion precedent to the bid process, do you think that is satisfactory, realizing that Equa.l Employment Opportunity is the law? It is an approach to this problem, assuming that the Department of Labor might be kind enough to consult with this committee and perhaps with some of the States? Mr. MORTON. Yes, I think this is real major step in the right di- rection. I think your committee should meet with them and work out some of the details. I think this is a long step toward being able to specify in the contract exactly the terms that the contractor will be confronted with when he is the low bidder and performs the work. Mr. CRAMr~. We wrote on this subject again of preservation of park lands, in the 1966 Highway Act, public volume 9574, language in there, and this is what I wanted to call your attention to, Mr. Johnson. It took into consideration park lands us~. We wrote in that any land from any Federal, State, or local gov- ernment, park or historic site, the Secretary shall not approve any program which requires the use of this unless such program includes all possible planning, including consideration of alternatives to the use of such land to minimize any harm to such park or site resulting from such use. Mr. JOHNSON. That language is all right. PAGENO="0291" 281 Mr. CRAMER. We tried to balance off the merits of these proposals. Then the Transportation Act came along, of course, the Reorganiza- tion Act, which was publicized as really not making many, if any, basic policy changes in basic law relating to highways. This is an example where it did. They just sneaked a few things in here and there, which, incidentally, they have done in a few other reorganiza- tions, such as the Bureau of Public Roads, being downgraded. I have just one other question because of the time problem. You recommend that the State highway departments should make a func- tional classification of Federal-aid primary and secondary systems~ Can you indicate a little more specifically what you have. in mmci relating to functional classification? Mr. MORTON. I would say that activity along that line is already initiated. We would like to take a look at the total highway program or the total highway system of this Nation, and we believe that through proper study, roads can be assigned certain functional uses. Once we get their functional uses defined, then, by a very careful need study we can eventually develop a most realistic manner of apportioning funds to the rehabilitation or operation of this total highway system. Mr. CRAMER. This functional classification, what effect do you con- template it would have on the apportionment procedures? Mr. MORTON. I cannot say at the present time. Mr. CRAMER. You think this functional classification ought to be written into the law as a requirement, or should a study precede it, or how should it be approached? Mr. MORTON. I think a study should be authorized. I think you have got to find out just exactly what the study is producing. We believe that it can produce results that will be highly beneficial, but I would not dare to project just exactly what those results would be at this time. Mr. CRAMER. Do you have any comment on that, Mr. Johnson? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, Mr. Cramer. This study has actually already started~ The Bureau of Public Roads has started it. They have been over to meet with me a half-day. What they are thinking of doing is to write up the functional classifi- cation that a primary road should do, what its performance should be, and the same thing for a secondary road. As you know, when you get on 301 and go from here down to your home, you travel over several sections of secondary Federal-aid high- ways on Route 301. They were put there for the purpose of having money available, or that was where the `funds were available at the time that the projects were actually built. So we do have roads that are actually on the wrong system as far as classification is concerned. We would like to get a ~`-percent primary system that is a primary system, the roads serving the primary function. What is a primary system supposed to do? The `secondary system, then, would connect with and supplement and feed to the primary system and do what a secondary road is supposed to do. If we can get those done, get that reclassification done, and then get it on a uniform basis, we can give a `far better estimate than is currently available in the highway program. PAGENO="0292" 282 We have, for instance, in one State, nearly every public road in the State is on the Federal-aid secondary system, if it is not on the primary. In a couple of other States we have only 5 percent of the public mileage in those States on the secondary system. So it is logical that no State is going to get enough money, secondary money, ever to do 90 percent of its mileage. An estimate involving that State that has 90 percent of its mileage on the second system is not going to be in line with the Federal-aid needs of another State that has 5 percent. Mr. Cmuin. There has been some discussion by AASHO and others relating to reprograming what to do, on a long range, concerning metropolitan areas and so forth. Do you think that such a classification should be first made before questions of apportionment and other matters could be considered on a long-range basis? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I do. That is the reason we are asking you for this. Mr. CRAMER. If we are going to get at classification, we ought to get at it pretty soon. Mr. JOHNSON. We are asking that a cooperative study he made. We think it would add a lot of prestige to it, and would help it along if you would see fit to do so. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Cramer asked a question that I wanted to ask. Mr. Johnson stated that he would furnish the committee with the five States who had voted to take the money out of the trust fund for fringe parking. I am sure the committee will be happy to have that. We all know the trust fund is for the construction of roads. I think you gentlemen will agree with me that money will be going and going from the trust fund. Money is coming in every day, and there is temptation, I am afraid, where that money ~s going in, to let them put their hands in that barrel and shake out the salt and divert that to some other agency. I want you to know as long as I am chairman of this subcommittee, and with this fine committee we have, we are going to protect that trust fund. We are not going to divert any of that money for anything but construction for roads. I have said that time and again, and I mean it. We are going to continue to do the same thing. I am sure the members of the committee will support the chairman on this. Are there any questions of the gentlemen here? The gentleman from California, Mr. Clausen. Mr. cLAUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to compliment all the gentlemen present. I think they are a very fine panel, and have presented an extremely fine statement. Throughout this statement I detect that you feel as though your own personal activities are inhibiting you, they seem to be preventing the activities that you felt were established. You have certain oppothmi- ties to administer your program, based upon the 1956 act, and I detect all through your statement that somehow you are being preempted or postponed or in some way hindered in your normal, activities. Is this correct? Mr. MORTON. Yes. I think I could maybe define this. Mr. CLAUSEN. Is this a general condition in all of the States? PAGENO="0293" 283 Mr. MORTON. Yes, I think it is. I think we are reaching the stage where through bureaucracy `they try to spell out every particular de- tail. Consider the climatic conditions and the population and the terrain in the States. They are individual problems. To me it is impossible to write these directives so that they are gorng to fit the situation in every specific State or every particular locality. We are creating volumes and volumes and reams of paperwork that are not meaningful as far as I can see. It is time consuming and it is taking a lot of people to assemble this information. I think after it is assembled there is very little value to it. Mr. CLAUSEN. I note you are not offering any reconunendations for additional moneys, and that will come later; is that right? Mr. MORTON. That will be dealt with at some length, when we ap- pear before you on June 3d. Mr. CLAUSEN. There seems to be a general attitude that you do not seem to `be coordinating within other transportation departments within the confines of the States `as far as developing a balance in your transportation system. I know in the State of Oalifornia this is not true. Will you com- ment on this briefly? Mr. MORTON. Some people say that. I would like them to be specific as to where we are not cooperating. Mr. CLAU5EN. Throughout most of the States, is `there not an in- creasing tendency on the part of the State departments and agencies to want to coordinate among themselves, to come forth with a recom- mendation as far as a balanced transportation system is concerned? Mr. MORTON. Right. We consult with the Fish and Game Depart- ment, Forestry and Recreation, Planning and Development. Many of our hearings are before the public utilities commIssions. We consult with the power companies, the water pollution people. In all of these things where we meet and discuss, our hearings are open. People come in and testify. We feel that we are working cooperatively, with an open mind. There are always going to be some people who say `the road as it is being laid out is not in the right place. Mr. CLAUSEN. Then the final point. You made a comment about the fact that the population is tending toward suburbia, and seems to suggest that attention be given to those particul'ar areas. I am one of those who feels that the way we can resolve the problems of the cities is to reverse `this population trend. I think one of the ways this can be accomplished is to improve our primary and secondary roads. I am of the opinion that the ABC program and its formula is totally inadequate, but I realize we `have a basic financial problem in the overall picture. Are you `of the opinion that the primary and secondary road system recommendation in the bill is adequate? Mr. MORTON. No. We recognize that it is the `best we can do right now with the fund's available. Mr. CLAUSEN. So under these circumstances you are really holding back on recommending what you would really like to? Mr. MORTON. I think I have to go back. My first statement was that I `think the greatest contribution we can make is still `to go ahead and complete the Interstate System we have laid out. I think we see PAGENO="0294" 284 this tremendous need for modernizing our primary highways and ex- ~pandin.g our secondary roads. Our primary highways, I would say, that would connect between centers of population, between cities where we do not have good arterial connections at the present time, and the secondary system that acts as feeders. I think as far as the statement is concerned about the development of suburbia, all of our records show that the core of the city is not growing particularly fast. There is very slight growth in the core of the big city. But in suburbia, where the population explosion is taking place, there is greater growth. That i~ where we see a need for primary and secondary roads, to serve those areas.' Mr. CLAUSEN. This committee generally feels that there is a direct relationship between road construction that provides access into some of the rural sections of this country and economic growth. In many ways; this will do more to provide relief from the pressures that are building up in the cities than any one thing I can think of. * Do you agree with this,? Mr. MORTON. Yes. I think our Interstate System is `doing a great deal in that direction,' toward fostering this economic growth back into the areas that are not so heavily populated. Mr. KLUOzYN5KI. Mr. Morton, either you or Mr. Stapp testified this morning that you were doing away with this 10 percent penalty. Did I not hear somebody say something about doing away with that? Mr. MORTON. We are opposed to any penalty being associated with the highway beautification program. Mr. KLuozYNsKI. We had 100-percent penalty, but in the amend-~ ment we adopted a 10-percent penalty. Mr. Oim~r~. First it was no penalty, and we lost that. Mr. MORTON. Some of us have thought that instead of a penalty there might be a small bonus that would stimulate States to showing good taste and judgment in executing at least. a reasonable beautifi- cation program. Mr. CRAMER. Will the chairman yielcT? Mr. KLUOZYNSKI. Yes. Mr. CI~a~rEn. In the State. of Florida, for instance, with t.he encour- agement of Congress, and it `was quite proper they went. into a very substantial safety program. It is going to cost a Jot of money. Lo and behold, when their first year's appropriation came up, it was about one-third of the authorization. This year it is no better. There seems to be no great push, even .to get more money into safety. But there isa terrible push to get tha.t beauty money going. I just cannot see how, logically, you can put beauty ahead of safety, No. 1; a.nd No. 2, we make all these promises of these big authoriza- tions to the States. We insist on them acting, and if you do not actwe are going to give you a 10-percent penalty on all your highways. They go ahead and act and then we do not provide the. money for it. That is not very fair treatment, is it? Mr. MORTON. No, it is not. * Mr. CRAMER. Tha.t is about what is happening. is it. not? Mr. MORTON. Yes. PAGENO="0295" 285 Mi CRAMER We tell them they have to adopt legislation for this beauty program and then we don't put any money in it. I do not think that is keeping faith with the States. I think it is basic. We are faced with a similar problem in all of these new ideas, such as fringe parking, topics programs, and forest highways and what have you, and adding them to the trust fund. We are faced with the s'tme problem of knowing full well that the money is not going to be there Mr. MORTON. That is right. Mr. CRAMER. So I think we have to view these very carefully and not mislead the States and trap them into legislating on these pro gi `irns and then ending up with no money and the States have to fi nance the entire program. Mr., JoHNsoN. Mr. Cramer, in some instances, that threat of a pen- alty is an ii ritant to the legislatures Mr CRAMER I used to be in a legislature I can see that it is Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Denney? Mr. DENNEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the panel for appearing before this committee. Out in our State of Nebraska we have a great respect for AASHO. I think you received a letter from the State engineer, addressed to you, Mr. Chairman, asking unanimous cOnsent that a copy of his letter that was sent to me, addressed to you, be included in the record. Mr. KLuozYNsKI. Without objection, the letter will be included with the other letters received from other State highway engineers in the appendix to these hearings. (Seep. 808.) Mr. IDENNEY. Mr. Johnson, I take it from the testimony that has been given here today, No. 1, you are opposed to the 10-percent penalty, and you recommend the bonus that Mr. Morton was talking about; and, second, it `seems to me the thrust of your testimony is that we have to6 many chiefs around in the Federal Government, and you have to hire lots of people to do the paperwork, and then you are not quite sure of who you should see Is that correct ~ Mi MORTON That is right Mr. DENNEY. And you would like to see this committee try to work out some type `of legisintion so that the State highways departments `md youi group would knon who to turn to if they needed help, is that correct~ Mr. MORTON. Yes. I think honestly, going back over the years, we hear. all this `grief about certain `highway projects, but I think when you truly evaluate what has been accomplished in the past 50 years or the p'mst 10 ye'ns, billions of dollais have been well spent and I think sOnie real solid accomplishments have been made. I hate to see the program deteriorated because a few people say it just is not doing the `things they would `like to see it do. Mr. DENNEY. In other words, we should have some nonproliferation in Federal Government; is that not about right? Mr. MORTON. I would say so. ` Mr. KLIITCZYNSKI. If there are no further questions, I want to thank you, Mr. Morton and Mr. Johnson and Mr. Stapp, for your statements before this committee. You have always been very helpful to us. (Statement of Ward Goodman attached to statement `of Mr. Morton follows:) PAGENO="0296" 286 STATEMENT OP WARD GOODMAN, DIRECrrOR OF HIGHWAYS, ARKANSAS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, CHAIRMAN, AASHO COMMITTEE ON BRIDGES ANI) STEUCTURES; HEARING S. 2658, ROADS SUBCoMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE PUBLIC WORKS COM- MITTEE, MAY 28, 1968 Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the Committee, I am Ward Goodman, Director of Highways for the State of Arkansas and Chairman of the Bridges and Structures Committee of the American Association of State Highway Officials. I am pleased to have the opportunity of appearing before you and express our views on S. 2658, to amend Section 127 of Title 23, U.S. Code, relating to weight and size limitations on the Interstate System which is a part of the Federal Aid Primary System. For your convenience, my statements are listed first and the discussion follows. This statement pertains to the effect of the weight provisions of 5. 2658 on bridges only. Discussions pertain to main carrying members. Overstress in secondary members and floor system is just as critical but failure is not as catastrophic. The revised formula iii S. 2658 adds 4,000 pounds to every value listed in Table I of AASHO "Policy of Maximum Dimensions and Weights of Motor Vehicles to be operated over the highways of the United States." The proposed changes by 5. 2658 will have little adverse effect on bridges designed for HS 20-44 design load. However, for all bridges in the United States, those designed for HS 20-44 represent a small percentage of all the bridges, which are presently confined to the Interstate System. Practically all bridges off the interstate system are designed for H 15-44 or less. The provisions of S. 2658 will overstress bridges designed for B 15 or less to a dangerous extent. Fatigue stress loss will reduce the safe life of a majority of bridges. In a recent ballot, 18 Chief Highway Administrators who are charged with the operation and maintenance of bridges and highways voted against raising the present allowable 32,000 lbs. on a tandem axle by AASHO policy to 34,000 lbs. allowable, and all but a couple of the bridge committee members opposed going above the design loading of 32,000 lbs. It is important that the gross weight bridge formula will not only apply to the overall well base of the vehicle or combination vehicle, but also apply to intermediate axle groupings of the vehicle or combination vehicle. It is our hope that the final version of the bill will contain a table similar to that contained in the AASHO recommended policy showing maximum per- missible gross weights to guard against misinterpretations and to aid in administration. It hasn't been too many years since the builders of bridges were building them on the basis of intuition and experience. When the design of railroad bridges became a scientific analysis based on assumed sequence of wheel loads spaced very similar to an actual train, much progress had been made. The railroads have been largely successful in keeping the applied loads today very much in line with those used to design railroad bridges even as early aS~those designed prior to the nineteen hundreds. Equality of design and actual load on railroad bridges remains so today because of the raflroads' strict enforcement on their on their own, and peculiarities of track requirements. Highway people have not been so fortunate because no one could foresee the future of traffic wanting to use the highway bridges, either in profile of vehicles or application of load. Such flexibility could not be predicted. When highway bridge builders first began to design highway bridges, they borrowed from their friends the architects and assumed a uniform dead load to represent the coming live loads. Later it will be seen that our predecessors did a fine job in their assumptions. The application of a uniform load over the entire structure to take care of live load simply does not represent the actual condition of a live load moving across a bridge. Some members are over designed, some are under designed and none are designed for a reversal stress. Fatigue as a feature in design in the early years was practically unheard of and not taken into the design of a bridge at all and there was prac- tically no uniformity in the load to be assumed. Some designers were concerned about impact, others were not. Even until 1920 each state, city or other municipality developed its own specifi- cation for live load for highway bridge structures in this manner. Some called for impact, others did not. Table I shows some typical uniform loadings for steel truss ~r1dges (note year 1916). It is interesting to note that an analysis of these loadings give moments PAGENO="0297" cx TABLE~l.-UNIFORM Illinois Highway Commission Load Iowa Highway Commission Load Wisconsin Highway Commission Load American Concrete Institute, 1916 ------------ Ketchum's specifications, 1918 Class A Class B Load Load (feet) (pounds Class D1 Load Span (feet) (pounds per Class D~ Load Span (feet) (pounds per Span (feet) (pounds per square foot) Span (feet) (pounds per square foot) Span (feet) (pounds per square foot) Span (feet) (pounds per Span per square foot) square foot) square foot) square foot) Up to 50 125 50-100 100 100-150 100 150-200 85 Over 200 85 Up to 50 100 50-100 90 100-150 80 150-200 70 200-250 50 Over25O 50 Up to 40 125 50 120 75 106 100 93 150 - 60 l8Oandover. 50 Up to 80 125 Up to 80 100 80-100 110 80-100 90 100-125 100 100-125 80 125-150 90 125-150 75 150-200 85 150-200 65 Over200 80 Over200 60 30 125 50 106 80 85 100 80 160 68 200 and over-- 60 30 100 50 90 80 75 100 71 160 60 200andover__ 50 Note: Iowa State Highway Commission, class D1 and Ds bridge loadings, to be increased for impact. PAGENO="0298" 288 very close to the present H15-44 loading as specified in the AASHO Specifications. Moment is the principal measure of force which stresses the bridge load carrying members, and is the basis used for analysis in this statement. About 1920 the use of concentrated loads gained in popularity. The 1923 highway bridge specifications of the American Association of State Highway Officials, the Iowa State Highway Commission, and the 1923 tentative specifications of the American Society of Civil Engineers contain the following specifications for floor loads for girders and trusses, and for floors, as given in Table 1-a. TABLE 1-a-UNIFORM LIVE LOADS FOR GIR DERS AND TRUSSES Loaded length (feet) Live load in pounds per square feet, propor- tionate values for intermediate lengths 1- to 15-ton 1- to 20-ton 2- to 20-ton truck truck, 2 to 15 truck ton truck 50 100 130 180 100 200 and more 80 90 120 60 70 90 "The uniform load used shall correspond to the length of that portion of the span which, when fully loaded, will produce maximum stress in the member under consideration. When the loaded length is less than 50 ft., girders and truss members shall be designed for the floor live load. The trucks shall be placed so as to produce the most severe stresses. Two trucks shall be considered as headed in the same direction. Trucks in tandem need not be considered. Floor Live Loads.-All parts of the floor system and all girders and truss mem- bers when the loaded length is less than 50 ft. shall be designed for the following loads: (1-15) one 15-ton truck, or 100 lb. per sq. ft. of roadway; (1-20) one 20- ton truck, or 130 lb. per sq. ft. of roadway; (2-15) two 15-ton trucks; (2-20) two 20-ton trucks. In bridges involving three or more lines of traffic, the floorbeams and floorbeam hangers shall be designed for two trucks assumed to be located in the most unfavorable position, together with a uniform live load of 100 lb. per sq. ft. on the remaining lines of roadway not occupied by the trucks." 1924 Requirements in Highway Bridge Loadings are clearly shown in the fol- lowing excerpts from the Am. Soc. (J.E. 1924 Specifications. The Standard Speci- fications of the A.A.S.H.O. for 1926 differ only slightly from these loading requirements. "Traffic Classification of Bridges. Bridges shall be classified, on the basis of traffic, as follows: Class A. City bridges or other bridges carrying a highway traffic of exceptionally heavy load units. Class B. Bridges on primary roads. Class C. Bridges on secondary roads. Class li-Bridges carrying electric railway traffic in addition to highway traffic. Roadway Live Load-The live loads for roadway shall be represented by typical truck loadings. Each typical truck loading shall be considered as occupy- ing one lane of traffic 9 ft. wide. Typical truck loading shall be designated by the Letter H, followed by a numeral indicating the weight in tons of the typical truck loads. Typical Truck Loadings. For Floor System: H20, 20-ton trucks H15, 15-ton trucks, or one 20-ton truck H13, 13-ton trucks, or one 15-ton truck For Girders and Trusses: H20, 600 lb. per lin.ft. and 28,000 lb. concentrated HiS, 450 lb. per lin.ft. and 21,000 lb. concentrated 1113, 390 lb. lin.ft. and 18,200 lb. concentrated PAGENO="0299" 289 The concentrated loads are to be placed so as to cause maximum effect. Selection of Live Load. Olass A Bridges, H20 loads Olass B Bridges, H15 loads Olass 0 Bridges, H13 loads . . ." Figure 1. Typical trucks shall have total loaded weights distributed as in figure 1. This is the first reference to 111/5 Loading. It must be emphasized that when we refer to the standard truck or 1115 design truck that this is a design loading. It is not a composite truck or typical truck of the present and it has never been intended that it represent an actual truck. It is just a selected design truck for application of live loadings for purposes of design. It is not to be confused with the Type 2 or Type 3 or any other types listed in the AASHO "Policy on Maximum Dimensions and Weights of Motor Vehicles to be Operated Over the Highways of the United States", or any trucks presently in operation on the highways. The problem now and always has been is how to rationalize design load with safe load carrying capacity. The 1935 AASHO Specifications provided for trucks and truck trains and also the equivalent lane loadings. The present AASHO Specification states the system of lane loads was developed in order to give a simpler method of calculating moments and shears than that based on wheel loads of the trucks. In 1944 the HS series of trucks were developed. These approximate the effect of the corresponding 1935 truck preceded and followed by a train of trucks weighing 3/4 as much as the basic truck. The traffic classification of bridges as shown for the 1926 AASHO Specifications has been removed from the Specifications and for the past 30 years (approxi- mately) the load classification has been a function of the State Highway Depart- ment, the Bureau of Public Roads, and other agencies. Some states followed the policy of using heavier design loads, say H20 for Primary and 1115, etc. for Secondary, etc. Present AASHO Minimum Loading for trunk highways, or for other highways which carry, or which may carry, heavy truck traffic, the mini- mum live load shall be the HS15 designated therein. It is shown that the socalled H15 has been the governing design load for approccimately all bridges built prior to 1P35 and has been the basic design load for all ecccept major and interstate bridges since 1935. The use of a standard truck say 1115 for purposes of design provide a con- venient method for design, but leads to problems when comparing with the actual traffic patterns and loadings. TYPICAL TRUCK PAGENO="0300" 290 The problem of determining permissible loads for bridges is involved. This is due to the fact that the critical stresses produced in bridges by heavy vehicle loads are influenced by no less than seven variables. The seven important variables which must be taken into account in the calculation of critical stresses for even a simple span bridge are as follows: 1. Span lengths 2. Gross weight of vehicle 3. Wheel base length of vehicle 4. Number of axles 5. Spacing of axles 6. Distribution of gross weight among the axles 7. Repetition of load appliactions (fatigue) If all of these variables are taken into account by use of conventional methods, the only way in which the stress producing characteristics or effects of various heavy vehicle types and loadings on a given bridge can be determined accurately is by making a complete analysis of the stresses for that particular bridge, produced by each individual vehicle under consideration. And though such an analysis for any particular vehicle or loading on a given span is not too difficult, it is, to say the least, tedious and time consuming, if all possible combinations are investigated. The percent of live load overload which can be tolerated is a function of the type of structure and the length of span. As Figure 2 shows the ratio of dead to live load varies with the length of span for any particular type of structure. The lighter the structure is the most critical the overload becomes. We see from Figure 2 that for a 60' span the live and dead load moments using a 1115 loading are equal. With a 60% overload of the live load, the actual over- stress in the structure would be 30%. Later, when we discuss fatigue loading we will have more to say on this subject in regard to stress ranges. The present formula and tables which show the loads on 32,000 lbs. tandem axles which produces a 30% live load overstress are shown in Table II. The unit stresses used in highway bridge design provide a factor of safety of approximately 1.8 applicable to the stresses from the assumed design loads. Recurring over- stresses up to 30% of 1115 bridges maintained in good condition are not con- sidered by some to be extremely objectionable. This is a subject on which uniform agreement among the bridge engineers and other highway officials of the states is unobtainable. When the present formula and tables contained in "Policy on Maximum Dimensions and Weights of Motor Vehicles to be Operated Over the Highways of the United States" were adopted, major opposition was overcome after a defeat of a first proposal, which included a table based on the formula N-I W=500(LN+12N+36) modified. The general feeling seems to be that with a N-i small frequency of overloads some sacrifice can be made on the safety and life of the structure. Therefore, a % majority of AASHO members has accepted the 30% overstress. (Constant in formula becomes +32.) Along this line it should be noted that the 1965 AASHO Specifications contain the following overload provision. "The following provision for overload shall apply to all loadings except the 1120 and 11820 loadings. Provision for infrequent heavy loads shall be made by applying in any single lane an H or 115 truck as specified, increased 100 per cent, and without concurrent loading of any other lanes. Combined dead, live and impact stresses resulting from such loading shall not be greater than 150 percent of the allowable stresses prescribed herein. The overload shall apply to all parts of the structure affected except floor slab." The question arises as to when the conditions of traffic change from an infre- quent heavy load to a load which should be the design loading. This question can only be answered by an analysis of the traffic at each bridge. It would be worthwhile to explain here that although the design load has remained relatively constant at 1115 for the major percentage of the bridges, the load carrying capacity on newer bridges has generally increased. This is due to the increase in roadway width. For the typical I-Beam or R.O.D. Girder bridge with four or more members the loads for an extremely heavy loading in one lane are generally distributed more uniformly than our specifications provide. The AASHO road test has provided basic information on the equivalent effects of single- and tandem-axle weights on both rigid and flexible pavements for the conditions of the road test. This information is a basic requirement in establish- PAGENO="0301" 291 ESTIMATED PERCENT OF TOTAL DESIGN STRESSES REPRESENTED BY LIVE LOAD PLUS IMPACT AND DEAD LOAD STRESSES FOR SIM- PLE SPAN DECK GIRDER BRIDGES OF 11-15 DESIGN P ~r ,-~O)PLRCENT L$VC LOAD PLUS IMPACT -~ NOTE: THESE CURVES APPLY TO 6O~H MAX1MU~A - - MOMENT AND TO MAXIMUM SHEAR 7C---~------- E E E - (b) ~ENE PERCENT DEAD LOAD 20 ic' L.___. COPY O~ SHEET .~80~!!~ SPAN-FEET FIGUIIE 2 U) In Iii I- If) -J I- 0 U- 0 I- z w U UI 0~ 0 20 40 60 80 ~0o PAGENO="0302" 2 m ~ ~ ~ ~-1O~~n4. ~i~i 0 ~ ~ z ~- ~ 3 ~ 0 ~ ~fl() 5. 5. * ~ ~ ~ N P mfl ci - - ~, ~~$! ~ -: ~ 0 ~ No~permt~ieci )~c,~*c.) cccQj Z ~ NotP mNd ~ggg PAGENO="0303" - ~:~I~II:N:::IdI. ~~II1:T~ ~ so.000(A) (B) - -: ~ 1iiiiiii~i;~:iiiEiEEiiiii-iiiii-iIiIi-IIif~ii-iIiII-IiiII-IIi14NfP~Hd ~ (B) NofPerm~f+ed 74,000(A) (3) NfPmffd (B) ~ NofPermiHed ~ -4 o ~ z 2: ~ -z I 4 3 2 C C) 0 I -4 PAGENO="0304" 294 ing axle weight limits. The equivalence relationship for a range of single and tan~ dem axles on rigid and flexible pavements, based on the road test data, has beem established. There are many formulas that wOuld approximate the maximum desirable loads. One is the present simplified bridge formula which may be used to deter- mine permissible gross weights and axle weights. This formula in its present form as stated in "Policy on Maximum Dimen- sions and Weights of Motor Vehicles to be Operated Over the Highways of the United States" conforms with the results of the AASHO road test mentioned. earlier. I wish to emphasize the present formula was not devised by the AASHO Bridge Committee, was developed in its general form prior to the AASHO road~ tests, and was never approved by a % vote of the AASHO Bridge Committee. It was the opinion of those voting against, that the formula allowed gross loads that were too high. The basic axle loads used for development of this formula are 18,000# for a single axle and 32,000# for a tandem axle. The present AASHO Policy is modi- fled to allow 20,000# on a single axle when spaced 8 feet or more apart. The change in the proposed formula from the present formula is a change from 32,000# to 36,000# for a tandem axle. This changes the permissible gross. load of the vehicles, even though it may not be a vehicle with tandem axles. Chart No. 1 shows graphically the comparison of the proposed loading S.B.. 2658 and the three (3) common types of AAS11O Standard Loadings (1115, 1120 and 11S20). Chart No. 2 shows the percentage of the moments produced by the proposed. loading as a percent of the standard loadings. The maximum percentage for the 1115 loading is 176% which is for the 83' span. You will note that the effect of the new load on bridges with HS24) design, loading is minor. Bridges designed for 1120 loading have an overload of approxi- mately 32% which will result in a maximum overstress of probably 15%. The effects on 1115 bridges is much more critical. With 76% overload for the live load moment an overstress of approximately 40% can be anticipated. While no definite statement can be made as to this overstress we feel that this is in excess of what can be tolerated without exceeding the proper limits of safety- and structural life. Until recently, the AASHO Specifications considered that only loadings which produce a change in sign of the stress were critical in fatigue. The specifications also assumed that the loads would be repeated at least 2 million times, and therefore, allowable stresses were kept below the fatigue limit. Recent research and study indicated that these limits were not adequate. Therefore, in the 1965 Specifications a new set of criteria was published. Table 2 shows the cycles of loadings for the different types of roads. TABLE 2 Case Type of road Number of cycles of maximUm stress to be used when the length I of load producing maxi- mum stress is 0 to 14 feet Over 14 feetto Over 44 feet inclusive (H 44 feet inclusive (lane loading) loading) (HS loading) 1 1. Freeways; 2. Exressways; 3. Major highway and streets__ 2,000,000 500, 000 100,000' II Other highways and streets not included in Case I 500,000 100, 000 100, 000' 1 Defined as: (1) the distance from first to last axle on the bridge; (2) the length of uniform live load. PAGENO="0305" 295 ~~HHiH1I 11 I ~1L1F! I! ~ _________________________ _________________________ ______________ ~;` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __________________________ t~E ~ ~ ~ ~t~I ~ ~ ~ ___ ~ioo~h ~ Ii1t~ ~ ft:~ ~ ~ qO, 800 ~ ~ ~;~1~1 ~ ~ 700~ ~ ~1 411L~~i~ ~ ~ J ~ 600 ~ ~ 0 ~ - 500~~ ~ I ~ ~ II 1~ ~ ~1 ii ~ ~ -I ~i~L ~ ~ H ~ ~ 300 ~LI~ I c//ART J'VOJ ~- H - ~ ____ 200 ~~~1 r ri-i I [-~ b~N(~±/th~ ~ -1 L I _____ ]~t~Th~ ~ ~ 4 I H H - ___ I I ~ 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' ,50' 70' /~,0' S~~4 Af L ENG 7W IN ~~EET 96-030-G8-----20 PAGENO="0306" 296 L:~LCh&'j/ ~ ::r::~ ~ ~ ________________________________________________________ ~ _____________________ ~ : ~ ~ I _______ `~zo' 30' 40 50' ~6 70' 80' ~o' /~a' SP4N LENGTh' I/I P,EE7~ PAGENO="0307" 297 As is shown in Figures 3 and 4 a reduction in the basic allowable stress is made for stress ranges which are always a + for some conditions. This takes us back to the previous discussion where we discussed the 60% overload and 30% overstress. With a critical number of large loads or overloads, the allowable stress should be reduced. Thus we see that the fatigue life of a member may be reduced by a large number of stress cycles slightly in excess of the fatigue limit or by a few cycles greatly in excess of the fatigue limit (overstressing). While we cannot say specifically what a change in the allowable loads will do to the actual number and size of heavy loads it is logical to assume -that the truckers will take advantage of this increase. Therefore, it would seem that the fatigue life of the structures could be greatly reduced. Just to give you an idea as to what must be considered in regard to fatigue the following discussion probably will be of value. FACTORS AFFECTING FATIGUE OR SERVICE LIFE The prediction of fatigue resistance is complicated by the fact that citation of maximum stress alone does not define a unique service life. In general, the stress spectrum to which a member or connection will be subjected, the nature -and condition of the part, and -the environment in which it will function will -all influence the service life. The factors influencing the fatigue resistance of a structural part or laboratory specimen are: A. Load Spectrum 1. Stress ratio R 2. Maximum stress 3. State of stress 4. Repetition of stress a. Regular or random b. Frequency c. Rest periods 5. Understressing or overstressing lB. Nature and Condition of Member 1. Prior stress history a. Residual stresses b. Work-hardening 2. Size and shape of member a. Size effect (simulation of a member by a small specimen) b. Stress gradient c. Presence of notches 3. Metallurgical structure a. Microstructure, grain size, and chemical composition b. Mechanical properties 4. Welding a. Metallurgical b. Mechanical C. Environment 1. Temperature 2. Atmosphere The stress range and the number of cycles of loading are the two (2) most -critical factors for fatigue. For example, it has been shown that for welded girder bridges with partial length cover plates a stress range of 11,300 psi leads to failure at approximately 2,000,000 cycles. If the stress range is increased to around 15,000 psi, which is a 33% increase in stress, failure can be expected to occur at approximately 1,000,000 cycles. Therefore, with a 33% overstress for this particular type of structure a reduction of 50% in the life of the structure can be anticipated. I might say that partial length welded cover plates are a common type of structural member for highway bridges. Although it may be concluded that if controlled similar to the 1964 AASHO Policy the increased weight provisions occasioned by the 36,000 lb. tandem axle or the revised formula provided -by 5. 2658 will not have too bad an effect on those bridges designed for HS 20-44, it is my opinion that the increase cannot be tolerated for bridges designed for less than ITS 20-44. Although the Bill provides that the new allowance apply to the Interstate System only, it is my judgment that it will be only a matter of time until pressures extend them to other systems. The matter of containing trucks to the Interstate System is, in our PAGENO="0308" These curves are for A36, A441, and A242 weldable steel. K~= 1.00 Fatigue stress, Fr shall not exceed the basic allowable stress. CURVE TYPE CYCLES FORNULA NUMBER OF u a j~E~ z~05, can ~ ;)~ g ~ STRESS 100,000 500,000 2,000 000 k1(l5,000) - l-.7R k1(lO,500) T-6~d1 ~~c_~2922_ l-0.83R 8 ~ ~Z O~ ZVD ~ ~ E-' 0 * Does not apply to the usual continuous fillet welded flange web connections and similar connections which are governed by BASE MBTAL criteria. 298 :: :~: = 21: :1:: :1:::: :2:: ElF E F H E~E ElF FE F E ~E ~7LI E E~ EE E F E E F E ~? VE H ~ ~`F F F = - ~ = = ~-~E ~ = : = ~ :t~i =~: ii:: = I ~ ~E E~ ~ ~ E F : F FE E F E ~: F FlEE F F F 30,000 25,000 20,000 .,~ to 0. to to 15,000 ~ to 0 10,000 -o:~~ 5,000 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 ±0.2 +0. R = am. max. +0.6 -t-0.8 +1.0 ALLOWABLE STRESSES (FATIGUE) PAGENO="0309" 299 For ASS steel, use values from pletlsd cvrvss. For low aiioy steels, multiply the curve value 0q F~ by tl~s appropr~cs k, vokie from the table. Fatigue etress,F~, shall not *acssd thi basic ellowoble stress, 30,000 ~ 000 .3 ~0,OO0 15,000 ~ 0 -I -J 10,000 6,000 e.4 `.8 .e .1.0 0 -.8 -.6 -.4 -. 2 0 .2 mm. moe. CYCLCS FORMULA ~ç~J~Ryg_ ~,- sw alloy steel t'~F fc I- ~ rn a ~ 0 o ~ 0. -C, -i 0. CD 3 rn `~ Cl) -0,-i 3 ~~0oo. ~%< 9~CD~5°3CIC DC ~::::T~~::::~::::::: c~:r.~::::~ 3 C ICCC*ICCCCCCCCCCICIC 0 OOcCcCO o 000~ 000000000 0(000000)000000000) 00000000000000 -u C/) 3 Cl, -I I- DO 3 o0~. 3 3 C C 0) ((11(1111 ~CI I C C C) 000000000000 0) (130) -u C/) 3 C/) 3 PAGENO="0652" 640 the validity of State enactments prior to 1956, it also recognizes State enactments subsequent to 1956 which did not violate the Federal law. This is reasonable, logical, and essential. Any progress which might be expected to flow from the proposed legislation wouTd be destroyed by elimination of the "grandfather" clause. In fact, such an action would be so retrogressive and devastating that the industry for which we speak-and probably many of the others interested in the legislation, both private and official---would be forced'to oppose the legislation. The present laws of the States were enacted-in many cases 30years ago-for good reason and in good faith. These States have built their highway systems, including their segments of the Interstate System, to fit their laws. We cannot imagine the Congress, after all these years, requiring the States to wipe out decades of progress. You would be' giving a little with the right hand, and taking away much more with the left. The "grandfather" clause is just as reasonable and sound. now as is was when it was enacted, and it is absolutely vital that it be continued. That concludes my direct statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HOWARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Bresnahan. It was ~ fine statement. I would like to just mention one thing concerning the widths of trucks. As I understand it, many States where we have a divider between lanes of traffic, there is a feeling the vehicle may use the entire width of the roadway up to the divider. In my own State of New Jersey, I believe there is in use a `divider `which has a 4-foot wide base and that also there is a limit of the side overhang of the trucks beyond the wheels of 2 feet, which would mean that trucks coming in opposite directions alongside the divider, if they have their wheels at the edge of the pavement alongside the divider, the 2-foot overhang on each side would have them practically touching as they pass. This does not include any additional space that might be .taken by the mirror of the vehicle. If the truck width is increased and the width between the wheels remains the same, would this not give a natural overhang that would cause trucks whose wheels are on the pavement at the edge of this central 4-foot divider the great possibility of collisions of trucks moving toward each other? ` ` ` ` ` Mr. Bresnahan. Do you' want to answer that? , Mr. KIBBEE. I do not' think that I follow you, sir, on your 2-foot extension.~ , :`~ ` .: Our vehicle is now 96 inches wide It would be 96 inches wide at its wheels and at its side and then the mirrors might extend as much as 7 to 8 inches on either side of this vehicle. So that the dimension that the overhang, if I understand your question correctly, would be an overhang of approximately 8 inches on each side, and then the two tru~ks passing would absorb 16 inches. If I understand you correctly, there were 4 feet in which to absorb this 16 inches, is that correct? Mr. HOWARD. Yes. PAGENO="0653" 641 Mr. KJBBEE. So I see there would be no difference at all. If the edge of the wheels of the vehicle are at the edge of the pave- ment, the same mirror would be on the 102-inch-wide truck as would be on the 96-inch-wide truck, so there would he no difference at all, if I understand your question correctly. Mr. HOWAED. In other words, the trucks do not in any way overhang 2 feet there beyond the outer limits of the wheel? Mr KIBBEF No, sir, they do not Mr. HowARD. Thank you very much. I would state that there' is a great amount of controversy, as far as my office is concerned, concern- ing additional legislation on width aiid weights for the trucks. I have received dozens of letters from my own area over the past 2 weeks, every day, opposed to the legislation very strongly. I think if we were to take a nationwide poll concerning this, that there would be overwhelming objection to it. I think the average motorist feels uncomfortable not only, with the size of the trucks using our highways, but also the speeds at which they drive and the overbearing driving attitudes of some of `its op- erators, though I am very happy that we can have you here' for sug- gestions concerning this, because there is probably not only oppositioi~, but certainly a great deal of misunderstanding possibly throughout the country as to just what this legistlation will do. I imagine that you are aware of this feeling throughout the country,~ but I just wanted to say it in case you were not. Mr. BIIESNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may make an observation on that, .1 certainly agree with you that there has `been a great deal of misunderstanding about the legislation. ` On matters of motor vehicle lengths, the States have been pretty rigid in the regulation of motor vehicles lengths and in most areas,, particularly in the east, there are lengths limits of 55 feet. And as the previous witness pointed out, even in the absence of any Federal length limit, we Ii ave been remarkedly misuccessful in pi evailing upon the States to go beyond the 55-foot limit. Now, our main point, is about the length, that to' attempt. to come up with one limit, one length limit that would accommodate the condi- tions and the needs throughout `the country is really unrealistiè unless you came up with such a length limit that is probably `highly objec- tionable in the congested east. And the Federal Government has never regulated and, in spite of this, the lengths have been held clown. Mr How &RD Thmk you for voui comment We ire happy that the hearing is today rather than one day last week when I was driving down the center lane of Kennilworth Ave- nue, down there just east of District of Columbia Stadium; had that been this morning, I would have come into the committee in a much more frightened mood as to what occurred on' the side of me, moving mountains they seemed to me at that time. ` ` ` Are there any questions on my right? , ` ` `. Mr. Edmondson. ` ` ` ` ` Mr EDMO~DSON Thank you Mr Ch'urman I would like to compliment Mr. Brésnahan for a very fine' statement. I w ant to expiess particuF~r appreci'ttion for the supplemental state ment that has been made a nart of therecOrd. which I believe contains some very helpful information, very interesting information to the~ PAGENO="0654" 642 I am impressed by the data which appeared on pages 13 and 14 with regard to the safety accomplishments of the trucking industry, the fact that the general accident involvement rate for trucks is much more favorable in terms of the record of the industry, than is the gen- eral accident involving passenger cars and also buses, and that the fatal accident statistics and occupant fatality statistics also compares favor- ably for the industry. 1 confess some confusion and your own material confesses some con- fusion about the comparisons for the select ICC group, the fact tha.t some of the statistics for the select ICC group do not reflect quite as favorable a picture for that particular segment of the industry as you would expect in view of the reference that is made to the higher order of driving, selection, training, vehicle maintenance, and general oper- ating practices. I think you would expect the statistics on fatalities of operators to be better than they are, and I wonder if you would care to comment on why it is that the operators do not compare more favorably than they do? Mr. BRESNAHAN. I am trying to locate the points you have reference to in my statement here. Mr. ED3Io~osoN. It shows the accident involvement, rate of the ICC group is only about one-fifth of the general fleet, shown on page 15. It goes ahead and shows the driver fatality rate of 2.25 per 100 million vehicle miles for the ICC group. corresponding very closely with the 2.6 rate for the general fleet. What accounts in your mind for this driver fatality rate being pretty close to the general fleet, while the accident involvement is only about one-fifth of the general fleet? Mr. BRESNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would be all right if I brought up to the table the director of our safety department, Mr. Goley D. Sontheimer? Mr. HOWARD. Please do. Mr. EDMONDSON. The statistics to which I refer appear on page 15 and page 16 of the supplemental statement, and I think it shows a very favorable picture insofar as accident involvement. But the driver fatal- ity figure does not appear to be correspondingly lower. In fact, just about the same way. Mr. HOWARD. Would you please state your full name and position for the benefit of the record? Mr SONTHEIMER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My name is Goley D. Sontheimer. I am the director of the Depart- ment of Safety of the American Trucking Associations, located in Washington, D.C. In regard to the fatality rate, Mr. Congressman. this is the occupant rate that is referred to here, the occupant. of the vehicle. The two rates seem to be so closely related because the truck occupancy-that is, there is usually one driver or not more than two in most of the cases where they are involved in an accident. Now, these accidents that are reported involve bot.h collisions with other vehicles, collisions with trucks or run off of the roadway acci- dents. These seem to be, as far as we could determine, about the same regardless of type of track, in accord with the number of miles operated. PAGENO="0655" 643 We have no definite explanation in this area except that the trucks are much the same and the drivers are considerably alike, and there are the same number generally in each truck. So we come up with an. occupancy fatality rate about the same when the vehicle is involved in an accident. . Mr. EDMONDSON. Now, your own exhibit says that it is assumed that because of the higher order of driver selection, of training, vehicle maintenance, general operating practices of this select group~ of corn- mon and contract carriers, that their safety record is better than the industry as a whole. Notwithstanding that, you say that truckdrivers are about the same; the trucks are about the same. I am just trying to figure out whether your exhibit really is mean- ingful on this point, or whether they are about the same, whether there is no reason to expect a lower fatality rate for your drivers in the select group that has been mentioned in your own exhibit here. Mr. SONTHEIMER. Well, let me say that in regard to this particular statistic, the researcher-and we are both in the same position and you are correct, I am not sure that this particular occupancy thing is meaningful because we have been unable to understand it. This is a study that is done by Dr. Wolf, who heads the Automotive Crash Industry Research Department, Cornell University's Research Division. Mr. EDMONDSON. It is somebody else's data, but you submitted an exhibit and I was just trying to get tO the depth. I was moving to a much more serious item, the driver fatality, which appears on page 16 in the final paragraph. It says: "The average number for `other' people killed per driver is 5.93," for this select group, "compared to the gen- eral fleet record of 2.19 as just discussed. This may be related to truck size and an indication of greater severity of accidents in the ICC group." Would you comment on that, on why a truck's size would produce a greater severity of accidents and the "other" people killed ratio that is pretty close to three times as high as the general fleet record. Mr. SoN IRIMER. Yes, sir. What is meant here is that in a collision, the truck, of any given size and weight, being so much larger than a passenger car, that the opportunity for fatality in that type of crash is far greater for the occupants o~, the lighter vehicle than for those in the truck. Now, it might be somewhat different if trucks have more than one man exposed in each crash. Gen~rally that is the case. There is one driver on the truck. Often in the other colliding vehicles there may be five or six people. This same thing shows up even in the ACIR study in the small passenger car in collision with the heavy passenger car in the Cadillac or Lincoln class. For instance, the fatality rate of the Volkswagen in collision with the heavier vehicles was about 12 times that of the heavier car. And it is largely a matter of physics, I think, that the occupants of the larger vehicle are safer than the occupants of the smaller one when the two collide. Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Sontheimer, wóüld you put side by "side the figures on accidents volume, figures on fatal accidents, results, for the large vehicles that are a part of this 1CC select group g PAGENO="0656" 644 Tell me whether in the overall you have a situation in which the likelihood of fatality resulting from the use of these bigger trucks is. less or greater. That is not stated very well. What I am trying to get at is do you get enough reduction of involve- ment in accidents-I think your figures are to show that there the volume of ratio is only about one-fifth what it is for the rest of the trucks. You get enough reduction of involvement in accidents to offset the statistics which you yourself presented that show the likelihood of fatality in an accident is a great deal higher in these trucks. Mr. SONTHEIMER. Where they are the same type of truck, yes, we do. It is a little difficult to explain at length, but I would be glad to put together some figures and submit along with this if you wish. Mr. EDMONDSON. I think it would be' useful. I think all of us are interested in safety a.nd it is of paramount consideration with many on this committee. Mr. MoCL~ruv. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. EDMONDSON. As a person sponsoring legislation to support in- crease in your axleload and support the new approach that you have proposed with regard to gross weight, I would be verymuch interested in a documentation, if it can be supplied~ that the overall effect of this step is going to be an improvement in the safety picture on the highway. I think you may have the raw material for that conclusion in the supplemental statement that has been submitted, but I think it needs some analysis and some refinement to really make a convincing exhibit on that subject that I would like to see. If you can submit something additional on this, I think it would be very helpful. Mr. BRESNAHAN. We will undertake to do that. Mr. MCCARThY. On that point, Mr. Edmondson, I have the speech of the Federal F[ighway Administrator, Mr. Bridwell, before the Truck Council, and he said heavy commercial truck vehicles com- prising 27 percent of the registered vehicles, coming to 11 percent of the motor vehicle miles traveled, were involved in 19 percent of the highway fatalities. We are now killing about over ~0,0OO a year; that would be about 9,000 deaths. I am wondering why is it that with only 7 percent of the Nation's registered .motor vehicles, you are involved with 19 percent of the deaths? Does that relate to the weight factor? Mr. SoNTii1~I3iiR. In the first place, Mr. Congressman, these figures used in that particular speech are extrapolated and extended figures, iire not borne out actually by the facts. These were extended across some 6 million trucks, methuna and light, as- Mr. McCAirriar. He said heavy commercial vehicles. Mr. SONTIrEIMER. I understand, sir. But heavy classification in the Federal Government has always been 46,000 pouunds or more gross. And there are, according to the Bureau of Public Roads statistics, but 1,461,000 heavy trucks. However, the point which you ask about, when we use the proper figures on heavy vehicles, `we are down to about 11 percent of the fatality mvolvement, rather than 19 percent Certaiuly it gets back to the same thing that any vehicle in collision with a heavier vehicle, there is much more likelihood in the light PAGENO="0657" 645 vehicle for fatality, much more likelihood for fatality, and it extends even as I say betweencars, as well as cars and trucks. Mr MCCARTHY Well, yes Ihere was another point brought out by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety-almost half of the fatal and injury producing accidents involving trucks resulted from colli- sion with an automobile. For every truckdriver that died in such acci- dents, 38 others died. Mr. SONTHEIMER. Yes, sir. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, are we going to hear from Mr. Bridwell during these hearings to clarify this point o.n the fatalities? Mr. HOWARD. 1 am informed we are tomorrow. Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you. Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Edmondson. Mr. EDMONDSON. I would like to ask unanimous consent for Mr. Bresnahan or Mr. Sontheimer to be given leave to submit a supplemen- tary statement. to the supplemental statement, giving the overall evalu- ation that they place upon these statistics that appear on pages 13 to 16 in the supplemental statement, and the impact on safety as they see it from the increase in size and weight of the trucks. Mr. HOWARD. Without objection, so ordered. (The information follows:) AMERICAN TRUCKING AssocIATIoNs, INC., Washington, D.C., June17, 1968. Hon. JOHN C. KLTJCZYNSKI, Chajiirman, Subcommittee on Roads, Committee on Public Works, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dn~.a Mu. CHAIRMAN: In connection with our testimony during the hearing be- fore your Subcommittee on the proposed increases in the allowable sizes and weights of motor vehicles using the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, we wish to submit the following additional information for the record. This information is both in direct answer to questions relative to our testimony and in reply to certain points raised in testimony given in opposition to the pro- posed legislation. Reference was niade to the collapse on December 1~, 1967, of the Silver Bridge at Point Pleasant, West Virginia, the weight of the traffic that was on it and the relationship of this tragedy to the vehicle size and weight legislation currently before the Subcommittee. WTe would first like to correct the impression given in testimony before the Subcommittee that the Sili ei Bi icige is t~ pical of quite a few that we have in this country. This is not the ease. The Silver Bridge was a suspension bridge of ~a very unique type. There is only one other bridge like it in the United States and, we understand one additional in another part of the world To our knowledge, the cause of the Silver Bridge collapse has not been~deter- mined, nor has the location of the initial failure been finally determined. There- fore our comments in this statement are based on presently available informa tion. They should not be taken as a prejudgment of what the final conclusions may be There have been public hearings held May 7-10 in Charleston West Virginia by the National Transportation Board These hearings and other public state ments by knowledgeable officials haven t thrown much light on the failure and have ruled out certain factors as the probable cause Together with technical in formation about the design of the bridge the issue of possible vehicle ovei bid is clarified immensely Most important have been the statements regarding the collapse of the Silver Bridge which have ruled out probable causes. One of the most direct has been that of Mr Frank Masters Jr of the firm of Modjeski & Masters Harrisburg PAGENO="0658" 646 Pa;, made to the Senate Public Works Committee on March 19, 1968, during hear- ings on bridge design.' "We are convinced that it did not go down because of overload at the time of the collapse, there being one lane loaded approximately one-half of its length and only seven vehicles in the other lane. Two lanes on the bridge, the bridge being designed to have three lanes of traffic on it, and a rather heavy loading. You can see easily that it was a long way from being overloaded at the time it collapsed." Mr. Masters' statement bears weight because his firm was retained by the Roads Commission of West Virginia to investigate the collapse. Subsequent and confirming information was released at the Public Hearings in Charleston. At this time, the discussion was more specific, with the expert witness from the Mocljeski & Masters firm identifying a member of the major `eyebar" supptrting chain as being the point of initial failure and collapse. This testimony is contained in the transcript of the hearings labeled "Vol. 3, Docket No. S-H-2. May 9, 1968." The witness is Dr. Gerald K. Gillan, Senior Structural Associate of the Modjeski & Masters firm. The discussion was technical and related to such things as stress levels. How- ever, on page 587 of the transcript, beginning on line 17, the following question was asked by Mr. Scheffey, of the Federal Board of Inquiry, relating to a parti- cular bar of the eyebar chain: Question: (By Mr. Scheffey) "Your own compuations and those of Mr. O'Keefe indicate that the stress being carried by this member at the time of the collapse was appreciably below the design stresses and therefore there must be some cause rather than overloading for this structure." Answer: (By Dr. Gifian) "I quite agree." In layman's language, then, it is clear that the portion of the Silver Bridge which is believed to have failed and led to the collapse, the main supporting eye- bar chain, was not overloaded at the time of the collapse. In fact, this member did not even have as much load onit as it was designed for. We believe the evidence at this point strongly supports the tentative conclusions that the Silver Bridge at the time of its collapse was not carrying a weight of traffic as high as its design capabilities. It failed for a reason other than its load design. It also bears repeating that the Silver Bridge was of a design that is completely unique; has not been repeated since 1928; and definitely is not a design found on our modern highway system. During our testimony before the Subcommittee on Roads of the Committee on Public Works on June 11, we submitted a supplemental statement on Truck Transportation and Highway Safety. This statement was submitted because of confusion that exists in some areas about the safety record of trucks and partic- ularly heavy trucks. The principal problem revolves around the definition of a heavy truck and the validity, or lack of it, of using the experience of a select group of vehicles to estimate the performance of a much larger noncomparable group. Accident statistics are available for all motor vehicles, for all passenger cars as a group, for all trucks as a group, and for buses as a group. No comprehensive data are available on truck accidents by size of vehicle. Data, however, are available on accidents involving motor carriers subject to I.C.C. safety regulation. Those that are most comprehensive cover the large regulated for-hire motor carriers. For a number of reasons, these different sets of data are not comparable. I.C.C. regulated carrier sare required to report all accidents involving $250 or more in property damage and all accidents regard- less of amount in which personal injury is involved. The Department of Transportation, through its Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, polices this reporting. While most states also require the reporting of accidents in which a stated amount of property damage or personal injury is incurred, the enforcement of the provisions of these laws against motorists and small truck operators appears to be less strict than is the case with the I.C.C. carriers. Thus, the coverage of the I.C.C. carriers from the standpoint of accident reporting is much better than is the average for all vehicles. The frequency of truck accidents is undoubtedly overstated statistically, as compared to other vehicles, because of more accurate reporting. In the case of I.C.C. regulated trucks the discrepancy is even wider. `Hearings before the Subcommittee on Roads of the Committee on Public Works, United States Senate, 90th Cong., 2nd Seas., on Status of the Inspection, Maintenance, and Design of Bridges In the United States March 18, 19, and 20, 1968, page 113. PAGENO="0659" 647 In our attempt to show that there are no data presently available with which valid comparison can be made between all classes of trucks or between trucks and passenger cars, we attached to our statement a portion of a paper "Truck Accidents and Traffic Safety-An Overview" which was presented at the Na- tional Midyear meeting of the Society of Automotive Engineers in May, 1968 by Dr. Robert A. Wolf of Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory. Our purpose in presenting Dr. Wolf's paper was to illustrate the point that there are not available today any figures which will permit a valid comparison between accident statistics of different classes of vehicles on a common basis. Dr. Wolf was pointing up the need for such a comparison and suggesting a method that might be helpful along these lines. Congressman Edmondson in attempting to understand some of the comparisons contained in the Wolf paper, asked two specific questions. These were: (1) What accounts in your mind for this (I.C.C. group) driver fatality rate being pretty close to the general fleet, while the accident involvement is only about one- fifth of the general fleet?" (2) "Would you comment on that, on why a truck's size would produce a greater severity of accidents and the `other' people killed ratio, that is pretty close to three times as high as the general fleet record?" The specific statement questioned by Congressman Edmondson in his first ques- tion can be confusing. Dr. Wolf says: "In comparing the general truck fleet with the special I.C.C. carrier group it is noted that the driver fatality rate of 2.25 per 100 MVM (Million Vehicle Miles) for the I.C.C. group corresponds very closely with the 2.6 rate for the general fleet by the MSS method." He then goes on to say: "The equality of the common carrier driver fatality rate with the industry average is an enigma to the author-it may be that the greater speeds and greater severity of accident patterns in intercity travel overshadow some of the other factors of urban accidents even though there is preponderance of trucking operations in intrastate and urban travel." The I.C.C. truck driver fatality rate of 2.25 per 100 MVM was established from the I.C.C. data on intercity truck combinations and their mileage as re- ported by the involved motor carriers. Each driver involved in these reports operates 70 to 80 thousand miles annually compared to the average 11,000 miles annually operated by each driver in the total U.S. truck fleet. This means that the I.C.C. intercity driver has an exposure about 7 times greater than that of the driver in the total U.S. truck fleet. We believe that this exposure factor per driver, which is not taken into consideration in Dr. Wolf's Measure of Systems Safety, explains the comparability of the two rates and that the record of the I.C.C. intercity driver is 5 to 7 times better than that of the average driver in the total U.S. truck fleet. Accidents generally, involving vehicles of all types, passenger cars, buses and trucks, tend to be more severe on rural roads than on urban streets. In 1966, for example, the number of fatalities resulting from motor vehicle accidents occurring in rural areas was more than twice the number occurring in urban areas. The respective figures were 36,800 rural accident deaths compared to 16,200 urban accident deaths. This despite the fact that urban drivers have the added hazard of many more pedestrians to contend with. Total miles run by all vehicles in urban and rural areas are about equaL Thus the ratio of deaths per 100 million vehicle miles is much greater in rural areas than it is in urban areas. One of the prime reasons for the higher fatality rate on rural highways is, of course, the higher sustained speeds of traffic for all vehicles on these high- ways as compared to city streets. I.C.C. carriers run a much higher percentage of their miles on rural roads than do trucks in generaL This would tend to raise their fatality rate above the general average for all trucks. There are other factors too which tend in this direction. Night driving is relatively more hazard- ous than is day driving. More than half of all motor vehicle deaths in 1966, 28,200, occurred at night compared with 24,800 in daylight. Here again the I.C.C. driver has much greater exposure since he spends a higher percentage of his time on the road at night. With regard to the statement on page 16 of Dr. Wolf's paper that the average number of "other" people killed per I.C.C. driver killed is 5.93 compared to the general truck fleet record of 2.19 we point out the following facts. 1. The intercity truck combination design is such that in most collisions with passenger cars the total impact is below the position of the truck driver as he sits in his cab. This results in very few truck driver fatalities in such collisions. This is illustrated by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Report of 1966 I.C.C. truck accidents which shows that in 13,575 car-truck collisions only~ 25 truck drivers were injured fatally while 964 fatalities resulted to the car drivers and 96-030-68---42 PAGENO="0660" 648 occupants involved in the 742 fatal car-truck coffisions. This is the basis for the references that have been made to the effect, in referring to accidents involving trucks of common carriers in collision with an automobile, that "for every truck driver who died in such accidents 38 others died." The reference is obviously misleading. The actual data cover all such accidents and all fatalities in such accidents, and from this complete coverage we have the figures of 25 truck drivers killed and 964 fatalities of others. 2. The great majority of the general truck fleet is made up of trucks operating in cities and urban areas where, while exposure to accident in congested traffic is high. exposure to fatal accident is low because of the slow speeds generated by that same congestion. All available records show that while speed per se is not an accident cause, speed of vehicles at time of collision is a very definite factor in the seriousness of an accident. Traffic surveys in city and suburbs also show that in rush hours, the time of greatest exposure to accident, car occupancy averages less than two persons per car which means that the majority of cars carry only one person. In fatality producing accidents under the foregoing conditions by far fewer "others" fatalities result from car-truck collisions. This has a salutary effect on the total general fleet record of "others" killed per truck driver in the general fleet records. Reference was also made to studies by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety showing that four out of every 10 vehicles selected for inspection is road checks were ruled off the road temporarily. This figure was .referred to by Mr. George Kachlein, testifying on behalf of the American Automobile Association. On page 2 of his prepared statement, Mr. Kachlein attributed this statement to a speech prepared for delivery by Mr. Lowell Bridwell in St. Louis, Missouri, March 26, 1968. However, Mr. Kachlein omitted from his reference an extremely important part of Mr. Bridwell's prepared remarks which stated: "Staff limitations force us to make these inspections highly selective. Currently these field inspections account for only one percent of total vehicles." This is by way of saying, quite importantly, that the inspections conducted by the Bureau of Motor Carriers involved a select sampling by their field inspectors, so that the statistics of vehicles inspected relative to those found defective has no bearing at all on the condition of the fleet in general. It is the general practice of the inspectors to select for inspection only those vehicles which visually give the impression that such an inspection is warranted. This, according to the Bureau of Motor Carriers, amounts to one percent of total vehicles. If we were to assume that the vehicles not stopped have no defects then we could conclude that only four-tenths of one percent of alt vehicles have defects. We realize, of course, this is not a completely justifiable conclusion as to the condition of the truck fleet but neither is the reference to four out of ten. In our direct statement, on page 3, we mentioned that the provisions of S. 2658 as passed by the United States Senate were in line with the recommendations. of the American Association of State Highway Officials. This statement was challenged by Mr. Kachlein who, in testifying for the American Automobile Association, stated that our statement as to the AASHO position was made in- advertently. In his direct statement, Mr. Kachlein indicated that AASHO was opposed to the bill as it passed the Senate. The record shows that there can be little question as to the position of AASHO on the bill before the Subcommittee which is the bill as amended and passed by the Senate. The record of the hearings2 before the Subcommittee on Roads of the Committee on Public Works, United States Senate, shows (at page 231) the following dialogue between the Chairman of the Committee and the president of AASHO, Mr. John Morton: The CHAIRMA2~. Thank you all for being present today. Our subcommittee and committee are appreciative of your cooperation in matters of counsel. I understand, I believe, that you would favor the 20,000 and 34,000 but not the 20,000 and 36,000 pounds. Is this correct? Mr. MoRToN. Yes. 0'* 2 Hearings before the Subcommittee on Roads of the Committee on Public Works, United States Senate, 90th Cong., 2nd Sess., Ofl S. 2658, February 19, 20, 21, and March 7, leGS, page 231. PAGENO="0661" 649 That this was unquestionably the position of AASHO is further supported by the report of the Committee on Public Works, United States Senate (page 2) where it states: The committee amendments are consistent with the weight recommenda- tions of the Department of Transportation and the American Association of State Highway Officials. The Committee amendments referred to are the amendments which resulted in the revision of S. 2658 as the bill passed the Senate and is now before your Subcommittee. Testimony of the American Automobile Association also raised the issue of the capability of the bridges on the National System of Interstate and Defense High- ways to accommodate the vehicle gross weights that would be allowed under the gross weight formula contained in S. 2658. We do not believe this is a question of which there can be any doubt. In the report submitted to the Congress in August 1964 by the Secretary of Commerce, in which he recommended new higher Federal limits, the gross weight formula contained in S. 2658, as passed by the Senate, was one of three that were dis- cussed and evaluated. The report states (at page 134)~: "The Bureau of Public Roads has developed three simplified bridge formu- las that may be used to determine gross weights and axle weights that can be carried with safety on existing bridges." This is conclusive evidence that the vehicle gross weight possible under the provisions of 5. 2658 are well within the capacities of the bridges on the National system of Interstate and Defense Highways. We appreciate the courtesies extended to us in our appearances before the Subcommittee and assure you that we will be most pleased to provide any addi- tional information that you may need. Respectfully submitted. WILLIAi~( A. BRESNAHAN. Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, may I also ask Mr. Bresnahan, or someone else if he prefers to have someone else do. it, to comment upon the statement which appears on page 3 of our colleague's statement. I will read it to you, the paragraph: AASHO officials have testified that pavements already built on the Interstate System will suffer an expected loss of 25 to 40 percent of their service life if single-tandem axle loadings are increased from 18,000 pounds-32,000 pounds to 20,000 pounds-34,000 pounds. This would mean that concrete pavements will be built with a life expectancy of 25 years before any major reconstruction would be nec- essary will last only 15 to 18 years, and with increased maintenance to be borne slowly by the State. AASHO estimates, so I am informed, that the cost of resurfacing in a 10-year period under the proposed increased axle weights as an additional $1 million. No estimate was made for the additional amounts necessary in future construction, but it has to be substantial. Could we have comment on that, Mr. Bresnahan? Mr. BRESNAHAN. Yes, sir. I would like to ask Mr. Lill, our highway engineer, to comment on that. Mr. LILL. Mr. Congressman, you touched on a very complex subject. I think there are two or three points in it. I think at first I would like to deal with this question of the loss of pavement life We know now that this has to be considered in a new light and at the time of the AASHO pavement evaluation survey in 1962, the 2 5 Rept No i026 90th Cong Second Sess Vehicle Weights and Dimensions Report of the Committee on Public Works, Umlted States Senate, to accompany S. 2658. Mar. 27, 1968, p. 2. 4House Document N~. 854, 88th Cong., 2nd Ses,s., Maximum Desirable Dimensions and Weights of Vehicles Operated on the Federal Aid Systems August i9 i964 page i34 PAGENO="0662" 650 AASHQ road test reports were just out and it was assumed that pave- ment performance equations contained therein constituted a valid means of estimating pavement life if traffic and pavement thicknesses were known. It is now firmly established, however, that this is not the case, and that the AASHO road test equations do not provide a valid estimate of pavement life, nor of changes in pavement life. That reliance on these old assumptions cannot be supported. Documentation for this statement rests in the fact that more than $1 million was spent in 1968 for research, which is being undertaken in an attempt to adapt the AASHO ftndings to local conditions that- in other words, to the different States-so that they will be suitable as a design tool. If the road tests predict pavement life or the changes, such research would not be necessary. Additionally, it has been stated in the report of one of these types of research projects and entitled "Application of AASHO road test results to Alabama conditions." This report is dated August 1967. It reads as follows-this is on page 37 of the conclusions: The import of all the preceding investigations, analyses, and discussions is to illustrate the fact that the AASHO road test equations cannot be applied directly or indirectly to Alabama conditions, except at the hazard of gross under or over design, depending upon a specific problem. Factually, therefore, the question must rest on the detailed knowl- edge of the various States about their own highways and upon their own evaluations. Since AASHO has accepted the 20,000 pouud single and the 34,000 pound tandem, it is our obvious feeling that these weights are considered to be not out of line in most of the States. I think also, since you brought up the question of pavement main- tenance costs, I would like to refer to a: recent study which was done under the national cooperative highway research program-it is report 42 and it is entitled "Interstate Highway Maintenance Requirements and Unit Maintenance Expenditure Index." This was an in-depth study of maintenance procedures and costs of selected highway sections in regula.r service. It covers many of the aspects of maintenance programs, followed by the State highway departments. Now, of pertinence to this question is the part of the report which deals with the details of the data collected for maintenance cOsts, for payments and for shoulders. It is contained on pages 43 and 44 of the document. I also would indicate that this research was done in five States, which contain a range of axleload from 18,000 single to 22,000 single and up to 44,000 pounds tandem. So we have a representative sample across axieloads. Of variables that were examined in attempting to make this main- tenance study were a total of 18, and I think I will go through this rather rapidly to give you the degree of depth o.f the investigation. They had age~ in years, they had age figures squared, age figures cubed, average daily traffic volume, commercial average daily traffic volume; they had the square root of the APT, the square root of the commer- thai APT, and they had other combinations between age and APT. They had annual average precipitation.: The terrain factor, snowfall in inches,' numbers of days of snowfall, `average annual temperature, PAGENO="0663" 651 number of days of snow cover, numbers of days when maximum tern- perature was below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, urban or rural location. Now, the outcome of this in-depth investigation was a mathematical model, and it included only two of the use; it included the effects of age and it included the effects of climatic conditions. And this was the number of days in which the temperature was below 32° F. In other words, on these pavement test sections, there were 28 of them, they found that truck traffic was to have no significant effect on maintenance costs of pavements and shoulders. When the States build their pavements for the traffic which is on them, they find that they serve perfectly adequately and there is no additional maintenance costs, any significant amount. Mr. EDMONDSON. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HowAiw. Thank you. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. Thank you2 Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions I would like to try to help clarify the record and my own understanding of the situation. We realize, of course, that this impetus behind this legislation comes largely from the Western States, as indicated in your own statement. However, I think your statement falls short, in my mind at least, as to the reasons for which the Western States believe these increases are justified. Could someone give us additional data and justification relating to those States in addition to the fact they are big States? Mr. BRESNAHAN. You mean justified from the standpoint of the economy of those States or~- Mr. CRAMER. For the record, I want to make the record adequate on that point. Mr. BRESNAHAN. From the economic standpoint, the population of the States, as you know, are scattered over vast areas. There is much less railroad service, for example, in the West, and there will be even less as some of these mergers are approved and go into effect. So this area is much more dependent upon truck tran~porta- tion and it is very interested in having cheap economical transporta- tion. So it is vital to their economies. Now, from the standpoint of the roads and bridges and these areas, the Western States, as I indicated in my direct testimony, tried to get economical truck operations as distinguished from the Northeastern States by adding more axles and permitting greater length, and thus distributing the weight on the highway itself, not on the bridges. Now, in the East, they have shorter vehicles and more concentrated loads. But the 1956 statute froze it tight. They have been able to make virtually no gains-not only in axle limits, hut in gross weight limits, since that time. They need to make some progress and they are very anxious to do so. Now, the increases in axle weight that would be permitted by this legislation-namely from 18,000 pounds to 20,000 on a single and from 32,000 pounds to 34,000 on a tandem-will still be substantially less than the single and tandem axle limits that prevail in the East and have prevailed in the East for many, many years, and they feel PAGENO="0664" 652 their highways and bridges are certainly capable of taking weights of this magnitude. On the other hand, if there is any State out there that does not, there is nothing in this legislation that compels any State to change. Mr. CRAMER. The other question relates to grandfather clauses. This is, as I see it~ from a standpoint of legislative history made so far, a rather confusing situation. Now, as I understand it, in the 1956 act, which I cosponsored with some other members of this committee, there was a grandfather clause written hi which, in ~ffect. set up July 1, 1956, as the date and said: This section- being section 127- shall not be construed to deny apportionment to any State allowing the operation within such State of any vehicles or combination thereof which would be law- fully operated within such State on July 1, 1956. Obviously a number of States had maximum weights and limits in excess of the then sectiOn 121 limits of 32,000 pounds tandem weight, overall ~ross weight in excess of 73,200, and width in excess of 96 inches and so forth. Is that; not correct? Mr. BRESNAHAN. Yes, sir. Mr. Cit~&M~. Now, as I understand this, however, weight and axle and other limitations applied in the 1956 act only to the Interstate System. Is that correct? Mr. BRESNAHAN. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. It specifically says that w-ithin the boundaries of which the Interstate System may be lawfully used by vehicles. So those limits were, by the law, set only upon the Interstate System. Is that correct? Mr. BRESNAHAN. The Federal statute in 1956 applied only to the Interstate System and the proposed legislation also goes only to the Interstate System. Mr. CRAMER. So that is the status of the present law? Mr. BRESNAHAN. Yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. And the "grandfather" clause now in existence relates to July 1, 1956. And as I understand your position, it basically is that that grandfather clause should be updated; is tha.t correct? Mr. BRE5NAUAN. Yes, sir, because there has been a variety of changes in State law since 1956, but which are equally lawful and did not violate the Federal statutes. Mr. CRAMER. Well, now, the next question that logically comes to my mind, then, is if the grandfather clause is retained in the bill- and I guess we should look at some of the history of the legislation to understand its present. verbiage-as I understand the bill initially rec- ommended by the.adrninistration would have applied these limitations to all Federal-aid highways, and that the Senate, the other body, chose, as the bill is before us, to have those limitations, a.s was the case in the 1956 act, applied only to the Interstate System. Therefore it is pos- sible that some of the carryover sections relating to other aspects, such as this grandfather clause, perhaps were not adequately considered in view of the cutback of the limitations only to the Interstate System And I just wonder if perhaps, that is not the case as it relates to this sectiOn concerning the grandfather clause? . PAGENO="0665" 653 My specific question then is: If the grandfather clause is retained in the bill, in that the limitation relates oniy to the Interstate System, should the grandfather clause refer to weights and widths permitted on the Interstate System on January 1, 1968, rather than on any highway in t.he State? Mr. BRESNAHAN. If I understand you correctly, and Ib~lieve I do, you `iie m'tkmg reference to `i few special inst'inces, and I would like to attempt to distinguish betneen those special mstinces and th~ impact of the grandfather clause generally Now, in the original grandfather èlause, there were States that al- ready were above the limits put in in 1956. Mr. CRAMER. And Florida was one of them. Mr. B'RESNAHAN. Florida was one of them, with heavier axleloads- and Maryland. Virtually all of the Northeastern States~~~ On axieload, they were gi `indf'ithered It has been impossible on the Interstite System since 1956 for any St'~te to incre'tse its `~xle weight, bec'rnse, as I sCud in my direct, in 1956 they all either w ere at the applied Federal limits or above such limits, so that was the end of it. Now, in the interim, there has been certain increases applicable to the Interstate System in some States as well as on other roads, in gross weight, which had been perfectly lawful and within the framework of existing Federal limits. By moving this date up and moving it cur- rent, they would be grandfathered just like those earlier. We be- lieve this is proper. Now I think the instances of which you speak, there have been two or three cases that I am aware of where, in a State, they approved for operation on all of their roads-except the Interstate System-certain limits that were beyond the present limits of the statute. Now, for example, in Maine, in an area where, as of 1956, virtually all of the other States already permitted a tandem limit of 36,000 pounds, Maine did not at that time. So Maine was not grandfathered; it was frozen at 32,000. There came a time in Maine when they needed the 36,000 pounds, ap- parently to try to get in line with the rest of New England and the Northeastern States. When the legislature wanted to change their limit to 36,000 pounds, it ran into the proper proposition that to do so and permit 36,000 pound tandems on the Interstate System as well as the rest of their roads, they would be in jeopardy of losing their Federal aid. So what Maine did was enact a 36,000 pound tandem for application on the other roads, but specifically not applicable on the Interstate System. Now, this grandfather clause as written would recognize and grand- father that 36,0000 pound tandem in Maine. South Carolina has a similar situation. There are very few of these. Mr. CRAMER. Let me ask this question then: Since 1956, have some States passed legislation that would increase, if the grandfather clause in its present form goes into effect, the weights and axle~~limitations on the Interstate System above the suggested limitation in this legis- lation, if this grandfather clause in itc~ present form were appi o~ ed ~ Mr. BRESNAHAN.YeS, sir; the two examples:that I just gave, Maine and South C'trolina, would fall in that category because on their noninterstate road~, they now permit 36,000 pounds tañdéms. Since PAGENO="0666" 654 the Senate bill, which we endorse, would hold it at 34,000 pounds, they do allow on their other roads more. Mr. Cn~&~rEI~. As I understand, the trucking industry is agreeable to living within the limitatioms in this legislation as it relates to the Interstate System? Mr. Biu~sNA.iw~. Yes, sir. Mr. C1~rEi~. Despite the fact that some States may have passed legislation in the interim between 1956 and the suggested date of January 1, 1968, that otherwise would permit limitations in excess of that set out this bill on the interstate over and above that which can now operate in the interstate under the 1956 grandfather clause. Mr. BRESNAHAN. That is very important, Mr. Cramer. Mr. Cm&iw~. I know it is. Mr. BRESNAHAN. I want to be sure I understand. We believe firmly that any action taken by a State since 1956 that was within the applicable Federal statute should be grandfathered just as were those. Now, this is speaking generally. But if you are speaking of the few instances where a State ex- ceeded the Federal statute on its other roads as distinguished from the Interstate System, these are special cases. Now, naturally, we would like to see those grandfa.thered, because they are not much different than those that were grandfathered be- fore in 1956. Mr. CRAMER. Let's get this further in focus so we understand, hope- fully, what your position is. If you will look at the law itself, when you look at the bill before us (S. 2658)-if you have a copy of it- Mr. BRESNAHAN. Yes, sir. Mr. CR~3iRE. Would it be consistent with your position or would you have any objections to amending it by striking the words "public highways of" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "Interstate System within," so it would read: "Weights or maximum widths permitted for vehicles using the Interstate System within such State under laws or regulations established by appropriate State authority in effect on January 1, 1968, whichever is greater"? Mr. BRESNAHAN. No, sir. Mr. CRAMER. Now, can you tell me why? Mr. BRESNAHAN. If this is what the committee wants to do- Mr. CR~1ER. I am not saying that is what we want to do. I am asking you what would be your position relating to such an amend- ment? Mr. BRESNAHAN. The position is simply this, that this would fail to grandfather two, three, or four instances where States have granted on their other road systems, something more than they could grant on the Interstate System. While we believe they should be grand- fathered, we would like to see them grandfathered, there are so few of these that, frankly, it is not a life or death matter. Mr. CRAM1~I~. In other words, you would not strongly object to that amendment? Mr. BRESNAHAN. That is the way to put it; we would not strongly object. But to rollback all of the others that were Mr. Ci~i~. I understand. Mr. BRESNAHAN. This would destroy any value in it. PAGENO="0667" 655 Mr~ SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman. Mr. ORAMER. I would like to just finish this. Could you give us some example where this amendment would involve the States involved, those few examples you say exist? Mr. BRESNAHAN. This amendment would prevent the State of Maine from allowing on its segments of the Interstate System a 36,000-pound tandem, although a 36,000-tandem has been approved and is oper- able on the rest of the Maine system. Mr. Ci~i~n~R. It would limit it to 34,000. Mr. BRESNAHAN. On the Interstate System ;yes, sir. South Carolina is identical, the same situation. I understand that in Virginia, not for general application but for certain types of vehicles, like tobacco trucks, they have done substan- tially the same thing on the noninterstate roads, 36.000-pound tandem. Mr. CRAMER. As a practical matter, if the trucks are operating in interstate on the Interstate System, do they no have to limit their axle weights to other State limitations, such as if they go from Massa- chusetts to Maine, the Massachusetts law in effect would control, would it not? So we have a few spotted States. It is not really a critical matter, is it? Mr. BRESNAHAN. When you are operating bel.ween States, you are reduced to the lowest common denominator; yes, sir. Mr. CRAMER. So. we are talking intrastate traffic basically when we talk about Maine having to reduce 2,000 pounds? Mr. BRESNAHAN. Well, now actually, in Maine, Maine is in an area where all of the other States had 36,000 pounds as of the 1956 grand- father date, and this is one of the reasons they wanted to come up. But they could not come up on the Interstate System, because the present law prohibited it. Mr. CRAMER. Did Vermont not go to 36,000 after 1956? Mr. Kmni~. Yes, Vermont is the same thing. Mr. BRESNAHAN. I am told Vermont would be in the same situation. Mr. CRAMER. Is Montana involved in this, do you know? Mr. BRESNAHAN. Not as I understand it. I had thought so. I had thought that Montana might be in trouble from the standpoint of the application of the gross weight formula to any group of two or more axles. In other words, axle as well as the overall wheelbase. I understand this is not the case. Mr. CRAMER. Well, I am just trying to be helpful, because, frankly, it appeared to me there was not enough in the record of the committee as to what this revised version would do and did relate to the specific aspect of it. I will yield. Mr. . SOHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I am confronted with a very diffi- cult decision right now. The chairman of the committee proposes sit- ting. The impacted area bill on the floor involves some committees in my district, which makes it necessary for me to be on the floor. Also I have some 12 questions I think, Mr. Chairman, that should be asked and the answers made a part of the record before we act on this legislation. Now, for this reason, it has been proposed that we sit this afternoon. But it has been pointed out to me that two Members of Congress have been scheduled to testify this afternoon, and so I yield to their desires and will not object to their testimony and it has already been pointed PAGENO="0668" 656 out there is other testimony to be presented that does not concern height, weight, and length. I would not object to the committee sitting to hear that with the understanding I can have a chance tomorrow morning to ask these questions and others here to testify to this matter. I want to make this a matter of record. Mr. CRAMER. With deference to the gentleman's objection, which I have advised the staff of, I suggested we meet at 9:30 in the morning, at least for an hour, on these matters. I would hope that the gentleman would remain here at this time, because I am about finished, and maybe get some of his questions out now. Mr. SORWENGEL. As you know, we are in session now. Mr. CRAMER. I know that. Mr. SCHWENGEL. I promised to meet with some people on some quès- tions we are working out on strategy on the House floor regarding the impacted area bill. Mr. CRAMER. I would be glad to yield to. the gentleman now. Mr. SCHWENGEL. I think it is going to take much too long to get involved, and any one of the questions can be 10 or 15 minutes. Hope- fully tomorrow we can maybe have some understanding, the answers can be put in the record. I made commitments to people in my State who are very interested in this legislation. I want to make it clear, I am not asking this because I am opposed to the legislation, because I am openminded on this. I am not com- mitted. I have made a commitment that certain questions would be raised and made a part of the record. This is the reason for my posi- tion, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CRAMER. Does the gentleman object to my continuing at this time~ Mr. SCHWENGEL. You may proceed if 1 may be excused~ With this understanding, I will withdraw the objection for meeting this afternoon. I was really willing to yield to the gentleman if the Chair would permit it, to go ahead with the questions at this time. Mr. HOWARD. The gentleman from Florida has the floor. He is yielding. Mr. SOHWENGEL. I can ask some of the questions but obviously this is going to take a. long time, I think much longer than we will have time for, even to explore this. Mr. CRAMER. I will yield to the gentleman as may be necessary. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman, the proposed on increase in single and tandem axle weights pertaining to the Interstate System, actually AASHO conducted extensive road tests on paper one pavement of bridges in Illinois to determine the effect of increased weights on pave- ments and structures. This is a question I want to address to you and also to some other people who will be here, I hope, tomorrow: Do you know the results ofthe finding on the AASHO road test in relation to the pavement damage caused by 25,000 pounds single axle as com- pared to 18,000 pounds single axle in the case of the Illinois test.? Mr. Ln.L. Yes, Mr. Congressman. The results of the AASHO road tests are contained in seven volumes of publications which the High- way Research Board put out.. Obviously `t complete `inqlvsis of this is something thit could not be undertaken here. . ~. : PAGENO="0669" 657 Now, there have been interpretations from this data which have pur- ported to know that the 20,000 pound single is more. damaging to a pavement-this is generality-than an 18,000 pound single. I think it is important to always understand that the AASHO road test was set up as a traffic type damage experiment in which they built two-thirds of the pavement sections to known underdesign. In other words,. they built these test sections, a high percentage of them, to break up under traffic so they could certain characteristics about these and about the traffic. Now, it also should be understood that the AASHO road test was set up a destruct test under adverse climatic conditions. In other words, they built this in an area on a very low quality em- bankment soil with low quality gravels and low quality crushed stones, and they placed on this high quality asphalt, concrete, high-quality poured cement concrete. There is really only one question which comes to the forefront when you attempt to analyze the results of the AASHO road test, and that is: Does the equations whi~h resulted from this destruct test-in other words, breaking up these 10 pavements-predict pavement behavior for adequately built pavements? And the answer is a flat "No," it does not. Therefore, these relative damage coefficients which may result from this mathematical equation are meaningless. They do not predict pavement life. We hear, for instance, that the 18,000 axleload is 5,000 times damag- ing as the 5,000- or 2,000-pound axieload. But 5,000 times zero is still zero. This holds all the way up and down the scale of axle loads which may come out of this equation. I think the real value of the road test comes from its interpretations and its in-depth studies, such as are contained in this maintenance re- port, such as is contained in this Alabama Highway Research Report, where the States have taken these back to their own States and have tried to develop divine procedures from them. And we find that the other factors-the factors of locality, the factors of climate-iiave be- come dominant in the matter of pavement life and that the AASHO road test equations, the traffic relationships have virtually disappeared on adequately built pavements. Mr. SOIIWENGEL. The test did propose, there was .57 percent more damage on the increased weight in that test? Mr. BRESNATTAN. Between the 20 and the 18? Mr. SOITWENGEL. Twenty and 18. Mr. BRESNAHAN. Yes, sir.. There was a difference between the fact that something like the 5-ineh concrete pavement failed under the 18,- 000 pounds single and there were some deterioration in perhaps the six and one-half pavement under the 20,000 single. Neither one of these pavements in terms of rigid pavement, of course, are built on our highway system, particularly interstate. We built them much heavier, 8 to 10 inches. . Mr. SCHWENGEL. While you fellows are still here, again I tip my hat to a great industry. I really mean this. You have been tremendous in the development of America. You have made great strides. You are saying you made no advancements since we built the high- ways. Some of the people.. in. your business .1: talked:to indicaitèd ad vances have been made, we have reduced cost of maintenance of your trucks, because of the Interstate System. PAGENO="0670" 658 Mr. BRESNAHAN. My comment went to technological developments of the vehicle relative to the weight and size problem. Mr. SOHWENGEL. I understand. But you improved the performance of the industry since that time? Mr. BRESNAHAN. We have made a great many improvements. Mr. SCHWENGEL. You have become probably the most efficient en- gine operators of all industry, from the studies that I have seen and. for this I commend. Now, how much of your trucking industry, how many trucks-you have had a tremendous increase since we have had the Interstate Sys- tem. Is that not true, and a number of trucks? Mr. BRESNAHAN. In the Interstate System? Mr. SCHWENGEL. In America. In total number. Mr. BRESNAHAN. In total number. it has increased significantly over the years; yes sir. Mr. SGHWENGEL. How many trucks are there in America today? Mr. BRESNAHAN. About 14 million of all types and descriptions, in- eluding the small panel trucks. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Now, what number of trucks you anticipate would take advantage of the increases that you are asking for `here, in both width and length, and weight, percentagewise or total? Mr. BRESNAHAN. I might as well have Mr. Kiley tell you directly. Mr. SCHWENGEL. All right. Mr. KmEr. I believe you. First, 15 million trucks today is the' total, 15 million. Mr. SOHWENGEL. That is a substantial increase over what we had when we were just debating this Interstate System, is it not? Mr. Ku~y. But this increase has been in line with the general in- crease in vehicle registration, highway~ use by everybody. I do not know that there is any direct acceleration in growth. This is a normal increase. It has always been pretty well in line with the growth of our economy in general. Mr. SCHWENGEL. I have had a very prominent person tell me it would not have been increased nearly as much if we had not had the Interstate System. That was his feeling. It may be wrong. Mr. BRESNAHAN. May I elaborate on that point a little bit? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. Mr. BRESNAHAN. There may be individual truck operators where this is true, but I would like to point this out to the committee, the Interstate System is still a long way from completion, and I would like also to point out that there is a case pending at the Interstate Com- merce Commission at this late date to determine how and to what extent trucking companies regulated by that body may leave the roads over which they were authorized to operate in their original certifi- cates and operate on the Interstate System. So because the system has been nowhere completed and because from a legal standpoint, the Commission has not resolved some of these problems- Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman-point' of order-the House is in session. Mr. HowAm~. Point of order. The House is in session. The committee will hereby adjourn, I understand, until the call of the Chair. I understand permission will be sought to meet this `afternoon. Announcement will be made later. PAGENO="0671" 659 The coimnittee is hereby adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the meeting was recessed, and recon- vened at 2 p.m., the same day.) AYEERNOON SESSION Mr. ROBERTS. The subcommittee will come to order. We are pleased to have with us our distinguished colleague, member of the com- mittee, member from California, Mr. Johnson. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. This is the second time that I will have an entry in your record. The first one was in there pertaining to the forest roads and trails. STATEMENT OP HON. HAROLD T. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP CALIFORNIA Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, as a Member of Congress who was privileged to coauthor H.R. 14474,. a bill drafted by the distinguished chairman of the Roads Subcommittee of the Committee on Public Works, I certainly am happy to appear here today to give my full support to the legislation which you have before you to amend section 127 of title 23 of the United States Code relating to vehicle weight and width limitations on the Interstate System, in order to make certain increases in such limitations. It is, indeed, time for a change. As the members of this committee well know, there has been little change in the allowable weight and size of trucks during the past 25 years, although the roads of today, I think we all agree, are much, much better than they were a quarter of a century ago. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 did impose certain limita- tions on trucks; namely, a restriction of 18,000 pounds for a single axle; 32,000 pounds for a tandem axle; 96 inches for vehicle width; ~nd 73,280 pounds for maximum gross weight. It should be emphasized that these weight restrictions were 10 years old at the time they were placed in the Federal law, for the limitations were taken directly from size and weight standards adopted by the American Association of State Highway officials in 1946, a year in which postwar highway development was just getting underway and the engineering and scientific vision and progress which had been stimulated by the 4 years war efforts was just being converted into civilian peaèetime public works. Highway construction has not stood still during the 22 years: since these standards were adopted. There are none in Congress today more aware of the progress which has been made during the past two decades in this field than the fine members of this subcommittee. Today, with the expanded highway program. we have provided, and are continuing to provide, modern highways capable of more efficient utilization are in existence. The time is overdue for~ a change in the Federal law to permit the States, in turn, to adapt their size and weight laws to the capabilities of today's modern highways. Such~ a change as. is proposed in the legislation we have before ur~ today does not come as a result of speculation or guesswork, but is a PAGENO="0672" 660 result of years of scientific study by the Bureau of Public Roads, the Department of Commerce and now, the Department of Transporta- tion. Based on the recommendations of this committee, Congress directed such a study in the fall of 1959. After 5 years of detailed investigation, the Secretary of Commerce submitted his size and weight recom.rnenda- tions to Congress as follows: Increase the 18,000-pound single axle weight limit to 20,000 pounds. Increase the 32,000-pound tandem axle limit to 34,000 pounds. Increase the width limit from 96 inches to 102 inches. Change the flat maximum gross weight of 73,280 pounds to a formula. that would permit higher gross weights as the length of vehicles and number of axles are increased. Basically the provisions of H.R. 14474 and Senate-passed S. 2658, which also is before the committee, conform with these recommenda- tions although there are some slight differences in the tandem axle and gross weight limitations; however, S. 2658 has been amended to bring it more closely in line with the recommendations of the Secretary of Commerce, and certainly as one sponsor of this legislation, I would accept the amendments. Under S. 2658 and H.R. 14474 the States would continue basically to control motor vehicle sizes and weights just as they do under the present statute. The new legislation would not change the existing size and weight law in any State. But it would give States the much needed opportunity to improve their size and weight standards; an oppor- tunity which is denied them today because of the present limitations. Let me emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that passage of this legislation in its present form will still leave 15 States with higher axle limita- tions than proposed in this legislation. Many of this number have had these higher axle weights for many years. And certainly, it is logical that these States would not desire to reduce their present limitations and should not be forced to do this, for it is accepted that highways in these States are being built to support these weights. It is appro- priate therefore, that this bill "grandfather in" all excess weight limitations now being enjoyed by. them. 1 do feel however, tlia.t fair- ness demands more equitable treatment for trucks in other parts of the United States. Trucks throughout. the Nation pay the same Federal highway taxes so some sections of the country should not be discrimi- nated against by allowing greater use of the highways than is per- mitted in other sections. Mr. Chairman, let me turn for just a moment to my own State and congressional district. As you all know, the Second District geo- graphically encompasses fully one-third of the State of California and the area is greater in square miles than that of many States, including the State of New York. In my congressional district a .large part of the economy is tied very closely with highway transportation and about 90 percent of the trucks are privately owned by people transporting their products. If there is any way to reduce the cost of transportation, we should take advantage of it, particularly at this time when we are facing an inflationary trend. One reliable economist in California has estimated that if Calm- forñia woñld take advantage of the inèreases in the size~ and weight PAGENO="0673" 661 of trucks which is in the bill passed by the Senate, it would mean a reduction in transportation costs in California of approximately $200 million per year. The rates charged by truckingfirms are regulated in the State of California by our State public* utilities commission and are based on reasonable revenues. Therefore, any reduction in trans- portation costs, such as would occur as the result of enactment of this legislation, would be passed on directly to the consumer. Our economy certainly could use, in this difficult time, this type of savings. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say the bill as passed by the Senate has adequate safeguards to protect our highway in- vestment and I would recommend no limitations less than those in- corporated in 5. 2658. Thank you, for this opportunity to appear here today in support of the legislation that is pending before this committee. Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for your fine statement. I would like to bring out a couple of points for the record. What weight would you authorize? What would be a maximum weight? Mr. JOHNSON. We would accept the maximum weights that are provided for under the formula, as far as maximum weight. Mr. ROBERTS. We just had sort of a meeting after we got through awhile ago. It just depends on how many axles. I have a constit- uent that makes a device, already patented and already in operation, and if you were hauling feathers, you could have 24 trailers going down the road, and all following in the same tracks of the others. How long would you let it be? Mr. JOHNSON. I think the experiences that are now in existence with the safety records, and the insurance companies that insure these vehicles are adequate to take care of that situation. Mr. ROBERTS. Well, unfortunately, the ICC-read into the record this morning by a gentleman from Oklahoma-shows safety regard on the fatalities, far greater involving trucks than any other vehicle. Would you limit the number of axles? Could a person just have a train going down the highway? Mr. JOHNSON. It has been my experience in driving across the country many times, and driving a great deal in my own district where I have to travel many, many miles to cover the district that our trucking operations are fairly safe operations. I admit~ that they do have accidents; but I am sure that the type of vehicles that have been provided, and the size, the width and the weight, are presently well regulated at the present time within the industry, within the regulatory authorities and those that they can get insurance on. Mr. ROBERTS. How many pups do you allow the trailer to have? How many extra trailers do you allow to remain behind the main rig in California now? Mr. JOHNSON. Right offhand, I would have to stop and take a look at that. Mr. ROBERTS. I think two, but I am not real sure. Mr. JOHNSON. Two, I think, it is. That is all we have at the present time and unless there have been some new innovations since the last time I encountered many of these trucks. Mr. ROBERTS. I think we all agree that we have to do some revision; but where do you stop. PAGENO="0674" 662 Mr. JoHNsON. Well, 1 do not think that there would be anything that would be out of line, because I think that most of the trucking concerns realize their difficulties in operating equipment that is not safe, and they do not like to do it. I think that all of our organized trucking lines operate under license and franchise in our State and in interstate traffic do a pretty good job in regulating the size, the width, and the length, and have the proper insurance upon their vehicles. And their accident rates are very carefully developed. Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for his fine statement. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. Just one question, Mr. Chairman. It is true is it not, that under present law, 1956 act, there is no limitation? Mr. JOHNSON. That is right. Mr. CRAMER. And there is no limitatiOn proposed in the legislation before us? Mr. Jom~sox. That is right. Mr. CRAMER. And that means, of course, that it is within the State jurisdictions to determine what in their discretion the proper length limit should be, is that correct? Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. That is all. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Mr. ROBERTS. Now it is our pleasure to hear from our distinguished colleague from Hawaii, Mr. Matsunaga. Mr. MATSUNAGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OP HON. SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP HAWAII Mr. MATStTNAGA. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for this opportunity of appearing before you and express- ing my views on legislation which would increase the, weight and width limitations for vehicles using the Interstate Highway System. Earlier this year I introduced a bill, H.R. 15191, which contained provisions for amending title 23 of the United States Code relating to motor vehicle weight and width limitations similar to the provisions of S. 2658 which is presently under consideration, having passed the Senate on April 4, 1968. I fully support S. 2658 even if it provides for an increase of vehicle weight and width limitations of a lesser extent than is contained in my bifi. A revision of the Federal size and weight limitations for motor ve- hicles using the Interstate System `is long past overdue. These linuta- tions were based upon standards proposed by the Association of State Highway Officials in the period 1944-46, and were already 10 years old when included in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Width limitations were included which dated back to 1932. These limitations on size and weight were prescribed for the' purpose of protectrng the Federal investment in the Interstate System. These limitations were included as a: temporary' measure and `the department of Commerce was directed to make a study and recommend changes by 1959. However~ the report `was not submitted by the De- partment until 1964. The limitations proposed by S~ 2658'are similar to those recommended by the 1964 report. PAGENO="0675" 663 As a result of the 1956 legislation, for more than 20 years nearly half of the States have been unfairly restricted in the use of their highway systems. The grandfather provisions of the 1956 act allowed 26 States to continue to peimit `~xle loads greater than the 18,000 pound limits, 15 of them allowing 20,000 pound limits. While 27 States were confined to the 32,000 pound tandem axleload level, other States were allowed limits as high as 34,000 pounds. In 1964, the Bureau of Pub- lic Roads reported that in 1963 the average tandem axle weight limit in the Northeastern section of the country was 36,290 pounds and in the Southeast 35,500 pounds. Thus, limits in the Northeastern States were higher than in other States more dependent upon highway transportation. As long as the 1956 limitations remain in effect many States are denied the opportunity to apply new technology and techniques which they believe would result in significant advances in efficiency and economy, consistent with modern highway construction. States which have had limits "frozen" at 18,000 pounds axle weight since 1956 have been denied the opportunity to approach standards many other States have enjoyed for years and which are essential for efficient motor truck operations. In States permitting the higher limits, years of ex- perience have demonstrated the practicability to have 36,000-pound tandem axleload limits. It is for this reason that I proposed the 36,000- pound limit in my bill. However, I am also of the opinion that the formula for determin- ing the maximum gross weight limits included inS. 2658 provides bet- ter controls than now exist because it directly relates the length of the vehicle and number of axles to the overall gross weight. Under this formula, longer and heavier vehicles could operate than now are per- mitted in several of the States, and less damage to the highway sys- tem would result than from operation of the short-wheelbase vehicles operating under the existing 73,280-pound gross-weight limitation. Superior highway systems have been built since 1946 and are still being built. The greater capacity provided by these modern highways is not being fully utilized because of the outdated size and weight limitations. In 1946, the American Association of State Highway Of- ficials suggested that as more modern roads were built it would be better to allow vehicles 102 inches wide-the 1946 limit was 96 inches- because of ~ * * certain conditions inherent in the design of ve- hicles." The wider vehicle provides more adequate tire mounting, better spacing for cool running, adequate room for dual chains and for adequate springs, larger capacity brakes on an adequate frame and increased stability by increased lateral spacing of springs. The Amer- ican Association of State Highway Officials revised its recommenda- tions in 1964 to single-axle weight limits of 20,000 pounds and vehicle width of 102 inches, the same as the limits proposed in 5. 2658. Differences in size and weight limitations of the States resulted from varying needs of agriculture and industry and the peculiar re- quirements of each State for highway transportation. The char- acteristic mobility of this Nation's population could not have been achieved without adequate provision for transportation facilities. For historic and geographic reasons, the dynamic growth of the economy of the West was paralleled by the greatest growth in motor vehicle transportation. Commenting on the role of highways in economic de- 96-030-68----43 PAGENO="0676" 664 v~1opment, Thomas MacDonald, a pioneer in highway matters, re- marked that: We were not a wealthy Nation when we began improving our highways, but the roads themselves helped us create a new wealth, in business and industry and land values.. . so it was not our wealth that made our highways possible. Rather, it was our highways that made our wealth possible. The proposed legislation would provide for greater and more effi- cient use of our highways and help to improve our economy. Weights and sizes of motor vehicles are not the only factors in the durability of a highway, proper design, construction and maintenance, and the effects of climate are also extremely important. Broad public policy decisions require maximum dimensions, and weights for highway ve- hicles, established to produce the lowest possible cost for movement of the Nation's goods. Enactment of this bill would permit my own State of Hawaii to modernize methods of determining allowable size and weight limits. Some gross weight limits could also be increased if current restrictions were removed. While most of the highway hauling in Hawaii does not involve heavy loads, a very important transport service could be improved under the proposed legislation. Hauling of bulk sugar could be made more efficient as well as hauling of pineapple in designated highways. The timing in the movement of pineapple from field to cannery is very important in maintaining quality of production, and more efficient hauling would improve the competitive position of this product in the foreign market. Milk production has moved farther from markets and any improvement in hauling of bulk milk would stabilize rising costs of distribution of milk. Production costs* would also be lower if feed moved to production areas on trucks loaded more nearly to capacity. Commercial carriers are not the only people involved, for over 94 percent of all trucks owned and operated by businesses transporting their own goods. Furthermore, every business is dependent upon high- way transportation. There is more truth than selling in the advertising jingle that "if you got it, it was trucked to you." Increasing size and weight limits would mean fewer vehicles would be needed and more efficient use would be made of our highways. S. 2658 is not intended as a Federal determination that increased limits should be permitted indiscriminately, nor does it imply that roads, other than interstate, are capable of bearing the increased loads. It is rather a statement of policy that would permit the new designated weight limits and still not do violence to the Federal interest in devel- oping a nationwide network of major traffic service highways. The changes embodied in 5. 2658 are long overdue. However, I am con- vinced that the best interests of both the Interstate System and the trucking industry require that S. 2658 be approved without the addi- tion of length restrictions. I therefore urge early and favorable action on the Senate-passed measure without weakening amendments. Thank you very much. Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you. Any questions? Mr. CLAUSEN. No, just to say that I think that the gentleman's statement from Hawaii is certainly the type of statement that we have known to expect from him. Mr. MATSuNAGA. Thank you very much. PAGENO="0677" 665 Mr. ROBERTS. We have a quorum call. The committee will be re- cessed for 15 minutes. (Short Recess) Mr. ROBERTS. The subcommittee will come to order. The gentlemen from Dallas, the witnesses. It is my distinct pleasure to present my longtime friend and col- league and hunting partner, the former mayor of Dallas and now our distinguished colleague, Earl Cabell. STATEMENT OF HON. EARL CABELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CON- GRESS PROM THE STATE OP TEXAS, ACCOMPA~1ED BY MAYOR ERIK JONSSON, OP DALLAS, TEX.; AND VINCENT PONTE AND WARREN TRAVERS OF PONTE & TRAVERS, PLANNING ARCHI- TECTS AND ENGINEERS Mr. CABELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that introduction. Can I borrow you when the campaign starts this fall? Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir. Mr. CABELL. I do appreciate this opportunity of making this presen- tetion to you and Mr. Blatnik and Mr. Clausen. I recognize that time is of the essence, and I appreciate the fact that you have worked up into what has been a very long, drawnout hearing on a very complicated subject. The Highw~ty Act ol 1968 embodies some nen concepts, new rnno vative concepts with reference primarily, and that is our interest here today, dealing with the traffic problems brought about by our highway systems in our core areas of our metropolitan cities. And in order to support their premises on this core area traffic handling, we wanted you to know whnt our own area has been doing on their own in long-range projections and planning on this very subject which is of vital importance to our metropolitan areas. I will not belabor the committee with the details on this, because there are technicians and others much more close to it than I, and I would like at this time to introduce the mayor of the city of Dallas, the Honorable Erik Jonsson, who will in turn introduce those others, for the presentation to you of what has been done by a city on its own in this area of long-range planning and innovative concepts of saving our downtown areas, because of our present congested traffic situation. So, without further ado, I will present to you at this time the Honorable Erik Jonsson, mayor of the city of Dallas. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Mayor, we are very delighted to have you. Mr. J0NS50N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the panel, and ladies: I am distinctly an amateur in politics and have been in the job that was the cornerstone for Representative Cabell as a jumping-off place to higher things. In the somewhat more than 4 years which I have been in this work, I have drawn certain conclusions about the problems of cities, Dallas having grown to considerable size in the last few years. In fact, we have added about 100,000 people, nearing now 900,000. PAGENO="0678" 666 I think we are 865,000. We have built some 33,000 houses in those 4 years, and this gives you some measure of the way* growth continues. As in most cities of this general type, not the very old ones but ones that have grown in the last 25 or 50 years to large size, we have a central portion, a core, the heart of the city. Suburbs begin to sprawl around this heart, and then we have problems in both the heart and the suburbs. We are concerned right at the moment with the heart. We saw a moment in time when we could make major changes in that core, and through so doing perhaps prevent the kind of decay that has happened in the cities larger than ours, which is almost im- possible to cure because of the tremendous cost of properties that just seem to have been planned at random and do not fit in a rational design. A city, as I see it, is a system for getting these things done for people. The physical things of the city sometimes, through disar- rangement, misarrangement, poor planning, make it impossible for the things other than physical, the spiritual, if you will, to thrive at all. Therefore, we think we have embarked on a most important task. In trying to understand what should be done as a layman, I began to realize that I was not using what I knew as an industrialist. There I had learned that it was best not to pick up individual problems or parts of problems, but to view all the problems in total and then allo- cate to each its proper perspective, its right to priorities, to allocation of moneys, time, men, materials. And, therefore, I began a program about which we have given you two books today, called Goals for Dallas. We reasoned that if one wishes to go some place, the first thing he needs to know is where he wishes to go. So we took a group of people and tried to figure out what kind of a city we wanted to have, what ire wanted it to do for these people for whom we construed we were servants. It has taken quite a while to get to this stage. We had 87 people concerned with the construction of the first volume. As to building of goals, you will find it is possessive of two sections, the larger section is an inventory of where we were about 3 years ago, :and the second volume was taken to the people in a rather unique way. ~\Te felt we did not wish to design goals for people. We wished them to tell us what they desired, what they thought they needed. And so we took it to many neighborhood meetings, most of them ~vera.ging 200 to 300 people, and asked them to tell us what they wished us to do. And all 10,000 people really wrote, then, a revised irolume, that is volume 2. Now that we have this, we next must ask the people if they meant what they said. If, indeed, they wished us to spend the money, take * the time, energy and resources and apply them to the achievement of the goals. We had, about a year ago, last August actually, what we call a crossroads campaign, which we said Dallas now is at a crossroads. It must decide whether it is serious or whetherit is not. * PAGENO="0679" 667 Up to that time oniy $62 million fOr a biennium had been appropri- ated for capital improvements. This program was for $175 million over a triénnium. Literature describing the items in this program are also submitted to you. Now, in most cities* our experts who are with us and who will make a presentation to you on the screen will tell you there are about 500 acres in the core, perhaps less than half of that must be viable and full of life. We are fortunate, we have about a thousand acres in the core, and I will ask our next witnesses to describe to you how we wish to reconstruct it, what we wish to accomplish and why. The basic point will, of course, tie into the program about which we are here today, in that if men are to live in cities and if indeed they are to decide the work that they dO and the fruits of it in some equi- table way, they really will not accomplish much if they are not mobile. And this mobility must consist not oniy of the ability to get from one city to another, but about within acity so they can really get something. done at the time of their'disposition and their resources. So, if I may, I would like now to present to you Mr. Vincent Ponte and Mr. Warren Travers, who are our consultants. Mr. Ponte will describe the core itself, and some of the proposals to be done with it. Mr. Travers is associated with him in traffic studies, and I think both of them can make very clear to you what our needs are. Mr. CLAIJSEN. Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Clausen. Mr. CLAtTSEN. Mr. Jonsson, while these gentlemen are coming to the witness stand, I just want to say, on behalf of the minority, that your comments and the material that you have brought with you re- lating to the goals for Dallas and your illustrations on Dallas at the crossroads is not only going to be a benefit to your area, but certainly it is going to be a benefit to the entire country. Because you as an individual have obviously taken into account the problems as a whole in your given area, and I want to share with you what I just said to the gentleman sitting here as chairman, Mr. Roberts, I just wish more industrialists in this country had your kind of attitude toward community development. Mr. JoNssoN. Thank you, Mr. Clausen. I appreciate that much more than you know. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, for the opportunity to be here. This is Mr. Ponte and this is Mr. Travers. Mr. PONTE. Mr. Chairman, before I show you our visual material, a very exciting story I have of one American city, I would like to set the stage of the principals in which we engaged ourselves, if I may. Today when we hear the loudest noises across the Nation as a cease- less litany of urban crime and racial crises, poverty and protests, municipal disorder and fiscal grief, the physical setup and function of our city, as it works, gets less attention from day to day. And yet even as our cities gird themselves for another long hot summer, cities continue, they remain the focus of civilized living in our society, the concentrated articulation of our cosmopolitan world. Let us then look a little bit further today,. in greater focus on what the city may contribute in terms of a better life for Americans. PAGENO="0680" 668 Now, I would like to define this focus more precisely, because here is where our greatest traffic problems occur, and because the qualities that lend the city its vitality, its excitement, its distinction, its special atmosphere, are pretty well confined to a single district, as Mayor *Jonsson pointed out, mainly the downtown area, the central area of the city; or, to use the jargon of planners, the core. If we look out over any North American city from an airplane, `we can identify immediately what the core is. The way the tight cluster of tall buildings abruptly thrusts up out of the surrounding plane of low-level structures is like a diagram or a graph measuring the concentration and intensity of life that springs suddenly to a `peak in the core. It is the center of the city's economic, commercial, `public., and cultural life. It determines, more than any other district, the city's special character or flavor. Financially it is by far the most important element, the largest long- term investments are tied up there, and in many smaller cities, fully `a fifth of the municipal tax revenues are raised on a patch of real `estate that constitutes only a tiny fraction' of the total acreage of the city. Needless to say, the condition of a core is, or should be, the para- mount concern of every city, for, as with the nucleus of a living cell, the health of the whole city depends directly on the health and smooth functioning of the core. And this is where the extension of the TOPICS program can be effective for every American City. Fortunately, the core has a lot going for it. Because it is the prestige location, every major enterprise of the city and of the region insists on having its headquarters there. The core is a magnet for investment, and, like a serpent periodically shedding its skin, it automatically renews itself under the impetus of private enterprise every 40 or 50 years, among the bases of `mortgage leases or leases. It is tearing down outmoded buildings and replacing them with modern ones. It is this renewing virtue in conjunction with the public sector which is our opportunity to reconstruct and restruc- ture the. core before the century is out. And Dallas is an example of this method. Today, for all its inherent vitality, the core' is chronically subject to one `peculiar disability that may be merely irritating, but can become as paralyzing and destructive as'sand in the moving parts of a machine. This disability is, of course, congestion, the hamperingof movement caused by sheer overcrowding. And if there is any single factor essential to the smooth functioning of the core, it is movement, the free circulation of trucks, automobiles, and pedestrians within the core, and the easy access to it from outside it. When mobility is hampered, the downtown district, instead of being the pride and the pleasure of the citizens, turns into a purgatory -all to familiar nowadays-of choked traffic, polluted air and noise- the constant complaints that we do hear. Financially the effects of congestion are also severe, pushing up the cost of conducting business in the city until firms in some cases are eventually forced to sacrifice prime location and leave. But for every firms that leaves, there are 10 others ready to take `their place and live with the inconvenience for the sake of the location. PAGENO="0681" 669 Midtown Manhattan at this moment is in a frenzy of building and so is the Loop district in Chicago, and downtown Boston and down- town Dallas. But every new office building adds to the congestion, raises the limit of economic cost and human tolerance, and drives the traffic department to fresh expedients to keep at least a steady trickle flowing through the solerotic arteries of the core. The battle against downtown congestion has been going on for a long time. It is not new to us in America. In ancient Rome the situation was so bad that Julius Caesar, as one of his first acts as dictator, banned all traffic in downtown Rome during business days. In the Elizabethan era, when London started to get congested, the Queen simply banned all building. Since those days, congestion has been fought with a variety of municipal expedients, less desperate than Caesar's, but hardly more effective. First, traffic was made to keep to the right instead of wandering at will all over the streets. Then came traffic lights, then one-way streets, circle intersections, then a host of restrictive curbside parking regulations. And at the same time, trolley cars and buslines were organized to concentrate and channel the flow, then subways. But the congestion has only become worse, rising in quantum jumps from the spread of the family car to the modern freeway, which funnels tens of thousands of vehicles into the heart of the city without providing enough space for them to move through or to go to when they get there. In Chicago it has been calculated that it would take a parking lot three and a half times the size of the city center to accommodate cars if every one decided to drive in. That means something like 700 acres. And yet the passenger load on the Chicago subways shows a meas- urable decline in recent years. People, it seems, still want to come by car and are ready to brave the odds to do it. So how do we find the means to make it possible for them to do that? Today the point of congestion has been reached at which our down- town districts are becoming strangled. The average speed of traffic has been clocked at less than 8 miles an hour, about what it was in horse-and-buggy days 50 years ago. Today we have a highway network that weds the States from coast to coast, from border to border, and focuses in our city centers. There are few tricks left up the sleeve of the traffic departments to speed up the flow, and the expedients already in effect are rapidly breaking down. Parking regulations are widely ignored, and double parking, even triple parking are a common sight on busy thorough- fares. Hordes of pedestrians, including the clerical armies working in the big office buildings, clog the intersections at rush hours, prevent- ing the traffic from making left turns or right turns and backing it up for blocks in the outside lanes. The load of pedestrians has itself become so large that there is scarcely room for them any longer on the sidewalks. It is hard to know who to feel sorrier for, the harassed pedestrian, jostled on the sidewalks, trying to keep his nose out of the blue fog of fumes, or the unhappy driver, locked in the glacier of stalled traffic, or, for that PAGENO="0682" 670 matter, the many enterprises that have to carry on their business in such hostile surroundings. Clearly the time is past for makeshift measures which are for all practical purposes impotent to allevinte the congestion, let alone re- cover anything of the beauty, the dignity, and the human convenience that we should expect in the central districts of our great American cities. What must strike any student of the anatomy of American cities is that the average size of the core is between ~0 and 100 blocks or 2 to 300 acres, and this holds good for any American city, whether its population is half a million or a million or 2 million. In fact, midtown Manhattan, with all its cars, is only 400 acres. The reason for this curious conformity seems to be that this dimen- sion encompasses the distances a businessman is willing to walk to meet his lawyer, his accountants, his clients, or a housewife to do her downtown shopping. Despite all the advances in transportation and communications, businessmen still insist on meeting and dealing with each other face to face.; and the core conforms to necessity. The fact is, as you well know, there is no substitute for physical con- frontation at the office in a conference room or over lunch daily and at a mOment's notice, if need be. And the downtown area automatically adjusts itself to the con- venience of htiman legs. The core is compact, and will remain compact because it wants to be, because it has to be. There are sound economic reasons for this, as well. As I mentioned a moment ago, there are enormous investments, public and private, that are already locked into downtown areas for years to come. Further investments, equally huge, in the sums of hundreds of millions of private capital, are being made there at this very moment. Despite the hazards, the drawbacks, and the gloomy prophecies, more money is pouring into downtown than ever before. These investments are obviously going to be protected and not thrown overboard by dissolving the core. This is the sector that is a manageable unit for traffic consultants and planners and for politicians. And it is the one in which we can make immeasurable improve- ments. The clincher, of course, is to keep in mind that the whole character and spirit of the city life depends upon this compactness, and On this coming together of many people in one place at one time. The question, then, is: how do you keep the core compact and con- centrated, but relieve the congestion? And how do you make it con- venient and attractive and interesting? And the solution that planners are increasingly turning to is the so-called multilevel city center, or, to be more precise, the multi- level core. This is the path which we have set ourselves to accomplish in Dallas during the next decade. This is the goal which we want to illustrate today on the screen. Now, briefly, there is nothing new or startling or mysterious about this notion of a multilevel core. Give the problem to any reasonably intelligent high school class a.nd they would probably come up wit.h the same idea that Leonardo da Vinci came up with 500 years ago: if you want to break up congestion and create a pleasant downtown en- PAGENO="0683" 671 vironment, get pedestrians out of the streets, get trucks on a different level as well, and at the same time revamp traffic patterns, widen streets only where necessary, provide ample off-street parking, prefer- ably on the periphery of the core, attached to the freeway loop, and, above all, provide new levels for trucking, whether above or below grade, depending upon the lay of the land. These new improvements, to be effective, should be extensions of the highway system, logical extensions from the hand to the fingertip. And this holds especially true for the city core. LTntil lately the ingredients of the multilevel city have been applied only piecemeal. New York City's Rockefeller Center is of course the best known example in the States, Montreal is the best known in Canada. Elsewhere, isolated underpasses have been built at critical intersec- tions, and streets have been closed here and there to create a small pedestrian mall. But even the few superblock developments with open plazas, which some of our cities have managed to carve out of their `downtown dis- tricts, have turned out to be nothing more than little islands sur- rounded by swollen seas of traffic. The multilevel approach has never been applied on a significant scale, or with the conviction of the followthrough to show whether it really was a practical remedy for congestion without sacrificing den- sity, whether it really could upgrade land value and land use, whether it really could restore movement, interest and vitality to the threat- ened core and whether, finally, it could by osmosis and extension sig- nificantly repair and improve the whole millieu of the city. Today, for the first time, the multilevel core is actually being applied on just such a scale and with just such conviction. This is within the city of Dallas. And although the experience has just begun, it is the first steps in a major breakthrough in dealing with. the problems of the central city and the future develdpment of `downtown areas of North America. I would like now to show you what is taking place in Dallas, and how we expect it to work. [Showing of slides.] Mr. PONTE. This map that you see in~ front of you is the city of Dallas in 1875. It is like any other city. The streets were improved over a period of years, up until the end of the Second World War. In this scale you can see the small streets, but the first major improve- ment in Dallas was a central artery coming in from the north. And this indicated the cyclopian approach to our planning problems and scale. Just recently now, since the war, the freeways have been built- cyclopian indeed. This is the freeway loop that encompasses every American city. In Dallas it encompasses an area of some 930 acres. For example, this is a selected number of cities in the country. Cities that locate usually on waterways, they are followed in a period by rails and then the roadways. In each of these cities of varying population, populations you know, the center core represented by the red dot is approximately 200 to 300 acres of hard activity where all the office buildings, movie houses, major department stores and restaurants PAGENO="0684" 672 locate. And it is around this core; the freeway loop-the dark black lines-are located. The loop itself does not define an average CBD system. In Philadelphia it is 2 miles long, 1 mile wide, and in Dallas about amile and a half long. The one thing that remains constant is the core. It is that constant element that we feel we can improve in the next 30 years, `before we reach the year 2000. But the past is prolog, as it says on the door of one of the major buildings of this city. Inside this freeway loop-and we must show you some of the past- it is typical of any North American city. Through main lines, the streets run through with the traditional Main Street. The town grows up basically with all the elements I have described, office space, 4 mil- lion square feet in major buildings in the period of 1900 to 1931. * But in the depression years and the war years, 1932 to 1949, a million square feet. But in the succeeding years, 1950 to 1966, 13 million square feet of office space, comparing to New York City which built 75 million. * This is the cluster of office buildings, and you can see once again the cyclopian approach-big, huge buildings, half-block, full-block, three- block developments, drawing in thousands of people daily, tens of thousands, as well as thousands of tourists to the hotels, plus the thou- sands that come into the major shopping areas, major department stores. And the shops are in between. This is the healthy tissue of any city, but then the danger signals ap- pear immediately. The town must be served. The parking garages that normally must live and service these areas, but these in itself are not of really great danger-what worries us most of all in American cities are the parking lots, 460 acres of land we have measured in downtown Dallas within 931 acres is covered with asphalt, and this is typical of every city of North America of its size and scale. First of all, of all these components of circulation that we are concerned about, is trucking. The freeway loop and its interchanges that encompass the city with the major expressways that come in, part of the Interstate Highway System, the major trucking routes, we propose that in Dallas, on existing streets, without any great investment changes, that we should regulate the flow of trucks through the city on principal highways to service within the area, as well as the minor trucking routes. In addition, since trucking cannot find its way through the streets without double parking-because there are no lanes in Dallas and since double parking and triple parking is a common experience in all North American cities, we have now studied this area, shown in orange, divided into a number of districts, for which seven we have now and are now convinced that a bilevel trucking district can be introduced siphoning off directly from the major interchange. These brown lines represent just such trucking underground systems. WTithin the realities of real estate problems, we got large-scale developments which are presenfly imderway and others which `are in the making or about to come in the future, and introduce the system into compartments, hopefully then one day that they can ultimately be linked and make an entire network of low-grades in Dallas to service the trucking industry. PAGENO="0685" 673 The relief of trucking in that area, of trucking below grade without improving one street as service-there is also mass transit, although Dallas and many cities in North America are not yet ready to in- stall such expensive items, at least under present arrangements, and they have to be plannedfor. An entire city reaching from the regional airport of well over- how many acres is that ?-20,000 acres, as well as from the regional post office system into the center of the city along the rails and then underground and up. But also a local system, a local system, of a different `caliber and size and quality running from one end of town to the other, criss- crossing it, not significantly just for the town itself but probably capa- ble of extension, but in the initial phases, the secondary type `system, smaller than the subway system, attached immediately to vast park- ing garages, which, from the' outskirts into the center, people may park in and `then proceed by :transit through the center of the city. And all of this encompassing once `again this zone of 930 acres. Our study begins in four zones, and I specifically will talk to you on the purple zone, the southward quadrant, 346 acres of land, in `which this phenomena of renewal now is most evident and in which those principles that we are able to establish in this sector would be applied to the remaining sectors forming what we believe to be a model city. This is not long range. This is doable today; and it is being done. In the southwest sector outlined in black is the site of the new city hall, 10 acres, and the site of the convention center, some 30 acres, pius additional land assembled only recently from a bond issue f or set- ting of city hail and for cultural and convention utility. Along Main Street is the county courthouse area-the county area- some 12 acres in all. ` In addition, Main Place, a private development of 10 acres, with two blocks in between, which will obviously go to future development. And railroad land, one of the most'important parts of development is the availability of the large-scale developments, in single ownership, for which the rails are one, or assembled by private enterprise or assembled in public sector, and in the Santa Fe area there are some 30 acres of land next to Dall'as Morning News. Here, we have continuity of large scale development, all occurring at the same time; and the matrix to this is a public improvement called Griffen Street, tying these elements together and tying it also to the expressway. ` If we look specifically at this zone, this being a 67-acre zone and this a 140-acre zone, this is what we can do to introduce the multi- level core in the city on the basis of what is' now in the way. The first zone, rather, the largest part of the development in the city at the moment, encompasses some 10 acres of land at a cost of $100 to $110 million into' that zone `and shown here is the underpass, `the streets; the developments providing underground trucking, underneath the mainstream. There has now become feasible, looking at the zone in the south, another 10 acres where there is major ownership, where they con- sider closing the streets that are presently there, introducing low grade-in this 10 acres-access from local trucking street at a second PAGENO="0686" 674 trucking street which would, then run down two levels below grade and enter the private sector. Twenty acres of land would be serviced by only two truck entry points-20 acres of land which, if developed in a lot-by-lot fashion, with which we are now shackled, would now have to have 30 truck entry, points, double parking, or maneuvering ~to get back into the building. The truck docks are shown there in black. That is trucking in this same area. In this zone, which is slightly less than 67 acres, shown in yellow, the pedestrian system exists below grade. That system that you see in red represents the promenades and corridors and underpass streets. Within 20 years, that system would have extended itself to the main place; from the Tjnited Fidelity Building to the new hotel, Holiday Jim; so in any one of the buildings existing on this line, you could pass' from one point to another without crossing the street. The relief to traffic is from 10 to 20 percent, not having people in inter- sections where there are cars. This is now being extended into the, Kennedy Plaza, within a few years-3 years. With the completion of the main flanks in 1975, this system would extend itself to the entire 10-acre zoning, connected with the GAO Building now under construction in the south. Therefore, it is not logical that a hop, skip and a jump will resolve itself through a central college which now owns those two blocks, privately developed, ultimately close to the 10 acres in the city, on this area, and having at least 60,000 people a day, all of which~ would have us trucking underground, below the pedestrian level, which is above them-the street above `that-and finally, the parking between them. This is, in the very center, now being achieved by virtue of public and private enterprise. It is in this sector that the extension of the TOPICS program makes possible this kind of thing in the southern area, and our last area, the zone I pointed out, extends from city hall, the city area, and convention hall area. This `is to be completed in 1970-the existing auditorium, construction to, the north and the new city hall itself. It is on the `railroad lines, from the trucking spot of the local system. This same' zone will have a pedestrian level instead of being low grade. They will pass above the street levels, over the platforms. into the zone of the entire city hall, and finally, ultimately, extend themselves to the private development of the rail- road lines. They feed together, all the apartment houses, public functions in this zone, and tying together these majpr points which were described, at this point. It is these elements which we as planners, are not opposing, and as part of the long range plans, they are dual, and they are graspable and in hand. In addition, we intend or hope to recommend to the city of Dallas the controlling, which will be changed for district zoning, to provide that space below grade, which may one day become pedestrian levels and be allowed to have access to the public sector as the streets are created above grade. By this means, we hope to make the downtown a livable area, which is the aim of those in Dallas, which the mayor has described to von. PAGENO="0687" 675 Mayor JoNssoN. Mr. Chairman, I think you see that our program is extremely ambitious, moving acres of railroad tracks out of the heart of the city, where hundreds of carloads of freight are being brought every week to be distributed inside the core through huge trailer/truck transport to take them out of the city, to minimize the amount that comes in; to put the parking garages on the edges of the core; to park underground for those buildings that are built from now on in the core to provide, under the park, under the city hail, under the convention center, adequate parking space for those vehicles which would naturally gravitate to those areas. One is in a dilemma when he is trying to manage a city. He has limited money; he has limited manpower and time in which to meet all of the emergencies that face him. Laymen on the council work with the professionals. They try to see the answers to these problems. They see that they cannot widen streets and move 50-story buildings aside and we are building more of those and more of the 30- and 40-story variety. Almost every month, there is one more to be added to the stream. There must be a better way, and we have sought to do it by those expedients that seem to respond to the criteria of commonsense and what we know; traffic control by computer; electronic surveillance of traffic. These will help, but inevitably, we must go to multilevel de- terminations to find the solutionthat will keep these cores alive and not in decay We think the plans you have seen are the answer-at least, for m'~ny, many years to come, the best th'it we can foresee, and they are plotted in the perspective of the other goals that we seek. We now are engaged with some 750 citizens in task force arrays, solving the 12 broad categories of the goals to put them in their proper relationship with respect to priorities and the like. I think this is the first time that all of the people in the city have been, in any city, asked to ~ay what they would like it to be. We have gone to them; we have talked to them on an eyeball basis. We do now almost every week. I think the results are coming along to the point where we can say they are rational; they are sensible; they are what people want, and we don't have to worry about whether we designed it from an ivory tower. This is what, you might say, the people's ivory have told us they want, and we have taken it from there to the designing board. Once again, thank you for letting us come to you with this presentation. Mr. ROBERTS. We appreciate very much the presentatiOn. It is excit- ing and certainly unusual, and I am sure there are many questions. Mr. C~ai3ELr~. I would like to introduce Mr.. Scott McDonald, the city manager of the city of Dallas, and Mr. Lloyd Braff, the execu- tive director of the Central Business District Association Of Dallas, Tex., which is an organization that has been in being for ~a number of years. They have been in the forefront of private capital, assisting its community in community problems. I realize that this presentation today is not specific; that you gen- erally have that in that we come up here and say, "We want X num- ber of dollars for Y project," but this I think, is interesting. I think it is a graphic example of a community under the strong leadership that it has, seeking to do that for itself which is within the PAGENO="0688" 676 wherewithal of that community to do it but points up at the same time, the magnitude of the problem and where this is the ideal situa- tion of where the municipalities or the local government can work in harmony with and in partnership with the Federal Government, toward the attaimment of those goals that would be impossible finan- cially for the community itself. The city of Dalla.s and its environs does not want to get into the position that others are in today; wherein there is a hopeless situation and they come to you and say, "You have to bail us out," but we do think that with the terrific amount of talents and research and study that has gone into this, that we are in a position-I say "we"-I still consider myself a part of Dallas even though not officially so; but that we are in a position to seek that type of partnership that I think can be the most productive and the most economical in the long run, to where we do not get into the position that some of our other cities have gotten into. We want to preclude these situations and stay viable and stay up with the horses at all times. Thank you very much for your time and for your splendid coopera- tion. Mr. Cn~arErn. Mayor Jonsson, your colleagues and those making the presentation, I just want to say I have been on this committee for 14 years, and we now have extreme and aggravated big city problems relating, of course, in your jurisdictions, to transhighways. It looks like it is going to be mass transit under the Reorganization Act-Re- organization proposal, No. 2. This is one of the most exhaustive and enlightening, and I think, forward-looking presentations on behalf of the major city, that has been presented to the committee since I have been on it. I will say to you, Mayor, that I congratulate you on your extreme farsightedness. This suggestion that has been made relating to the long-range planning, underground handling of trucks and people, is certainly the direction-that or something else-is the direction that cities are going to have to go in; and you mentioned the TOPIOS program. I gather from your presentation that you are interested in what- ever systems in that type program that the Federal Government might make available; but I would just point out that the State of Texas received, under the present allocation for urban extension, which is a quarter of a. billion nationally, $13.9 million, and the allocation for the TOPICS is the same, so I presume you will ~et approximately the same under the TOPICS program for the entire State. I understand further, that your program calls for street system improvements of $44.3 million; so I think it would be logical to come to the conclusion then, that this would have to be largely the local responsibility with perhaps pumpgrinding Federal system. Mayor J0Nss0N. I think perhaps, sir, there is another implication. We are hoping to have enough ideas develop out of this, so that we may serve as a prototype in the solution of problems for others. This is where our value would lie, not only to this program, but in several of the other directions, I think. Mr. CRAMER. Well, it certamly is one of the most outstanding pro- posals and long-range planning programs that I have seen. PAGENO="0689" 677 Do I understand that this $44 million street system improvement includes these undergronnd truck routes? Mayor JoNssoN. No. No. That is just the more routine annual improvements. Mr. CRAMER. Yes. So that we are really talking about some rather substantial expenditures relating to that? Mayor JoNssoN. Yes. I cannot give you specifics on the present program because Mr. Ponte and Mr. Travers have not quite completed their work yet; but we did want to bring you what we could. We had some engineering done on the tunnelling of a little over a mile of the main street that you saw in the diagram, right in the center of the core, with parking facilities only at one end. This came to $38 million. So you can see how major it is. Mr. CRAMER. The only prthlem I have with the TOPICS program, I mig~ht add, as an aside for your information, is that the proposal before us is that we take it out of the trust fund and that means it ends up coming out of the Interstate System. We are already behind about $8 million, in finishing the system by the date of 1975 now. So we have to make a choice as to whether it is more important to finish the inter- state with the available funds or start a new program such as TOPICS. Mayor JoNssoN. I cannot help you much with that. I am struggling with the problem of 80 percent of the people, even in Texas, being in the cities. Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mayor and Congressman. It has been an extremely fine presentation, and very helpful. Mayor J0N5SOIc. Thank you. Mr. ROBERTS. We have with us Mr. Donald Barbour and Mr. Paul Spooner of the Roadside Business Association.. It is a pleasure to have you back here. Sorry we could not get to you last week. STATEMENT OP PAUL SPOONER AND DONALD S. BARBOUR, ROAD- SIDE BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, ON THE PROPOSED PEDERAL HIGH- WAY ACT OP 1968-RESUMED Mr. SPOONER. Mr. Chairman, last Wednesday, we filed a statement for the record and since that time we have discovered two or three oversights. We missed one of the ~tate agreements. We should have discussed one State law; so that we have revised that statement. It is minor, but it is to make it technically correct and we have today given the staff a new statement revised as of today and I request that it be substituted for that statement which we ified last week. Mr. KLUczYNSKI. We do not object to that. Mr. SPooin~R. I believe as we left the matter, we would simply submit for questions, and Mr. Barbour is here designated to speak for the association on the operational parts of the questions and I might talk, if you have any questions that are specifically legal, on the other. Mr. KLUOZYNSKI. I am sure the gentleman from Florida would want to ask some questions. Mr. Cramer? Mr. CRAMER. I appreciate your coming back as an act of courtesy to the committee and the chairman. Due to the forum calls and the PAGENO="0690" 678 bells the other day and other problems, we did not have an opportunity to go into this matter, but it is something I am sure, that affects all of us. I have been following this so-called beautification and sign removal program for some time, and of course, we have controls on the Inter- state System now, do we not, in the bonus ring? Mr. SrooNi~n. That is correct. Mr. ~n~rr~u. And have had it since the 1956 act. Mr. Sroo~n. Correct. Mr. Q~M~n. Enacted in 1958. As a matter of fact, all of the States, practically some 25 States, participated in that program; did they not? Mr. Spoo~r~n. That is correct. Mr. C~rEn. That compares with about 17 States who signed the agreement under the 1965 act. Mr. SrooNr~u. That is right, Mr. Cramer, except that some of those 17 should not really have been counted because those agreements have been signed without authority. Mr. CRAMER. So at best, it would seem to indicate to me that the approach of the bonus really has proven more effective than the ap- proach of the big stick 10 percent penalty. Wouldthat be your conclusion? Mr. Spoo~u. Well, it has in that instance, certainly, Mr. Cramer. I suppose that you could get a bonus that was so high that it might have the same effect, or so low, that the two would balance out. Mr. Cit~u~rra~. I hea.rd of interstate on which there are these controls. For instance, over in the valley over here, in Virginia, between the mountains; and it seems to me that anyone with a hilltop that can be seen from a distance, ends up getting a bigger sign beyond the 660 feet: and that it has not had the effect of thus removing signs but rather, it has had the effect of ending up with the construction of possibly more obnoxious and even bigger signs at little greater distance. Has that been your observation? Mr. SPOONER. Yes. There certainly have been some of the so-called giant signs built on some of the places you mentioned. Mr. CR~rER. Should the 1965 act be enforced in its entirety, in those areas where signs would not be permitted within the 660 feet, is that likely to be the effect in those areas as well? Bigger signs-not no signs, but bigger signs? Mr. Sroo~ru. Yes; wherever the topography would permit. Mr. CIt~uiEn. Now, you represent the Roadside Business Associa- tion; I presume that is a number of small businesses? Mr. Srooici~R. That is correct. Mr. CIt~MER. How is the small business going to pay for the big Mr. Sroo~i~. It is not going to be able to and this is particularly pertinent in our case because the very customers that our members serve tend to be the smaller businessman; the man needing a direc- tional sign, which seldom are the giant type. Mr. CRAMER. In other words, Holiday Inn and some of the chains, and Quality Courts, and so forth, and some of the chains of filling stations, gas companies, will be able to afford the signs, where the PAGENO="0691" 679 small businessman will not; is that correct So you advertise the big one, and the little fellow won't be able to. That will be the effect; will it not? Mr. SPOONER. I think that is true, Mr. Cramer. I think it is also true, too, because traditionally the sign that that small man has been able to afford has been the rural sign as compared to the large national sign that has been concentrated in the cities. Mr. CRAMER. Well, I am impressed with the fact-from the mail I get, Mr. Chairman-that it is largely to the effect, "Get the signs off the highways," in many instances, but no one seems to appreciate the fact that this does not get the signs off the highway. It just removes them a little bit farther from the highway, and they end up being larger and more monstrous signs. On page 5 of your statement, you discuss the contrast of control of cities versus rural signs. As I understand it, under the present law, all rural signs, except on-the-premise signs, must be removed, which is a total of about 839,000. Mr. SPOONER. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. While in effect, none of the city signs need to be removed. Mr.. SPOONER. That is true. Mr. CRAMER. Isn't this rather discriminatory? What is the effect of it. in your opinion? Mr. SPOONER. We think it is completely unjustifiable discrimina- tion, Mr. Cramer, and this particularly is so because of the fact that there are at least as many justifications for the small rural sign as there are for the larger city sign. Mr. CRAMER. Now, I talked to some constituents who have traveled even on the Interstate System, many pretty long distances, and a num- ber of them have complained to me that they have not, in traveling these highways, have had enough sign information to find the neces- sary accommodations; be it gasoline or rooming or other more immedi- ate needs; and so my question is: Isn't it necessary to have some bal- ance between beautification on the one hand, and the basic needs of information on the part of the motorist on the other hand? Mr. SPOONER. I think that is entirely true. Mr. CRAMER. Frankly, I have some people say to me that traveling interstate at night is rather frightening to them because they don't know where to find the necessary accommodations when traveling long distances. Mr. SPOONER. Somewhat along that line, if I might interject, the Vermont situation is interesting, Congressman, in that, as you know, after having gone through a number of gyrations alleging their act this way and that, in 1968 they passed their House bill 450 which absolutely barred, except for onpremise signs, all privately owned outdoor advertising; but then the State~ itself went into the business, but recognizing the need for directional signs of the kind that you are now speaking of, took this business over, in my mind, in somewhat of a socialistic manner, and we now are going to have as many signs as ever, except now they, aregoing to be State owned. Mr. CRAMER. Then the effect in Vermont has been that `you have socialization of the sign industry. 96-030-68-----44 PAGENO="0692" 680 Mr. Spoo~rn. And there will probably be as many signs with all of the problems that Government administration will make for them. Mr. CRAMER. As I understand it, their law is something like 10,000 licensed businesses in Vermont and they are each entitled to four signs but now have to get them from the State, is that right? Mr. SPOONER. That is correct. Mr. BARBOiJR. They only have about 3,000 signs in the State now. Mr. CRAMER. In your statement you say there are four jurisdictions, Hawaii, Alaska, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, a total of 950 signs must be removed. However, according to the Bureau, it indicates that only 155 signs will be removed in those four jurisdictions, Alaska, Hawaii, the District of Columbia., and Puerto Rico. Mr. SPOONER. I can quickly straighten out that disparity. Mr. CRAMER. I understand some modification is needed to balance it. That is not the point. The point is that the Federal Government is not really getting much for its money in those four jurisdictions. Mr. SPOONER. They are insignificant in my opinion. Mr. Ci~n~n. Certainly, in my opinion, for the amount of money that is supposed to go into those areas. We have had this discussion about national standards. We had it in the last consideration of the 1966 act. Everyone was in agreement, as I understand it. Certainly, I felt that way; and the legislative history shows that it was not the intention that there be "national standards." And I think the act is very clear on this point. Now, doesn't it appear, however, that the manner in which the Sec- retary has unilaterally promulgated standards, for instance, pertain- ing to the definition of unzoned commercial industry areas, that we are going right in the direction of national standards? Mr. SP0ONER. That is very true. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that never has there been a more inconsistent bit of testimony than that in which the Secretary said in one breath, that, "I cannot empha- size too strongly that there are no such things as national standards," or words to that effect; and then went on to say, "However, the only absolute requirement upon which we would have to insist would be the existence of at least one commercial activity in any such unzoned area." It seems to me a complete contradiction within the terms of the same testimony. Mr. CRAMER. At the hearings on the Senate bill, it became quite clear that the Federal/State agreements defining unzoned commercial areas, are expected to be initiated by the States. Mr. SP00NER. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. And I recall our debate on this and the conference reports on it and our lengthy discussions of it; that was my impression of how it has worked out. Mr. SPOONER. Well, actually of the 17 agreements signed, oh, per- haps less than half were open end. That is to say that the State officials were given complete blank check authority to make whatever agree- ment they want; and a good number of those have signed agreements. Those agreements look as if they were cut-as we say in our state- ment-from the same mimeographed stencil. They do not evidence any mutual bargaining and as you know, attached to our statement as appendix 2, is a résume of those provisions of the agreements that PAGENO="0693" 681 pertain to unzoned areas and they read almost identically. They simply have not been negotiated. Of course, this is part and parcel of the fact that you mentioned a moment ago that we start with a national standard; namely, that the Secretary and the BPR is insisting on one existing, other kind of commercial use, and the whole argument is how far from that use may other activities be? And they practically settled on 500 feet, with a few variations running up to 700 feet; one under 400 feet; two to 600 feet; the remainder at 500 feet. So there really has not been mutual agreement. Certainly, they have not been initiated by the States because no one can tell me that you would have 17 agreements all written with the commas in the same places, if they had been initiated by the States. Mr. CRAMER. So in effect, in this instance, too, we are ending up with national standards or standards insisted upon by the Bureau rather than initiated by the States? Mr. SP00NER. That is absolutely correct. Mr. CRAMER. In the report of that bill, it was said that the distance from the business estthlishment will be established in terms of cus- tomary use in the State, and the needs of the area as determined by geographic, sociological, economic and other factors. To your knowledge and information, have State laws or agreements been based upon these principles? Mr. SPO0NER. That is one of the most interesting little stories in this whole program, Congressman Cramer. First, on page 6, I think it is, we enumerated nine States which have significantly opened up the rural areas. All nine of those have in effect, sought to be liberal along the lines of these criteria stated in the Senate committee report; but they have not done so. Those nine States have significantly opened up areas in the terms of that Senate Statement of Criteria, customary use, topography, and so forth, that you just men- tioned; but two of the States that have passed compliance laws, namely Utah and West Virginia, did write into their compliance laws, criteria for the negotiation of these agreements, which in substance and in principle, are quite similar to those criteria laid down at page 9 of the Senate report. Now, the difference between them is this Utah still remained an open end law, giving blanket check authority to its highway department. Their Governor was their negotiator. It said that, we will start with the so-called standards of January 1967 but if possible, try to get these other things in; something that will take care of customary use, and so on; but it was not firm. It was only suggestive. As a result, the BPR ignored these very criteria that were set forth in the Senate report; overrode the suggestions of the State of Utah and pushed through an agreement on its own terms with one minor exception. The other State, which expressly adopted criteria in its compliance law, substantially the same as those set forth in the Senate report, was West Virginia. However, its criteria were not merely suggestive. They said, the agreement shall do this and shall do that. So that it was a firm com- pliance law. The result is there has been no agreement signed with respect to West Virginia. PAGENO="0694" 682 Mr. Cu~&tE1~. Now, we wrote into the law-and the intention was so and the right was so, at least as far as I am concerned, the payer was reimbursed, should the sign be required to be removed. As I understand it, the agreements so far refer to the prospective or future construction of signs; or in the event of the actual wearing away of the signs, and non-replaecment. Is that your understanding? Mr~ Sroo~rn. Yes. They do affect existing signs, Congressman Cramer, insofar as they are illegal for being in the wrong kind of area. They exempt existing signs insofar as they are legal because of size, lighting and spacing. That is why we are hurt. Mr. CR tER. So in effect, this is a method by which at the present time, the Administration is getting around the requirement of reim- bursement. Isn't that the effect of it? Mr. Spoo~rn. That is right. They are not. going to take down signs that are in violation. Mr. Q1~A~rE1~. Now, as I understand it, getting back to Vermont law, as a matter of ~act, those signs which the State is putting up are actu- ally within the right-of-way of the highways. Isn't that correct? Mr. SPOONER. I think so, although I might say that I have seldom read a more complex, vague, and general law, and I have not yet been able to satisfy myself exactly as to r~vhat it means. Mr. Cit~isir~it. That is my understanding. Mr. SPoONER. I think you are right. Mr. ORR. It appears in that instance we are definitely going in the wrong direction. Mr. SPooNER. I think so. Mr. CRA~rr~i~. Even permitting signs within the right-of-way, which were not permitted at all in the past. Mr. Srooxiai. And perhaps mOre of them than we used to have. Mr. C~MER. How in the world the Bureau could have approved such a law as that, I don't know. Mr. SP00NER. I don't know what happens to the agreement-the Federal-State agreement-that was signed prior to the passage of this most recent Vermont law. Mr. CRAMER. The other thing that bothers me is that if we put this law on the books, a lot of States expect Congress to come through with the funds. It has not; it is not going to, in my opinion. They have not even passed the authorization for this fiscal year. It is my personal opinion, I doubt if it is going to be done in fiscal 1969 or 1970, at least, and the States, yet, are being pressured to pass legislation which in effect would commit the States to do the job but without any assurance that Federal money would be available. Mr. SPo0NER. That is correct. Mr. CRA3iii~. Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me. Mr. SPooNEi~. Not a bit. Mr. ~JRA~rER. It is in about the same pbsition as safety is. The States passed the laws. We don't put up our matching money that we com- mitted ourselves to, by authorization. Mr. SPOONER. That is absolutely right. A few of the States have had the good sense to say, this act shall be in effect in abeyance until the money appropriated is available; but not too many. PAGENO="0695" 683 Mr. CRAMER. Thank you very much. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Clausen? Mr. CLAUSEN. No questions. I have read your testimony. Mr. SOHWENGEL. No questions. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. You don't represent the tavern people, do you? Mr. SPOONER. No, sir. We do not. They are sometimes customers of ours, but we do not directly represent.them as we do the Motel Asso- ciation of America, which is an affiliated member of ours. `Mr. KLtrCZYNSKI. In the last year or 2 years, I was surprised that they had over 150-plus members in that trade organization. Mr. SPOONER. Yes. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I guess they are the same as you people are. They are only allowed three small signs, 50 miles away. So we have listened to their testimony. Of course, we will take that up in executive session. Since there are no further questions, we want to thank you for your appearance here today. Mr. `SPOONER. We thank you very much. We appreciate this oppor- tunity very much. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Our next witnesses will be Mr. John Hall for the National Forest Products Association and Mr. Knox Marshall, repre- senting the Western Wood Products Association. STATEMENTS OF JOHN HALL, NATIONAL FOREST PRODUCTS ASSOCI- ATION, AND KNOX MARSHALL, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT FORESTER, WESTERN WOOD PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, members, my name is. John Hall, and I represent the National Forest Products Association. With me is Knox Marshall, Calif6rnia district forester for the Western Wood Products Association. I have a prepared statement which I will summarize. Mr. KLUOZYNSKI. We will `be delighted to put it in the record in its entirety. Mr. HALL. Fine. NFPA is a federation of 17 associations, representing the wood products industry from coast to coast. The Western Wood Products Association is the largest of these regional associations and represents about 200 small, medium, and large producers of wood products in the 12 Western States. We are appreciative of this committee's long and sincere interest in assisting the forest products industry and the Forest Service to develop solutions to their mutual land-access problems., You were instrumental in the enactment `of Public Law 88-657, which removes some legal obstacles, and have `been most helpful in raising the authorization for national forest development road au- thorizations to $170 million annually. H.R. 17134, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, will authorize $125 million annually for 1970 and 1971 for national forest roads. This is a substantial reduction from the $170 million authorized for fiscal 1968 and 1969. , Our association and our industry strongly urges that the $170 mil- lion authorization level be restored. PAGENO="0696" 684 We are fully aware of the need for keeping Federal expenditures as low as possible, but we are confident that each dollar wisely invested in the development of national forest roads will result in significant returns to the. U.S. Treasury. This $170 million level is necessary to keep the national forest development program on schedule so that the national forest will contribute, to the full extent of their capabilities, to our constantly growing need for wood. The Federal Government in administering the Federal forests is engaged as a proprietor in operating a property-about 113 million acres-which is larger than the State of California and worth billions of dollars and capable of returning several hundred millions of dol- lars to the Treasury annually. Additionally, national forests can con- tribute substantially in other ways to relieving the crisis which our Nation now faces. Timber from these forests is the source of thousands of livelihoods, especially in the. rural communities. National forest tim- ber generates many millions of dollars in taxes as it moves from the forest through the manufacturing process and channels of distribution to the consumer. The capabilities of national forests are just beginning to be tapped. Currently, the annual allowable cut stands at. about 12.3 billion board feet which has never been fully harvested. This is going to have to increase by about 21 billion by the year 2000 if our country's wood needs of 100 billion board feet are going to be met in that year 2000. For every dollar's worth of standing timber, about $25 is added to our gross national product through harvesting, ma~ufaeture, construction, transportation, and marketing of wood products. About 5.6 percent of the gross national product originates in timber-based economic activ- ities. The Forest Service estimates that about one out of every $70 of our gross national product is attributable to the national forest tim- ber alone. It is obvious t.hen that the national forests must be managed with in- creasing intensity in order to get the maximum potential production from each acre devoted to growing wood fiber. Forest management and most other national forest uses start with accessibility and road expenditures are necessary to a realization of most national forest benefits. These are investments which generate the capital to pay for themselves, and also to return a handsome profit to the owners, the people of the United States. They are also permanent improvements which increase the value of the timber on the land that they serve, because the timber is accessible, and can more cheaply be moved to processing centers and markets. A significant portion of the roads on national forest lands have and will continue to be built by timber purchasers as part of the orderly progress of thnber. In fiscal 1969, timber purchasers are expected to construct an esti- mated $75 million in timber access roads. Often roads built by timber purchasers require some appropriated funds. To the extent that the road cost is assignable to use for timber harvesting, it is offset a.gainst the timber. To the extent that other uses require roads of better stand- ards than those needed for timber harvesting alone, appropriated funds are required by law to pay for the extra standards attributable to the other uses. PAGENO="0697" 685 More important, however, is theneed in many timbered areas for ap- propriated funds for initial road construction. Road construction in advance of timber harvest permits sales to be made in relative small quantities of from 1 to 10 million board feet which can be handled by small operators or which best fit management objectives. For these reasons we commend to your most serious consideration our proposal for maintaining the authorizations stated in subsection 5(5) at $170 million annually, for both years. Our industry is deeply concerned over the current fiscal crisis which our Nation faces and is anxious to do its part. in finding the best solu- tion. . Congress cannot be asked to authorize appropriations of $170 mil- lion magnitude, without insisting that priority be given to financing roads that will return their costs to the Treasury many times over. It is imperative that funds authorized by this bill be used for con- struction of roads which will produce the maximum returns to the economy and the Treasury. We are working closely with the Forest Service. We have worked out many of the~ legal difficulties in joint construction of roads. Together, we are beginning to focus on the problems of road construction stand- ards and maintenance. We are genuinely concerned that the national forests earn a maximum return with each dollar invested in national forest roads. We think that we can offer real contributions to this end from our industry's experience in managing its own lands for maxi- mum economy returns. Mr. Marshall will commenton these. Now, Congress has some difficult decisions to make in setting the Nation's course and especially where cuts in expenditures are going to be made. For this reason, we think it is necessary that Congress fully understand the income generating capabilities of the Federal forests. National forest timber sales depend in large part on the degree of new access that is provided anuually by forest road construction. In our estimation, it would be self-defeating to cut expenditures for forest ac- cess roads. However, if these road expenditures are to make their full contribution to our economy, there must be a high return on the in- vestment they represent. Receipts to the Treasury from timber sales and taxes will only be maximized if we get the most forest access possi- ble for the dollar expended. Mr. Marshall will comment on some of these ways to improve the return of dollars expended. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. That is your complete statement? Mr. Clausen? Mr. OLAtTSEN. Yes, Mr. Ohairman. I won't delay this. I did want to take this opportunity to welcome before the committee, Mr. Knox Marshall. Mr. Marshall is from our native State of California. I hope that the committee will pay particular attention-as I know they will- to the comments he makes, because in the forest products industry, Mr. Marshall is certainly one of the most respected men, not only for his knowledge, but his fairness in presenting his case. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Thank you. Mr. Marshall, very glad to have you before this committee. You may proceed as you wish. Mr. MARSHALL. Thank you, Mr. ~Jhairrnan, and members of the committee. PAGENO="0698" 686 I am Knox Marshall. In our association's 12-State area, Federal forest lands provide 54 percent of the raw material for the lumber industry. Very many of our firms are entirely dependent on public timber; namely, national forest timber. So we are vitally interested in access continuity of the timber sales program and we are also genuinely concerned about getting full value for each dollar expended in constructing and maintaining na- tional forest roads; whether the money comes from appropriated funds or out of actual timber sale receipts. Because we build a great deal of roads on our privately owned tim- berlands, tree farms, permanent roads, we feel qualified to judge the efficiency of a public road program. Comparing the costs in building our roads, with costs for building similar roads on the national forests, it often shows considerably greater costs for the national forest roads. We recognize that at least part of this difference can be attributed to the fact that the Forest Service designs and builds roads serving other uses than just simply timber management, protection, and harvesting. Growing recreational interest in Forest Service lands imposes this necessity upon Forest Service road planning and construction. Industry experience has dem- onstrated, however, that in a great many cases, a maximum economy timber management road is also perfectly satisfactory for multiple use access. The industry has attempted in recent years to share its experience with the Forest Service in improving efficiency of the national forest road construction program. Just last week at a meeting in Colorado Springs, in which I was a participant, this was one of the subjects discussed among industry leaders from the 12 Western States, the western regional foresters from the Forest Service and top level Forest Service officials from Washington. From that meeting came agreement to establish regional joint industry-Forest Service committees, having as one of their objectives reduction~ of costs in construction of national forest roads. We are very pleased to be able to report this development to the committee. We think there are several means by which these savings can be accomplished by this committee. The matter of constructing roads now to serve traffic needs an- ticipated~ in the distant future, sometimes results in forest roads with higher than necessary per mile costs. While these roads in many in- stances will be needed to serve such future traffic, in this time of great need for economy it seems prudent to consider the discount principle in making investments in roads,whether from appropriated moneys or from timber receipts. Using the discount principle will cause roads to be constructed to standards reasonably protecting resources and serving near term an- ticipated use needs, thereby substantially increasing road mileage per invested dollar. The effect of such economic prudence is to make timber resources accessible that are needed to generate dollars in local econo- mies and for return to the Treasury at the same time providing access for other multiple uses. Another of the areas where we are trying to bring about increased efficiency is in road engineering and design costs. The Forest Service is attempting to computerize road location in the forests to reduce PAGENO="0699" 687 costs. You recognize that we do much of this constructio~n as timber purchasers. We have not yet, because the technique is new, worked out the frustrations of getting a computer location that needless goes through rock moved to a location less costly to construct.. Similarly, we have problems with too rigid insistance by the Forest Service on uniform grades, uniform alinements, balanced cuts and fills, and ex- cessively: detailed surveys in forest road construction. Other possi- bilities for savings involve less costly bridge and drainage struc- tures. We hope to work together with the Forest Service so the many new techniques available to us now allow actual realization of the theoretical economies. Forest* road locations can be much more flexible than highway con- struction requirements would permit and still provide long-term efficiency. We fear that Federal budget cuts may result in timber purchasers being forced to build roads to unnecessarily high design standards and costs in order to get timber put up for sale. This threat stands as a nightmare for the Federal timber dependent economy. Federal timber purchasers even today buy sales that cannot return a normal profit margin because of costly road construction requirements. The opera- tor's choice in Federal timber areas is often to buy or abandon the business. We are naturally upset when high road standards or failure to supplement construction costs with appropriated funds is the cause of the deficit sale. Failure to sell the timber means that communities and businesses will wither and die. Another of our goals is to help the Forest Service keep standards within limits of economic prudence and in compliance with section 4 of Public Law 88-657. Several years ago, your committee conducted a staff review of forest access road construction in the major Federal forest areas. Because the staff review resulted in an improved understanding of the atdministra- tion of the funds authorized by this committee, we think it timely that both the House and Senat&Publie Works Committees consider the advisability of another committee field review. We offer the full co- operation of the forest mdustiy in making a~ ailable whatever infor m'ttion the committee deems necessary to making such a review In conclusion, my industry fully sup~ports an annual authorization of $170 million for national forest ~levelo.pment roads~and trails. This is an investment which will create manifold returns to the U.S Treas- ury in direct timber sale receipts `and taxes on income producing activities generated by the forest products industry. In approving an authorization of this magnitude, it is essential that Congress be assured that these funds be spent in the most efficient way. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Thank you foryour statement, Mr.Marshall. Mr. Cramer? Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Marshall, I think you stated very well, on behalf of your industry, the case as it really is. You have placed emphasis on the fact that some of these Federal timber area communities are cer- tainly almost operating with a gunther head unless they can have something more in the way of a substantial guarantee that this pro- gram will continue to go forward and be sustained with the best enforcing management practices. Now, is there anything that you can think of that this committee might do in order to advance your suggestion here relating to this PAGENO="0700" 688 question of the high road standards with higher than necessary per mile costs? Is there anything that you can suggest that the committee do to relieve you from this dilemma? Mr. MARSHALL. Well, at this point, as a result of our `discussions last Thursday and Friday in Colorado Springs, we are moving into this regional giant Forest Service-Industry Committee review of this. I am sure this will bear some fruit. Mr. Cit~rmt. In other words, you feel from this will come forth some recommendations that we might give consideration to in the future? Mr. MARSHALL. I am sure it will be helpful but on our suggestion that your committee and the Senate committee, too, acquaint your- selves again with the field activity in this respect. There are lots of urgencies and there are areas that need access and are not getting access. There are areas where the timber harvesting business is very mar- ginal now because of several things but because of supplementation and the appropriated money, you know, to help finance the access. I think between the regional, the local-regional committees and what you might learn from another review of how things are going in the field, I think this could be very helpful. Mr. CLAUSEN. As you know, we are very fortunate to have as the chairman of our subcommittee Mr. Kluczynski, of Illinios, because he, as you know, is the one that responded to our request to go out into the West and review some of the practices and some of the new build- ing programs. actually, on the spot. I have said this before, but I tend to label him as the "champion of the roads program," and all of us, I am sure, would agree that we a.re equally grateful to him. I can tell you this much-that many of us on the committee are equally as disturbed over the fact that the recommended authorization for the administration was, I believe, $125 million, when in actuality this committee previously had established' the authorization level at $170 million, which was the amount required to maintain the 10-year program established back in, I believe, 1962, under President Kennedy. And so I, for one, will certainly do everything that I can to move this authorization back to $170 million. In fact, I am offering an amendment unless the chairman bea.ts me to it. Thank you. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Thank you. Very well said. Are there any comments or suggestions? Gentlemen, it has been a pleasure to have you before this committee. You made an excellent presentation before us. I want to say to you that what you have said will be very helpful. As you know, the gentle- man from California, Mr. Clausen, has been with me on my trips sev- eral times, and I know your problems. I am sure that your statement, your testimony, will be very `helpful to us. Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, perhaps you don't remember me, but I remember you. I met you out in San Francisco in Lake Tahoe through the woods and we would like to see you back. PAGENO="0701" 689 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KLtTCZYNSKI. Glad to see you. I remember a picture of a big, fat guy. It is nice to have you before this committee. There being no further witnesses, the hearing will be adjourned until 9:30 tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 4:36 p.m., the hearing was adjourned until 9:30 o'clock, Wednesday, June 1~, 1968.) (The following materials were received for the hearing record:) STATEMENT OF HON. WTLLIAM HENRY HARRISON, OF WYOMING, BEFORE THE SUB- COMMITTEE ON ROADS OF THE HOUSE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RE UNFREEZING THE FEDERAL LIMITATIONS ON STATE VEHICLE SIZE AND WEIGHT MAXIMUMS Chairman Kluezynskj and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to present testimony on legislation (H.R. 14474 and 5. 2658) which would ease the Federal freeze on State vehicle size and weight limitations. As the American Trucking Association has so ably expressed the issue, the need for an increase in vehicle size and weight "now borders on desperation." The bills before this subcommittee. would permit states, if they chose to do so, to revise limits upon single and tandem axle weights, width and gross weight, which were imposed upon the States when Congress passed the Federal Highway Act of 1956. The Federal limits, both present and proposed, apply only to the Interstate Highway System. Present limitations are 18,000 pounds for~ single axle loads, 32,000 pounds for tandem loads, and a gross weight of not more than 73,280 pounds, or a width of not more than 96 inches. The pending legislation would set single axle limits of 20,000 pounds, tandem limits of 36,000 pounds, width, 102 inches, and a maximum gross weight which would be determined by the wheel base, the number of axles of the vehicle or a combination of vehicles. State authority having greater limits would be allowed to keep them. Wyoming adheres to the present Federal single axle limit of 18,000 pounds, but already has the proposed Federal tandem axle limit of 36,000 pounds. The trucking industry has waited ten years for legislation such as this, and the need in this decade of the sixties is desperate if transportation costs are to be kept in bounds and the cost of truck operation kept as low as possible. This can only be brought about by more economical payloads which means more weight on a single truck unit. It is a fact that in the aggregate, the trucking industry moves more tons of freight, has greater total freight revenue, and provides employment for more people than ony of the other forms of transportation. It is also a major part of the nation's inner city freight transportation, in which capacity trucks must perform virtually all local freight services including short hauls that are essential to other modes of transportation. I firmly believe that if America is to fully benefit from her splendid highway system and if the trucking industry is to continue to serve with utmost efficiency the nation's rapidly expanding agricultural and industrial needs, we must allow the nation's truckers to carry greater loads on larger trucks so long as these loads do not endanger the safety of bridges or the durability of roads. I believe liberal- ization of limitations as presented in legislation before this committee is prudent, and within the necessary bounds of safety and necessity. I urge that this legislation be adopted. Thank you. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., June 19, 1968. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Ck airman, Committee on Public Works, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Committee is presently considering S.B. 2658, to pro- vide for certain increases in truck load limitations and dimensions on the inter- state system. PAGENO="0702" 690 While I recognize that the provisions of this bill have been recommended in the interest of promoting the most economic and efficient~ use of our highway system by passenger and freight carriers, I question the long-range effects of the measure. Inasmuch as almost all truck movement eventually must go over local roads, bridges and streets to complete its route, we may find ourselves in real difficulty if we alter present regulations. It may then become necessary that local recluire- ments be changed. We may not be serving the industry by enactment of this proposal; rather, we may only be increasing the problems of compliance. I will appreciate it if the Committee will take my comments into consideration as it continues its workon this bill. Respectfully, JAMES C. C0RMAX, Member of Congress. STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN TRANsIT ASSOCIATION ON H.R. 14474 AND S. 2658 To the chairman and members of the subcommittee, the American Transit Association is the natiOnal organization representing the urban transit industry which encompasses ]octj motor bus, electric trolley bus, and rail rapid transit systems in the United States and Canada. Its transit system members carry approximately eighty-five percent of the more than eight billion yearly public transit riders. The Association appreciates this opportunity to present its views with respect to H.R. 14474, 90th Congress, 1st Session, "A Bill to amend section 127 of title 23 of the United States Code relating to vehicle weight and width limitations on the Interstate System, in order to make certain increases in Such limitations" and to its Senate counterpart, as amended. At this time the Association's primary in- terest is in the provision contained in each of the above-mentioned measures w-hich would increase allowable widths of vehicles using the Interstate System from 96 inches, the present limitation, to 102 inches. When Congress enacted the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 it placed certain limits on vehicle weights and width. At that time there did not appear to be any reason for the local transit industry to be particularly concerned with the limita- tion of 96 inches placed on the width of vehicles using the Interstate System. There were no prospects of any immediate impact upon the local transit industry. Furthermore, it was made clear by the terms of the Act and its legislative history that these limitations were intended to be temporary pending results of a study and recommendation by the Secretary of Commerce with respect to proper Federal standards. However, notwithstanding the report and recommendation of the Secretary of COmmerce made in 1964 and the continuing investigation in this field being carried on by the Bureau of Public Roads, Department of Transportation, the 1956 "temporary" standards are still in effect. In the mean- time, a substantial portion of the Interstate System has been completed and, in certain areas where the Interstate System runs, has created certain safety, convenience and economic problems which passage of S. 2658 would material]:,' assist in solving. A large majority of the states (38 including the District of Columbia) at present permitthe use of buses of 102 inch width, or more, in urban or suburban service under prescribed conditions or upon compliance with certain procedures. Of the states presently adhering to the 96 inch width limitation, three (Nevada, South Dakota and Utah) have afready adopted legislation to increase the limita- tion on the Interstate System to a width of 102 inches-~-~uch legislation to be- come effective as soon as action by Congress permits. Five other states whleh now permit buses of 102 inch width under varying conditions (Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming) have adopted similar legislation which will make the 102 inch width effective on the Interstate System within their re- spective states when that standard has received the approval of Congress. For the information of the Subcommittee, there is attached to this statement a sum- mary of state maximum widths of transit motor buses permitted under state laws. With the advent of the Interstate System into an area where the local transit system is permitted to use 102 inch width buses, the transit company, if it uses the Interstate System, is confronted, under present Federal limitations, with the necessity for arranging its operation so that routes embracing any part of PAGENO="0703" 691 the Interstate System wili'be served with buses not exceeding 96 inches in width. This involves the necessity for providing a dual bus system, which usually in- volves additional capital outlay and increased operating costs. This, plainly, constitutes economic wastage. The dual bus system also limits flexibility of scheduling equipment. From the passenger's standpoint, the 102 inch bus improves his comfort and convenience and increases the safety factor. From the standpoint of the users of bus service during peak traffic, a shift to the 102 inch bus would increase the quantity of passenger capacity available for service. It is true, of course, that passage by Congress of S. 2658 would not change vehicle size and weight laws in any state. It would merely raise the Federal limits and thus remove the "strait jacket" from the states and allow them to set stand- ards up to the new limits provided in S. 2658. In each case, such a's ours, im- provement would be contingent upon `action by a state legislature reviewing the laws of its own state. But, since passage of S. 2658 is the indispensable first step toward `a realistic solution of the problem, we respectfully urge favorable action by `this Subcommittee. SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM WIDTHS OF TRANSIT MOTOR BUSES PERMITTED UNDER STATE'LAWS 104 inches in urban or suburban service when subject to P.V.C., prior approval of Commission necessary. 96 102 inches; single bus. 102 96 96 102 inches op certain streets, by order of Highway Department. 96 96 108 96 102 inches for buses operated on highways having a surface width of at least 20 ft. or on narrower segments if determined safe by Board of Highway Directors. 96 104 inches; buses operated within the limits of cities and villages in counties of 500,000 population or more. 96 102 inches for buses which pperate in cities or towns or between contiguous cities and towns located in counties of at leastl60,000'population. 96 State Highway Commission and local authorities may in their discretion issue trip or annual permits for wide vehicles. 96 102 inches; buses used in local urban transit. 96 102 inches; city and surburban buses. 96 Motor buses operating under a franchise or indeterminate permit wholly within the corporate limits of a municipality exceeding 100 000 popula lation exempt from State statute of 96 inches. 102 ` 96 Incorporated cities, towns, and municipalities may by ordinance permit within their jurisdiction the operation of motor buses with a maximum outside width of 102 inches. 96 102 inches for buses operated in cities served by the Metropolitan Transit Authority. 96 102 inches; surburban buses when operated on streets and highways 20 ft. wide within a radius of 30 miles of municipal corporation limits by permissiont of ,P.S.C. 96 108 inches for buses operated exclusively within any city or village. 102 96 inches for buses operated within 20 miles of a city of first class 96 108 inches within corporate limits of communities of 75,000 inhabitants or more and within 2 miles or corporate limits of such cities. 96 102 inches for buses operating on paved highways 20 ft. or more wide. 96 102-inch width buses restricted to city streets. 96 96 102 irichesprovided low pressure tires are used. 96 State Highway Commission may designate highways on' which vehicles of 102 inches are allowed. 96 1,02 inches; operated ,~~holly within cities. (If sanctioned by local law or ordinance.) 102 102 inches; Buses operated in Charlotte, NC. only. 96 96 104 inches; Buses operating exclusively within municipalities'. 96 Buses operating only within the city limites of incorporated cities, excluding the Interstate System, may be 102 inches wide. State width States limitations State limit exceptions for cities et al. (inches) Alabama 96 Municipalities may regulate provided maximum is not less than provided in State statute (96 inches). ` ` 96 96 96 96 Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma PAGENO="0704" 692 SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM WIDTHS OF TRANSIT MOTOR BUSES PERMITTED UNDER STATE LAWS States State width limitations (inches) State limit exceptions for cities et at. Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota 96 96 102 96 96 102 inches trolley coach or trolley coach converted to motor bus operated exclusively within city limits and placed in operation on or after June 1, 1947 and prior to Jan. 1, 1955. 102 inches; Buses operated over regular route or in group party service; consent of municipality or P.U.C. reqeired. Bus over 96 inches may not be operated where 1-way cartway is less than 10-ft. wide. ~ 102 inches within incorporated cities and municipalities. . Tennessee Texas Utah 96 96 96 Statutory restrictions are inapplicable within municipalities under 100,000 population and within 12 miles of municipalities of over 100,000. 102 inches on motor buses operated within limits of city with population of 425,000 and within cities, towns, and suburbs contiguous thereto. Vermont 96 Virginia Washington . West Virginia Wisconsin 96 96 96 96 102 inches; Incorporated cities and towns with consent of local authorities; in counties having a population in excess of 5,000 per square mile on designated highways if State highway commission acting upon appli- cation by county governing body, so orders. 102-inch-width buses permitted under authority of State Highway Com- mission. Incorporated cities and municipalities may permit motor buses to a width not exceeding 102 inches. 104 inches; Urban passenger buses operated as an auxiliary to or as a part of a street railway system jin counties of 500,000 population or operated within or between counties of 500,000 or more and contiguous thereto. Wyoming ~ 96 102 inches for buses operating on paved highway having a surface width of at least 20 ft. Source of data: Commerce Clearing House, Inc., National Highway Users Conference, A.T.A. Feb. 15, 1968. Omo-IDA FooDs, INC.; Ontario, Oreg., June 4, 1.968. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, Committee of Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Sun: We are advised that the House of Representatives has HR-14474 before the Coniniittee on Public Works, and that this is scheduled for an early hearing. I am Chairman of the Traffic Committee of the Potato Processors of Idaho, which includes eight processors in Southern Idaho, and in 1967, we shipped in excess of 800 million pounds of processed potatoes, plus a like amount of fresh potatoes. This is a bill to inrcease the highway truck size and weight limits. As heavy volume shippers of a low priced commodity, we have a great interest in this particular BilL You are hereby requested to make this letter a part of the record of the hearings. The present Federal Emits on truck size and weights were established in the Federal Highway Act of 1956, and were based on standards adopted by the Amer- ican Association of Highway Officials in 1946. These standards are out of date in light of the present highway construction standards and conditions of transpor- tation. They constitute a major detriment to the truck transportation efficiency, and to a steady increase in the truck transporation costs of our industry. We do not know if the maximum limits proposed are the proper ones and shall leave such figures to the good judgment of the highway experts. However, we do know that the bill is a step in the right direction, and we request your Committee to give it every favorable consideration. Respectfully submitted. DwAmt E. GaurrITiT, GeneraZ Trajlc Manager. PAGENO="0705" 693 AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Los Angeles, Calif., June 3, 1968. Hon. CHET HOLIFIELD, House Office Building, Waslvington, D.C. DEAn Mn. Hoiirniai: Over the past few years there has been increased pressure by the commercial trucking industry for permission to operate larger equipment over our nation's highways. The economic benefit to the trucking industry and to shippers is frequently cited. It is possible such benefit would be passed along to the public consumer. However, the question is whether such a benefit would outweigh the possible detrimental effect on our present traffic safety efforts and the more rapid de- terioration of our nation's highways, the costs of which are more difficult to assess. The Senate recently passed and sent to the House of Representatives a Truck Size and Weight Bill, SB 2658. This bill presumably allows a reasonable increase in truck load limits and dimensions on the interstate system. The Automobile Club of Southern California is seriously concerned with the implications of this bill for the following reasons: (1) No truck movement originates or terminates on the interstate system; thus all loads must be moved over local roads and bridges regardless of their original design or present condition. (2) There is testimony from the American Association of State Highway Offi- cials that even the interstate system has not been designed and constructed to handle the allowable loads proposed in SB 2658. Other local roads are even less adaptable to increased load limits. (3) The width increase . from 96" to 102" cannot be accommodated safely on many local roads which must be. traversed to and from the interstate routes. (4) There is absolutely no length limit In the bill; thus, long trains will be allowed. These trains are difficult to maneuver in a forward direction and im- possible to move in a reverse direction in case of an emergency. The increased time necessary to pass such a train will make passing even more hazardous on any two-lane roadway in hilly terrain. Each "no passing zone" will become longer, often making adjacent zones into one continuous no passing area. (5) There is no specific performance standard (such as horsepower-to-weight- ratio) required for such huge trucks. Additional loads will be added or attached to already slow moving vehicles, which are hazardous and a constant source of public irritation. (6) At a time when continual effort is being made to enhance traffic safety, this move could seriously increase highway hazards to an alarming degree. Wider, longer, heavier trucks without mandatory provisions for greater power, better braking systems, positive coupling between units and absolute length limits are neither conducive to improved traffic operations nor acceptable to many of the nation's motorists. We earnestly suggest, as an alternative, that an objective study be authorized to determine: (1) Public costs for highway iniproveinents and repairs required by increased load limits and truck sizes, as well as methods to provide for such costs. (2) Ability of local roads to distribute these loads to and from the interstate system. (3) Need for performance standards to increase truck safety. (4) Ability to maneuver long truck trains in a safe manner without impeding the stream of vehicular traffic on the nation's highways. We urge your careful consideration of the long-range effects of SB 2658, both as to the possible detrimental effect on our highway safety efforts, the tremen- dous costs of highway, improvements and repair, and the attitudes and desires of the general public. Very truly yours, JOSEPH E. HAVENNER, Ea,ecutive Vice President. STATEMENT OF `THE AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE, INC., AND THE AMERICAN PULPWOOD ASSOCIATION ON H.R. 14474 Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: PAGENO="0706" 694 This statement is being submitted on behalf of the American Paper Institute,1 and the American Pulpwood Association,2 joins in our pleading to the extent that their interest in transporting pulpwood is involved. We support the principle of increased truck size and weight limits as contained in HR 14474 but, in the interest of gaining immediate relief for the shipping public, we are willing to accept the final provisions which were approved by the Senate in S. 2658, i.e. (a) Motor vehicle width from 96 inches to 102 inches. (b) `Single axle weight limits from 18,000 to 20,000 pounds, and tandem axle weight limits from 32.000 to 34,000 pounds. (c) An overall gross weight formula. 1. INTRODUCTION The Amercan Paper Institute is the national trade association of the pulp,' paper and paperboard industry. It is a nonprofit organization with approximately 250 member companies (see membership list attached as Exhibit A ) The American Paper Institute is the recognized representative of the pulp, paper and paperboard industry in the United States. The paper and allied products industry operates more than 800 pulp, paper and paperboard mills and about 5,000 converting plants located in nearly every State of the Union. In 1966 industry-wide employment reached 667,000 people who were paid $4.6 billion. The American Pulpwood Association is the only national trade arsociation representing producers, suppliers and' consumers of pulpwood in the United States Its memberslnp includes 70 pulp companies consuming 80% of all pulp- wood and chips 27 supplier or dealer members 285 producer members and 157 subscribers. In 1967 the pulp, paper and paperboard industry consumed 56 million cords of pulpwood and chips having a value of more than one billion dollars. Total employment in producing and transporting this wood exceeded 225,000 workers. W=500(~1+12N+36) 2. INTEREST OF THE PAPEB INDUSTRY IN TRUCK TRANSPORTATION Pulp, paper, paperboar,d and allied products accounted for 65,551,000 tons of shipments in the 1963 Census of Transportation.3 The relative importance of truck tonnage to the paper industry is explained by the statistical comparisons contained in attached Exhibit "B". Primary and converted paper and paper- board products constitute 5.5% of the nation's truck tonnage. A large majority of the 56 mifflon cords of round wood and chips, approxi- mately 120 mfflion tons yearly, is handled in motor vehicles. The paper industry also pays transportation charges for 30 milliOn tons of other raw materials annually (a breakdown `of this transportatiOn via modes is not available). A partial listing of raw materials includes: Alum Coal Limestone Caustic Soda Fuel Oil Salt Chlorine Latex Salt Cake Kaolin Clay Lime ` Soda Ash Corn Starch Sulphur Sulphuric Acid 3. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The history of our present law was recorded and placed in the Congressional Record,4 however, certain key factors deserve emphasis, namely: (1) The current limitations were established in the Federal Aid to High- Ways Act of 1956 when Congress decided to proceed with the national system of Interstate and Defense Highways. (2) The limitations included in the 1956 law were based on standards contained in a 1946 policy statement of the American Association of State 1E. A. Locke, Jr., President, American Paper Institute, New York, N.Y. 2W. S. Bromley, Executive Vice President, The American Pulpwood Association, New York. N.Y. ~TJ.S. Dept. of Commerce, Statement TC-63-Cl.' Congressional Record dated 11/15/67, pages 16438 and 16439. PAGENO="0707" 695 Highway Officials. The 1946 standard on width limitation dates back to November 17, 1932. (3) The provisions in bill HR 14474 will raise the Federal limits but each state retains its right to set specific standards for motor vehicles opera- ting on highways within that state. 4. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRUCK COSTS AND PAPER INDUSTRY PRICES Paper price trends Table No. 1 on page 4 gives a trend of values, in dollars per ton, for paper and paperboard products during the years 1962 through 1965. Values of paper mill products declined from $219 per ton in 1962 to $213 per ton in 1964, but recovered sharply in 1905 to $218 per ton. On the other hand, the value per ton of paperboard products showed reasonable stability between 1962-1964, and then dropped considerably to $115 per ton in 1965. TABLE NO. 1-VALUE OF PAPER AND PAPERBOARD MILL PRODUCTS [Dollars per toni 1965 1964 1963 1962 213 215 219 118 120~ 119 Truck revenue and ewpensc trends Table No. 2 displays the expenses and revenue per ton for intercity truck service. Average total operating expenses rose moderately from* $22.01 per ton in 1962 to $22.46 per ton in 1965. During the same period, average revenue increased at a slightly higher rate from $22.61 per ton to $23.26 per ton. TABLE NO. 2-MOTOR CARRIER FREIGHT REVENUE AND EXPENSES FOR INTERCITY SERVICE' [Dollars per toni 1965 1964 1963 1962 22.31 22.43 22.01 23.04 22.99* 22.61 Average total operating expenses 22.46 Average revenue 23.26 American Trucking Association trends. Relationship between truck costs and paper prices The average intercity truck revenue of $23.23 per ton was compiled from reports submitted to the Interstate Oommerce Gommission by regulated motor carriers. A cost of $23 per ton to the paper industry represents approximately 10.6% of the value ($217) of paper mill products, and 20% of the value ($114) of paperboard mill products. The impact of truck costs on the paper industry is highlighted by the data contained in Exhibit "B". Truck transportation accounts for 47% of the tons shipped by the paper industry. "For Hire" motor carriers handled 70% of the truck sector while the remaining 30% moved in privat trucks~ 5. POTENTIAL SAVINGS FOR PAPER INDUSTRY The American Paper Institute has prepared a conservative estimate that trucking expense, excluding pulpwood, costs the paper industry $800,000,000 annually. It would not be unreasonable to expect sizeable benefits, in the range of 1% or $8 million, would accrue to the paper industry if the proposed liimts were adopted generally. The current cost of transporting pulpwood by truck is conservatively estimated to be $4 per cord. A survey made for the year 1965 indicated that 24.3 million cords were hauled by truck for a total cost of $97.3 million. The survey indicated that pulpwood hauled by truck in 1969 probably will amount to 30.5 million cords. It is estimated that savings of $14.5 million could result if weight and width limits were increasd to permit larger loads. 96-030-68----45 Papermill products 218 Papnrboard mill products 115 Source: Bureau of the Census, Industry Division, as reported by American Paper Institute. PAGENO="0708" 696 6. PRODUCTIVITY FACTORS IN TRUCK TRANSPORTATION In general, unit labor costs for the whole economy remained reasonably steady during the early sixties. A review of the publication Business Cycle Developments5 leads to a more precise conclusion that productivity of labor in the United States economy remained stable from 1960 through as late as 1965. The trend of unit labor cost began to climb steeply in 1966. The same general trends are apparent in the motor carrier industry. Through the early sixties, higher labor rates were absorbed by offsetting operating economies. During the last two years however, each new teamster contract was followed by a wave of increased freight rates. An excerpt from a recent news- paper report explains the latest events in the round of motor carrier increases: "Several of the major truck rate organizations are planning to publish their proposed across-the-board increases within about a week in order to provide the required 30-day notice to make them effective April 1, or soon afterward. Truck companies hope to compensate as quickly as possible for their wage increases scheduled for April 1 as the second round of boosts resulting from settlement of Teamsters union contracts last spring. It's expected that this impending group of increases, if successful, will set a pattern for later filings by other rate groups. "Last June and July, the Interstate Commerce Commission permitted a rate increase for thousands of truckers operating through about a dozen rate asso- ciations. Although many variations existed, a pattern of increases amounting to 5% on less-than-truckload traffic and 3% on truckload traffic emerged, and by the end of the year similar boosts became effective in almost the entire country." 6 Class I and Class II motor carriers pay out over 60%of their revenue in payroll and selected fringe benefits, which illustrates the importance of labor costs to the motor carrier industry.7 Trailer size, load limits and handling techniques have important effects on productivity and can play an important part in helping offset higher labor rates. Transportation unit costs can be controlled under economical and efficient operating conditions. 7. WHAT DOES INCREASED SIZE AND WEIGHT LIMITS MEAN TO THE TOTAL ECONOMY AND THE PAPER INDUSTIiY Value to the total economy The Transportation Association of America issues an estimate of the annual freight bill in the United States. This estimate for intercity truck shipments is $28 billion, while the estimate for all truck shipments is $51 billion. House Bill 14474 would authorize the following increases: motor vehicles width from 96 inches to 102 inches which is a 6½ % improvement, single axle weight limits from 18,000 lbs. to 20,000 lbs. which is an 11% improvement, tandem axle weight limits from 32,000 lbs. to 36,000 lbs. which is a 12½% improvement, and gross weight limits according to a formula which permits substantial percentage improvements. A minimal 61/2% improvement in productivity effects $1.8 billion of the $28 billion freight bill for intercity truck traffic and $3.3 billion of the $51 billion bill for all truck transportation. lVidtk limitations affect freigli4 rates an~l pr~ivate truck oosts Converted paper products, particularly sanitary tissues and corrugated con- tainerboard, will benefit from increased width limits. The loadability of relatively lightweight paper products is restricted only by the size of trailers. Carrier unit costs and therefore their freight rates are higher generally on light density products because unit costs vary with the amount of product that can be loaded on one trailer. Sanitary tissue products are vital to public health and safety. Corrugated container board, and fibrebox shipping containers are essential to all industry. The increase in width to 102 inches will save the paper industry $3 million annually. Increasing the maximum truck width from 96 to 102 inches for a pulpwood truck could permit a maximum savings of 6%. A more conservative estimate of annual savings would be 1% which would amount to nearly $1 million (1% of $97.2 million-the total cost of transporting pulpwood). It is estimated that this savings might reach $2.5 million by 1969. 5January 1968, reported by U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 6 Journal of Commerce, February 23, 1968, page 28. 7See American Trucking Trends 1966, published by The American Trucking Associations, Inc. page 23. PAGENO="0709" 697 You can conclude that the entire economy will benefit substantially from, in- creased width limitations. TVidth limitations affect material handling costs The inside width of trailers is approximately 93 inches and effectively frozen under the current law which limits overall trailer width dimensions to 96 inches. Handling of standard pallets, 48" x 40" or 48" x 42", is cumbersome because two 48 inch pallets cannot be placed side by side within 93 inch wide trailers. Standard pallets must be staggered in a trailer by alternating faces, 48 inches with 42 inches, across the 93 inch trailer width. This operation requires extra handling care and creates empty space gaps in a trailer. An increase of 6 inches in trailer width will permit easier handling of palletized shipments and improved space utilization. Weight limits affect freight costs The Association of American Railroads published the following report on railroad freight car weight carrying capacity, i.e., "new freight cars cost about $15,300 apiece and average some 80 tons of carrying capacity as compared with an average to 56 tons being retired." It is evident the railroads found that economies of scale are made possible through heavier loadings. The same law of economics applies to heavier loadings of motor truck equipment which is now limited by Federal law. Primary paper and paperboard is characteristically dense. Large rolls' of print- ing paper and linerboard can be loaded heavier, and, ultimately we can expect to save $5 million annually on paper and paperboard mill products. Increasing the weight limits as proposed in H.R. 14474 would permit a maxi- nuin savings of 10% of the cost of hauling pulpwood. A more realistic saving would be approximately one-half this percentage or about $5 million based on the 1965 figures, and a potential $12 million by 1969. 8. PETITION OF AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE AND AMERICAN PULPWOOD ASSOCIATION The pulp, paper and paperboard industry is characterized by relatively low value per ton manufactured products, and has a vita,l interest in maximizing the productivity achieved in its distribution system. We have demonstrated that motor transportation is an imporant factor and cost element in our distribution nework. Furthermore, truck transportation is essential to the movement of pulpwood which is the major raw material in the paper industry. Total sa'vings for our industry will be $23 million annually if the improved limitations are adopted generally. We have demonstrated that improved width limits will permit easier handling of standard pallets, and permit transportation economies for consumer sanitary tissue and industrial packaging material. The American Paper Institute and the American Pulpwood Association support H.R. 14474, but we are willing to accept the compromise provisions which were approved in companion bill S. 2658. We request your Subcommittee to ap- prove increased size and width limitations as contained therein. ExHIBIT A AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE 1967 MEMBERShIP LIST A Albemarle Paper Mfg. Co., Richmond, Va. Alton Box Board Company, Alton, Ill. American Can Company, New York, N.Y. American Forest Products Corp., San Francisco, Calif. American Greetings Corp., Cleveland, Ohio. Ameircan Paper & Plastic Products, Inc., Milwaukee, Wis. Appleton Coated Paper Co., The Appleton, Wis. Austell Box Board Corporation, Austell, Ga. B Baldwinvi.lle Products, Inc., Baldwinville, Mass. Banner Fibreboard Co., Wellsburg, W. Va. 8 AssocIation of American Railroads release dated 12/28/67. PAGENO="0710" 698 flay West Paper Co., Green Bay, Wis. Bemis Co., Minneapolis, Minn. Ben-Mont, Bennington, Vt. Bergstrom Paper Co., Neenah, Wis. Berwick Textile Products Co.. Inc., New York, N.Y. Bird & Son, Inc.. E. Walpole, Mass. Blandin Paper Co., Grand Rapids, Minn. Boise Cascade Corp., Boise, Idaho. Bowaters Southern Paper Corp., Calhoun, Tenn. Brown Company, New York, N.Y. L. L. Brown Paper Co., Adams, Mass. Brownville Paper Co., Brownville, N.Y. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., Memphis, Tenn. Budd Company, Newark, De.l. Burrows Paper Corp., Little Falls, N.Y. Buzza Cardozo Corp., Anaheim, Calif. C J. D. Cahill Co., Hampton, N.H. Geo. S. Carrington Co., Leomiuster. Mass. Carolina Paper Board Corp., Charlotte, N.C. Case Bros., Inc., Manchester. Conn. Case & Risley Press Paper, Inc., Oneco, Conn. Cel-Fibe. Milltowñ, N.J. Cellu-Products Co., Patterson, N.C. Chesapeake Corp. of Virginia, The, West Point, Va. Chesapeake Paperboard Co., The, Baltimore, Md. Cleo Wrap Corp., Memphis, Tenn. Columbia Corporation, The, Chatham, N.Y. Combined Paper Mills, Inc., Combined Locks, Wis. Consolidated Packaging Corp., Chicago, Ill. Consolidated Papers, Inc., Wisconsin Rapids, Wis. Container Corp. of America, Chicago, Ill. Continental Can Co., Inc., New York. N.Y. Continental Paper Co., Ridgefield Park, N.J. Cottrell Paper Co., Inc., Rock City Falls, N.Y. OPS Industries Inc., Chicago. Ill. Crane & Company, -Inc., Dalton, Mass. Crown Paper Board Co., Inc., Philadelphia, Pa. Crown Zellerbach Corp., San Francisco, Calif. Crystal Tissue Co., Middletown, Ohio Curtis Paper Company, New-ark, Del. D Daring Paper Mills Division. Downingtown, Pa. Deerfield Glassine Co., Inc., Monroe Bridge, Mass. C. H. Dexter & Sons. Inc.. Windsor Locks. Conn. Diamond National Corp., New York, N.Y. Doll Paper Company, Patterson, NC. Domtar Pulp and Paper, Ltd., St. Catherine's, Ontario, Canada. Downingtown Paper Company, Downingtown, Pa. Dunn Paper Co., Port Huron, Mich. E EasTex. Incorporated, Silsbee, Tex. Eaton-Dikeman Co., The, Mount Holly Springs, Pa. Electric City Paper Mills, Inc.. No. Tonawanda, N. L Elk Paper Manufacturing Co., Childs, Md. Equitable Bag Company, Long Island City, N.Y. Erving Paper Mills. Erving. Mass. Esleeck Mfg. Co., Turners Falls, Mass. F Falulah Paper Co., Fitchburg, Mass. Federal Paper Board Co., Inc., Bogota, N.J. PAGENO="0711" 699 Fibreboard Corporation, San Francisco, Calif. Finch, Pruyn & Co., Inc., Glens Falls, N.Y. Fitchburg Paper Co. (Div. of Litton Industries), Fitchburg, Mass~ Flambeau Paper Co. (Div. of Kansas City Star Co.), Park Falls, Wis. Fleming & Sons, Inc., Dallas, Tex. Foster Paper Co., Inc., Utica, N.Y. Fox Paper Co., The, Lockland, Ohio. Fox River Paper Corp., Appleton, Wis. Fraser Paper Limited, New York, N.Y. French Paper Co., Niles. Mich. G Gardiner Paper Mills, Inc., York, Pa. Georgia-Pacific Corp., Portland, Oreg. Gibson Greeting Cards, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. Gift-Raps, Inc., Houston, Tex. P. H. Glatfelter Co., Spring Grove, Pa. Great Northern Paper Co., New York, N.Y. Great Northern Paper Co.-Southern Div., Cedar Springs, Ga. Green Bay Packaging Inc., Green Bay, Wis. Gulf States Paper Corp., Tuscaloosa, Ala. Halltown Paperboard Co., Halltown, W. Va. Hamersley Mfg. Co., Garfield, N.J. Hammermill Paper Co., Erie, Pa. Hampden Glazed Paper & Card Co., Holyoke, Mass. Harding-Jones Paper Co., Middletown, Ohio. Hawthorne Paper Co., Kalamazoo, Mich. Hazen Paper Co., Holyoke, Mass. Hennepin Paper Co., New York, N.Y. Hoerner-Waldorf Corp., Koekuk, Iowa. Hoerner-Waldorf Corp., of Montana, Chicago, Ill. Hoffinaster Company, Inc., Oshkosh, Wis. Hollingsworth & Vose Co., East Walpole, Mass. Holyoke Card & Paper Co., Springfield, Mass. Hudson Pulp and Paper Corp., New York, N.Y. I Inland Container Corporation, Indianapolis, md. Inland Empire Paper Co., Millwood, Wash. International Paper Co., New York, N.Y. Interstate Folding Box Co., Middletown, Ohio. K Kennebec River Pulp and Paper Co., Inc., New York, N.Y. Ketchikan Pulp Co., Bellingham, Wash. Keyes Fibre Co., Waterville, Maine. Kieffer Paper Mills, Ewing, md. Kimberly-Clark Corp., Neenah, Wis. Knowlton Bros., Inc., Watertown, N.Y. L Lawrence Paper Co., The, Lawrence, Kans. J. P. Lewis Co., Inc., Beaver Falls, N.Y. Longview Fibre Co., San Francisco 4, Calif. Loroco Industries, Inc., Lancaster, Ohio. Lowe Paper Co., Ridgefield, N.J. Ludlow Corp., Ludlow Papers Division, Needham Heights, Mass. Lydall & Fould's Div., Colonial Board Co., Manchester, Conn. MacAndrews & Forbes Co., Camden, N.J. Marcal Paper Mills, Inc., East Paterson, N.J. Massillon Paper Company, The, Massillon, Ohio. PAGENO="0712" 700 McIntyre Bros. Paper Co., Inc., Fayetteville, N.Y. John A. Manning Paper Co., Inc.. Troy, N.Y. Mend Corporation, The, Dayton, Ohio. Menasha Corporation, Menasha. Wis. iMerrimac Paper Co., Inc., New York, N.Y. Michigan Carton Co., Battle Creek, Mich. 3Iillen Industries, Inc., New York, N.Y. Millers Falls Paper Co., Millers Falls, Mass. Mohawk Paper Mills, Inc., Cohoes, N.Y. Monadnock Paper Mills, Inc., Bennington, N.H. Morris Paper Board Co., Inc., Paterson, N.J. Mosinee Paper Mills Co., Mosinee, Wis. Mystic Industries Corp., Wakefield, Mass. N National Vulcanized Fibre Co., Parsons Paper Div., Holyoke, Mass. Nekoosa-Edwards Paper Co., Port Edwards, Wis. The B. F. Nelson Mfg. Co~, Minneapolis, Minn. Newark Boxboard Company, Newark, N.J. Newman & Co., Inc., Philadelphia, Pa. Newton Falls Paper Mill, Inc., Newton Fails, N.Y. New York & Pennsylvania Co., Inc., Philadelphia, Pa. Nicolet Paper Co., West DePere, Wis. 0 Olin Packaging Division, Pisgah Forest, N.C. Owens-Illinois, Forest Products Division, Toledo 1, Ohio. Oxford Paper Co., New York, N.Y. P Packaging Corporation of America, Evanston, IlL The Papereraft Corp., Pittsburgh, Pa. Paper Products, Inc., Long Beach, Calif. Joseph Parker & Son Co., Inc., New Haven, Conn. Paterson Pacific Parchment Co., Sunnyvale, Calif. Paterson Parchment Co., Bristol, Pa. Payne-Jones Company, Lowville, N.Y. Pejepseot Paper Div., The Hearst Corp., Brunswick, Maine. Peninsular Paper Co., Ypsilanti, Mich. Penobscot Co., Boston, Mass. Perkins Paper Products, Ltd., Chorneday, Quebec, Canada. Port Huron Paper Co., Port Huron, Mich. Potlatch Forests, Inc., San Francisco, Calif. Prairie State Paper Mills, Inc., Joliet, IlL Procter & Gamble Co. (Charmin Distributing Co.), Cincinnati, Ohio. Q Quaker Oats Company, The, Pekin, Ill. B Rayonier Incorporated, New York, N.Y. C. A. Reed Co., Wihiamsport, Pa. Rhode Island Card Board Co., Pawtucket, R.I. Riegel Paper Corp., New York, N.Y. Rising Paper Company, Housatonic, Mass. Rite Paper Products, Ltd., Chomeday, Quebec, Canada. Riverside Paper Corp., Appleton, Wis. Robertson Paper Box Company, Inc., Montville, Conn. Rochester Paper Co., Rochester, Mich. Rogers Corp., Rogers, Conn. Rondout Corp., Napanoch, N.Y. H. W. Paper Company, Longview, Wash. S St. Joe Paper Co., Jacksonville, Fla. St. Regis Paper Co., New York, N.Y. PAGENO="0713" 701 Scott Paper Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Seaman Paper Co. of Mass., Inc., Baidwinville, Mass. Shawano Paper Mills, Green Bay, Wis. Simkins Industries, Inc., New Haven, Conn. Simpson Lee Paper Co., Kalamazo, Mich. Simpson Timber Co., Seattle, Wash. H. P. Smith Paper Co., Chicago 38, Iii. Sonoco Products Co., Holyoke, Mass. Sorg Paper Company, The, Middlletown, Ohio. South Carolina Industries, Inc., ChicagO, Ill. Southern Specialty Paper Co., Chattanooga, Penn. Southland Paper Mills, Inc., Lufkin, Tex. Southwest Forest Industries, Phoenix, Ariz. Southworth Co., West Springfield, Mass. Spaulding Div. of Publishers Paper Co., Newberg, Oreg. Springfield Coated Paper Corp., Camden, N.J. Standard Cellulose Prod., Inc., Atlanta, Ga. Standard Packaging Corp., New York, N.Y. Standard Paper Mfg. Co., Richmond, Va. Stirling Converting Co., Inc., Bound Brook, N.J. Stone Container Corp., Chicago, Ill. John Strange Paper Co., Menasha, Wis. Strathmore Paper Co., West Springfield, Mass. Straubel Paper Co., Green Bay, Wis. Sullivan Paper Co., Inc., West Springfield, Mass. Swanee Paper Corp., New York, N.Y. T Tennessee Paper Mills, Inc., Chattanooga, Tenn. Tennessee River Pulp and Paper Co., New York, N.Y. Tennessee Tissue Mills, Inc., Nashville, Penn. Thilmany Pulp and Paper Co., Kaukauna, Wis. Tidi Products, Pomona, Calif. Tileston & Hollingsworth Co., Boston, Mass. Tomahawk Power & Pulp Co., Tomahawk, Wis. Toronto Paperboard Co., The, Toronto, Ohio. Tuttle Press Co., The, Appleton, Wis. U Union Camp Corp., New York, N.Y. Union Mills Paper Mfg. Co., New Hope, Pa. United Board & Carton Corp., New York, N.Y. U.S. Plywood-Champion Papers, Inc., New York, N.Y. V Valentine Pulp & Paper Co., Lockport, La. W S. D. Warren Co. (Div. of Scott Paper Co.), Boston, Mass. Wausau Paper Mills Co., Brokaw, Wis. West Carroilton Parchment Co., West Carroilton, Ohio. Western Kraft Corp., Portland, Oreg. Westfield River Paper Co., Inc., Russell, Mass. West Virginia Pulp and Paper, New York, N.Y. Weston Paper & Mfg. Co., The, Terre Haute, md. Byron Weston Co., Dalton, Mass. Weyerhauser Co., Tacoma, Wash. Whippany Paper Board Co., Inc., Whippany, N.J. Whitestone Prod. Corp., Farmingdale, N.Y. Geo. A. Whiting Paper Co., Menasha, Wis. Wrap-tures Gift Wrap, Inc., Rochester, N.Y. Wm. B. Wright & Sons Co., West Warren, Mass. Wyomissing Paper Co., Div. of Wyomissing Corp., Reading, Pa. Y Yorktowne Paper Mills, Inc., York, Pa. PAGENO="0714" 702 ExHIbIT B For all industries Paper group Tons shipped Truck tons Total tons Truck tons Total 1,334,838,000 561,967,000 65,551,000 30,809,000 Papergroup(percent) Truck, all industry (percent) Truck, paper group (percent) 4.9 42.1 100.0 2. 3 5. 5 47 100 Total tonnage Truck tonnage Sample: All industries Paper group 1,334,838,000 65, 551, 000 561,867,000 30, 809, 000 Source: 1963 Census of Transportation; percentage calculations computed by American Paper Institute from tonnage tables reported by U.S. Department of Commerce, TC 63-C3-1. Boisz CASCADE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, Boise, Idaho, May 23, 1968. Hon. GEORGE H. PALLON, Chairman, Committee on Pubflc Works, U.B. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dusiu CHAIRMAN F~uLoN: I understand that all appointments for oral presen- tation at your hearing commencing May 24 on H.R. 14474, Senate 2658, a bill to increase motor vehicle sizes and weights on the interstate highway system, have been scheduled. I would appreciate your allowing this statement in support of this legislation to become a part of the record in this proceeding and asn enclosing 50 copies for distribution. As a forest products company, we are very much interested in seeing this bill become a law. Specific reasons for our support of this `bill are: (1) To prosper we must maintain markets outside of our producing region because our western production capabilities far exeeed the region's ~bi1ity to consume. Highway transportation plays a major role in enabling our industry to remain competitive. (2) Present restrictions on minimum weights and wIdths of trucks arO not conducive to efficient and economical loading of forest products. FOr example, unitized packages of forest products measuring four feet are impossible to load side by side in a van when outside maximum width is restricted to 96 inches. (3) There are tremendous areas of the Western states which are miles from railroad trackage; this plus chronic rail car shortages necessitates more realistic weights and widths for truck hauling of forest products. (4) The present weight and width limits are based on 1946 standards set ~y the AASHO. Current engineering and factual knowledge reveal these standards are sadly outof date. , ` ` (5) The so called "freeze" of 1956 caught `the Western states with a consider- ably lower uniform axle limitation than that which existed in many other portions of the country. The proposed legislation will allow uniformity by raising the federal limits and thus permit each state, if they so legislate, to set new standards. (6) As a company which operates a large private truck fleet, we contribute a significant sum of money to construction `and maintenance of our system of highways through payment of various "user taxes". Thus, we are interested in being able to generate a more efficient return on these monies through more realistic weights and widths which are more in accord with present day highway conditions and truck hauling capa,bilities. In summary, I again urge your favorable consideration of this important legislation which is so vital to the economic growth of the Western states and specifically the forest products industry. Very truly yours, F. L. SIGLOH, Director of Transportation and Distribution. PAGENO="0715" 703 NATIONAL WOOL GROWERS AsSoCIATIoN, Salt Lake City, Utah. Re FI.R. 14474. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLOW, Chairman, House Committee on Public Works, house Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. FALLOW: At the 103rd Annual Convention of the National Wool Growers Association, held in Dallas, Texas, January 28-31, 1968, the following resolution was adopted: "Under present load limit and truck length limit requirements, truckers are unable to haul uniform maximum weights interstate. We suggest that uniformity of truck load and length limits be achieved by Federal legislation and co- operative agreements between the states." In view of this resolution we do endorse H.R. 14474 which is before your Committee and we would appreciate it very much if this letter of endorsement can be made a part of the hearing record on this bill. Sincerely, EDWIN E. MARSH, Executive Secretary. AMERICAN FARM BuiuAu FEDERATION, Washington, D.C., June 4, 1968. In re vehicle size andweight limitations. Hon. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, S Chairman, Roads Subcommittee, House Committee on Public Works, House Office Building, Waskingtoiv, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN KLUCZYNSKI: At the last annual meeting of the American Farm Bureau Federation the voting delegates of the member State Farm Bureaus reviewed the question of motor vehicle size and weight limitations on Interstate Highways, and adopted the following policy position: "We support increases in the federal ceilings on weight and size limits for interstate highways to permit states to increase limits if they so choose. Ceilings should Je at levels which will prevent damage to highways." We believe that technical infornlation has been supplied, indicating that some liberalization of present limitations is feasible without increasing highway damage. We therefore support the objectives of H.R. 14474, and 5. 2658 as approved. by the Senate. It will ~e appreciated if you will include this letter in the bearing record. Sincerely yours, S JOHN 0. LYNN, Legislative Director. IOWA GOOD ROADS ASSOCIATION, INC., Des Moines, Iowa, May 23, 1968. Congressman JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Chairman, Subcommittee on Roads of House Public Works Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. S DEAR CONGRESSMAN KLUCZYNSKI: I am instructed by action of a committee know as the Joint Roads Committee for Action to write you and apprise you and your committee and each of our Iowa Congressmen of the position of the Joint Roads Committee for Action with regard to the proposed increase in the maxi- mum size and weight limitations for trucks. I am writing as the chairman of the joint committee. Following is the action of this committee: "The Joint Roads Committee for Action in Iowa composed of representatives of the following governmental agencies or independent organizations, Iowa State Highway Commission, Iowa Good Roads Association, Iowa County Engi- neers Association, League of Iowa Municipalities, Iowa County Supervisors Association, endorses the action of the Iowa State Highway Commission in its Position Paper No. 1, dated March 5, 1968, opposing any increase in truck size and weight limitations on interstate and other highways, roads and streets of the state." S PAGENO="0716" 704 The motion to apprise the committee of this action was unanimously passed with the following representatives of the above organizations present and voting: Harry J. Bradley, Jr., Chairman, Iowa Highway Commission. Martin Wiley, President, Iowa Good ROads Association. R. G. Hileman, Executive Secretary, Iowa Good Roads Association. Paul Hixson, President, Iowa County Engineers Association. Warren Davison, Iowa County Engineers Association. Luther Randall, Iowa County Supervisors Association. Robert Hays, Iowa League of Municipalities. The committee is composed of nine representatives from the organizations mentioned or their alternates who were designated in the original committee formation. On behalf of the Joint Roads Committee for Action in Iowa, I request that our position be made a part of the record with regard to S. 2658. Very truly yours, R. G. HILEMAN, Chairman, Joint Roads Committee for Action. WH~LPOOL Coxp., Benton Harbor, Mich., May 23, 1968. Hon. JOHN C. KLuczYNsKI, Chairnuuv, Roads S~ubcommittee, U.E,~. House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE KLUczYN5KI: We offer the following as Whirlpool's position statement for the record on S. 2058. We urge early and favorable consideration of 5. 2658, which would greatly improve the vehicle Weight and Width Limitations on the Interstate System. Since Whirlpool Corporation manufactures and ships household appliances, we are particularly interested in the proposed width of highway trailers. Our shipping costs by highway have always been unreasonably high because many appliances are 31 inches to 33 inches in width and depth or from front-to-back, and cannot be loaded three-abreast. This results because present restrictions on highway trailers limit exterior width to 96 inches, which results in 92 to 93 inch interiors. The proposed legislation could permit an exterior width of 102 inches and an interior width of 98 or 99 inches, permitting shipments of appli- ances three-abreast. For example, today a 40-foot long trailer can take from 26 to 38 refrigerators, weighing a total 8,000 to 12,000 pounds. This is many thousands of pounds under an allowable load, is not financially attractive to the carrier, and results in un- reasonably high transportation costs for us. 5. 2658 could permit us to ship 39 to 58 refrigerators in one load, weighing from 12,000 to 18,000 pounds. This weight still is many thousands of pounds under allowable limits. Passage of S. 2658 could allow us to achieve better utilization of shipping space; resultant efficiencies could provide benefits to the ultimate consumer through price stability; trailers with full width loads have less chance of load- shifting during transit; and the lower cost per unit for transportation could help absorb the many other increasing costs of doing business, benefiting us and the consumer. This bill is one of the very few issues today that might help reduce or stabilize a cost-of-doing business. If further information is needed, we shall be pleased to cooperate. Thank you. Sincerely, WILLIAM V. SNYDER, General Manager, Physical Distribution. STATEMENT OF HENRY C. HILLAND. DILECTOR OF HIGHWAYS, UTAH STATE DEPART- MENT OF HIGHWAYS, RELATING To INCREAsE IN VEHICLE WEIGHT AND WIDTH LIMITATIONS ON THE INi~rnsTArn SrsrnM The proposed legislation appears inevitable in view of the reluctance of the States to reach an agreement on size and weight criteria. This modification PAGENO="0717" 705 modernizes Interstate limitations which were adopted in the 1956 Legislation and which perpetuated regulations which had existed in states for many years. S. 2658 would permit a 20,000 pound single axle, a 36,000 pound tandem axle, and 102" vehicle width. Present Utah statutes limit a single axle to 18,000 pounds, a tandem axle to 33,000 pounds, and a maximum width to 96". Utah's present size and weight limitations are not in harmony with the trends of the transporta- tion industry for the development of more efficient carriers nor are they con- ducive to the development of new industry, especially in those areas not served by rail facilities. The proposed increase in size and weight poses no problem relative to their use on the Interstate System in Utah. State control would continue in the areas of interior axle weights, maximum vehicle length, and maximum vehicle gross weight. With the increase in size and weight limitations on the Interstate System, the trend must be for the adoption of the same limitations for the other highway 1./TA H - TRuc,~ Ra~/r/ AJG PAGENO="0718" 706 systems. There will be a need for restriction ofsize and weight on certain areas of the State, Federal Aid, and local road systems because of inadequate capacity of bridge and pavement structures. The State of Utah, which is responsible for the maintenance of the Federal Aid systems. will be constrained to protect inadequate highway routes until they can be reconstruet~ to carry the proposed loadings. New roadway construction designed to accommodate the increased weights is estimated to exceed the cost of current designs by approximately $1,000 per lane mile. New bridge construc- tion designed to accommodate the increased loadings is estimated to exceed the cost of current designs by approximately ~%. The State Road Commission of Utah firmly believes that an increase in weight limitations as proposed in this bill is urgently needed to provide for the economie development of this State. LAYOUT YOO UEAD LOAD UO~ENT 1- A000 MS 20-44 t~::~'~: ;~~: ~1E~1E~H ~~`: ¶O~S~M~0~ SPAN P1 PAGENO="0719" 707 ~IDG~ INVE1'JT0~Y (MO~LT44Al~i 20~'r.) 0 2 144 6,4 52~ A. NATIONAL APPLE INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., Jnne 7,1968. Hon. JOHN 0. KLUCZYNSKI, Chairman, Roads E~ubeommittee, ~ House 01 Representatives, Washington, D.C. M~ DEAR Mn. KLUCZYNSKI: In be-half of the twenty-eight state and regional apple grower organizations federated in our National Apple Institute, and rep- resentative of some fifteen thousand apple growers throughout the country, we would like to endorse, with some qualification, the provisions of H.R. 14474 rela- tive to liberalization of weight and size of vehicles hauling goods on the public highways. -5~,c, 5u~'~ .#,~, ~t2TR. Cc,46- 2244 -r2tL I- ~22~2~ 32 46 M 44442. -~HA,~ 30 ~ Ot.O Lt92 `T44A~4 30 ~ 0 to 2 0 5~ )-9 T2.2.tA44244 ~ A~,t 44'tt~. C 22t~,'t TA5t44T,,~t44 0~tt~ 2 44 5 . 4 54 * 129 34 * 42 * 10 ,42L0022 0 Co#tc. C,ULV6,WTS 185 NCLUD~5 158 Co~c. Cutvo.ct's 146,20 0 - 493 *. 90 4-4515 5 : 99 ` 33 - 1420 7 1-115 136, ` 10 - 157 ` 37 . 14121', I 0 (1 1-110 40 5 -1410 5 0 0rttr,R - 2 0' ~ 7 `- 3 `* . 142 . 21 II'LAW2.5 0 10 LAw~ 0 ~,. -10 LA4JC2 0 . 0 12 LAWL~ 403 . 8 . . I. 494. 444 tIL~ttt~ 0 - 1 *. -- 0 LP14~ 54 - 26 -40 LAWt~ 0 OILtt.44442 29 `25 . .1 20,444,4, 49' 97 , 9 . zsz , 142 99' 48 . 1 ` `- 452 42 -. 00 o~~u 99' 33 202 *` 4 200'r,,~, 499' 9 440 `200'~,#, 999' 3 20 j lOOO'~tt~u 2499 `2 . 5 2500' 24444 0~t44 0 4 l2'LA14L2 0 4 0 -` 1 0 - 14 . 0' 1- - "-. 0 ~7 . 4 .,* 0 8. .4 11 PAGENO="0720" 708 We share the concern of all taxpayers relative to increasing costs to build and maintain adequate and safe road systems, and are opopsed to such liberalization of weight nd size provisions for trucks as would permit increasingly damaging weights on roads not constructed for such weights. However, in the interest of economic transport of goods, including apples, we are also concerned that ade- quate capacities and weight allowances be permitted to provide for greatest efficiencies in transport. Modification of existing weight limitations and width limitations which will still retain reasonable and realistic weights for the protecton of roads and the safety of non-truck vehicles on the roads . . . we concur in and endorse. We appreciate that this presents a real challenge of achievement, but it is our understanding that weight and size relationship formulas are being proposed which. would retain these protective features. Sincerely, FRED P. CoREY, Eweeutive Vice President. AMERIcAN NATIONAL OAT1~LEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, Denver, Cob., June 4, 1968. Hon. JOHN KLUCZYNSKI, Chairman, Sabcommittee on Roads, House Committee on Public Works, Was/i ington, D.C. DEAR Mn. KLUCZYNSKI: Reference is made to H.R. 14474, a bill to amend Sec- tion 127 of Title 23 of the U.S. Code relating to vehicle weight and width limita- tions on the Interstate System, in order to make certain increases in such limitations. The American National Cattlemen's Association, at its 71st Annual Conven- tion in January, 1968, passed the foliowing resolution on this subject entitled, "Truck Uniformity": "Whereas, a bill has been introduced in Congress to enable the various states to adopt uniform standards for trucks in interstate commerce Now, therefore, beit "Resolved, That the American National Cattlemen's Association endorse this legislation in principle." Transportation of livestock by motor truck is a tremendously important sub- ject to us since a very high percentage of our product is moved to market in motor trucks. We believe that this type of permissive legislation is important to the achievement of greater efficiency of motor truck operation in the marketing of livestock. We ask that you please make this letter a part of the hearing record. Thank you. Cordialiy, C. W. MCMILLAN. ASSOCIATION 0F AMERICAN RAILROADS, Washington, D.C., June 18, 1968. Hon JOHi~ KLUCzYN5KI Chairman, SubcOmmittee on Roads, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. OuAIRMa~i: Here is a statement on behalf of the Association of American Railroads, expressing our opposition to enactment ~t this time of S. 2658, which is now pending before the Subcommittee on Roads of the House Committee on Public Works. Our national transportation policy demands that the existing inequitable situation between motor carriers and railroads, resulting from inadequate high- way user charges on heavy units, not be aggravated or wOrsened, as would be done by this bill. Highway coSt burdens should be assumed by those users oc- casioning such burdens. If such is not done, the aation's available transportation resources are used in uneconomic and inefficient ways. S. 2658 cannot be con- sidered separate and apart from this principle. While your Committee may have no direct jurisdiction over the measure and level of user charges, it seems to us that it does have a general responsibility imposed upon it by the national trans- portation policy. PAGENO="0721" 709 If, with the new and additional economic factors, sufficient facts are not avail- able for application of the aibove principle, then action on this bill should be withheld pending requisite study. I respectfully ask that this letter and the attached statement be made a part of the record of hearing before your Conimittee on S. 2658. Sincerely, THOMAS M. GOODFELLOW. `STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS BEFORE THE SUBCOM- MITTEE ON ROADS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS WITH RESPECT TO 5. 2658 The American railroads are strongly opposed to enactment of S. 2658 at this time. In our opinion, any favorafble action on the bill would be premature and ill advised. The reasons for this opinion embrace the interests of our industry and of the general public-and in most respects we find those interests to be largely common. Briefly stated, those reasons are: 1. Our n'ational transportaJtion policy demands that the presently existing in- equitable situation as between motor carriers and' railroads,1 as well as between the various classes of highway. users, must not be aggravated or `wo'rsened. S. 2658 would do exactly that. 2. Wh'ile safe operation on the highway is the direct. concern of it's users, the railroads have a direct interest in the proper assignment of cost burden re- quired by those considerations.2 S. 2658 contains no such provision. 3. The motor vehicle weights `and sizes permitted under S. 2658 exceed those which, after comprehensive study, have been recommended to and adopted by the Congress. Without further economic study, action permitting such excess would be premature. 4. Without comprehensive study of what will be required in the interest of safe operation on the highWays and assignment of cost `responsibility theref~r, passage of S. 2658 would certainly be untimely. There follows a discussion of each of the foregoing reasons for our opposition to S. 2658. Briefly, this bill would accomplish the following: (A) Weight on a single axle increased to 20,000 lbs. (presently set by law at 18,000 lbs. on Interstate System) (B) Weight on a tandem axle increased to 34,000 lbs. (presently set by law at 32,000 lbs. on Interstate System). (C) Vehicle width of 102" plus additional width for safety devices and tire bulge. (presently set by law at 96" on Interstate System) (D) Overall vehicle gross weight without a maximum, weight calcu'lSted `by a formula based on the number and spacing of axles. (presently set `by law at 73,280 lbs. on the InterState System) ` (E) No overall length limits of vehicle combinations. (present efficient length controlled by gross vehicle maximum of 73,280 l'bs, on the Interstate System) These sizes and weights are to be the maximum allowed on the Interstate System with the States to set their own Standards within the Federal limits. Incidentally, there is no praCtical way to confine such vehicles to the Interstate System. Some States in 1956 retained maximum weights in excess of Federal standards at the time of passage of the Act by special provisions of the law. This bill will do much more, both specifically and in brohd economic effects, than the above specifications would indicate. The vehicle dimensions asked fo'r' exceed the recommended sizes and' weights developed by any current valid study, including that study authorized by the Congress in establishing the Interstate Sy~stem. Further, these dimensions carry none of the safeguards, either as t'o fi- nancing or safety of operation, recommended to `the Congress in the Same study. THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION POLICY DEMANDS THAT THE PRESENTLY EXISTING INEQUITABLE SITUATION NOT BE AGGRAVATED OR WORSENED We do not h'ave to remind this Committee that the Oongress, in 1940, by the' passage of the National Transportation Peilcy, prescribed fo'r the future policies 1 Appendix p 713 2 Appendix, P. 713. PAGENO="0722" 710 and guidelines which should be adhered to in order to make available to the na- tion an adequate and efficient transportation network. While this Policy is cast in somewhat broad terms, there is at least one aspect of the Policy which is be- yond controversy or doubt. The type of national transportation system whieh the Policy seeks to bring about is one in which the several modes are dealt with fairly and equitably so that the inherent advuntages of each can be realized-thus promoting an efficient and economical use of the country's transportation resources. In the words of the Policy, the objective is: "* * * to recognize and preserve the inherent advantages of each [mode]; to promote safe, adequate. economical, and efficient service and foster sound economic conditions in transportation and among the several carriers * * The question posed is whether this legislation is consistent with these objec- tives. A short explanation will suffice to show plainly that it is not. Since one of the important objectives of the National Transportation Policy is to foster sound economic conditions in transportation and among the several carriers and to insure the efficient use of transportation resources, it follows that those carriers using publicly supplied transportation facilities should pay adequate charges for their use. In other words, if economic conditions are to be sound among the several carriers, each class must pay its way. If this is not to be the case, the nation's available transportation resources will be used in uneconomic and inefficient ways. Studies ordered by Congress and reports resulting therefrom show beyond question that the heavier trucks and combi- nations should be paying considerably more than they do now for their use of the highways.3 Since present user charges are inadequate, common sense tells us that to permit further increases in vehicle sizes and weights simply would aggravate and worsen the inequitable situation now exi~ting. Two things are clear, namely, present user charges should be increased commensurate with existing motor vehicle sizes and weights and no increase in such sizes and weights should be permitted without further and corresponding increases in user charges. Some might ask if this is not a matter of singular concern to the several classes of highway users, including the private automobile owners and the several other classes of users who operate smaller types of equipment. The answer must be that it is of concern to the several categories of highway users, but not alone to them. The railroads, being vigorous competitors of highway carriers, also have an important interest in the elimination of the enormous and unjustified subsidies in the form of inadequate user charges paid by the operators of the larger highway units. It may be argued that the fixing of user charges is not a function of this Committee, but its overall responsibility cannot so easily be avoided. While this Committee may not determine the measure and level of increased or altered user charges, its obligation is clear-it should not recommend to the Congress any legislation that will materially increase the cost of highways, as will S. 2658, unless and until accompanied by wholly adequate user charges to be paid by those responsible for such costs. To do otherwise is to recommend use of our available transportation resources in uneconomic ways.4 Significantly, such in- creased cost of highways, and the resultant uneconomic and inefficient use of our transportation resources, would be for the benefit of only a small segment of total highway users. Moreover, consideration of increased highway cost and responsibility therefor cannot be confined to the Interstate System since there appears no practical way to confine such vehicles to that system. Traffic does not originate and terminate on the Interstate System.5 THERE SHOULD BE PROPER ASSIGNMENT OF THE COST BURDEN OCCASIONED BY SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOVERY OF SUCH~ COST FROM THOSE RESPONSIBLE We should like to say something about highway safety, giving full recognition to the fact that the railroad industry is not the spokesman for what is needed to make operations on the highway safe. Also, we want to say that it isn't the desire or purpose of the railroads to secure competitive equality or competitive ad- vantage by sponsoring safety requirements for highway users. But highway 3Final report of the Highway Cost Allocation Study, January 6, 1961, House Document 54, 87th Congress, 1st Session. 4Appendix, p. 713. 5Appendix,p. 713. PAGENO="0723" 711 safety becomes a proper and just concern of the railroads when, by reason of the increased size and weight of vehicles permitted, the existing highway plant must be upgraded to insure safe operations. In such instances, the railroads have a right to object to the Government undertaking a course of action which will result in greater expenditure for the highways, expenditures which would be unnecessary if the contemplated action were not taken, unless the additional costs are recovered from those responsible. Stated differently, the larger and heavier vehicles permitted by this legislation will create new and unique safety problems-the solution of which will cost large sums. Yet there is no provision made for these beneficiaries to pay a single additional cent towards such costs. There is overwhelming evidence that allowing larger and heavier vehicles to operate on the highways will necessitate increased Government expenditures if safe operations are to be maintained.6 The recent disaster of the "Silver Bridge" (Point Pleasant) between West Virginia and Ohio has focused nationwide attention on this aspect of highway safety. While it is futile to confine consideration to the Interstate System, not all the bridges on that system as it is currently being used are designed to carry the loads and lengths that would be permitted under 5. 2658. Since, as we have said, no one has come up with the means of confining the operation of a given truck entirely to the Interstate System, the question of bridges on the remainder of the Federal Aid System, and other roads and streets, becomes important. West Virginia has estimated a cost of $200 million to place its bridges in shape to carry even the presently permitted weights and sizes.7 If West Virginia is in any way typical of the other 47 continental States, the nationwide cost of providing bridges safe for even present weights and sizes would be tremendous. A further feature of S. 2658 that is relevant to user charges is the "grand- father" clause. S. 2658 as passed by the Senate would establish allowable maximum size and weight limits for motor vehicles using the Interstate System, the purpose of which limits is "to adequately protect the Federal investment." Having pre- scribed upper limits for all vehicles, the bill proceeds to permit alternative limits even higher than the ones primarily prescribed, such alternative limits being those "permitted for vehicles using the public highways of such State under laws or regulations established by appropriate State authority in effect on January 1, 1968 . . This plainly means that if any state on January 1, 1968 allowed its "public highways" to be used, for example, by vehicles having single axle loads of 22,400 pounds and tandem axle loads of 40,000 pounds, such loading would be permissible on the highways of the Interstate System located within that state. In fact, there are states which on January 1, 1968 permitted such axle loads on their public highways. The grandfather clause thus creates a gaping exception to the general statutory limits which Congress undertakes to fix by this bill and flies in the face of a logical basis for prescribing any limits at all for vehicle sizes and weights. In fixing limits of 20,000 pounds for single axles and 34,000 pounds for tandem axles, the Senate determined, as a matter of policy, that those limits are the maximum that should be permitted on the Interstate System. The Senate must have concluded, on the basis of the evidence presented, that sizes and weights in excess of the proposed numerical limits would be unjustified. There has been no showing whatever on the merits that loads above those fixed by the bill would be tolerable or in the public interest. However, the grandfather clause would permit them. The situation with respect to the grandfather concept is quite different from 1956 when the first federal size and weight limits were established. At that time there had never been federal limits on highway use, and an argument from equity could be made that the states should not at that time be disadvantaged as a result of having enacted laws in the past allowing sizes and weights in excess of the limits fixed by Congress in 1956. Those state laws had not been enacted with awareness that federal limits would have to be taken into account. How- ever, from 1956 onwards, all of the states were on notice that Congress had imposed fixed limits on the Interstate System and had directed extensive studies and research into future size and weight limits and user charges, looking to the 6 Appendix, p. 7i 3. Report of The State Road Commissioner of West Virginia Concerning Collapse of The Silver Bridge, Point Pleasant, West Virginia, January 1968. 96-030-GS------46 PAGENO="0724" 712 establishment of definitive limits. That research has been carried out and recommendations have been based on it. The grandfather clause is illogical on its face. If it is retained, however, proper user charges should of course reflect the higher levels of use that would be permitted and the even higher levels of highway construction and main- tenance costs that would result in the states that could take advantage of the grandfather clause. COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF ECONOMIC AND SAFETY FACTORS INHERENT IN THE PROPOSALS OF S. 2658 MUST PRECEDE ANY ACTION THEREON The measure before you would increase the single-axle load of the heavy vehicle from 18.000 pounds to 20,000 pounds; increase the tandom-axie load from 32.000 pounds to 34,000 pounds; increase width from 96 inches to 102 inches. No limitation would be placed on either length or height of vehicles. The proposals incorporated in S. 2658 exceed those of the 1946 policy of the American Association of State Highway Officials; of the 1964 policy of the American Association of State Highway Officials; of the 1964 Report of the Bureau of Public Roads to the Secretary of Commerce and of the 1964 Report by the Secretary of Commerce to the Congress. The 1956 Federal Highway Act contained two very important sections relative to this subject. One, Congress instructed the Secretary of Commerce to "take all action possible to expedite the conduct of a series of tests now planned, or being conducted, by the Highway Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences, in cooperation with the Bureau of Public Roads and the several States, and other persons and organizations, for the purpose of determining the inaxi- mum desirable dimensions and weights of vehicles operated on the Federal-Aid Highway System, including the Interstate System, and after the conclusion of such tests, but not later than March 1, 1959, to make recommendations to the Congress with respect to such maximum desirable dimensions and weights." The second important section was "Section 210," which ordered the Secretary of Commerce "to make available to the Congress information on the basis of which it may determine what taxes should be imposed by the United States, and in what amounts, in order to insure, insofar as practicable, an equitable. distri- bution of the tax burden, among the various classes of persons using the Federal- Aid Highways or otherwise deriving benefits from such highways." These studies and reports by the Bureau of Public Roads, acting under the Secretary of Commerce, were ordered by the Congress of the United States. The report on maximum desirable dimensions and weights of vehicles operated on the Federal-Aid Systems was submitted to. the Congress on August 19, 1964, by the Secretary of Commerce, as House Document No. 354 of the 88th Congress, 2nd Session. That report, as submitted to Congress, did not follow, in a number of respects, the report submitted to the Secretary of Commerce by the Bureau of Public Roads. The Bureau's recommendations,, for axle loads, gross loads and vehicle width, were increased in the Office of the Secretary of Commerce before the report was submitted to the Congress. The Highway Cost Allocation Study, identified as "Section 210" was submitted in two documents, i.e., "Final Report of the Highway Cost Allocation Study," House Document No. 54 of the 87th Congress, 1st Session, dated January 6. 1961, and "Supplementary Report of the Highway Cost Allocation Study," House Document No. 124, 89th Congress, 1st Session dated March 24, 196.5. The Bureau of Public Roads, working with its own staff, in. cooperation with the State Highway Departments and other interested groups, did comply with the mandate of the Congress and did submit to you reports which you ordered. The Road Test at Ottawa, Illinois, which extended over a period from 1956 to 1962, was the most elaborate, refined and scientific undertaking of its kind ever made. The total cost was in excess of $27 million. The magnitude of this undertaking can be measured by the fact that Defense Department military personnel, acting as drivers, drove 120 trucks over the test road 17% million miles between the dates of November .5, 1958 and November 30, 1900. Based on those prolonged studies, the Bureau of Public Roads, in consultation with the State Highway Departments, made certain basic recommendations. S. 2658 would provide single-axle limitations of 20,000 pounds; tandem-axle limitations of 34,000 pounds, widths of 102 inches; no length limitations and no height limitations. The procedures for determining gross loads indicate that 9- axle vehicles of 98-foot length would be perüiitted to carry gross loads of ap- PAGENO="0725" 713 proximately 124,625 pounds. This is almost 18 tons greater than would be per- mitted either by the original recomniendations of the Bureau of Public Roads or `by the policy position of the American Association of State Highway Officials. However, under this bill, without a length limit, gross loads totaling 150,000 pounds or more could be legally obtained. To ignore the findings of these officials of the Bureau of Public Roads and State Highway Departments, with regard to the load carrying capacity of our highway system, is to invite premature destruction and disaster to our roads and bridges. The sound and logical course would be to make a current and com- prehensive evaluation of the sizes and weights of vehicles that are to `be permit- ted to operate over our roads and streets on the basis of the additiional and new economic and safety considerations injected by the proposals of S. 2658. In conclusion, we urge this Committee to withhold any favorable action oii S. 2658 and not to treat of it separate and apart from the question of economic im- pact and adequate user charges. APPENDIX RELATIONSHIP OF HIGHWAY, COST ALLOCATION STUDY TO COMPETITIVE ASPECTS OF HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION Competing carriers are not unaware that the network of modern interstate expressways will expand the potential radius of. trucking operations and will en- able motor carriers to operate more economically and efficiently along many intercity rOutes. James C. Nelson in the Brookings Institute Treatise, "Rail- road Transportation `and Public Policy," discusses its significance to the railroads as follows: . "More widespread and intense bus and truck competition with the railroads will almost certainly be a principal long-term effect of greatly enlarged Federal ex- penditures `on highway `and of concentration of those expenditures on the key In- terstate System of competitive routes. As trucking costs fall and trucking speeds increase on improved highways, the distance range of profitable trucking with in- crease, a'n'd it will become profitable to haul less highly rated commodities `by truck." (Final. Report of the Highway Cost Allocation Study, House Document No. 54 of the 87th Congress, 1st Session, dated January 6, 1.961, page' 244.) TIlE NEUTRALITY STANDARD In its report on "Carried Taxation" (page 46) published in 1944, the Board of Investigation and Research defined a standard of neutrality in taxation. In a section dealing with the comparative tax burdens of competing carrier groups' a list was given of some of the more common concepts of proper. tax payments by business concerns. The fourth and last of these concepts was defined and com- mented upon as follows: "4. The `amount of taxes that would be paid if a `given sum were to `be raised from the subjects of comparison in such a fashion as to minimize the effect of Government upon `the direction and extent of business enterprise (the neutrality standard). "With minor qualifications the staff accepts the last of these standards as the text of overtaxation implied by the events that occasioned the congres- sional directive to study the extent to which taxes are imposed upon * * * carriers.'" "Alth~ugh the problem of the B'oard (that of comparing the complete tax- payment structures of the several carrier groups) was a different, one, it is be- lieved that the standard of neutrality can reasonably be. applied to the problem of tax'ation for the support of the Federal-aid systems insofar as it affects the competing carrier groups. Competition between the railroads' and the motor carriers otcurs in through-traffic on main highways paralleling railroad routes. It `exists between passenger cars and the railroads on the same through routes. Competition exists between private passenger cars and public transit in through traffic on main metropolitan arteries." (Final Report of the Highway Cost Al- location Study, House Document No. 54 of the 87th Congress, 1st Session, dated January 6, 1961, page 245.) "Even so, `there is a definite indication in the results of all three allocation studies that the heavier trucks and combinations (particularly the latter) should be paying considerably more, in relation to the' payments by the lighter vehicle groups, than they d'o `now. Except for the motor-fuel taxes, the Federal excise taxes now going into the highway. trust fund are not similar to the graduate PAGENO="0726" 714 registration fees and other motor-vehicle-user taxes from which the States derive their highway revenues. The Federal automotive excise taxes were not designed as user taxes, and their present pattern is perhaps not best suited to their new role." (Final Report of the Highway Cost Allocation Study, House Document No. 54 of the 87th Congress, 1st Session, dated January 6, 1961, page 27.) LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATIONS "1. A basic legal and administrative consideration in the establishment of Federal motor vehicle standards is the need to provide at the national level for the regulation of the major dimensions and weights of motor vehicles operating on the Federal-aid highway systems. Such regulation must be based on sound determinations of the needs of commerce and the role of highway transportation in meeting those needs. The requirements of all legislative and geographical juris- dictions must be fully considered. "Leadership in the establishment of the major dimensions and weights of motor vehicles for national highway systems should be provided at the national level through the joint participation of the Federal and State jurisdictions concerned. "2. The existing Federal enactment providing standards for motor vehicles operating on the Interstate Highway System also provides (in the preceding section) that the Secretary of Commerce. in cooperation with the State highway departments, shall adopt uniform geometric and construction standards for highways constructed as a part of the Interstate System. This Federal legislation recognized that the determination of standards for vehicles operating on a high- way system should be closely related to the standards for the right-of-way; for the design and construction of pavement, base and subbase, bridges, shoulders, curves, grades, accelerating and decelerating lanes, parking areas, and other geometric considerations; and for the maintenance of that highway system to these standards. "The relationships between standards for the dimensions and weights of motor vehicles and the standards for the design, strength, and capacity of compatible highway facilities are interdependent and constitute an essential consideration in the establishment and stabilization of either group of standards." (House Docu- ment No. 354,88th Congress. 2nd Session. page 22.) "Generally, the weight of a vehicle is related to the serviceability and struc- tural integrity of a highway; i.e., its pavements, shoulders, and bridges. A high- way structure is usually desigiied for and maintained at a level of serviceability to accommodate specific axle weights for a preselected period of time. This pre- selected period is also the basis for programming public funds including the determination of the period for the redemption of bonds and the imposition of taxes dedicated to financing the highway. A modest increase in wrle weights can decrease the serviceability and shorten the life of the structure. A significant increase in acole weights can cause serious deterioration in the structure with failure imminent if it is not quickly reconstructed or replaced. The establish- nient of vehicle weight standards greater than those for which a highway system has been designed can require (1) the additional surfacing or reconstruction of the pavement structures; (2) the strengthening or replacement of bridge struc- tures; (3) the increased levels of maintenance; and (4) increased financial burdens and co-mni.itments of public funds." {Emphasis added.] (House Docu- ment No. 354. 88th Congress, 2nd Session, page 26.) "Weight primarily affects the serviceability and life of the pavement and structures through the stresses it places upon them. Overstressing decreases the serviceability and hastens the reconstruction or replacement of highway facili- ties. Greater axle weight requires greater pavement `thickness and stronger bridges. Gross weight can be a critical factor for bridges carrying vehicle com- binations having short wheelbases. On the other hand, increased lengths make possible greater gross weights. . . . But basically axle weight affects the service- ability of a highway and vehicle size affects its capacity." (House Document No. 354, 88th Congress, 2nd Session, page 1.) "There must be a clear showing that increases in vehicle sizes and weights are in the public interest. "Not least among considerations is the ability and willingness of beneficiaries to pay the increased costs which they occasion." (House Document No. 354, 88th Congress, 2nd Session, page 1.) "~tructvres comprising our present highways were designed for and are main- tained at a level of serviceability to accommodate specific vehicle dimensions and PAGENO="0727" 715 a~ie weights for a preselected period of time. Most structures built over the past decade for the primary highway systems are intended to accommodate greater vehicle standards and provide better serviceability than those built in the decade followthg World War IT. The initially selected period of service life of highway structures is also the basis for the programming of funds which :the public makes available whether obtained from bond issues, user charges, dedicated tax reve- nues, or other sources. Increases in vehicle standards which occasion greater capacity or strengthening of highway structures, or accelerated deterioration of their serviceability, cannot be justified unless corresponding increases are pro- vided in the revenues required to meet the costs of highway widening, resurfacing, reconstruction, and maintenance which they entail. "Balance is also desirable in the application of vehicle standards both as to their `scope and timing. Through annual model changes automotive vehicles can be transformed from one to another dimension and weight standard very quickly. The upgrading of an entire highway system cannot be so easily provided. Prior to their construction, highway structures must be designed to meet capacity and strength requirement anticipated over their lifetime. Any abrupt change in vehicle standards could possibly bring about wasteful obsolescence of technically end economically sound structures and weaken the public's continuing high in- `vestment in highway systems. Further, while in the interests of uniformity it is desirable to have only. one vehicle standard for all highway systems, it is not pos- sible at this time as a practical economic, technical, or legislative matter. On the other hand, neither is it feasible to establish Federal vehicle standards for cer- tain highways unless as a minimum they comprise a very considerable mileage of connected routes forming an interstate system." [Emphasis added~] (House Docu- ment No. 354,88th Congress, 2nd Session, page 2.) TEN-YEAR RESURFACING COSTS Table 32 gives, for each of the 38 States and the District of Columbia, the estimated `cost of all resurfacing required in the 10 year period 1963-72, for the present and the hypothetical higher axle weight limits, .according to the calcu- lations made in the pavement evaluation survey. Again, the States are divided into four groups according to the present axle weight limits. Ratios of cost for the higher limits to those for the present axle weight limits are also given. "Of the 28 States with limits at or near 18,000 and 32,000. pounds, an increase of the limit to 20,000 and 35,000 pounds would increase the 10-year resurfacing cost by 20 percent or less in 16 States. In nine of `these States, the increase would be from 20 to 40 percent; in two of them, from 40 to 60 percent; and in one of them, from 60 to 80 percent. An increase to the 22,000- and 38,000-pound limit would increase costs from 20 to 40 percent in 11 States, 40 to 60 percent in five States and 60 to 80 percent in five States. For axle weight limits of 24,000 and 42,000 pounds the scatter is rather wide. It will be noted, however, that 16 of the 28 States give values of the ratio between 1.4 and 2.0." (House Document No. 354, 88th Congress, 2nd Session, page 121.) House Document No. 354 reports, in addition, that in the 28 States reporting and having present axle load limits of 18,000 pounds single and 32,000 pounds tandems, the average remaining life of primary system pavements, before re- surfacing, under present limits would be 7.4 years. An increase in weight to 20,000 pounds single and 35,000 pounds tandems would reduce the expected re- maining `life by 1.2 years. The cost of the resurfacing under present load limits would `approximate $3,330,000,000 over the period 1963-1972, while under an increase to 20,000 pounds single and 35,000 pounds tandems this cost would in- crease to approximately $4,264,000,000, or an increase attributable to the in- creased load of $934,000,000. Remembering that the reporting States account for only 67.5 percent of the total primary State highway mileage in the 50 States, it could logically be pre- sumed that the total additioiial cost of resurfacing under the increased axle loads proposed by 5. 2658 could easily approximate $1,500,000,000 in the ten-year period. "The system travel characteristics of intercity buses and most types of freight- carrying combinations are conspicuously in contrast to those of single-unit trucks and automobiles. Tractor-semitrailer combinations travel 30 to 41 percent of their mileage on the Interstate System and 83 to 90 percent on the combined Federal-aid systems. For intercity buses the score is 31 percent on the Interstate System and 85 percent on all Federal-aid systems. PAGENO="0728" 716 "Combinations performed by far the greater part of their travel on rural roads, the score for all roads and streets being 78.4 rural and 21.6 urban. "For all vehicles taken together, 16.7 percent of the 1964 travel is predicted to occur on the Interstate System, 30.6 percent on other Federal-aid primary highways, and 16.7 on the Federal-aid secondary system, making a total of 64.0 percent for all Federal-aid systems combined. Travel on the rural portions out- weighs that on the urban portions of all systems except the category of "Other roads and streets," Federal-aid highways comprise a much larger percentage of rural roads than they do of urban streets. For this reason the percentages are reversed in this group, "other" rural roads contributing 12.4 percent of esti- mated 1964 travel and "other" urban roads and streets contributing 23.6 percent. For all systems the percentages are 58.4 percent rural and 41.6 urban." (Sup- plementary Report of the Highway Cost Allocation Study, House Document No. 124, 89th Congress, 1st Session, dated March 24, 1965, page 57.) "Standards for vehicle dimensions are primarily related to highway capacity and those for vehicle weights are related to highway serviceability. Vehicle di- mensions place requirements on the dimensional or geometric features of high- way systems: width, radii of curves, clearances, grades, intersections, access and exit provisions. A wider vehicle requires wider pavements and a higher one requires greater clearances. Longer vehicles require more generous geometric patterns and can also make possible greater gross weights without any increase in axle weights. The dimensional standards also affect the operations of adja- cent vehicles using the highway. Thus highway safety is the overriding limita- tion on vehicle dvnzensions. The cost of providing highway facilities of greater dimensions and the willingness of operators of larger vehicles benefiting there- from to bear their share of such costs is also an essential consideration. "Length standards are desirable in the interest of safety and convenience of composite traffic, in the realization of ultimate capacity of the highway system and as a criteria for the design characteristics for highway geometries and axle load-distribution." [Emphasis added.] (House Document No. 354, 88th Congress, 2nd Session, page 35.) STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. MITCHELL, ExECL'TIVE REPRESENTATIVE, GEORGIA- PAcjrlc Coup., WASHINGTON, D.C. The Georgia-Pacific Corporation strongly supports pending legislation which would increase allowable vehicle widths on the Federal Interstate Highway System. Georgia-Pacific, with corporate headquarters in Portland, Oregon, is a manu- facturer of paper, paperboard, converted paper products, pulp, chemicals, plywood, gypsum products, lumber, hardboard, fiakeboard, particleboard, and other forest products. Georgia-Pacific is the world's largest single producer of fir and pine plywood. The Corporation maintains over 100 distribution centers and sales offices throughout the United States. Major manufacturing facilities are in operation in almost every area of the country. A great percentage of our production, including plywood, hardboard, gypsum, and other sheet products is shipped in bundles four feet by eight feet by thirty inches. Average weight of each bundle is approximately 290O~ pounds. All han- dling-loading and uiiloading-must be with mechanical equipment. Existing Federal standards limiting outside vehicle width to 96 inches elimi- nate for all practical and economic purposes, the use of any type of closed equipment now owned by the common and contract motor carriers to move our sheet products. With an inside width of less than 96 inches such equipment is unsuitable for mechanical loading of 4' x 8' sheet products. As a result many closed trailers, particularly within the western states, are moving empty. Under the increase proposed in pending legislation, this would not be so. Since the closed trailers of the normal motor carriers cannot be used for the economic transport of 4' x 8' plywood and other similar products, Georgia- Pacific through necessity now maintains a nationwide proprietary fleet of over three hundred trailers and fiat bed semi-trailers. These are used almost exclu- sively for over the road shipments of our sheet products. Not only the proprietary carrier but also the common and contract carriers are faced with ever increasing labor, maintenance and operating costs. It is essential that immediate stops be taken to authorize these carriers to move more net weight per truck unit, if they are to remain competitive with other forms of transportation. PAGENO="0729" 717 In this regard, it is significant to note that as a result of rapid advances in aircraft design and jet air transportation, air freight rates are fast approaching the level of truck rates. This competition can be met only with larger equipment and bigger payloads. Georgia-Pacific believes that upward adjustment of width and weight limits of standards developed twenty years ago are in keeping with the design standards of our modern highways and bridges. It is a step in the right direction, and we would hope that this legislation receives quick approval by this Committee and the United States Congress. U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, Washington, D.C., June 17, 1968. Hon. JOHN 0. KLUCZYNSKI, Chairman, Roads ~ubcoinmittee, House Public Works Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I am enclosing copy of a resolution adopted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors at its annual meeting held in Chicago on Saturday, June 15. This resolution deals with a specific matter of legislation now before your Committee. The Mayors are concerned that a pending proposal would permit the operation of trucks that are too large and too heavy. We respectfully request that the resolution be made a part of the record in the matter pending before you. We would be pleased to discuss this matter further if you deem it appropriate. Sincerely, JOHN J. GUNTHER, Eaecutive Director. RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE 1968 ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, TUE PALMER HOUSE, CHICAGO, ILL., JUNE 15, 1908 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS Whereas, an inadequate share of motor vehicle revenue and federal highway aid is made available to cities and towns despite their obligation to build and maintain their roads and streets; and Whereas, the Secretary of Transportation has formally asked Congress to extend, for at least three years, the completion date for the interstate highway system because funds available are insufficient to permit completion on the scheduled date; and Whereas, the United States Senate has passed and there is now pending in the House of Representatives a bill (S. 2058-H.R. 14474) which would permit and encourage action by individual states to allow tht~ operation of truck- trains with heavier axle loads, heavier gross loads, six inches additional width and without limit as to length, height or number of trailers included in such truck-trains; and * Whereas, two-thirds of the interstate system of highways has already been designed and completed to accommodate vehicles no greater than those allowed under present, law, and any substantial increase in weight and size limitations would subject that portion of the interstate system to use by vehicles in excess of the weights and dimensions for which such roads and streets were built, thus shortening the service life of existing facilities and multiplying the financial burden of all road and streets authorities for maintaining and replacing roads and streets prematurely destroyed; and Whereas, it will be difficult if not impossible to confine truck-trains of such increased size and weight to limited interstate system mileage, and there is no practical way by which wider trailers and trucks can be made narrower so as to safely fit into the existing pattern of streets and roads; and Whereas, we recognize `the difficulty and cost of excluding truck-trains of larger size and weight which are legal in one state from operation in a con- tiguous city or state where such truck-trains would violate the law, and we deplore the lack of uniformity in such regulations and the ill will generated by such disparity: Now, therefore, be it Resolved That the U.S. Conference of Mayors urges Congress to reject the aforesaid truck-train bill (S. 2658-H.R. 14474) and to proceed, instead, with the enactment of legislation to exact increased and appropriate charges for PAGENO="0730" 718 the commercial use of highways and streets in close relation to the character and extent of such use, and to now make available to municipal units of government adequate funds to permit completion of the street and highway network, including the reconstruction of weak bridges and the building of con- necting links and alternate routes to relieve congestion. [From the Chicago Tribune] TEE Hienwax Bus~rnus ARE AT IT AGAIN The Tjnited States Conference of Mayors, at its recent meeting in Chicago, adopted a resolution urging Congress to defeat a bill which would permit larger and heavier trucks on the interstate highway system. A similar resolution has been approved by the Chicago city council. Trucks are important to the national economy, but it is not necessary to let them get bigger and bigger until they monopolize and wreck the highways. No truck shipment starts or ends on the interstate system. If Congress raises the limits for the interstate, truck operators will press for similar standards on con- necting routes, including city streets. Officials in all cities know what trucks do to pavements and how they affect traffic. Chicago's Eisenhower expressway will be tied up all summer by repairs which probably would not be necessary for years if the pavement had not been punished by huge trucks. A survey by the American Automobile Association has shown that 67 per cent of the bridges on major highways were not designed to support the loads they are called upon to bear under current weight limits and traffic conditions. The bin before Congress would permit weights of 20,000 pounds for single-axle trucks [now 18,000 pounds] and 34,000 pounds for tandem axles [now 32,000]. The measure also would permit vehicles to be wider by half a foot than the present 8-foot maximum. Motorists fear, with good reason, to share the roads with such monsters. The bill has been passed by the Senate and is now pending in the subcommittee on roads of the House public works committee~ Rep. John C. Kluczynski of Chicago is the chairman of the subcommittee. He is capable of good judgment and should exercise itby helping to sidetrack this bill. [From the Commercial Appeal, Memphis, Sunday MornIng, June 9, 1968] HIGHwAYs AND BRIDGES THREATENED The House Public Works Committee is a thin barrier protecting highways investment of billions of tax dollars from the damage of heavier, longer and vider trucks. It is a committee of which Robert A. Everett (D-Tenn.) and Robert B. Jones (P-Ala.) are members. The Senate already has backed away from responsibility for preserving high- ways and bridges into which many millions have gone through the federal Treasury from the pockets of citizens. The senators' attitude is that there is a difference between authorization of the pavement crushers and allowing states to make the change. It is accepted that if this legislation comes out of committee the full House membership will follow the Senate abdication. In state capitol corridors the way of a truck lobbyist with a legislator is one of the wonders of the political world. Tennessee, Mississippi and Arkansas have each had a comparatively recent incident in which the truckers were turned away. But over the years and throughout the nation the state lawmakers have been easy marks. It is the House committee that holds in its hands the length of life of these highways. There are 97 million motor vehicles in this country, all heavily taxed for the highways, roads, streets and bridges on which they run. About 16 million of them are trucks of all sizes, including pickups and delivery vans. Only the tiny fraction of highway-freighters require the heavy pavements and strong bridges that use a huge part of construction funds. PAGENO="0731" 719 In the face of protests, these new owners have forced limitations up and up again until some states allow 73.280 pounds on interstate routes-without much real consideration of how the monsters are to get to and from the newest highways without battering older and thinner pavements. Now the small group of owners of rubber-tired freight cars are within reach of taking off the overall weight limit. They hope to be allowed as much as 105,500 pounds is they spread it over nine axles. They want to operate high- way trains of three trailers behind one tractor. They feel penned in by a 96-inch width and want 102 inches. The House committee members, if they attend hearings or read the record, know the score. They have heard Ross G. Stapp. Wyoming highway chief and chairman of the transport committee of the American Association of State Highway Officials, testify that such size is dangerous. Mr. Stapp says that even on the interstate system there are bridges unable to take heavier loads than the standards of the years during which they were designed. More than half of the bridges on primary and secondary highway systems are designed only for the old standards of loads. The committee has heard Lowell K. Bridwell, federal highway administrator, say the proposals would result in higher costs for highway construction and reduced life of highways. This is the choice before the Public Works Committee. The public that pays for these superhighways ought to be warnOd. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, STATEHIGH WAY DEPARTMENT, Wether$field, Co~ut., April 23, 1968. Subject: Vehicle weights and sizes. Hon. EMu~Io Q. DADDARIO and Hon. DONALD J. IRWIN, Washington, D.C. DEAE CONGRESSMEN: This is in further regard to my letter of February 8, 1968, concerning Senate Bill 2658, a bill to amend Section 127, Title 23, U.S.C. This bill has now passed the Senate in an amended form and presumably will be before the House in the near future. Therefore, I wish at this time to call attention to my previous comments on this bill and also with regard to its present form. As presently written Senate Bill 2658 is permissible legislation in that it ~s ould allow the individual states to increase their vehicle size and w eight limits up to the maximums prescribed in this bill. Also, there is included therein a grandfather clause which would permit states having higher limits than those prescribed in the bill to retain same In view of the nature of this bill being "permissible legislation", if this provision and that of the grandfather clause are retained, I can offer no objection to its passage; however, may I reiterate my previous comment that it might be more appropriate to await the results of the investigation of the Point Pleasant disaster, and further, to await the results of studies presently underway by the various bridge and structures people throughout the country before legislating any increase in vehicle weights. Very truly yours, HOWARD S. IVES, state Highway Commissioner. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, TVetli*ersfleld, Conn., February 8, 1968. Subject: Vehicle weights and sizes. Hon. EMILIO Q. DADDARIO, Re yburn House Office B vilding, TVashington, D.C. DEAR Mn. DADDARIO: Attached herewith is a copy of a letter forwarded to Senator Jennings Randolph, Chairman of the Committee on Public Works, relative to the February 19, 20 and 21 hearings to be held on the matter of vehicle sizes and weights, the subject of Senate Bill 2658. PAGENO="0732" 720 This letter states the position of the Connecticut State Highway Department with regard to proposed increases in the maximum permissible vehicle size and weights. I urge the Committee on Public Works to exercise caution before legislating any increase in vehicle weights. This letter is forwarded to you for your information and consideration with regard to the position I have indicated. Very truly yours, HOWARD S. 1VE5, ~tate Highwaij Commissioner. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Wethersfield, Cenn., February 8, 1968. Subject: Vehicle weights and sizes. Senator JENNINGS RANDOLPH, Oh airmaH, Convimittee on Public TVorks, TVashinpton, D.C. DEAR SENATOR RANDOLPH and Members of; the Committee on Public Works: The Senate Committee on Public Works has scheduled hearings to be held on February 19, 20 and 21 on the matter of vehicle sizes and weights, the subject of Senate Bill 2658, a bill to amend Section 127, Title 23, tLS.C. One provisiou of this bill would increase the maximum permissible vehicle width from the present 96" to 102". Connecticut statutes presently permit a width of 102". Thus this proposed increase would not present any difficulty in Connecticut. Provision is also provided in this bill to increase vehicle wights as follows: single-axle weight from present 18,000 lbs. to 20,000 lbs; a tandem-axle weight from the present 32,000 lbs. to 36,000 lbs., with an overall gross weight to be LN determined by the gross weight formula W=500(-+12N+40). N-i Connecticut statues presently permit a single-axle weight of 22,400 lbs. and a tandem-axle weight of 36.000 lbs. Furthermore, gross vehicle weights are limited as folows: two-axle, 32,000 lbs; three-axle 53,800 Ibs; four-axles 67,400 lbs; and five or more axles 73,000 lbs. Due to the recent bridge disaster at Point Pleasant, West Virginia, and also due to the additional bridge maintenance encountered by this department in recent years, the subject of vehicle weights is one in which we have great concern. While the proposed legislation would establish gross weights on the basis of a formula which would include "length", there is no provision in the Federal legislation which establishes a maximum vehicle length. It would seem, therefore, that if the formula were to be used, length should be added to the bill in some way. I might comment, however, that we here in the Connecticut Higbw-ay Department are not completely sold on the use of this formula. While the Connecticut State Highway Department is sympathetic to the desires of the trucking industry to increase vehicle sizes and weights, it is our opinion that such legislation should await the results of the investigation of the Point Pleasant disaster, and further to await the results of studies presently under way by the various bridge and structures people throughout the country. Some of the thinking is that the results of the current studies may suggest a change in design criteria for future construction. However, we have on the ground today innumerable bridges built to both current and even older designs. Certainly, before we destroy these bridges we had better consider what their maximum capacities are, and then if necessary, a long-term procedure for rehabilitating them in acordance with the current studies and possible future weight limitations. As presently written Senate Bill 2658 includes a "grandfather clause" which would permit higher weights presently allowed by current State statutes to continue in effect. Connecticut would certainly want this provision of the statutes to remain. In summary therefore, I would strongly urge the Committee on Public Works to w-ait until our engineers complete the various studies under way before legis- lating any increase in vehicle weights. Very truly yours, HOWARD S. Ivas, state Highway Commissioner. PAGENO="0733" 721 HELENA, MONT., May 21, 1968. Representative JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, U.S. Hoi~se of Representatives, House Roads Subconi~m4ttee, Washington, DXI. The Montana State Highway Department, operating under code section 32-1123, Revised Codes of Montana 1947, has a maximum vehicle length of sixty feet. However, under code section 32-1127, the Montana State Highway Commission is empowered to issue term permits for a period of nine months to vehicle in excess of sixty feet in length and not exceeding seventy feet. Under code section 32-1127 (A) vehicles exceeding seventy-feet in length can operate under single trip permits issued by the Montana State Highway Commission. Our present State Law on sizes and lengths have functioned most efficiently for many years from both the administrative operation of the Montana State Highway Corn- mission and enforcement by the Montana highway patrol. It is our position that Federal legislation in the fields in size and length is unnecessary and unwar- ranted. The individual States are in the best position to determine what is safe and proper vehicle size and length. Any general Federal statutes prescribing single uniform size and length to be applied to all States will only serve to obstruct and hamper efficient interstate and intrastate commerce through Mon- tana and its sister States. LEWIS M. CHITTIM, State Highway Engineer, Mont a'na State Highwa~y U~mm'ission. PAGENO="0734" PAGENO="0735" FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT-1968 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1968 HOtISE OF REPRESENTATIVES, STJBCOMMITTEE ON ROADS OF THE CoMMIrI1~ ON PUBLIc WORKS Washington, D.C. The Subcommittee on Roads met at 9 :35 a.m., in room 2167, Ray- burn Building, Hon. John C. Kluczynski (chairman of the subcom- mittee) presiding. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. The Subcommittee on Roads of the House Com- mittee on Public Works will please come to order. Today, we come to what I hope will be the last day of the hearings on the highway legislation pending before the committee. We are all aware of the fact that every effort is being made by the leadership to bring the Congress to a close sometime `around the 1st of August `and that the Rules Committe indicates that it will finish hearings on legislation by that time. It is imperative that we conclude hearings on highway legislation and move for exectuive sessions to mark up any bills we intend to report. T lie Chair has been extremely patient, not only through these hear- ings, but all hearings I have chaired as I am sure all members and witnesses know. In the interest `of time today I will request members to make their questions as brief .as possible andwill, if necessary, invoke the 5-min- ute rule so that every member may question the witnesses properly. In addition to this, I will alternate between both sides so that both the majority and `the minority will have an opportunity to question the witnesses. I `will ap'preciate the cooperation of all members in this matter and also the witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. Vance Greenslit, president, Greyhound and Mr. Charles A. Webb, National Association of Motor Bus Owners. Mr. Greenslit and Mr. Webb, please take the witness stand. STATEMENT `OP VANCE GREENSLIT, PRESIDENT, GREYHOUND BUS CO., ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES A. WEBB, NATIONAL ASSOCIA- TION OP MOTOR BUS OWNERS Mr. GREENSLIT. Wifl it be all right for Mr. Webb to make his presen- tation first, Mr. `Chairman? Mr. KLuczYNsIcr. Do you have a prepared statement? Mr. GREENSLIT. Yes'; I `do. , Mr. WEBB. Yes, sir. (723) PAGENO="0736" 724 Mr. KLtTCZYNSKI. Do you want to put that in the record and hit the highpoints? Mr. WEBB. It is a very brief statement and as you request, I will omit some portions of it. Mr. KLUczYxsKI. Without objection, the statement will be made a part of the record in its entirety, and you may proceed. (The full statement of Mr. Webb follows:) STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. WEBB, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AssociaTioN OF MOTOR Bus OwN~s BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ROADS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS ON H.R. 14474, JUNE 6, 1968 Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Charles A. Webb. I am President of the National Association of Motor Bus Owners. often referred to as NAMBO. NAMBO is the national trade association for the intercity motor bus industry. Our member carriers provide more than three-fourth's of the intercity motor bus transportation in the United States. In addition to its operator members, NAMBO has associate members engaged in the manufacture of motor buses, bus tires, bus seats, and other motor bus equipment, parts, and accessories. I appreciate this opportunity to appchr before the Subconmiittee to present the view of the Association. NAMBO favors enactment of H.R. 14474 to liberalize the vehicle size and weight limitations imposed by section 108(j) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (23 U.S.C 127). These restrictions, based on standards more than twenty years old, have been outmoded by improved highway construction and design. As a consequence, motor common carriers are not permitted to make the fruits of advanced technology available to their patrons. The intercity bus industry is materially and adversely affected by the pro- hibition against use of the Interstate System of vehicles exceeding 96 inches in width. Continuance of existing weight limitations would not adversely affect the bus industry in the immediate future. Wider and safer buses can be manufac- tured without exceeding the axle and overall weight limitations prescribed by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. However, as a matter of principle, we favor the removal of any weight restriction which has been rendered obsolete by improved highway construction and design. On November 17, 1932, the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) recommended 96 inches as the maximum width of motor vehicles.1 That was more than 35 years ago. At that time, more than half of the nation's primary rural highways had traffic lanes less than ten feet wide. The general condition of our highways at that time was reflected in AASHO's recommenda- tions of 45 miles per hour as the maximum speed of buses and trucks and 16.000 pounds as the maximum single-axle weight. On April 1, 1946, AASHO again recommended 96 inches as the maximum width of motor vehicles but recognized that "certain conditions inherent in the design of vehicles suggest the desir- ability of 102 inches as a standard of maximum width." 2 Between 1932 and passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1056, the per- centage of primary rural highways with lanes less than ten feet wide declined from approximately 60 percent to 26 percent. In the bill which became the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, the House of Representatives imposed no limitation on the maximum permissible width of vehicles authorized to use the Interstate System. The Senate amendment to the House bill included a maximum width limitation of 96 inches which was adopted by the conference committee.3 Obviously, the maximum width limitation was not imposed to protect the Federal government's investment in 90 percent of the cost of the Interstate System. Since no bus manufacturer had plans in 1956 to produce intercity buses exceeding 96 inches in width, the limitation was not opposed. In sum, the legislative history of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 shows that the Congress merely adopted AASHO's 1946 recommendations on vehicle width and 1 Policy Concernitvg Maximum Dimensions, Weights and speeds of Motor Vehicles To Be Operated Over the Highways of the United ~8tates, American Association of State Highway Officials. page 33, Appendix I (1946). 21d at 5. H. Rept. 2436, 84th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 32. PAGENO="0737" 725 weight as temporary standards pending a study which the Department of Com- merce was expected to complete in 1959 but which was not transmitted to the Congress until August, 1964. The most recent AASHO recommendation on motor vehicle width reads as follows: "No vehicle, including any load and load-holding devices thereon, using com- pleted sections of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways shall exceed a width of 102 inches, excluding both tire bulge and approved safety devices. Further use of the 102-inch maximum width shall not be applicable on other routes in a State unless the State's highway system is predominantly of sufficient lane width for safe accommodation of vehicles of such width." By 1966 highways with lanes 12 feet wide and over bad risen from 10 percent of total rural primary mileage in 1946 to 41 percent. Highway lane-width trends during the period 1937-1966 are shown in the table appended to this statement. The 96-inch width limitation does not prevent a State from permitting buses of greater width to operate over highways which are not part of the Interstate System. Most of the States permit buses exceeding 96 inches in width to be operated in local and suburban service. Eight States permit operation of inter- city buses exceeding 96 inches in width over designated highways. Ten States- Idaho, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming-have enacted legislation which will permit 102- inch-wide buses to use the Interstate System if the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 is amended as proposed in H.R. 14474. Approval of H.R. 14474 would not permit wider vehicles to be operated over any portion of the Interstate System unless such operation were permitted under State law. Regulation of vehicle sizes and weights would continue to be pri- marily the responsibility of the several States. If the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 were amended as proposed, a State could permit buses not exceeding 102 inches in width to use the Interstate System within its borders, but any State, if it so desired, could prohibit the operation oe buses exceeding 96 inches in width. If the proposed legislation is approved, it would not be possible for intercity motor carriers of passengers to make extensive use of wider buses unless a large number of States conclude that the operation of such vehicles over the Inter- state System and other improved highways within their borders is consistent with safety and with the convenience of the general public. It is not economically feasible for intercity motor bus operators to confine the operation of new equip- ment to isolated States. Thus, any benefit that bus carriers might derive from the proposed Federal legislation is dependent on the enactment of implementing legislation by a number of contiguous States. We recognize that there are still some roads in some States, particularly ill mountainous terrain, which are not sufficiently wide to accommodate wider vehicles. The great advantage of the proposed legislation is that each State would be permitted to open the Interstate System to 102-inch wide vehicles but would retain full power to prohibit the use of such vehicles on its narrow highways. For example, legislation approved on April 2, 1968, by the General Assembly of Virginia provides that if the Federal limitation on the width of buses is increased from 96 to 102 inches, the State Highway Commission may permit buses not exceeding 102 inches in width to be operated "on federal inter- state and defense highways or any other four-lane divided highways . . and may permit such operation "between the aforesaid highways and the pas- senger bus terminals. . If the proposed legislation is enacted, the intercity bus industry is prepared to invest millions of dollars to provide Its passengers with wider, safer, and more comfortable equipment. NAMBO's other witness, Mr. H. Vance Greenslit, is here to explain the increased safety and comfort which can be provided by making buses just six inches wider. ~Recomntende4 Policy on ManimUm Dimensions and Weights of Motor Vehicles To Be Operated Ovdr the Highways of the United states, American Association of State Highway Offlclals, page 11 (1968). PAGENO="0738" 726 PERCENT OF DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC-LANE WIDTHS ON PRIMARY RURAL STATE HIGHWAYS WITH HIGH-TYPE SURFACES' [Percentages of total miles of such highwaysj Widths of tra ific lanes Total over UnderlOft. lOft. lift. i2ft.and 1966 18 23 18 41 100 1962 21 25 19 35 100 1956 26 32 20 22 100 1952 - 34 36 17 13 100 1946 41 38 11 10 100 1942 44 38 9 9 100 1937 50 (2) (2) (2) 100 Bituminous penetration, bituminousconcrete, sheet asphalt, and Portland cement concrete. 2 Conclusive data not available. Source: Highway statistics, table SM-S, 1956, 1962, and 1966; Highway statistics, summary to 1955, tables SMW-200 and SMW-201B, 1937, 1942, and 1946; maximum desirable dimensions and weights of vehicles operated on the Federal- aid systems, H. Doc. 354, 88th Cong., 2d sess. (table 17 for the year 1952). Mr. WEBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the sub- committee. My names is Charles A. Webb. I am president of the National As- sociation of Motor Bus Owners, referred to as NAMBO. NAMBO is the national trade association for the intercity motor bus industry. Our member carriers prOvide more than three-fourths' of the inter- city motor bus transportation in the United States and in addition to our operator members, we have associate members who manufacture motor buses, parts, and accessories. NAMBO favors the enactment of legislation to liberalize the vehicle size and weight limitations presently existing in the Federal High- way Act of 1956. These restrictions as you have heard are based on standards more than 20 years old and have been outmoded by improved highway construction and design. Our industry is materially and adversely affected by the prohibition against the use of the Interstate System `by vehicles exceeding 96 inches in width and continuance of existing weight limitations would not, however, adversely affect the bus industry in the immediate future. Wider and safer buses can he manufactured without exceeding the axle and overall weight limitations prescribed by the Federal High- way Act of 1956. On November 17, 1932, more than 35 years ago; AASHO. recom- mended 96 inches as the maximum width of motor vehicles. At that time more than half of the Nation's primary rural highways had traffic lanes less than 10 feet wide. On April 1, 1946. AASHO again recommended 96 inches as the maximum width of motor vehicles, but recognized that certain condi- tions inherent in the design of vehicles suggested the desirability of 102 inches as a standard of maximum width. Well, between 1932 and the passage of the Federal: Aid Highway Act of 1956, the percentage of primary rural highways with lanes less than 10 feet wide declined from approximately 60 percent to 26 percent. In the bill which became the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 the committee and subsequently the House of Representatives im- PAGENO="0739" 727 posed no limitation on the maximum permissible width of vehicles permitted to use the Interstate System. It was a Senate amendment to the House bill which included a maximum width limitation of 96 inches and that was adopted in conference. Obviously the maximum width limitation, was not imposed to pro- tect the Federal Government's interest or investment in 90 percent of the cost of the Interstate System. Since no bus manufacturer had any plans in 1956 to produce inter- city buses exceeding 96 inches, the limitation was not opposed. In sum, the legislative history of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 shows that the Congress merely adopted AASHO's 1946 recom- mendations on vehicle width and weight as temporary standards pending a study which the Department of Commerce was expected to complete in 1964. The most recent AASHO recommendation which I will not read but which is quoted in my prepared statement recommends 102 inches as the maximum permissible width on the Interstate System. The 96-inch width limitation does not prevent a State from permitting buses of greater width to operate over highways which are not part of the Interstate System. A large majority of States, at least 38 in number, permit buses exceeding 96 inches in width to be operated in local and suburban service. Now, the consequences of this is that the local transit bus operator is frequently called upon to provide a dual bus fleet. His 102-inch buses can operate only over city streets but if bus schedules require passengers to be served over a portion of an interstate route, those have to be served by 96-inch buses. There are eight States which permit operation of intercity buses exceeding 96 inches in width over designated highways. There are 11 States, Idaho, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Virgina, Washington, and Wyoming which have enacted legislation already which will permit 102-inch buses to use the Interstate System if the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 is amended as proposed in H.R. 14474 or in the Senate approved bill S. 2658. Approval of either of these bills would not permit wider vehicles to be operated over any portion of the Interstate System unless that operation were permitted under State law. Regulation of vehicle size and weight would continue to be pri- marily the responsibility of the several States. If the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 were amended as proposed, a State could per- mit buses not exceeding 102 inches in width to use the Interstate System within its borders, but any State, if it so desired, could pro- hibit the operation of buses exceeding 96 inches in width. Now, if the proposed legislation is approved, it will not be possible for our members to make extensive use of wider buses unless a large number of States pass enabling legislation. It is simply not economi- cally feasible for ir1tercity motor bus operators to confine the operation of new equipment to isolated States. Thus, any benefits our members received from the proposed legislation is dependent upon the enact- ment of implementing legislation by a large number of contiguous States. 9~~O3O6847 PAGENO="0740" 728 Now, we recognize that there are still some roads in some States, especially in mountainous terrain which are not sufficiently wide to accommodate wider vehicles, but the great advantage of the legisla- tion before you is that each State would be permitted to open the Interstate System to 102-inch buses but would retain full power to prohibit the use of such vehicles on its narrow highways. For example, legislation approved on April 2 of this year by the General Assembly of Virginia provides that if the Federal limitation on the width of buses is increased from 96 to 102 inches, the Virginia State Highway Commission may permit buses not exceeding 102 inches in width to be operated, and I will quote now: "On Federai interstate and defense highways, or any other four lane divided highways and may permit such operation between the afore- said highways and passenger bus terminals." Legislation was enacted this year by Maryland, and by New York also, to permit the use of wider buses on the Interstate System pro- vided the legislation now before the Congress is e.nacted. The problem that the intercity inotorbus industry faces, of course, is strong competition with the private automobile, with the airplane, with the trains. We are attempting to fill a need created in part by the discontinuance of rail passenger service. We offer the only transporta- tion service to thousands of small communities. Each bus you see on a highway is taking the place of 15 to 20 automobiles. Our passengers are safer riding a bus. Travel by bus is approxi- mately 15 to 20 times sa.fer than travel by private automobile, but the problem we face essentially is to provide a more comfortable service to our patrons. In the last 30 years the American population has grown taller and broader and the only way that we can possibly provide the necessary comfort is to use the additional 6 inches to make the seats in the buses wider. So, if this proposed legislation is enacted, our industry is prepared to invest millions of dollars to provi4e passengers with wider, safer, and more comfortable equipment. Our other witness, Mr. Vance Greenslit is here and he will explain to you in somewhat greater detail the increased safety and comfort which can be provided simply by making the buses just 6 inches wider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. We will hear from both of the witnesses and then we will have the questions. Do you have a prepared statement, Mr. Greenslit? Mr. GREENSLIT. Yes, I have; and it has been circulated. Mr. KLuczYNsKI. Do you wish to have that in the record? Mr. GREENSLIT. I would very much like to do that. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Without objection, it is so ordered and made a part of the record in its entirety. You may proceed as you wish. (The full prepared statement of Mr. Greenslit follows:) STATEMENT OF H. VANCE GREENSLIT ON BEHALF OF GREYHOUND LINES, INC., AND THE NATIONAL AsSocIATION OF MOTOR Bus OWNERS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE oN ROADS OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS ON H.R. 14474, JUNE 6, 1968 Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appear before you today on behalf of Greyhound Lines, Inc., from which I have juSt recently retired as PAGENO="0741" 729 Chairman of the Board, and on behalf of the National Association of Motor Bus Owners, (NAMBO). Greyhound is the nation's largest intercity passenger bus operator and the identity of NAMBO has been described in the preceding testi- mony of the President of the Association. The over-all size and weight of the intercity bus needs to be increased in response to demands of the bus-traveling public for greater comfort and safety. One of the principal factors necessitating increased over-all vehicle w-idth is the current increase in the physical size of the average American-we are not only getting taller, we are getting broader. Present dimensions in the seating areas of conventional bus equipment are no longer adequate to provide a proper level of passenger comfort. In this connection, I invite your attention to a recent study of the American Seating Company on the trend toward installing wider and more comfortable seats in theaters, stadiums and other public places. Excerpts from that study are appended to my statement. At the same time, design progress is possible to produce a vehicle offering greater safety to passengers, the driver, and other traffic. Key mechanical com~ ponents which have either a direct or indirect effect on over-all safety can be increased in size and capacity more than proportionately to increased vehicle size and weight. Engine power can be greatly increased to give performance characteristics more consistent with those of today's high-speed expressway traffic. If you build a wider bus, you can also build it higher and still stay within present height limitations. From this engineering relationship, between width and height, come significant safety advantages. By adding six (6) inches to the width, the height can be increased to twelve (12) feet as compared with the ten (10) and eleven (11) feet for the present single and dual-level buses. Here are the major safety advantages: 1. Greater over-all height directly contributes to safety because it allows placement of passenger seats at a height from the ground above the point at which most collision impacts take place. The driver's position is also raised, giving him better visibility and more safety in case of head-on collision. Greater height reduces the accumulation of road splash and dirt on windshield and side windows in wet weather. The increased over-all width also reduces the tendency of the front wheels to throw road splash and dirt up on the side windows because the coach structure can extend farther beyond the outside edges of the front wheels. 2. Even though the bus is higher the extra width permits a lower center of gravity which, in turn, improves resistence to overturning and excess sidesway. 3. Liberalized widths and rear-axle weight limitations permit more extensive use of stronger materials, such as stainless steel which provides greater pas- senger protection and less structural weakening through corrosion. 4. The addition of only six (6) inches in width in combination with the in- creased height makes it possible to use much larger tires. The tire footprint (the area in conact with the road) is substantially larger~-46 percent-providing: (a) greatly improved road adhesion (b) better steering control (c) greater skid resistance (d) more effective braking (e) improved sidewise stability because it permits the use of a special rear suspension arrangement giving a lateral spacing between bellows of more than 2'/2 times that possible with a conventional design. (1) wider spacing between dual-wheel tires for cooler operation, which reduces the possibility of blow-outs due to excessive heat buildup. 5. Larger wheel diameter and width mean greater brake shoe area, that is 08.8 percent greater total effective brake shoe area and 20.0 percent greater effective brake shoe area per ton of gross vehicle weight. 0. Wider brake drums reduce heat buildup, cutting down on fading tendencies. With respect to passenger comfort, each pair of seats can be made from two (2) to three (3) inches wider, that is from 38 inches to 40 or 41 inches. From my own personal experience, I can testify that the additional seat widths add immeasurably to the comfort and convenience of an extended bus trip. By not using all of the additional six-inch width in widening the seats, we. can increase the aisle width by at least one-half inch to facilitate loading and unloading of passengers and their hand baggage. The additional height inside the passenger compartment makes it possible for most passengers to walk down the aisle to their seat without stooping. PAGENO="0742" 730 The additional height also permits larger side windows for improved passenger viewing. Greyhound has spent $2,000,000 engineering such a bus, which has been tested ~rnd has proved the advantages heretofore outlined. We thus know that the liberalination provided for in H.R. 14474 will add immeasurably to the safety and comfort of the bus-riding public, and are therefore hopeful of your favorable consideration. Coming at a time when the public is deeply concerned with high- way safety, the iiitercity bus industry is ready, willing and able to contribute its part to the furtherance of the safety effort. Attached to each copy of this statement is a printed sheet showing a detailed comparison between the specifications of the largest conventional type buses now being operated and the new- one which Greyhound has engineered within the limits provided for in the bill here under consideration. While I believe the attached sheet is self-explanatory, I will be glad to make any further explanation you request. Thank you. SOME CoNsIDERATIONS ABOUT SEATING FRo~I THE AMERICAN SEATING Co., GRAND Ra~i~s, Mmii. There is considerable evidence to confirm the fact that people are demanding more sitting room for whatever seating requirements they have. It is particularly notable when considering auditorium and stadium chairs that the trend is tow-ard w-ider more comfortable seats. The 1'U' & 18" seat that was used 20 or 25 years ago is obsolete and even the 19" seat is found only occasionally and then usually only because space requirement dictates the use of a few of these narrow sizes. Most auditoriums are concentrating on 20", 21", & 22" seats to give the public what is demanded. Obviously in an auditorium increasing the width Of the seat decreases the capacity for a given area but the objections to narrow seats have been sufficient to overcome objections to the extra space re- quired. The reasons for the increased width of seats are, first, people are getting bigger and their bodies take up more space and, secondly, people are demanding more èomfortable seating; the width of the seat is a major contributor to the comfort that can be built into the seat. Considerable data has been collected and serves to prove the fact that both children and adults are getting bigger. In a pamphlet published by the United States Department of Agriculture entitled, "Heights and Weights of Adults in the United States", Home Economics Research Report No. 10, measurements have been tabulated of a number of groups showing this increase over the years. One of the interesting charts in this book shOws the increase in height and weight of students entering Amherst and Yale Universities for many years. Through- out this research report many records prove the increase in weight which is, of course, a big factor in the comfort of the person seated. I have shown a chart of this collected data to accompany this report. One of the interesting figures show-n is that in 20 years-from 1935 to 1957 the average student increased 34" in height and about IS pounds in weight. Another interesting publication bearing on this subject is "Weight, Height and Selected Body Dimensions of Adults in the United States-1960-1962. This is a pub~ieation by the Public Heatlh Service No. 1000-Series 11-No. 8. In this study a nationw-ide probability sample 7,710 persons in the 18 to 79 age bracket was selected. and a vast amount of anthropometric data was tabulated. Interestingly enough they show seat breadth for men averaging 14" and a seat breadth for women averaging 14.4". This is one of the few body measurements in which u-omen exceed men. Also they go on to point out that the increase in size to the middle age maximum is slightly greater in women than for men. However, seating cannot be designed for averages and to use average dimensions is mis- leading w-hen considering adequate seat width. In this same publication they show' that to the 95 percentile men measure 16" in seat breadth and to the 99 percentile 17.4". For women in the same range-95 percentile 17.6" and the 99 percentile 19". The man reaches maximum seat breadth in the ages 25 to 34 whereas the woman attains this width somewhat later in life in the age brackets of 45 to 54. Since the usual seat in an inter-city bus measures approximately 34" between the two arms, it can readily be seen that tw-o women in the upper ranges of thOse dimensions would be squeezed in quite tightly in such a seat. For example, to accommodate larger women the PAGENO="0743" 731 seat just does not have enough breadth to even give them minimal sitting space. This publication from the U.S. Department of Heatili, Education & Welfare on page 21 makes an interesting observation and I quote it in the next paragraph as it appears there. "Changes in body size have been taking place throughout the course of human evolution, but various studies, some of which are cited here, indicate that these changes may have been sufficiently accelerated in very recent times to cause significant differences in anthropornetric surveys made only a few years apart. An indication of this trend is afforded by a comparison of Army inductees measured at three different times over the past 40 years.. Inductees during World War II were 0.67 inches taller and. 10.7 pounds heavier than the inductees of ~\Torid War I. Inductees measured during the .1957-58 were 0.50 inches taller and over 7 pounds heavier than the World War II inductees, thus making a total in- crease from 1917-18 to 1957-58 of about 1.2 inches and 19 pounds. "The same trend toward increased body size is also suggested ill civilian stud- ies. In two successive generations of Harvard students from the same families, the sons were 1.3 inches taller and 10 pounds heavier than their fathers were at the same age. A more recent study suggests that the average height of college students is continuing toincrease." Obviously from the statistics we can conclude that bus seats allow an inade- quate width for many persons today and it is reasonable to believe that the changes that have been recorded in body dimensions and the increases shown will continue. If we think in terms of the future the tight conditions existing today will become even more serious as time goes on. For comfort it is not adequate just to provide a minimal sitting breadth. A ierson cannot be comfortable when restricted from movement. For long periods of sitting such as is tl~e case in inter-city bus travel there should be opportunity for freedom of movement without the necessity for standing which, of course, in itself would be hazardous. We have been considering a seat breadth primarily but another factor is shoulder width. In a bus seat installation the seats are placed close to the wall in order to give sufficient aisle space. The person seated at the wall side of the bus quite often has interference at the shoulder level and lacks freedom of move- ment of the upper torso, when both seats are occupied, because the shoulder of the person seated next to him se~ eiely confines him 40 30 Source: Heights and Weights of Adults in the United States" Hor.e Econcirics Research Report No. 10 Agricultural Research Service United States Department of AgriceiltuN WEIGHT(POUNDS) 50 -YALE --~AMHERST SERIAL HEIGHTS A]iD WEIGHTS OF STUDENTS ENTERING i~~RST COLLEGE AND YALE UNIVERSITY FROM 1861 to 19S7. PAGENO="0744" 732 One of the important factors in seating fatigue is time. If we compare the relatively short time that a person sits in the theatre, perhaps an hour and a half or two, with the longer time that he is likely to sit in a bus, sometimes as much as six or eight hours, it becomes evident that unless the bus seat is com- fortable, sitting fatigue is a serious factor. If the seat is so cOnfining that there is no chance to shift a little in the seat to change the pressure on the sensitive popliteal area and the buttocks, then fatigue sets in quite rapidly. A wider cushion whether it is flexible foam or foam supported on springs, can be designed to give a much more comfortable cradling effect than a narrower cushion. It might *be interesting to remember that the airlines have recently been subject to criticism because of the relatively narrow seats that are provided in the tourist section of the cabin. The first class passengers get a very comfortable wide seat, 24 inches sometimes. Railroad seating too provides much wider seating per passenger than bus seating. In the case of the bus seat the vehicle size and the aisle width determine the sitting space so restrictively that some increase in the vehicle width is a real necessity before major improvements in sitting com- fort can be made. All the available data seems to corroborate the fact that people are getting larger and need more sitting space and that this trend will continue. The seat width that might have been adequate for the ancient knight whose stature was that of the boy of today is inadequate for a large percentage of the bus travelers of 19~8 and will be more inadequate in the years ahead. B. W. HENRIKSON, Vice President, Research an~ Development. COMPARISON OF INTERCITY BUS MODEL SPECIFICAT1ONS Item Dual level PD-4501 The Silver Eagle New bus, model MC-6X Seating capacity 43 46 43. Overall length 40 ft 40 ft 40 ft. Overallwidth 96in 96in 102 in. Overall height 10 ft. 1l~ in lIft. 2 in 12 ft. Weight loaded-(gross vehicle weight in pounds)...._ 40, 000 37,900 42, 000. Number of axles 3 3 3. Frontaxle 10,735 10.440 14,000. Dive axle 14.955 18,000 18,000. Trailing axle 14.310 9, 460 10,000. Underfloor luggage compartment capacity (cubic feet) 344 215 450. Engine horsepower, atgoverned speed 310 263 380. Engine horsepower perton of gross vehicleweight. 15.5 13.8 18. 05. Tire sizes: Front 11.00 by 19.00 11.00 by 20.00 13.50 by 24.50. Rear driving 11.00 by 19.00 11.00 by 20.00 13.50 by 24.50. Rear trailing 11.00 by 19.00 11.00 by 20.00 11.00 by 22.50. Total road contact area of tires (footprint area in square inches) 800 591 754.6. Road contact area per ton gross vehicle weight (area in square inches) 40.0 31.1 35.9. Total effective brake drum area (square inches) -- - 1909 1554 2116. Effective brake area per ton of gross vehicle weight. 95.45 81.7 100.6. Brake size (diameter by width of drums): Front l43/~ in. by 5 in 16~ in. by 4 in 1614 in. by 6 in. Rear driving 1414 in. by 8 in 1614 in. by 7 in 1614 in. by 10 in. Rear trailing 1414 in. by 8 in 1634 in. by 4 in 1434 in. by 5 in. Interior headroom at center aisle, minimum 7534 in 75 in 7634 in. Width between seats at center aisle 14 in 14 in 1434 in. Width of double passenger seat 38 in 38 in 40 in. PAGENO="0745" 733 COMPARISON OF INTERCITY BUS MODEL SPECIFICATIONS-Continued Item Single level, New bus, model MC-5A model MC-6X Seating capacity Overall length 35 ft 40 ft. Overall width 96 in 102 in. Overall height 10 ft 12 ft. Weight loaded-(gross vehicle weight in pounds) 28,733 42,000. Number of axles 2 3. Frontaxle 10,743 14,000. Drive axle 17,990 18,000. Trailing axle 10,000. Underfloor luggage compartment capacity (cubic feet) 212 450. Engine horsepower, at governed speed 255 380. Engine horsepower per ton of gross vehicle weight 17.50 18.05. Tire sizes: Front - 11.50 by 22.50 13.50 by 24.50. Rear driving 11.50 by 22.50 13.50 by 24.50. Rear trailing None 11.00 by 22.50 Total road contact area of tires (footprint area in square inches) 480 754.6. Road contact area per ton gross vehicle weight (area in square inches) - - - 33.4 35.9. Total effective brake drum area (square inches) 1184 2116. Effective brake area per ton of gross vehicle weight 82.5 100.6. Brake size (diameter by width of drums): Front 143/~ in. by 5 in_ - - -. 163-~ in. by 6 in. Rear driving 143~ in. by 8 in 16-~ is. by 10 in. Rear trailing None 143'~j in by 5 in. Interior headroom at center aisle, minimum 753.~ in 76~/4 in. Width between seats at center aisle 14 in 143/~ in. Width of double passenger seat 38 in 40 in. Mr. GREENSLIT. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I live in Chicago and appear before you today on behalf of Greyhound from which I just recently retired as chairman of the board having reached that ripe old age of retirement a few days ago. On behalf of the National Association of Motor Bus Operators, Greyhound is the largest intercity pa.ssenger bus operator and the identity of NAMBO has been described by Mr. Webb in the preceding testimony. The overall size and weight of the intercity bus needs to be in- creased in response to the demands of the bus traveling, public for greater comfort and safety. One of the principal factors necessitating increased overall vehicle width is the current increase in the physical size of the average Amer- ican. As Mr. Webb says, we are not only getting taller, we are getting broader. The present dimensions in the seating areas of conventional bus equipment are no longer adequate to provide a proper level of passen- ger comfort. In this connection, I invite your attention to a recent study of the American `Seating Co. on the trend toward installing wider and more comfortable seats in theaters, stadiums and other pub- lic places. Excerpts from that study are appended to my statement which as you said is included in the record. PAGENO="0746" 10 At the same time design progress makes it possible to produce a vehicle offering greater safety to passengers, the driver and other traffic. Key mechanical components which have either a direct or indirect effect on overall safety can be increased in size and capacity more than proportionately to the increased vehicle size and weight. Engine out- put, or power, can be greatly increased to give performance charac- teristics more than consistent with those of today's high-speed express- way `traffic. If you build a wider bus you can also build it higher and still stay within present height limitations. From this engineer relationship between width and heights comes significant advantages. By adding 6 inches to the width, the height. can be increased to 12 feet as compared with the 10 or 11 for the present vehicle and dual level buses. Here are the major safety advantages: 1. Greater overall height directly contributes to safety because it allows placement of passenger seats at a height from the ground above the point at which most collision impacts take place. The driver's position is also raised, ~`ivine him better visa.bility and more safety in case of headon collision. ~reater height reduces the accumulation of road splash and dirt on windshield and side windows in wet. weather. The increased, overall width also reduces the tendency of the front wheels to throw road splash and dirt up on the side windows because the structure can extend further beyond the outside edges of the front wheels. 2. Even though the bus is higher, the extra. width this permits a lower center of gravity which, in turn, imprOves resistance to over- turning and sidesway. 3. Liberalized, and rear axle weight. limitations permit more exten- sive use of stronger materials such as stainless steel which provides greater passenger protection and less structural wea.kness through corrosion. 4. The addition of over 6 inches in width in combination with the increased height make it. possible to use much larger tires. The t.ire footprint, the area in contact with the road, is substantially larger by 46 percent, providing greatly improved road adhesion, `better steering control, the greater skid re.sistance, and more effective braking. This also improves sidewise stability be.cause it `permits the use of a special rear suspension arrangement giving a lateral spacing between bellows of more than 2% times that possible wit.h a. conventional design. Wider spacing between dual wheel tires is also provided which gives cooler operation and which reduces the possibility `of blowouts due to excessive heat buildup. Larger wheel diameter and `width means greater brakeshoe area, that. is 68.8 percent total greater effective brake- shoe area, and 28.6 percent bra.keshoe a.rea per ton of gross vehicle weight. Wider brakedrums cut down on fading brake tendency. On passen- ger comfort, each pair of seats can be made 2 to 3 inches wider, t.hat is from 38 to 40, or 41 inches wide. From my own personal experience I can testify that t.he additional width in the seats adds immeasurably to the comfort and convenience of an extended bus trip. By not using all of the additional 6-inch width in widening the seats, we can increase PAGENO="0747" 735 the aisle width by at least one-half inch to facilitate loading and un- loading of passengers and their baggage. The additional height inside the passenger compartment makes it possible for most passengers to walk down the aisle to their seat with- out stooping. The additional height permits larger side windows for improved viewing. Greyhound has spent $2 million engineering such a bus as I have described which has been tested and has proved the advantages hereto- fore outlined. We thus irnow that the liberalization provided for in H.R. 14774 will add immeasurably to the comfort and safety of the bus riding public and we are hopeful of your favorable consideration. Coming at a time when the public is deeply concerned with highway safety, the intercity bus industry is ready, willing, and able to con- tribute its part to the furtherance of that safety effort. Attached to the statement is a printed sheet showing a detailed comparison between the specifications of the largest conventional type buses now being operated and the new one which Greyhound has engineered within the limits provided in the bill here under consideration. While I believe the attached sheet is self-explanatory, I will be glad to make any further explanation I can at your request. Thank you. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Thank you, Mr. Greenslit. Mr. Webb, in your opinion in these sizes and weights, if they can be increased, it would not have any adverse effect on the safety operation of your buses? Mr. Wni~B. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, the in- crease in the permissible width of buses would make possible even safer equipment than we have today. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. What is the maximum width of any bus now operating on the roads, a maximum? Mr. WEBB. In most states the maximum permissible width is 96 inches. There are exceptions in about 10 States for the use of buses of 102 inches on certain designated highways. There are three States, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Hawaii which allow buses 102 inches or in case of a war, 108 inches in width. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. What is the maximum length? Mr. WEBB. Forty feet is the maximum. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr~ Cramer, the gentleman from Florida. Mr. CRAMER. I yield to Mr. Harsha. Mr. KLUOZYNSKI. Mr. Harsha, the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. HARSIJA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Webb, I find myself in this position to have to make a statement, but I think out of fairness to you and your associates, I `believe I must make it. I am opposed to increasing the size and width of any bus at the present time because unfortunately I believe it is true the busdrivers are about as bad an obnoxious group of drivers on the highways. They turn on the turn signal and they think that invests them with the right to go wherever they want and choose. I know of people who have been practically run off the highways and I, myself, have almost been by these bus operators. I certainly do not look with enthusi'~sin on the idea of giving them something bigger with which to manipulate the highways. PAGENO="0748" 736 Irrespective of that, I would like to ask you some questions about your program here, this one dealing with the cloverleaf. Now, I understand this purports to show a bus of approximately 40 feet in length. Mr. WEBB. That is correct. Mr. HARSHA. And if you move it around the cloverleaf it strikes pretty close to the outside edge of that cloverleaf, in an effort to show the bus could make the cloverleaf in that paved portion of the high- way. What if the bus is 45 feet in length? Can it still make the paved portion of the highway? Mr. WTr~B. I would, if I might, ask Mr. Greenslit to respond to that. Mr. GREENSLIT. Well, I do not know that I can answer because we have never proposed a 45-foot-long bus so we have made no such study of that. Mr. HARSHA. You have never proposed a 45-foot bus? Mr. GREENSLIT. No, sir. Mr. HARsIIA. Has any of the associations been in contact with the Bureau of Public Roads on that? Mr. WEBB. Oh, no, not at all. I do not know of any consideration whatever being given by any bus manufacturer or any bus operator to increase the length of buses from the present. 40 feet. Mr. GREENSLIT. Intercity operators may have done this, people operating locally within the city. Mr. HARSHA. They are not a member of your association? Mr. GREENSLIT. No. We are primarily dealing with intercit.y buses and using the Interstate System. Mr. H~imsnA. Well, they are the worst offenders, the interstate buses. Mr. GREENSLIT. Most of the cities permit for instance a 102-inch- wide bus. A good many of our cities permit a 102-inch-wide bus now. Mr. HARSHA. Then you would have no objection to putting a limit on the length of the bus at 40 feet? Mr. GREENSLIT. No, sir. Mr. HARSHA. That is all I have. Mr. KLUCzYNsKI. Mr. McCarthy, the gentleman from New York. Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, yesterday we had some colloquy here that suggested that there is .a correlation between the length and width of a vehicle and its axle rate. For instance, I cited a speech that the Federal Highway Admin- istrator made before the Fiber Club Council which sa.id that heavy commercial vehicles comprising 7 percent of the registered motor ve- hicles in the Nation are involved in 19 percent of the fatalities. I would like to ask you if you have any corroboration of this. What is your accident experience? What I would like to know is what per- centage of the motor vehicle population of buses comprise interstate buses and then what percentage of the total deaths your vehicles are involved in. Mr. WEBB. I will be happy to supply for the record, Mr. McCarthy, the information in that form. I can tell you very briefly what our acci- dent experience is. In terms of passenger fatalities for 100 million passenger-miles of domestic passenger transportation for the 3-year period of 1964-66, here the rate for buses was 0.13. For the same period for all automobiles it was 2.4; for the railroads 0.09, for airlines, 0.20. PAGENO="0749" 737 Generally, over the past 20 years the figures show that travel by bus is approximately 15 to 20 times safer than travel by private automobile. Mr. MCCARTHY. You do not have now the figures I asked you for? Mr. WEBB. No, not in the form that you have requested, but we will be happy to put it in that form and supply it for the record. Mr. MCCARTHY. I would appreèiate it if you would because I think Mr. Edmondson of Oklahoma brought up this subject and I think it is very relevant to our consideration here. I mean if there is a correlation between size and fatalities then Ii think we are going to have to be very careful in what we do if by per- mitting larger sizes we are therefore creating more fatalities. I think we would be very reluctant to pass this bill to create more highway deaths. I think we should know if there is any such correlation. It would seem to suggest from. Mr. Bridwell's statement that there is, but 1 would appreciate it if you would supply us with that. Mr. WEBB. I will be glad to. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. The committee will be happy to have that in the records. (The information follows:) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR Bus OWNERS, Washington, D.C., June 17, 1968. Hon. RICHARD D. MCCARTHY, house of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCCARTHY: The following information is in reply to the questions you posed to Mr. Charles A. Webb, president of the National Associa- tion of Motor Bus Owners, on June 12, 1968, in the course of the hearing by the Subcommittee on Roads of the House Committee on Public Works. on HR. 14474. One question was for information relating to the proportionate numbers of interstate buses relative to total motor vehicle population in the United States and comparable accident experience in terms of fatalities. The table below shows pertinent data for 1966, the most recent year for which such figures are available. Insofar as buses are concerned, these figures relate to Class I motor carriers of passengers reporting to the Interstate Commece Coin- mission. The smaller (Class II and III) interstate carriers are not represented because of the lack of petinent data. However, data for the Class I operations are considered to be representative in view of the fact that these larger companies account for more than 85 per cent of passenger miles traveled in the intercity service of all carriers reporting to the Commission. Also of importance in connection with the present inquiry is the fact that the Class I carriers operate most of the newer, larger buses in use in intercity service. . Class I buses All motor vehicles, Total Percent of Total all motor vehicles Total fatalities 53, 000 130 0. 25 Vehicles 96,000,000 18,500 . .02: Vehicle-miles . 931, 000, 000, 000 1, 204, 000, 000 . 13 Occupant-miles (intercity) 1 990, 000, 000, 000 24, 200, 000, 000 2.40 1 Including travel for busdrivers and bus passengers and for estimated numbers of truckdrivers as well as for automobiiw passengers. .. . . . Sources: Total fatalities, National Safety Council; bus fatalities and vehicle-miles for buses, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of Federal Highway Administration; total vehicles and vehicle-miles, Bureau of Public Roads of Federal Highway Administration; passenger.miles (total and for buses) and number of buses, estimated by this association from all available data. . . PAGENO="0750" 738 As evidenced by the figures for passenger (occupant) miles, but operations are many times safer than are those of the average automobile. Occupants (inc'lud- ing drivers) of buses of the Class I carriers accounted for about 2.5 per cent of estimated total travel by occupants of all motor vehicles in 1966. On the other hand, the 130 fatalities resulting from accidents in which such buses were in- volved represented 0.25 per cent of the total of 53,000 motor vehicle accident fa- talities in that year. The outstanding safety of bus passengers is emphasized by the fact that only 13 of the 130 fatalities resulting from bus accidents in 1966 occurred among bus passengers and 7 were drivers. This outstanding record of safety has been attained despite the fact that buses are required to operate scheduled service under practically all conditions of w-eather and road. In this respect, bus operators are in a position very different from that of the typical private automobile operation, which can be suspended if conditions are not fully satisfactory. We hope this information adequately answers the questions you raised. We thank you for the opportunity of providing the information, and respec-tfully re- quest that it bemade part of the record of hearing on ll.R. 14474. Sincerely, STANLEY HAMILTON. ~Ir. kLuczYxsKI. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Schw-engel. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman, first a point. I want to say "amen" to what the chairman said about being fair in all the hearing he is pre- siding over and he certainly has been to me and I want to commei~d him for thatand publicly express my appreciation. Second, based upon information I am getting in the mails, certain misinformation is going out to my constituency and SO I reiterate now, especially for the benefit of the truckers, I am not against this bill nor am I for it yet. I am very interested in what we are doing here. I sat with many members of this committee for 74 days when we brought the greatest transportation system the world has ever seen into being, the Interstate System, and I am sorry now- that the people who benefited most dollar- wise have paid much attention on tInt and expressed appreciation to the committee for this. The fact that we have one of the finest systems in the world and the fact that we spent billions of dollars so that our society and industry can benefit and people can benefit makes it necessary for us to take pretty seriously what we are doing here, and before we act, Mr. Chair- man, I think we ought to have answers to a lot of questions that have been posed. A number of very sincere citizens in my State are very concerned. They want some answers to some of the questions and it had been my hope, Mr. Chainnan, that the people who are involved here might have a chance to respond to some of these questions. It is evident now this is not going to be possible. It may be when I put something in the Con- gressional Record, which I intend to do, I am not giving those who would like to have an answer a fair chance and for this, I am sorry. You will not have a fa.ir chance because we are not going to have extended hearings here, not a chance to defend some of the conclusions others have made, or explain them. It is for this reason that I want to appeal to the chairman that we give thorough and adequate consideration to the effects of the legisla- tion here proposed over the long run. I am not against t.he trucking business. I think this is one of the finest businesses and developments in this country, not the bus business. I think you are serving, gentle- men, a great need. PAGENO="0751" 739 The average citizen could not travel and see this great country of oms but for you The opportunities you have given people to le'un tbout this country of ouxs, and the ietired people who could not affoid to go by airplane. You are right in making them more comfortable. and for this, I commend you. With this statement, Mr Chanman, I pledge to you th'tt I will only take a fair amount of questioning and I will not under the circurn- stances be given a chance to ask the questions I have so I will just yield my time, w henevei the ch'uiman thmks I have had sufficient time to ask the questions, and I will yield to someone else and I will present, my case in the Congressional Record which I do not think is an ade- quate or fair way to approach the solution to the problem I have: pointed to. Now, if my time is up I will yield. If not, I would like to ask a few questions of these people. Mr. KLTJCzYNSKI. Well, the gentleman from Iowa, I would say to yok that I appreciate the kind remarks you said about the chairman and the purpose of the heariiigs you said you were not for the bill or against it now and I want you to know the chairman feels the same. as you d& and before I make up my mind, I want to give everybody interested,, w hether lie is for the legislation or ag'iinst it, I w'uit to gu e them a f'ur hearing and so we can sit down and get this testimony and statements together and sit down in executive session and I hope we can work some kind of legislation out that the committee has always done in the I~ast. Mr. Schweiigel, I think you are one of the oustanding members of our subcommittee. You have always been on the job. You have been present all the time and many times I was short of a member and I would call your office and you were right on the job, and I appreciate that very much. Mr. Cramer, the gentleman from Florida. Mr. CRAMER. I believe the gentleman from Iowa indicated he had some questions lie wanted to ask and I will yield to him for that purpose. But I would like to comment too, Mr. Chairman, just briefly. There are not too many matters that have had greater study by the Bureau of Public Roads, by the American Association of Highway Officials. There are not many subject matters that have had more reports and studies made thereon. There are not many subject matters that I know of on which there seems to be a common ground for understanding and somewhat agreement than the bill that we have before us and the subject matter we have before us which is now being testified about and was the other day by truckers, and what have you. I think I will say to the gentleman from Iowa that we do have very substantial documentary material based upon which we can make I think a sound judgment when it comes to the problem of marking Up this bill. As a matter of fact, we have so much material that I find it rather difficult myself to go through it all but I am confident as the chairman suggested that we can end up with a bill that will protect everybody's best interest and in particular, the general public. I will yield to the gentleman for whatever questions he has and on the 5-minute rule. PAGENO="0752" 740 Mr. SCHWENGEL. First, I want to say I appreciate your testimony and I am glad to see you here. I wonder, though, I know some of your forward looking plans. I know some of your people. I have been identified in Iowa with roadbuilding. I wonder why some information given now was not presented to us when we were having the hearings on the Interstate System a nmn- her of years ago. Mr. WEBB. The answer, Mr. Schwengel, is that the industry at that time had no plans or ideas to produce a wider, more comfortable, or better bus. So, the 96-inch limitations did not go in by this committee but as I indicated, by the Senate committee. It was not opposed by us because we simply had no plans at that time to make a better bus. Mr. SCHWENGEL. How many buses are in operation in the United States now? Mr. WEBB. Mr. Greenslit can answer. Mr. GREENSLIT. `My company which is the largest; the intercity buses we are talking about? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. Mr. GREENSLIT. Operate 5,300. It is pretty much a guess but some- where in the neighborhood of 28,000 or 30,000. Mr. SCHWENGEL. In your estimation how many would take advan- tage of extending the width? Mr. GREENSLIT. Well, it wOuld take us some time to replace our fleet. We have on order 50 at the moment. I would think it would take 3 to 5 years to have 50 percent of our fleet converted into this newer type equipment. Mr. SCHWEXGEL. But we are talking about 15,000 buses. Mr. GREENSLIT. That would be it, roughly. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Out of the total? Mr. GREEXSLIT. That is right. Mr. SOUWENGEL. I notice you have some seats in here. Are those the type you will use or those the type you are now using? Mr. GREENSLIT. That is one set of each. One of those sets of seats are the wider seats that we have engineered for the new bus and it is amazing if you will have a chance to sit in one of them how much dif- ference 11/2 inches in seat width means when you have two people sit- ting side by side. Mr. SCHWENGEL. How does this size compare with the airplane seats we have? Mr. GREENSLIT. Well, I would say that the present seat in the bus is comparable to a tourist seat in an airplane and the new seat, the larger, wider seat is not as wide as first class on an' airplane, but it gives you considerably more comfort and we have been able to develop this. Mr. SCHWENGEL. I have traveled almost always first `class in an air- plane and I have never seen seats that wide. ` Mr. GREENSLIT. Well, you will notice we do not have the arm rest in the middle which makes quite a difference. I think most of the airplane seats, there is an arm rest which takes up some of the width space. ` , , , , : Mr. SCHWENGEL. You are not worried about the weight? It does riot concern you at all? PAGENO="0753" 741 Mr. GREENSLIT. Not particularly. We would be in favor of a modest increase in axleload limits to 20,000 maximum pounds, but it is not necessary to operate this new bus we have engineered. Mr. SOHWENGEL. It would not be necessary at all? What is the average weight of the busload now? Mr. GREENSLIT. About 38,000 pounds. Mr. SOHWENGEL. On how many wheels? Mr. GREENSLIT. On two axles. Mr. SCHWENGEL. So you are w(ay under the maximum. Mr. GREENSLIT. That is right. Mr. SCHWENGEL. And if you went the full width you are asking for you would not begin to reach the maximum weight? Mr. GREENSLIT. Yes, we would on the rear axles because we have more weight on the rear axles, but we can get away from that by put- ting on a trailing axle to take some of the load off the rear. Mr. SOITWENGEL. But your total weight would never compare to a truck. Mr. GREENSLIT. No. Mr. SOHWENGEL. So really, you would not be affected if no change was made in the weight? Mr. GREENSLIT. The overall weight? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. Mr. GREENSLIT. No; the largest bus we have ever had loaded would weigh less `than 45,000 pounds even with three axles. Mr. SGHWENGEL. So there is no reason for you to ask for a weight lift in your buses. Mr. GREENSLIT. It is not at the moment. However, we can envision some things we can do with the axleload limit liberalization in the future. Mr. SGHWENGEL. I think that is the point we ought to have elabo- rated. What are those factors? Mr. GREENSLIT. One of the factors is we could eliminate the two axles. It is going to be pretty close on the weight limits on the rear axles of this larger bus we are talking about if we are limited to 18,000 pounds. We think we can do it, but it is going to be marginal and in order to do it we will have to throw some more weight on the front axles than we would like to do normally. Mr. SOHWENGEL. I will yield, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KLUCzYN5KI. Mr. Webb, those seats you have on display; are they being used now? Mr. WEBB. Those are seats manufactured by American Seating Co. and the two there on the left are the seats which are presently being used in the 96-inch bus. The other seats are those which would be used or could be used in the 102-inch bus. Mr. GREENSLIT. I might add, Mr. Chairman, we have had two on our experimental buses. Mr. KLUOZYNSKI. I do not think you would have room enough for `the chairman to get into one of those seats. Mr. GREENSLIT. If you sat in the smaller one first you would feel very comfortable when you got into the other one, I can assure you. Mr. KLUOZYN5KI. Mr. `Schwengel asked about the `airplane seats, and I have to ride first class because I cannot get into `the tourist seat. It is like sitting in one of those Navy planes with bucket seat's. PAGENO="0754" 742 Mr. GREENSLIT. I would like to add, Mr. Chairman, that we have two of these buses that we have engineered. 102 inches wide that have been operating now as a test for the Interstate System over the toll road between New York and Chicago with a special permit from the States involved and they have done a beautiful job and have had extremely favorable passenger reaction. Mr. K1U-CZYXSKT. What would be. the width of a railroad car? Mr. GREEXSLIT. Oh. a railroad car is much wider. Mr. KLUczYNSKI. Much wider Mr. GREEXSLIT. Oh, yes: half again as wide. Mr. KLT~CZYNSKI. I think Mr. Webb spoke about years ago you had two lane roads of 16, 18, or 20 feet with a shoulder so you do not have as many accidents now as you had years ago. Mr. GREEXSLIT. Oh, no. WTe have had the 96-inch width and I have been in the business for 40 years and we have had it since your primary roads were 16 feet. wide. Today, they are 22 and 24 feet wide and there is no safety problem in the additional 6 inches. As a matter of fact, it is, insofar as our business is concerned, we would improve our safety record tremendously because of the factors I have previously mentioned. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Years ago, if you traveled across the country, how would you operate? Mr. GREENSLIT. Twenty-five years ago we operated New York to the west coast, but we did not operate the same bus through. We went New York to Chicago: Chicago to Denver. It may have been three changes. Now we go all the way through. Mr. KLUCZTNSKI. Thank you. I appreciate your answers for my own information. Mr. Clausen, the gentleman from California. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you. gentlemen. for your fine testimony. It has been very illuminating. I am interested in the overall benefits that are going to be derived from this. Do you have anything in the way of a breakdown as to the mileage that you tra.vel between the Interstate System and shall we say the primary, secondary system ? Do you have any kind of a breakdown on this? Mr. GREENSLIT. Slight. Speaking for Greyhound at the moment we have not been able to arrive at any ~onstant because there is more and more mileage with the Interstate System being opened all the time and it is increasing tremendously. I would say at this moment about 25 to 30 percent of our total annual mileage is on the Interstate System. Now, when it is completed, I would think it might get as high as 50 to 60 percent. Mr. CLATJSEN. From the standpoint of meeting the public demands if you were sitting here in our position as cOmmittee members and you had the responsibility for allocating revenues where would you place the emphasis, on the primary, secondary, or on the Interstate System? Mr. GREENSLIT. Well. I personally feel that if the emphasis has to be placed, it has to be placed on the Interstate System to complete it as quickly as possible. That is probably where it ought to be placed. PAGENO="0755" 743 Mr. CLAUSEN. But again now meeting the needs of comrnunit~es and that sort of thing, how can you better serve the public, through the Interstate System or the primary and secondary system improvements. Mr. GREENSLIT. I do not believe I am in a position really, to give an intelligent answer to that because both types are used. The. local people use the Interstate System too, so it is hard for me to answer. Mr. CLAUSEN. Well actually, as I view the traveling public basmc wishes and we are dealing with different classes, it seems to me that the cross-country people certainly want to spend more and more dol- lars for air transportation and it just seems to me we could be doing more for people if we had more emphasis on the primary and secondary road system. I agree we have to complete the interstate first. But would you comment on that for me, please? Mr. GREENSLIT. If the emphasis on the primary and secondary sys- tern would get away from some of the congestion in the metropolitan areas, then I would probably agree with you. I do not know whether it would do that or not. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Any questions on my right? Mr. McEwen, the gentleman from New York. Mr. MCEWEN. Was it you who testified that 50 buses are now on order? Mr. WEBB. Mr. Greenslit testified that Greyhound has on order 50 buses. Mr. MOEWEN. I see. Mr. GREENSLIT. We have mentioned in our own plant and we have two models now, one we have sent to Europe to be tested with a differ- ent kind of engine and one that we have been operating with a special permit on the toll roads to work the bugs out of it between New York and Chicago. Mr. MCEWEN. What use do you have for these 50 buses if this legislation is passed? Mr. GREENSLIT. Well, of course, there are six States now that we could operate these 102-inch buses and the seventh State; namely, Georgia, by special permit. So we think that we could find a place for them temporarily. Mr. MCEWEN. Mr. Webb's testimony on page 4, he spoke about eight States permitting operation of intercity buses over designated highways. What are these, primary highways? Mr. GREENSLIT. These are primary highways. Mr. WEBB. That is correct. For example, Colorado, Idaho, and Indiana will permit these buses now over their highways provided that the highways are 20 feet in width. In certain other States you can get the special permission and there are about eight States in all where these buses can be operated today, but not over the Interstate System, of course. Mr. MCEWEN. Do you, Mr. Webb, have the list of the eight States that permit operationnow for buses over.96 inches? Mr. WEBB. Yes, sir; I do. You have Rhode Island and Connecticut, and that is because they permitted the~ 102-inch buses, and the State of Hawaii. 96-030-68----4S PAGENO="0756" 744 Mr. MCEWEN. What? Mr. WTEBB. Hawaii. Their limit is 108 inches and that operation was also permitted there on the grandfather clause. The other States where intercity buses can be operated on certain highways are Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Montana, and New Mexico. Mr. MCEwEN. Then additionally there are 10 States that you name specifically that have legislation that will permit 102.inch buses to use the interstate when it was enacted here into law. Mr. WEBB. Yes; there are 11 States and that legislation has al- ready passed, but its effectiveness is contingent upon the Congress acting favorably on this legislation. Mr. MCEwEN. Would it be feasible in the operation of your inter- city buses, the 102-inch bus just on the interstate or does it have to use the primary system? Mr. WEBB. We see no problem there, Mr. McEwen. The Interstate System will connect the major popula~tion centers. Then I am quite sure that by special permit they wifi connect the major population centers and in most of those centers, 102-inch buses are already being permitted within the city limits. It may be necessary in some cases to o~et a special permit to go perhaps a few miles from the Interstate ~ystem to a downtown bus terminal. Mr. MCEWEN. Mr. Webb, let me state one of my concerns. Before I state it, it was with some trepidation regarding this legislation which I thought was a very brief and simple comment and the ques- tion I have, and having made it I ftnd all my friends in the trucking industry called my office before I left this committee and which I will state here in a public hearing I resented just a little bit that I could not ask a question as a member of this committee without having a floodgate opened. I have friends in the bus business, too, and I hope I am expressing the concern or asking a question that a floodgate does not open up from the bus industry. Out of my burning curiosity, I will chance another floodgate being opened. I, like many people, own an automobile and drive on the highways. Like the gentleman from New Jersey on the committee who referred yesterday to his driving. I have to drive on Kenilworth Avenue and contend with trucks and buses with my Chevrolet when I am a little bit. outgunned in size. What I am concerned about is the effect of these buses. We have 102-inch buses on our primary and secondary systems. I can see that possibly they could be accommodated on the Interstate System but in my own State, my own district, and all over this country where I have traveled, I have seen primary and secondary roads that are certainly less than adequate with the trucks and automobiles and I am aware, too, that automobiles have increased in size. They are less than adequate now to accommodate the traffic we are carrying. This is the opinion of one who is driving the highways, not based on any studies, on any engineering, just sitting back of the wheel in my own private car trying to negotiate th~ traffic. Now, this Congress has not set requirements on primary and secon- dary roads regarding width. We have on the interstate. I want to say, speaking for myself, that I am concerned about what is the effect on an already antiquated, overburdened, desperately needed PAGENO="0757" 745 modernization and improvement, primary and secondary road sys- tems, that I feel have to be attended to now. Letme say that one of you gentlemen in response to Mr. Clausen's question, and I guess it was you, Mr. Greenslit, said you hoped to see this Interstate System completed. This is a feeling that is certainly shared by, I think, most all of the members of this committee. We want to see this completed, and one of the reasons we want to see it com- pleted is that there cannot be a difference between the primary and secondary systems. This is not going to be immediate. We are not getting the revenues, as you gentlemen well know, to meet the high- way needs of America now. I am concerned more than ever on the interstate, what its effect is going to be on the primary and secondary systems which admittedly we have not set any limitation upon, but nevertheless there is 50-per- cent Federal money going into these systems. Mr. WEBB. I would simply have to say, sir, that the Congress has left the matter of width for the primary and secondary systems to the States. Some States may feel they cannot increase the widths. Other States such as New York at its recent session, did increase the width, buses from 96 to 102 inches. Mr. MOEWEN. New York State, this last session did increase it to 102 inches? Mr. WEBB. Yes, sir; that is not in my prepared statement because the legislation was passed after I had originally written it. Mr. CRAMER. Would the gentleman yield, because I join the gentle- man in his concern with the possibility of overwidth buses using underwidth highways. Wh'at we need to bring into focus perhaps is what the `situation is and might be if this bill is passed and, of course, deals only with the Interstate System. The 1956 act also dealt only with the Interstate System, so the present situation, as' Mr. Webb `indicates, is that the States do them- selves withhold these matters on other than the Interstate System. Now, let us see what `happens there. As I understand it, the stand- ards required relating to other than freeway systems, meaning inter- state and freeway; that there `is a requirement set out in the geometric design standards for highways and other freeways approved October 7, 1961, and brought up to date subsequently of minimum widths for servicing two-lane highways, and that is dependent upon the design, speed, and the current usage, traffic usage, and it runs from a design speed of 30 miles an hour and 20 cars per day, 50 to 250 c'ars per day, with a minimum requirement of 20-foot width and `it goes up for, or from 250 to 400 daily usage, 70 miles an `hour, to 22 feet for two lanes and then up to 750 it goes to 24 feet, meaning 12 feet each for 70 miles an hour `and you get then to the same standard as you have on the freeway. So far a~s future construction `is concerned, it is pretty well con- trolled and governed for all practical purposes to at least, for high- ways the buses would probably use substantially 50 `miles `an hour, at least 22 feet, 450 to 700 usage, on any system on the freeway. Secondly, is it not my understanding that the States themselves, as you have indicated between-what is it, New York and Chicago-that PAGENO="0758" 746 in order to use these wider buses that you had to get State permission to do so Mr. WEBB. Right. Mr. C~rEJ~. And I presume that in order to ~et that permission you had to indicate what specific highways you intended to use; is that correct? Mr. WEBB. Right. Mr. Cr~rER. Is it correct to say further that the States did not give approval for highways that had less than standard 12-foot lane width? Mr. GREENSLIT. We did not ask for it. Mr. CRAMER. You obviously did not ask for it because it does not make sense. Mr. GREENSLIT. It would not have. Mr. CRAMER. I presume the States in carrying out their obvious responsibility would not give any consideration favorably to such a request. Mr. GREENSLIT. I would not think so. Mr. CRAMER. Because it would not be a safe proposition. The point I am trying to make, I am not beating anybody's kids, that the States having accepted responsibility, and I think these hearings would clearly indicate that this committee expects them to continue to do so, and your industry has indicated you are willing to recognize. that there are certain highways that are unsafe and you do not intend to ask for a permit on those highways; is that so? Mr. WEBB. Yes. My own State of Virginia is a good example. In the legislation they passed this year they restricted the 102-inch bus to a four-lane divided highway. They thought that was proper for the State of Virginia. The bus industry supported the bill. We did not ask for the right to go over some of the narrow roads in the mountainous areas of Virginia. Mr. CRAMER. As a matter of fact., the grandfather clause, which was written into the 1956 act with no opposition apparently, is there are a number of States that could permit substantial increases in either, and on the Interstate System. Mr. WEBB. And do so. Mr. CRAMER. And do so, weights and axle weights, and what have you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KLUCzYN5IU. Any questions on my right? Mr. Wright, the gentlema.n from Texas. Mr. WRIGHT. It seems strangely incongruous to me, Mr. Webb, and I presume it does to others, that the most restrictive regulations would apply on the Interstate System which is presumably the one system best capable of carrying this kind of traffic. Mr. WEBB. Well, it seems so to me. In Maryland, for example, they passed legislation that will permit 102-inch-wide buses to use the primary and secondary systems in Maryland. But obviously, not all of that system is as good as the Interstate System which they cannot permit buses to travel on. Mr. WRIGHT. In reality, what is being sought in this legislation would be a greater freedom for the States individually to make their PAGENO="0759" 747 own determinations without being unduly restricted by Federal law with respect to the Interstate System. That is about what is involved; is it not? Mr. WEBB. That is correct. Mr. WTRIGHT. So, if a State wants to retain the 96-inch width, for example, throughout its interstate, it may do so. Mr. WEBB. Certainly. Mr. WRIGHT. If, on the other hand, it wants to designate certain highways over which it would feel that it could safely promote vehicular transportation of 102 inches, it could do that and then retain a lesser restriction on certain other highways within that State. Mr. WEBB. That is right. Mr. WRIGHT. And if the State should wish in its wisdom to retain what laws it presently has, there is nothing contained herein that w-ouid be any impetus, really, to any State to change its laws unless it desired to do so. Mr. WEBB. I see none. Mr. WRIGHT. It seems to me all we are seeking to do is to recognize the improvement that has been brought in the Interstate System and then to let the States have the latitude within their own volition to permit somewhat wider and somewhat heavier transportation on the interstate. That is all that is involved in this: is that not so? Mr. WEBB. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, I yield. Mr. CRAMER. I know all of us have been upset and provoked other drivers, although I do not think it is so much problem with the buses and trucks, but the buses back up one to the other on the highway causing a passing problem. Do you have any driver regulation on dist'uices that must be maintained, p'issmg of buses on hills, et cetera ~ Mr. GREENSLIT. We do. Mr. CRAMER. What are they? Mr. GREENSLIT. Our rules provide there shall be a minimum of one bus length for every 10 miles an hour speed so that if they are going 60 miles an hour and the bus is 40 feet long, it would be 240 feet minimum. Mr. CRAMER. Are your drivers pretty well schooled on that traffic regulation? Mr. GREENSLIT. I hope so, but I am sure there are some violations of that and, of course, you are talking about Washington and New York where there seems to be more buses than any other place. There must be 50 different companies operating There are so many mdivid ually owned charter companies where you do not always have the s'tme rn'inagement oper'itmg these buses that are right together Mr CRAMER Do you have ~ny coordination with the State police to see that this is carried out, that it is not violated, or is it strictly driver regulation? Mr. GREENSLIT. It is primarily our regulation. I think our regiila- tions are more restrictive tha.n any State or police regulations. Mr. CRAMER. I wish some of these city bus systems would adopt some type of regulation rel'tting to distances between city buses You get two or three of those stacked up one behind the Other and there is no way in the world traffic can go around it. PAGENO="0760" 748 Mr. MCCARTHY. Would the gentleman from Florida yield'? Mr. ORAMER. The gentleman from Texas yielded to me. Mr. McO~THY. Would the gentleman from Texas yield? Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. Mr. MCCARTHY. What would be the width of three buses stacked as the gentleman from Florida suggested, one right after the' other. What is the length of the typical bus? Mr. GREENSLIT. It is 40 feet. Mr. MCCARThY. So that three of them would be, if they were close to each other, the gentleman from Florida would suggest about 120 feet. Mr. GREENSLIT. That would be the length. Mr. MoC~&nri~. I would like to say it would be almost impossible to pass. I have a picture here of one of the new rigs that is running on the New York State Thruway which is three separate trailers. I might just pass this around. It is 105 feet in length. If we pass this bill, this would be permitted, three trucks actually, one tractor and three trailers in a row. It would be almost the same as three buses stacked right close to one another. Mr. GREENSLIT. I guess that is so. Mr. McOARTHY. Would one of your buses have difficulty passing something like this? Mr. GREENSLIT. Well, it depends on what kind of road you are on. It would be no problem on the Interstate System, assuming the truck was in the right-hand lane and left the; passing lane open, there would not be any problem. Mr. MCCARTHY. I think the gentleman from Florida's point is a good one, that the individual buses running two or three together pose a tremendous problem. If we pass this, you will have trucks like this rig, that are 105 feet long and it. will be the same thing. Mr. GREENSLIT. Well, that is true. Mr. CRAMER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. McC~rHY. Yes. I yield. Mr. CRAMER. Of course at the present time there is no prohibition relating to length in the present law. So the basic question is whether there should be any relating to the interstate. Mr. MCCARTHY. The' effect of increasing weight. will be to permit longer lengths. Mr. Cn~&i~n~n. I disagree with you. Mr. GREENSLIT. That will not be true on buses. Mr. WRIGHT. It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that the situation pictured here in the photograph that Mr. McCarthy has shown us, if a truck of this length is now permitted on a primary system within a given State, it is somewhat beyond the scope of the present, law and would also be beyond the scope of this suggested amendment. All that would be involved in this proposal would be to permit the States more freedom to determine what may be done on the Interstate System within certain limitations. Now, it strikes me that a situation like this portrayed in the photo- graph could be extremely hazardous if it were permitted on a two lane road where you do not have a free and clear passing lane. I would hate to have `to follow a thing like that down a narrow highway and try to'pass it. PAGENO="0761" 749 It occurs to me that it would pose no problem on the Interstate Sys- tem if it is constructed to proper standards with, two or three lanes going in one direction. That would be the only place I would like to see this kind of rig. Mr. MCCARTHY. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. Mr. MCCARTHY. This is being run on the Interstate System now. It seems to me to be a violation. I do not know how they do it. It is being run now on the New York State Thruway which is part of the Interstate System and I am just not clear on how they do it. I am going to try to find out. Mr. WRIGHT. If such a rig is running in violation of existing law, that law would not be affected at all by the legislation we are con- sidering. It is merely a matter of enforcement. Mr. CLAUSEN. Would the gentleman from Texas yield? Mr. WRIGHT. Ye,s. Mr. CLAUSEN. Gentleman, we in this committee are faced with the basic dilemna of recognizing the tremendous needs to complete the interstate with the primary and secondary road systems and end up with enough money. How, in your judgment, keeping in mind the basic business prac- tices, should these improvements be financed? Everyone seems to recognize there is a need, and that is true~ Mr. WEBB. The position of our industry has `simply been that we are willing to pay our fair share `of what the cost is and we know it is going to be higher. Mr. CLAtTSEN. So, in your judgment when Government starts to lay out its budget priorities you agree with some of us that the road im- provements of this country are one of the areas that we should give top priority to? Mr. WEBB. That is correct. Mr. CLAIJSEN. And you are willing to pay more as long, as it is consistent with a fair share concept? Mr. WEBB. That is correct. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Any further questions or comments? Hearing none, I want to thank you gentlemen for the, splendid statement you .have made and your testimony. You have been very helpful `to u's. Thank you, again. Mr. WEBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GREENSLIT. Thank you, sir. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. The next witness will be Mr. George F. Kachlein, Jr., executive vice president', the American Automobile Association. We are glad to have you with us, gentlemen. Please identify the per- son accompanying ~ ou for the record STATEMENT OP GE0R(~E P. KACHLEIN, IR., EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, ACCOM- PANIED BY `CHARLES BRADY, DIRECTOR OP HIGHWAY DEPART- ME~NT, TILE AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION Mr. KACHLEIN. I am accompanied `by Mr. Charles Brady who is director of our highway department, Mr. Chairman, and he will sit with me. He is the expert in this field. PAGENO="0762" 730 Mr. KLvCZYNSKI. We are glad to have both of you with us today. Mr. IkA0HLEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and honorable mem- bers of this committee. We do appreciate this opportunity of appear- ing before you on this very important piece of legislation. I have presented to you, Mr. Chairman and members of the commit- tee, a prepared statement which I asked be incorporated into the record. Knowing your desire to shorten the time of the hearing. I have made a summary statement which I shall give. Mr. KLvJCZYXSKI. We appreciate it and your prepared statement will be made a part of the record at this point. (The full prepared statement of Mr. Kachlein follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE F. KACHLEIN, Jn., EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT, AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION The American Automobile Association with 11 million motorist members opposes HR. 14474 and other bills which would permit larger and heavier trucks on the Interstate System. These measures would present serious safety hazards to all highway users for the benefit of the operators of only 250,000 heavy trucks which would be able to take advantage of the heavier weights and increased sizes permitted. If enacted, such legislation would bring about substantial increases in cost to the construction of highways and bridges and accelerated depreciation in the expected life of such facilities, accompanied by substantial increases in maintenance costs. AAA believes that truck combinations are already too large. The passenger car operator and our members in particular, intuitively fear sharing the same highway with such huge trucks. Our member hates to pass them because he can never be sure of what lies ahead until he moves into the opposing lane of traffic. In rain or slush his windshield is invariably inundated beyond the capability of his wipers, restrict- ing his forward vision and creating uncertainty as to safe passage. He doesn't like to be followed by them for just as often as not they seem to be climbing up his rear bumper. He doesn't like to follow them because they block his forward visionand they slow his travel speed on upgrades. The motorist's intuitive fear of the heavy truck is well-founded. Whenever a truck and car collide it is the occupant of the car who is most likely to suffer injury or death. A study by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety in 1967 showed that almost half of the fatal and injury-producing accidents involving common carriers re- suited from collision with an automobile. For every truck driver who died in such accidents, 38 others died. Mr. Lowell K. Bridwell, Federal Highway Administrator, recently told the Private Truck Council that heavy commercial vehicles comprising 7% of the na- tion's registered motor vehicles and accounting for 11% of the total vehicle miles traveled were involved in 19% of the highway fatalities. He noted that studies by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety revealed that four out of every ten vehicles selected for inspection in road checks were ruled off the road temporarily. Brake defects were the major problem. VEHICLE WIDTH Legislation before the Committee would increase permissible width~ on the Interstate System from 96 inches to 102 inches, plus additional width necessary for tire bulge due to loads and safety devices. llTsing figures of the Industry Advisory Committee, composed of the American Trucking Associations, Incorporated and suppliers, the 102-inch width could mean an over-all width across the tires of 106 inches. This does not include tire chains or flexible fenders. When such items are added we are really talking about an over-all width of 108 inches-a full twelve inches above the present statutory limit. Don't forget. No traffic movement begins or ends on the Interstate. Other routes must be used as connectors. Sixty percent of the rural road mileage on state Primary systems in 1966 had traffic lanes less than twelve feet wide. A PAGENO="0763" 751 twelve-foot lane is the minimum width needed to accommodate a vehicle 102 inches wide. Despite the glamour of the Interstate highway network, some 88% of our state Primary highways are two-lane, and the bulk of our travel is now and will continue to be over such two-lane roads. Since the legislation before you would permit a vehicle over 102 inches, it will permit vehicles which are obviously too wide for the traffic lane. This creates a tremendous safety hazard. Over 70,000 miles of state primaries are two-laners with lane widths of less than ten feet. VEHICLE WEIGHTS Increases in axle weights have had direct and inevitable effect on the life of pavements and on the safety of bridge structures. H.R. 14474 would permit the maximum single axle weight to be increased from 18,000 lbs. to 20,000 lbs., and the tandem axle limit to be increased from 32,000 lbs. to 36,000 lbs. Only eight out of every one thousand motor vehicles are truck combinations of four or more axles. Yet this small number of trucks places an additional burden on highway and street systems which has caused a substantial increase in the cost of future road construction in order to accommodate their particular needs. The small proportion of vehicle population is also a major factor in main- tenance costs of existing highways and streets. If the weight of trucks and combinations is further increased, existing roads and streets will deteriorate at an accelerated rate. The cost to replace bridges and roads thus prematurely destroyed will become an increasingly heavy tax burden on the operators of 78 million passenger cars and the 14 million light truck owners whose needs do not require these heavy facilities but who bear the major share of the cost of providing and maintaining them. A pavement e~ aluation sur~ ey conducted by the ~mei ic'in Association of State Highw ay Officials indicates th'it mci easing the axle w eights to those permitted under HR. 14474 would reduce existing pavement life 20% and increase re- surfacing costs 30%. The 1968 Cost Estimate adds $1 billion to the 1965 Cost Estimate to ac- commodate hea\ ier and moi e frequent ti uck loadings than oi iginally forecasted It is noteu oi thy that this mci eased cost w as based on existing truck sizes and weights. If sizes and weights are increased, the ~1 billion figure will have to be increased. When a bill similar to H R 14474 w `is consideied in the Senate Senator John Sherman Cooper (R-Ky.) requested.the Bureau of Public Roads toprovide an estimate of the cost if axle limits w ei e mo~ ed to the 36000 lb limit He was advised that the increased cost for the Federal-aid road system would be more than ~3 7 billion The cost of incieasing the weights to a 34 000 lb maximum was set at $1 8 billion The 34 000 lb limit has been passed by the Senate lotal additional cost could reach $4.7 billion, depending upon the weight limit. This in- cludes the cost of new constiuction as well `is the necessary costs of upgiading construction already in place BRIDGES The ability of a specific road network to accommodate trucks of a given size is to a great extent limited by the ability of the bridges to carry the sizes and w-eights operating over that system. Even the newest of our bridges-those on the Interstate System-have beeii designed to: accommodate vehicles with axle weights no greater than 18,000 lbs. single, 32,000 lbs, tandem. Bridges designed to to less than this standard cannot accommodate the 18,000-32,000 lb.loads already encountered w-ithout overstresses which reduce the safety margin designed into the bridge. In testifying before the Senate Public Works Committee on the subject of bridge design, Mr. Frank C. Turner, Director of the Bureau of Public Roads, indicated that increases to a 34,000-lb. tandem axle from the present limit of 32,000 lbs. would overstress Interstate bridges by 32 to 36%. He further indicated that the majority of bridges on our Primary and Secondary Systems are less than H-iS design. This' is a bridge to carry a 15-ton load. Overstress on these bridges, brought about by increases in axle weight's, would be much greater than on the Interstate bridges which are designed for heavier loads. PAGENO="0764" 732 In the same hearings, Mr. John 0. Morton, President of AASHO, testified that the current practice is to design highway bridges for the 32,000-lb. axle loading. This limitation applies to our current Interstate bridges. Mr. Frank Masters, Jr., consulting engineer for the firm of Modjeski and Masters, testified before the same Senate committee that the conservative design of many old bridges incorporates a safety factor which has enabled them up to now to carry increased weight and an increased frequency of heavier loads than was forecasted when they w-ere built. However, he noted that "-the bridges which we are designing today are being limited by specifications and standards to structures with capacities slightly in excess of what is expected on the day such spans open." He goes on to say: "In fact. the narrowing margins of safety on many older bridges is of such common knowledge within the engineering: profession that even the civil engi- neering exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution comments on it by citing the mam- moth modern day traffic loads being handled by bridges designed in an era of horse-drawn wagons." He also stated: "Adding significantly to the problem is the growth of freight being carried by the trucking industry in vehicles which are now averaging loads of more than 13 tons as compared to 7½ tons per vehicle carried in 1940." And one final quotation from `Mr. Masters: "I understand that legislation now before Congress proposes a new standard of axle weights that will, in effect, permit 76,000 lbs. and larger vehicles. This is difficult to comprehend when you consider the fact that almost half the bridges and even fewer highways in the Federal-aid Primary and Secondary Systems are designed for vehicles of 15 tons." Early this year, the AAA conducted a nationwide survey of state highway departments to determine the loading characteristics of bridges on Defense Re- quirement Routes. These routes are routes for military movements in a national emergency. For the most part these routes are used today for. the great bulk of our long distance truck traffic. The alarming report by the highway departments of 38 states and the District of Columbia is that more than two-thirds of all these bridges are Inadequate for today's heavy truck traffic. Further, nearly half of these bridges are seriously inadequate. You will note from the attached tabulation that 67.8% of the bridges were reported to be of a design standard less than the 11-20-8-16. This bridge design is one which will accommodate a 32,000-lb. tandem axle loading. It is the current standard for Interstate bridges. However, almost half of the bridges reported in the AAA survey were of H-15 design or less. Such a design accom- modates only 30,000 lb. without experiencing stresses beyond the design limit. There is no practical way to strengthen a bridge to carry a heavier weight than that for which it was originally designed. And there is no maIntenance effort that can be appiled to the bridge which would offset overstressing and fatigue of principal bridge members. Although it is doubtful that immediate bridge failure would result from over- stress, even the bridge experts refrain from speculating on what the margin of safety would be for fatigue-weakened bridges. This unknown quantity makes the safety factor all the more critical, because it is unmeasurable and unpredictable. In opposing weights proposed in S. 2658, similar to those proposed under H.R. 14474. Mr. `Virden E. Staff, Chief Highway Engineer for the State of Illinois, stated: "S. 2658 wil permit vehicles on 118-20 bridges to produce stresses beyond the present design limits * * * on 11-15 bridges to produce stresses in the unsafe range * * * on less than 11-15 bridges to produce stresses that can be expected to result in failure." (Note: 118-20 bridges are designed for 40,000 lbs.) Mr. Ward Goodman, Director of Highways for the State of. Arkansas and Chairman of AASHO's Committee on Bridges and Structures, told the Senate Public Works Committee: "The provisions of S. 2658 will overstress bridge design for H-15or less to a dangerous extent, even up to 40%." He noted: PAGENO="0765" 753 "There are 518,226 highway bridges in use now that were built prior to 1936. They are over 30 years old and practically none of them were designed for loads over the 11-15 design load and many are for the equivalent of 11-12, 11-10, or even less." EFFECTS OF INCREASING SIZES AND WEIGHTS Roads and bridges are designed for specific weights and expected volumes of traffic. It is easy to change a vehicle dimension, harder to change a road, but almost impossible to change a bridge. Are we going `to destroy the completed sec- tions of the Interstate System for the sake of 250,000 truck's? We must find a top limit on vehicle dimensions and weights and stick to it. VEHICLE LENGTH I-JR. 14474 fails to provide a maximum length limit. Absence of a length limit or maximum gross weight limit will lead inevitably to longer combinations on our nation's highways. We could have double bottom combinations as well as `triple bottoms with vehicles well over 100 feet long. This will turn our Interstate high- ways into truckways, with highway freight trains making travel so uncomfortable and so hazardous `that passenger car operators will be forced off `the newer highways onto other roads not frequented by trucks. Does this sound a little far-fetched? According to a recent article in Oommercial Car Journal, triple truck trains have been operated `by Western Gillette on an unscheduled basis for the last four years. A vice president of that company confidently predicts that triples will be in regular use by 1970 or 1972 at the latest. The same issue carries a notice that the New York State Thruway Au- thority and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority have been approached on the use of triple bottoms. Since the appearance of this issue, the Massachusetts Turn- pike Authority has granted this request. The bill before you contains no provision assuring adequate operating charac- teristics so as to make such large trucks compatible with today's traffic. AASHO has recommended that the minimum weight/horsepower ratio be at least one horsepower for every 400 lbs. This should be the absolute minimum and should be specified in the law or by safety standards of the National Highway Safety Bureau. THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE HR. 14474 contains a "grandfather clause" permitting states which already have higher weights and greater dimensions than contained in the present bill to retain such higher limits. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 also had such a "grandfather clause." There may have been some justification for the "grandfather clause" in 1956 because the effects of heavy trucks on our bridges and roads did not appear to be adequately documented. After spending $27 million to find the answers, we now know what these effects are. There is no longer any justification for continuation of the "grandfather clause." To permit some states to con'tinue with heavier weights and greater sizes than permitted for other states continues the same situation which has led the truck- ing industry and others to press for increased weights. The "grandfather clause" in Section 127 of Title 23 should be eliminated. States presently having higher axle weights and heavier gross weights than permitted in Section 127 as presently written should be required to conform to the lower weights within a stipulated time interval. RECOMMENDATIONS AAA makes the following recommendations: 1. No upward revision in the present axle weights or gross load limits in Title 23. 2. Width limit be retained at 96 inches. 3. The establishment of a length limit or maximum gross load limit so as to preclude the possibility of extremely long truck combinations. 4. Elimination of the "grandfather clause." 5. Establishment of a weight/horsepower ratio of at least 400 to one for all trucks. This should be accomplished either by statute or appropriate safety standard. PAGENO="0766" - 0 C,, 0 CD - ~ (0 C-~-, ~CC~ 01 01 - 0) 00 ~ to N~ (CC CD 0 (/) ~ CD ((C 01 ((C DC ((C ~) CCC 01 CD - ~ ~ ~01~CC:~CCC~ ~ a)~~ CD C'..) o),a)C.oo(CcD4~0ocoCo01oo.jo,CJ,.(C-CoCD(0CDr.(CC,,--..(..: 00)CD_~~P~~C.): 00 I (I) ~ ((1 ..-. ... -- --F ~9' ~ ~~--- *CCC~-* rn 01 ~ CDCCDCCJCCDOD ((~~`.)N)4 ~`. a CD ~ (CCCDC-0C01(0Q( 1 N.) p : C N) ~ C 01 - (0 C - -~ 0)01 00 CD 0 01 0001 010)0) 000001t0U1C(C0)~0)U1CDC, 0000010101 J0101(~ ~C01 N)(C1 ~ 0101 ~ tJ101~0D01 ~ CJ10D4~ C/) ~C/) (/1 C rI> CO (DC CO CO C-01)-~N)o.) ~ i 0 C')(/J(-~ ~01~o-' N)CCC (0 ~ (0 ~ D~CDCD(0000)Q1~0O01N)010001~0101N)(31CD010101(001CD01Q01C..CD/~0) ~ - 0 C) CD 1J PNP'~~-°P. P'?°'~~. PP°PP~P~N ~ 010 00 01(00)01(00101001 01010 ((CO 01(0 -401 0100 (CC~CD~CD ~ CD C-) Q Q) CD -00010000 PAGENO="0767" 755 sent serious safety hazards to all highway users for the benefit of only 250,000 heavy trucks at this time which would be able to take advan- tage of the heavier weights and increased size permitted. If enacted such legislation would bring about substantial increases in cost to the construction of highway and bridges and accelerated depreciation in the expected life of such facilities accompanied by sub- stantial increases in maintenance costs. The AAA believes that truck combinations are already too large. The passenger car operator and our members in particular intuitively fear sharing the same highway with such huge trucks. The mortorists intuitive fear of the heavy truck is well founded. Whenever a truck and car collide it is the occupant of the car who is most likely to suffer injury or death and not the truck driver. A study by the Bureau of Motor Carriers Safety in 1967 showed that almost half of the fatal and injury-producing accidents involving common carriers resulted from collisions with an automobile. For every truck driver who died in such accidents, 38 others died. Mr. Bridwell, the highway administrator recently told the truck council that heavy vehicles comprising 7 percent of the registered motor vehicles account for 11 percent of the total vehicle miles traveled and were involved in 19 percent of the highway fatalities. Now, let us take a look at vehicle width which you heard testimony on today and yesterday. Legislation before the committee would in- crease permissible width on the Interstate System from 96 inches to 102 inches plus additional width necessary for tire bulge due to loads and safety devices. Do not forget traffic neither begins nor ends on the interstate. Other routes must be used as connectors. Sixty percent of the rural road mileage on State primary systems in 1966 had traffic lanes less than 12 feet wide. A 12-foot lane is the minimum width needed to accom- modate a vehicle 102 inches wide. Using figures of the Industry Advisory Committee composed of the American Trucking Associates, Inc., and suppliers, the 102-inch width could mean an overall width across the tires of 106 inches and some testimony says 108. This does not include tire chains or flexible fenders. When such items are added we are really talking about an overall width of 108 inches, 9 feet, and not 8 feet. It is a full 12 inches above the present statutory limit. This creates a tremendous safety hazard. Percentagewise apply it and you are talking about not just a small increase but a 12.5-percent increase. VEHICLE WEIGHTS Increases in axle weights have had direct and inevita~ble effect on the life of pavements and the safety of bridge structures. If the weight of t.rucks and combinations are further increased, existing roads and streets will deteriorate at an accelerated rate. The cost to replace bridges and roads thus prematurely destroyed will bcome an increasingly heavy tax burden on the operators of 80 million passenger cars and the 15 million light truck owners whose needs do not require these heavy facilities but who bear the major share of the cost of providing and maintaining them. PAGENO="0768" 756 If you look at the records provided by the heavy truckers they are talking about 11 percent use and yet, the other people, the 89 percent would be the ones who would bear the greater share of the cost of this accelerated deterioration of our highways for the benefit of the 250,000 truckers. BRIDGES Ability of a specific road network to accommodate trucks of a given size is to a great extent, limited by the ability of the bridges to carry the sizes and weights operating over the system. Even the newest of our bridges, those on the Interstate System which I have heard so much about recently have been designed to accommodate vehicles with axle weights no greater than 18,000 pounds single, and 32,000 pounds tandem. Bridges designed to lesser than this standard cannot accommodate the 18,000/32,000 pound loads already enc.ountere.d without overstress which reduces the safety margin design in the bridge. This testimony before the Senate Public Works Committee on the subject of bridge design by Mr. Frank Turner, Director of the Bureau of Public Roads, indicated that the increase to a 34,000-pound tandem axle from the present limit of 32,000 pounds would over-stress inter- state bridges by 32 to 36 percent. That is a 2,000-pound increase-32 to 36 percent overstress! Mr. Frank Masters, Jr., consulting engineer for the firm of Mojeski and Masters, testified before the same Senate committee that the con- servative design of many old bridges incorporates a safety factor which has enabled them, up to now, to carry increased weights and an increased frequency of heavier loads that was forecast when they were built. However, he noted that the bridges which we are designing today are being limited by specifications and standards to structures with capacities slightly in excess of what is to be expected on the date such spans open. He also stated: I understand that legislation now before Congress proposes a new standard of axle weights that will, in effect, permit 76,000 pounds in larger vehicles. This is difficult to comprehend when you consider the fact that almost half the bridges and even fewer highways in the federal aid primary and secondary systems are designed for vehicles of 15 tons. Earlier this year the AAA conducted a nationwide survey of State highway departments to determine the loading characteristics of bridges on defense. requirement routes. These routes are routes for military movements in national emergency. For the most part, these routes are used today for the great bulk of our long-distance truck traffic.. The alarming report by the highway departments of 38 States and the District of Columbia is that more than two-thirds of all these bridges are inadequate for today's heavy truck traffic. Further, nearly half of these bridges are seriously inadequate. You will note from the tabulation attached to my statement that 67.8 per- cent of the bridges were reported to have been designed to standards less than H. 20-5.16. This bridge design is the one which will accorn- modate a 32,000-pound tandem axle load. It is the current standard for PAGENO="0769" 757 interstate bridges. However, almost half of the bridges reported in the AAA survey were of H. 15 design, or less. Such a design accommo- dates only 30,000 pounds without stress beyond the design limit. There is no practical way to strengthen a bridge to carry a heavier weight than that for which it was originally designed and there is no maintenance effort that can be applied to the bridge which would offset overstressing and fatigue of bridge members. Let us turn to vehicle length. H.R. 14474 fails to provide a maxi- mum length limit. Absence of a length limit or maximum gross weight limit will lead inevitably to longer combinations on our national high- ways. We could have double bottom combinations as well as triple bot- toms with vehicles over 100 feet long and as you recall, Mr. McCarthy gave a glossy print of one that was 105 or 108 feetlong, that is now being used on the New York Throughway. This will turn our inter- state highways into truckways not passengerways, but truckways and busways for which the Interstate System was not created. It will make our highway freight trains so large, so long that again, as I say, these will be roads that will be frequented by the truckers to the exclusion, if you will, of you and me as a passenger car operator. Certainly now, this was not the intention of Congress in creating the greatest Interstate System, the greatest highway system that has been built in this world. A vice president of Western Gillette Trucking Co. confidently pre- dicts that triples will be in reoular use by 1970 or 1972 at the latest. As I said, the New York ~tate Throughway Authority and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority have already been approached on the use of triple bottoms and already have granted the use of the same. The picture as you saw clearly indicates that it is already in use. Now, the effect of increasing size and weights. Roads and bridges are designed for specific weights and expected volumes of traffic. It is easy to change a vehicle dimension. It is harder to change a road, but almost impossible to change a bridge. Are we going to destroy the completed sections of the Interstate System aiid jeopardize hundreds of billions of dollars invested in other Federal-aid roads for the same 250,000 trucks? We must find a top limit on vehicle dimensions and weights and stick with it. Let us turn to the grandfather clause about which you heard the truckers say yesterday: "If you take out the grandfather clause then we, together with others must oppose the passage of this pending legislation." H.R. 14474 contains a grandfather clause permitting States which are already having higher weights and greater dimensions than con- tained in the present bill to continue higher limits. The Federal Aid to Highway Act of 1956 also had such a grand- father clause. There may have been some justification for the grandfather clause in 1956, because the effects of heavy trucks on our bridges and roads did not appear to be adequately documented. After spending $27 mil- lion to find the answers, we know now what these effects are; there is no longer any justification for continuation of the grandfather clause. To permit some States to continue with heavier weights and greater sizes than permitted for other States continues the same situation PAGENO="0770" 758 which has led the trucking industry to press for increased weights. Remember, they stated: "We have new techniques," as did the bus operator toda.y; "We have found new things, and, therefore, we should increase the weights. We should increase the widths." Yes, for our purposes. But what for the passenger driver and the light trucker? And at whose cost? The grandfather clause in section 1~7 of title 23 should be elim- inated. States presently having higher axle weights and heavier gross weights than permitted in section 127 as presently written, should be required to conform to the lower weights within a reasonably stipu- lated time interval. There should be no harm or no damage given to the truckers or the others who have presently abided by the weights authorized by States; but within a reasonable time, they should be made to conform. This is not something unusual in our law. Thus the American Automobile Association makes the following recommendations: 1. No upward revision in the present axle weights or gross load limits in title 23; 2. Width limit be retained at 96 inches; 3. The establishment of a len~th limit or a maximum gross load limit so as to preclude the possibility of extremely long truck com- binations, such as the picture which has been introduced and show as an exhibit; 4. Elimination of the "grandfather" clause; and 5. Establishment of a weight to horsepower ratio of at least 400 to I for all trucks. This should be accomplished either by statute or appro- priate safety standards. Thus, gentlemen, this concludes my direct presentation of the posi- tion of nearly 11 million members of the American Automobile Asso- ciation. Our membership comprises nearly 12.5 percent of the total individual passenger car operators operating on our Interstate Sys- tems and primary and secondary systems, today-a system which you gentlemen over the years have so ably provided by proper legislation. And in turn, we expect you to, in your good judgment, see that our interstate, our primary and secondary systems are properly protected for the overall use of all of the people of these grea.t United States. Thank you very much. Mr. KI~trczYxsKI. Thank you, Mr. Kachlein, for that splendid state- ment of yours. Also we appreciate your cooperation with the commit- tee in making your remarks very brief and right to the point. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas at this time, Mr. Wright. Mr. WRIGHT. I do not quite understand your contention with respect to weight. Is it your position that the present design standards for bridges on the Interstate System are inadequate to carry the weight that would be permitted under this bill? Mr. KACHLEIX. Yes, sir. Mr. WRIGHT. You feel the present interstate standards for bridges would not adequately permit the kind of weight that the bill would allow? (At this point, Mr. Roberts assumed the chair.) PAGENO="0771" 759 Mr. KAGHLEIN. That is right, sir. That is not based upon my judg- ment; it is the testimony introduced into the Senate hearing by AASHO representatives as well as represeotatives from the Depart- ment of Transportation. A statement was made at the hearing yesterday which I think should be corrected. Mr. Wind-IT. Excuse me, sir. I did not mean to interrupt, but are we not dealing with a different bill now than the one to* which that testimony directs itself? Mr. KACHLEIN. As you recall, the AASHO provisions provided f or 20,000 pounds on single axle and 32,000 pounds on tandem weight and not `the 34,000 pounds. The statement was made yesterday by the truckers-it may have been made inadvertantly-that AASHO had approved 34,000 pounds tandem, and I think if you will look at the record and also the state- ment `that was made by the president of AASHO, he stated that that been made inadvertently-that AASHO had approved 34,000 pounds Mr. WRIGHT. I think this is a matter that ought to be cleared up. Mr. KACHLEIN. I agree with you, Mr. Wright. Mr. WRIGHT. The question is basically an engineering one, it seems to me. Mr. KACHLEIN. That is right. Mr. WRIGHT. It appears to me the committee should seek the best engineering advice available. But it would be a question, it seems to me, of fact, fundamentally, rather than one of just unsupported opinion on either side. Mr. BRADY. Mr. Wright, the statement was made at the bridge inspection maintenance and design hearings held by the Senate Public Works Committee, it was made by Mr. Turner, and I am paraphrasing here; Mr. Turner indicated that increases to the 34,000-pound tandem limit, as proposed in this bill and as the Senate at that time was proposing in 5. 2658, as amended, would overstress interstate bridges by 32 to 36 percent. In the same set of hearings, Mr. Morton, who was president of AASHO, indicated that the interstate bridges are designed for 18,000 pounds single, 32,000 pounds tandem, which are the limits in the present section 127. Mr WRIGHT Now, what does the Senate bill that was passed peimit with respect to this maximum? Mr. BRADY. 20,000 pounds single, 34,000 pounds tandem. Mr. WRIGHT. So it is your contention that the Senate bill itself permits 2,000 pounds, tandem weight more than the bridges are prop- erly designed for? Mr. BRADY. That is absolutely correct. Mr. WRIGHT. I think that is a question of some vital importance. Because, after all, what are we relating to this legislation is the Inter- state System and interstate standards. As I understand it, the committee is not `tttempting to draw `~ conclusion with respect to the adequacy of the State restrictions on primary and secondary highways, observing the comment-60 percent of rural road mileage on the Interstate System in 1966 had traffic lanes less than 12 feet wide. This, however, it seems to me, would be somewhat beside the point. 96-030-68----49 PAGENO="0772" 760 All we would undertake to do with respect to either the Senate bill or the House bill would be to create a ceiling applicable only to the Interstate System. Beyond this, the State would have the privilege of allowing certain sizes and weights of vehicles, of restricting them as it sees fit. Now, as far as primary system is concerned, as you know, our Federal law does not touch that. It never has. Mr. KACHLEIX. Except that you contribute 50 percent to the pri- mary system and 50 percent to the secondary system on a matching fund basis, so you do have an interest in what happens. Mr. WRIGHT. Well, certainly we have an interest, but- Mr. KAOHLEIN. I understand. Mr. WRIGHT (continuing). The point I was making is that the com- mittee and the Congress have always felt that the States within their own jurisdictions could exercise whatever regulations they deemed appropriate. Mr. kAcrn~EIx. I agree with you, Mr. Wright. Mr. WRIGHT. You are not taking the position, I gather, that we should extend these restrictions to cover all secondary and primary roads, are you? Mr. KAOHLEIN. We are not, sir. Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you. Mr. ROBERTS. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRA~rrn. The statement was very interesting and very helpful to us. Of `course, I have be.en appreciative of the tremendous amount of work done by AAA relating to high*ay matters and am appreciative of the automobile user interest generally expressed by your association. There are some matters here that I find it rather difficult to under- stand in my own mind in view of your testimony, in particular, and I just reexamined a transcript of a Senate hearing on bridge safety, which seemed to pretty well substantiate your testimony. We have asked for and received a study from the Bureau of Public Roads and the Secrdtary of Commerce, whicli were submitted on August 1~, 1964, which I am sure you are familiar with, on the subject, "Maxinmm Desirable Dimensions and Weights of Vehicles Operated on the Federal-Aid System." On page 5 of that report, it sets out the recommended maximum single axle weight, and I quote-page 5, paragraph 5, subpara- graph (b): The maximum single axle weight shall be 20,000 pounds and the maximum tandem axle weight shall be 34,000 pounds. Which is, as I understand it, the bill before us. Mr. BRADY. That is correct. Mr. CRA3rrn. If what you sa~y is correct-and my questions should not be interpreted as questioning any of your testimony, but why would the Department of Transportation recommend the limits set out ill this bill if it has the effect as you have indicated in your testimony? Mr. BRADY. Mr. Cramer, I do not wish to speculate on why the De- partment of Transportation has set out certain recommendations when their own report shows some other matter. But I think you have hit right at the heart of the problem here, and that is the problem of de- signing these roads for an unknown quantity. PAGENO="0773" 761 Mr. Kachlein, iii the introduction to his statement, said that we would have to, at some time, come to a determination of what the sizes and dimensions of these vehicles will be that we expect to use these roads. Now, to ask a highway engineer to design a highway for an un- known quaiEity, such as the size and weights to be carried, not only on the roads but on the bridges of these roads, is a very unreasonable thing to do. At some point in time there has to be some understanding~ some provision whereby when the highway engineer designs this facility, he has to know for what type of traffic and the size of the vehicles, and at least as best as he can foresee the volume of such ve- hicles. We do not have this in this legislation. Mr. CRAMER. Well, if Mr. Turner's opinion is what you said it is, and he so testified before the Senate hearing on bridges, do you have any thoughts or information on how this report would have been set up recommending the higher by 2,000 pounds single axle weight and higher tandem axle weight by 2,000 pounds? Mr. BRADY. Mr. Cramer, this is the report by the Department of Commerce. What the recommendations of the Bureau of Public Roads were to the Department of Commerce I do not know, but this is a question that perhaps you should ask them. Mr. CRAMER. We are going to have them before us hopefully this afternoon. I will ask that question. Now, in addition to that, the so-called bridge formula is the same as was recommended on the same page of the report as in the present bill. I guess it would not serve any purpose to have the same question relating to it a~s I did to the single axle and tandem axle weight. We will address those questions to Mr. Bridwell. Let me ask you this question: Is it true or is it not true that actually permitting an 18,000- or 20,000-pound-vehicle axle maximum has a greater stress on bridges than a 34,000-pound tandem axle unit? So I mean, my point is, you are in favor of an 18,000-pound single axle, then is it not true that when it relates to bridge stress, a 34,000-pound tandem axle really has less bridge stress than does an 18,000-pound single axle? Mr. BRADY. I am sorry, I am not a bridge design engineer, and I could not answer that off the top of my head. I could get the informa- tion for you and supply it for the record if you wish. Mr. ORAMER. Is it not logical that an 18,000-pound single axle would have greater stress effect than a 34,000-pound tandem axle? Mr. BRADY. It is possible. A great deal depends on frequency of such stresses, too, you know. Mr. CRAMER. Now, you have here in your statement a study of the Defense Highway System and bridges in the respective States as it relates to whether they are H-10 or 11-15 or 11-20. Is it your position that the proposed legislation could not even be properly carried on the 11-20-S-16-type bridge? Mr. BRADY. That is correct, sir. Mr. Turner has testified, as you indicated, and as we indicated, that those limits, the 20-34, which is in the proposed legislation, would overstress interstate bridges `by over 30 percent. PAGENO="0774" 762 Mr. CRAMER. `Well, as I understand it, the testimony was to the effect that it would have a lesser length life by using the higher axle weights. That is the effect of it, is it not? Mr. BRADY. Well, that would be the effect. Mr. Cn~rru. One of these days the bridge is going to fall down? Mr. BRADY. They will not fall down, but you cut back the bridge life and this is a cost.. Mr. CRAMER. Of course, this legislation deals solely with the Inter- state System and your testimony deals with substantially the primary system. Mr. KACHLEIN. Not necessarily, Mr. Cramer. If you will take a look at it, the Interstate System, we stated, was designed on the bridge structure to the one which, if this law were passed, would decrease the useful life of the bridge-and according to Mr. Turner's testimony, overstress them by 30 percent. Because it is the Interstate System that is also defective in its design factor for the proposed legislation; namely, the 20,000 pounds and the 34,000 `pounds tandem. Mr. CRAMER. `Well, I asked the previous question relating to single axle and tandem axle, and there has been a report made on the matter. I think perhaps that report answers the question, going from single axles, from 18,000 to 20;000~ the equivalent factor of increased per- centage of the relationship of load effect on road pavement structure is a 51-percent increase relating to single axles, and then 32,000 to 34,000 relating to tandem axles, 27 percent. So in effect, the effect is about double, going from single to tandem. I think that answers that question. When we enacted this 1956 bill, there was talk about a grandfather clause. Now, there were some 19 States, according to the paper we have available, in which the single axle and tandem axle maximums in those States were in excess of the then proscribed interstate 18,000 and 32,000 maximum's. Now, of course, those `have been in existence and been per- mitted since 1956. how do you justify in your testimony that we should not preclude those excesses? Mr. KACuLEIX. We justify it on the ground, sir, that during the 12- year period we have learned our lessons. We have had tests made. We know what damage is being done. As a result of it, just like we learn in connection with billboards and the like-we had billboards for many years, but we found that they were interfering with the natural beauty of the highways, and there- fore we took steps to reduce the use of the billboards on the highways. And here is a case where we say we take steps to reduce certain types of trucks that are damaging the highways, and we give them a reasonable time in which to get off the highways. Mr. CRAMER. Well, I think you could pick a better example {laughter] because it appears to me ~h'at the effect of billboard regula- tion at least relating to the Interstate System-of course, they have been in existence in many States and accepted under the bonus pro- vision since 1958, so we have had billboard coi~trol on the `Interstate System since 1958. But it appears to me that largely the effect has been they just build bigger billboards beyond 660 feet. Mr. KACHLEIN. But you are asking legal justification and I at-' tempted to give it to you; just like we do in any other manner where PAGENO="0775" 763 we find that it is not proper use, we take means to gradually reduce the use without injuring appreciably the people who have been using it. Mr. CRAMER. The grandfather clause that we have in the bill pres- ently, I have asked some of the witnesses if they would not agree to limit or `to eliminate, in effect, that grandfather clause, bringing it up to date, as it relates to the Interstate System. And of course that is all we are talking about in this legislation. That would be considerable im- provement, would it not? Mr. KACHLEIN. rfliat would be improvement, sir, yes. Mr. CRAMER. And it appears there seems to be pretty much agree- ment on doing that. Mr. BRADY. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. Yes? Mr. BRADY. You hit the real problem yesterday in referring to this grandfather clause- Mr. CRAMER. Yes. Mr. BRADY. Concerning the States which have, subsequent to 1956, passed enabling legislation permitting heavier sizes and weights off interstate roads than currently permitted on interstate roads. This is a ridiculous situation when the interstate is supposed to be built to the highest design standards. This emphasizes the importance of setting the standards on the interstate as well as other highways. We just have to reach a point w~here we design for a specific vehicle. Whether we are designing on interestate or other highways, we have to design for `t specific type of vehicle, ~nd not permit `i i esti iction on one class or system of highways to lead States to permit heavier vehicles on another class of highways, then come before the Congress and sa.y, "We are being trea~ted unfairly, we haye got to get this re- striction removed and get the heavier vehicle over on the highest de- signed highway." We will just be backhe.re a couple of years from now arguing the same case. Mr. CRAMER. Well, you agree, do you not, however, that limiting the effect of the grandfather clause does not apply to the Interstate Sys- tem? Bringing both State laws up to date for the grandfather clause purposes from 1956 to 1968 is a considerable improvement in the legis- 1 ~tion, would you not say ~ Mr. BRADY. We would like to see the grandfather. ç~lause eliminated. Mr. CRAMER. I understand. Mr. BRADY. There is no justification for it in our view. Mr. CRAMER. It would have the effect of eliminating from 1956 to 1968, would it not, any increase in States during that period? Mr. BRADY. Your proposal would. Mr. CRAMER. So actually we are not making any change. in the pres- ent law as it relates to that? Mr. TCACHLEIN. Right. Mr. BRADY. Under your proposal. Under the bill, there is quite a substantial change, yes. Mr. CRAMER. I understand. Under my proposal, do we make any change as it relates to the grandMher clause? Mr. BRADY. That is correct. Mr. CRAMER. That is all I have. Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you. The gentleman from New York, Mr. McCarthy. PAGENO="0776" 764 Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some of the people from the trucking industry told me that you are the only organization that opposes this, that most of the people involved with the highways are in favor of it. Do you know of any other organizations, bodies, who have expressed their opposition to this? Mr. BRADY. If you are asking about the provisions in the present bill- Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes. Mr. Bma~r. The provisions in the bill under consideration here, H.R. 14474 are for 20-36 on the weights. Certainly the Department of Transportation is opposed to this bill. AASHO is opposed to this. The National League of Cities testified in the Senate in opposition to an identical bill, although I do not know if they intend to testify here. And of course we are opposed to it. If you are considering S. 2658, as passed by the Senate, AASHO has a position which is currently 20,000 single, 32,000 tandem, although I understand they indicated in hearings here that they could live with 34,000. We are opposed to this. I do not know how the National League of Cities stands on this S. 2658 as amended. Mr. MCCARTHY. Have any other municipalities taken a position? Mr. BRAnY. It is our understanding the city of Chicago has passed a resolution opposing the Senate-passed bill, S. 2658. Mr. McOAirrHY. Do you have a copy? Mr. BRADY. I have the Chici~go one, yes. Mr. Mc~CARI'iry. I wonder if we could have that for the record, Mr. Chairman? Mr. ROBERTS. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record at this point. (The resolution follows:) RESOLUTION Whereas the city of Chicago has received national recognition during the years past as thesafest of an large cities in the United States; and Whereas the city of Chicago is constantly and continuously, through the Bureau of Street T±uffic and the Chicago Police Department, exploring ways to improve upon this outstanding record; and Whereas there is now proposed legislation pending in the Senate of the United States to permit heavier and wider trucks and buses on the Interstate Highway System; and Whereas a recent study of trucks subject to regulation of the Interstate Commerce Commission showed that their mileage death rate was more than twice that of all motor vehicles; and Whereas the American Automobile Association has stated that this bill would open the door "to increased discomfort and hazard to the vast majority of the motoring population to confer special favors on a small minority"; Now, there- fore, be it Resolved, That the City Council of the city of Chicago, ever mindful of high- way safety, does hereby unanimously urge the Congress of the United States to defeat any legislation to permit heavier and wider trucks and buses on the Inter- state Highway System; and be it further Resolved. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to forward copies of this resolution to representatives from the State of Illinois in the Congress of the United States. Adopted Friday, May iT, 1968. PAGENO="0777" 765 Mr. MCCARTHY. Another contention was made that this would result in lower rates, that the benefits would be passed onto the ship- pers. And then I read, I think the same day, that they are now before the ICC seeking increased rates. Are you familiar with that? Mr. Bi~n~. I am not familiar with the specifics of. the petition for rate increases, but the general thrust of the truckers testimony seems to be that this will bring about a lower cost to the consumer. At the same time, the Congress is considering weights, they are pushing for higher rates to the consumer. Mr. MCCARTHY. Where do you get your figures here? You say this is only 250,000 and we had disagreement on that yesterday on how many trucks we are talking about. Where do you get that figure you used, 250,000, which you say is only 7 percent. Mr. BRADY. It is a very small percentage of the vehicle populatton. Mr. MCCARTHY. What do you base that on? Mr. BRADY. This is based on information in House Document 354 of the 88th Congress. This is the report that Mr. Cramer mentioned a moment ago, "Maximum Desirable Dimensions and Weights of Vehi- cles Operated on the Federal-Aid Systems." On page 109 of that report relating to four and five axles and heavier vehicles, the report indicates that only a third of the loaded vehicles weighed more than 60,000 pounds. Now, we are talking about substantially in excess of 60,000 pounds, and a third of these vehicles could probably use to advantage higher permitted axle weights or greater lengths. These are the four to five axle combinations. According to the report, the number of such corn- binations which could use heavier weights was 190,000 in 1962. Now, in the 1967 edition of Motor Truck Facts, on page 28 of that booklet, it is indicated there were 732,558 four and five axle cornbma- tions registered in 1966. One-third of this number-on the assumption about the same number now as in 1966 could use heavier sizes and weights, if permitted-one-third of this number is 244,186. So we just rounded it off and said 250,000 vehicles. (At this point Mr. Kluczynski resumed the chair.) Mr. MCCARTHY. That would not jibe with another representation made to me that they paid 40 percent of the trust fund. Do you have any figures on what the heavy trucks contribute to the trust fund? Mr. BRADY. These figures are inanother report. Just amoment. I have before me the Supplementary Report on Highway Cost Allocation Study, made by the Secretary of Commerce to the Congress in the 89th Congress, first session. There is a summary, table 4, on page 20 of this document, which shows, if we consider these same four and five axle vehicles, and larger vehicles, that they contribute $368.9 million of the total of expended truck fund receipts for that year of $3,354 million, which represents 11 percent of the trust fund revenue in 1964 contributed by the combinations of four or more axles. Mr. MCCARTHY. Would you say that ratio would be fairly close today? Mr. BRADY. It would be fairly close today, although subsequent to this report, all of the truck excise taxes were put into the trust fund: only 50 percent of them were deposited in the trust fund in 1964. Of course, the excise taxes on passenger cars goes to general fund, as you know. PAGENO="0778" 766 Mr. MCCARTHY. This grandfather clause strikes me as sort of an un- ending thing, a cycle of ancestor worship. Wrhat would be the effect if we continue the grandfather clause in here, now? I could envision a situation now where we would bring in higher limits that have been set by certain States between 1956 and 1968, and I say, in 5 years, we will sta.rt this all over again. What are the States that would be permitted higher weights than we are enacting here be- cause of the grandfather clause? About three? Mr. BRADY. We heard yesterday there are three or four States. Mr. MCCARTHY. South Carolina? Mr. BRADY. South Carolina is one. I have a chart here which shows som~ of these. Mr. MCCARTHY. Montana? Wyoming? Mr. BRADY. Maine was one mentioned yesterday, and I think Ver- mont was also mentioned and Montana. Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes. Mr. BRADY. New Hampshire. Mr. MCCARTHY. So in 5 years we have a situation where they could come in say, ~WTeli, now look here, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine., Montana, they have higher rates and: we have got to compete." And then we could go through this cycle again. Do you visualize this as a real possibility? Mr. BRADY. It is a. very distinct and;real possibility. It happens now that the States in the West have come in and asked for the same types of axle weights we have in the east. With the grandfather clause in, you are going to continue what may be referred to as an unbalanced situa- tion. We will be back, as I mentioned to Mr. Cramer, a couple of years frOm now going over the same ground. Mr. MCCARTHY. Just one more. According to the figures I have here, 67.8 percent of the bridges on the primary and secondary. system- this is my mathematics-are designed for less than an 18,000 pound single axle and 32,000 pound tandem axle. Does that jibe with your figure? Mr. BRADY. Well, this is what we found in our survey to State high- way departments, Mr. McCarthy. But one must remember that this is a particularly high class network of roads. These are defense re- quirement routes which, for the most part, are the best routes we have in the country to move troops and civil defense equipment in the event of a national emergency. They are, for the most part, also the routes used today for the over-the-road heavy trucking operations. But we have some 31~ to 3~z~ million miles of roads in this country, much of which is built to considerably lower standards than the de- fense requirement routes. So that the 6~.8 percent is on our best net- work. If we included all the other roads, I am sure the percentage would be much higher. Mr. MCCARTHY. I am finished, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KLUCzYN5KI. I would say the gentleman from Iowa was very, very kind to compliment the chairman, too, by the. way, and I had to compliment him right back: he lived within the 5-minute ruling. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California., Mr. Clausen. PAGENO="0779" 767 Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you, Mr. Kachlein, your testimony will cer- tainly be of very great value to the committee, particularly from the standpoint of presenting a balanced point of view for the committee. On page 2 of your testimony, you make reference to the fact: Mr. Bridwell * * * recently told the Private Truck Council that heavy corn- merical vehicles comprising 7 percent of the nation's registered motor vehicles and accounting for 11 percent of the total vehicles miles traveled were involved in 19 percent of the highway fatalities. Now, I am wondering if either one of you gentlemen could give me an idea of how they arrived at the figures, or in your judgment, as it relates to your testimony, does this include the small pickups, the panel trucks, and of course the number of farm trucks; or was this a separate figure do you know? Mr. KACHLEIN. I will ask Mr. Brady to answer that one. Mr. CLA SEN. Yes, indeed. Mr. Bn~~nv. Mr. Bresnahan testified yesterday, at least he submitted for the record a supplemental statement going into this matter. Ac- cording to this statement, the presentation of Mr. Bridwell was based upon all vehicles t.hat~ were larger than two-axle, four-tire vehicles. The thrust of Mr. Bresnahan's statement was that these are not really the heavy trucks that are involved. However, he estimates that the heavy truck percentage is 1.54 percent of the registrations, or least it was 1.54 percent of the registrations in 1964; and that the mileage of the heavy trucks, according to his computations, was 5.33 percent of the total mileage; and that of fatal accident involvement, that was 11 percent of the fatal accidents. So either Mr. Bridwell's statement or Mr. Bresnahan's statement is equally acceptable to us on this issue. They are both equally bad. Mr. CLAUSEN. I see. It indicates thereare differences? Mr. BRADY. There apparently was-I do not know the detail of what the Bureau of Motor Carriers used in preparing Mr. Bridwell's stat.emeiit. If Mr. Bridwell is going to be before you, you might check with him on this. But we will accept either one. They show relatively the same picture. Mr. CLAUSEN. Now, also the next paragraph says: "He noted that studies by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety revealed that four of every .1.0 vehicles selected. for inspection in road checks were ruled off the road temporarily." I wonder, for clarification, could you define this selection for inspection? Mr. BRADY. I believe these were the regular ICC inspections that were made at the specific road checks; but this, again,. .1 do not know the basis that was used in supplying the material to Mr. Bridwell. I do have a copy of his speech here. Perhaps that will reveal some- thing. Mr. CLAUSEN. Well, I guess I will not pursue that any further. Now, the next final question that I would have just for clarification, you mentioned earlier something about the need to establish standards. You were. discussing this with Mr. Cramer. Were you talking about design standards? PAGENO="0780" 768 Mr. BRADY. I was talking about the need to establish the parameter of the problem. We are building highways, which, if properly maintained and if used to their best advantage, we hope will last 50 years. Now, after we put these highways in place, even before we put them in place, we should know the size of the vehicles that we expect to operate over them so that we can design them sufficiently so tha.t they will operate the way we expect them to operate. Now, we have been in this interstate program now for 12 years. We have designed for a specific size of vehicle, 18-32 according to the testimony of the Bureau of Public Roads and AASHO. This is the size of the vehicle that we have designed for. Now we are asked to in- crease these weights. We had an overall gross weight when we started, 73,280 pounds. There will be no overall gross weight under the present legislation. What we are doing, in effect, we are asking the highway engineers to design a highway to bea.r whatever weights we may at some date in the future determine shall be using this facility. We should design our bridges for practically any weight or a~ny width vehicle that will be using it. This is a pretty unreasonable situation to put the highway engineer in when he is expected to design a facility that is going to last x number of years. Mr. CLAUSEN. Well, I am sure I am no expert in traffic engineering, but one thing that strikes me, based upon your comments, that we are all sort of paying the price here to answer technology in demands and so on. It is sort of like a cat chasing its own tail. We are describing cir- cumstances. Because of all the economic factors involved, what eco- nomic pressures we have would change the size of equipment that would be put to use and that sort of thing. It does point out one thing, we cert~inTy are going to be extremely busy in all of these categories. Mr. KLUCzYNsKI. Any questions by the gentleman from Iowa? Mr. McEwen from New York. Mr. McEw1~N. Mr. Kachlein. I want to clarify if you could an item in your statement. You speak of the proposed 102-inch width, mean- ing an overall width across the tires of 106 inches. You say this, refer- ring to the 102 inches, does not include tire chains or flexible fenders. When such items are added, you say this brings the overall width to 108 inches, or 12 inches above the present statutory limit. Now, what I want to clarify, are you saying that the present 96-inch width is held specifically to that width? Mr. KA0HLEIN. No. sir; I do not want to leave that impression. There is approximately 6 inches difference because you have your over- hang under your 96 inches presently, sir. Therefore, you would be talk- ing about 102 and 108 inches. Mr. MOEwEN. Right. Mr. KAcm~EIN. When you get your overhang and your hardware on it. Mr. MGEWEX. I take it you would amend your statement and say it would not add 12 inches over the present statutory limit? Mr. KACHLEIN. That is correct, sir. PAGENO="0781" 769 AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Washington, D.C., June 21, 1968. Hon. ROBERT C. MCEwEN, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. M~ DEAR Mn. MOEWEN: When I appeared before the Roads Subcommittee on June 12 on HR. 14474, you questioned our testimony dealing with the proposed increase in truck widths from 96 inches to 102 inches. That statement reads: "Using figures of the Industry Advisory Committee, composed of the American Trucking Associations, Incorporated and suppliers, the 102-inch width could mean an over-all width across the tires of 106 inches. This does not include tire chains or flexible fenders. When such items are added we are really talking about an over-all width of 108 inches-a full twelve inches above the present statutory limit." Rechecking Section 127 of Title 23, I find our initial statemen:t was correct. The present law does not permit any portion of the truck to exceed 96 inches,. whether for the tire bulge or safety items or not. The legislation before you, however, provides: "or with a width in excess of 102 inches plus additional width necessary for safety devices and tire bulge due to loads". (Emphasis added). The portion underlined is new; there is no com- parable provision in existing law. Thus, we would go from a 96-inch width to a 102-inch width, plus six inches for safety devices, making a total increase of twelve inches. I would appreciate it if you would please include this letter in the hearing record at the appropriate spot. I understand the record will close today. Sincerely, GEORGE F. KACHLEIN, Jr., Executive Vice President. Mr. MCEWEN. Those same additions would apply? Mr. KACULEIN. Would apply; yes, sir. Mr. MCEWEN. I notice one thing, you did include in here, additional width, this matter of mirrors. I guess usually the pasenger vehicle can pass under the mirror? Mr. BRADY. We could probably put the extra 6 inches on for the mirror and still bring it up to 12. Mr. MCEwEN. Thank you. Mr. KLTJCZYNSKI. Mr. Schwengel, the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad to~ see you fellows from AAA here. I know about your organization. I worked with your organization in Iowa when I was with the legislature. You have been before this committee a number of times and have been very helpful, and most of the time you have worked with trucks ultimately to bring into being a highway system to be most modern and efficient. You are really a friend of the trucking business and have been through the years. I can testify to this from my experience in Iowa. Mr. KACTILEIN. I agree with you, sir, and I do want to state this, that like any good family, there are always differences of opinion within the family. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Right. Mr. KACULE1N. This happens to be the one we are at odds about, but that does not mean that we are not trying to all work together to get a good highway system. Mr. SCIIWENGEL. Your Iowa friends were involved-I worked with you and the truckers in trying to bring about the completion of a sys- tem in Iowa, including toll, many years ago. Mr. KACITLEIN. Yes, sir. PAGENO="0782" 770 Mr. SCHWENGEL. It did not happen. They could not sell enough peo- ple on the idea. But you were way out in front in making plans for the Interstate System. You were with us right from the beginning and pioneered much of the work. So you were a tremendous influence for good in the development of a great distribution system, especially the highway system of America. Now, in one of your opening statements, you stated you represent 11 million dues-paying members of your organization. Mr. K~CHLEIX. That is correct. Mr. SCHWEXGEL. You have heard testimony from the truckers pre- smiling to represent 15 million vehicles in that field. We have heard the bus people and they represent, they said, $30,000 buses. We have given a lot of time to you and all of them. Now, as I also noted from your testimony, you say there are 80 mil- lion automobile owners in America. Mr. KAc.HLEIX. That is correct. Mr. SCHWEXGEL. You represent 11 million, so there are 69 million who are not represented here and apparently will not have a represca- tative. But maybe they will be represented in a question that came to me yesterday over the telephone when a constitutent of mine called me about another matter, and after he finished that, he said, "Now, Mr. Congressman, I see by the paper you are going to consider some truck legislation." He said, "I ain't agin the trucks; we need `em. But I want to know-and you are my Congressman-whether or not they are bearing their fair share of the load? And what I want to know, sir, is what would the trucks be~ paying in license fees and fees and dues if they paid the same rate as I do on my 1965 Chevrolet, con- sidering the weight?" Now, what he was talking about was ton-mile. And he said, "If you can't get that answer, tell me how much I would be paying if I paid the same rate as they do." He said, "I have been doing some figuring on my own. That is why I want you to get an answer." He sa.id, "You have got the help to get the answer." So I am presenting that question to you, sir. I know it is not a simple answer, I know that is true. But is there an answer that I can give this man? Do you have one off the top of the head, or would it take time to get an answer to that question? Mr. KACHLETX. Do you want to answer that? Mr. Bn~DY. Mr. Schwengel, it would take a considerable amount of time to get an answer to that. I am not certain it would be very rela- tive once we did get an answer. But off the top of my head, I would say that if trucks paid at the same rate as a passenger car on a ton-mile basis, there would not be a single heavy truck operating in this country. And if you worked it in reverse, the passenger car operator would practically go for nothing, practically a free operation. If we paid at the same rate in passenger cars and trucks, it would be impossible for a trucking business'to operate with the size of the tax- load that it would have on a ton-mile basis. Mr. SCHWENGEL. If that answer can be gotten, I would like to have permission, Mr. Chairman, to have it put in the record. I ask both they and the representatives of the trucking industry, so it will be very fair in giving an answer to that. question. PAGENO="0783" 771 I think it may be a very legitimate question that this man ought to have an answer to. Maybe he, in a sense, represents the 69 million people who are not here. But I do think this, and I remember some testimony in the Iowa Legislature, you felt that through your dues-paying members, you represent really all of the automobile owners, in a sense, though they never paid dues to your organization, kind of like the dues-paying members of the union who represents all the labor people in a sense,, because they express their problems. Is that a true statement? Mr. KACHLEIN. I think that is a reasonable statement to make, sir. We have attempted to approach it as representing the motorists as the basic concept, because the problems are identical. Mr. SCIIWENGEL. Mr. Chairman, here again, I do not want to imply that I have a feeling against the industry. I know their reasons. But we have to do these things in the public interest just like you recognize the utility, but you cannot have eight or ten utilities in the community and have an efficient service for the people, so you have to have regu- lations. In a sense, this is our obligation here. So, again, Mr. Chairman-I guess I have used almost all my time- I thank you and hope I will have an opportunity to ask some of the questions I have here of the truckers that we did not get an answer to, in fairness to them. Mr. CRAMER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. SOHWENGEL. Yes. Mr. CRAMER. I think the gentleman's .request is well taken. How- ever, I think if such a study is made and made a part of the record, that you almost have to include the secondary benefits that result from the trucking industry as such, and the busing industry, gen- eral transportation industry that uses the highway as it relates to consumer industry. For instance, we truck tons and tons of those delicious, sweet, great energy health-giving oranges and vegetables from Florida. [Laughter.] Mr. CLKUSEN. And California. Mr. CRAMER. Out in California too-off the record. [Laughter.] Mr. KAOHLEIN. Mr. Cramer- Mr. CRAMER. Obviously there are some secondary benefits that re- sult from the trucking industry or any other transportation industry, or secondly, of course, the trucking industry, as the railroads, as the buses, as the airlines, as I understand it, are considered to be an essen- tial element of American economic life as, of course, is the use of the highway by the individual. So I think if you are going to get into the question of what comparative costs and benefits are, like we consider river and harbor projects and cost-benefit ratios, you of necessity would have to include all aspects which relate to automobile users and the necessary transportation facilities. Mr. KACTILEIN. Mr. Cramer, would this be getting like the tail wag- ging the dog? Because actually the 210 study which was made cost a great deal of money. It came up with certain conclusions, and 1 do not think we have seen much change in circumstances to warrant additional time. PAGENO="0784" 772 Mr. C~r~n. That is the other point, because the 210 study was made, it was supposedly for the idea f getting a pretty clear picture of these respective interests of all highway users. Mr. CLA~SEN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. SOHWENGEL. I am- Mr. CRAMER. I did not mean to suggest you in any way did not in- tentionally include that. I just wanted to expand on your recommendation. Mr. SOHWENGEL. This is the reason I said I thought the trucking industry ought to be allowed to answer the question as well as the representative of the AAA. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me make this one comment-I did riot, take my 5 minutes-it just seems to be the answer given by Mr. Brady to Mr. Schwengel's question really is totally unacceptable. I mean, it is quite in evidence that the automobile user cannot get by for nothing, and you cannot put the trucking business out of business. So as a result, the answer lies somewhere in between. I have a great deal of questions for the gentleman from Iowa, but I question the relevance of the. question ot.her than for your own con- stituent there. The only question would be: How would we get out of this dilemma of finance? Could you give us a quick response on how we are going to pay for all the demands that obviously are being made on us because of the burgeoning economy a.nd the fact of the economic growth we have? How are you going to balance this finance? Mr. KACHLEIN. First of all, you are talking about financing the highways? Mr. CLAUSEN. Yes. Mr. KACHLEIN. We are not going beyond that I hope. The highway picture to the first extent is that we do have one project ahead of us that we are committed to, and that is the completion of the Interstate Highway System. Now, the next question is where do we go from there? Which I imagine is what you are talking about. We have been making a study, like many other people who are in the highway users groups, and there seem to be one general theme that goes throughout, and that is the functional classification studies which must be made and which cannot be made in six months' time. It takes about 3 years, sir, if you are going to come up with realistic figures which are going to amount to anything and are going to give you a. plan-just like you did with the 1956 Highway Act that created the interstate System. It took a number of years in order to do that and it is at this time that we feel that Congress should take the lead to make certain that that functional classification study is undertaken now, with the deadline date to report back that as a realistic date. So that within 3 years' time, you will have some reasonable idea. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Thank you, gentlemen. We very much appreciate your statement of your views. You have been very good witnesses. We want to thank you for giving us the experience of your great organization. Mr. KAorn~IN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. PAGENO="0785" 773 Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Now we have with us Mr. Bresnahan and his associates who came before us yesterday morning and returned this morning to answer questions by members of the committee. At this point in the record I will place the statement of Mr. John De Lorenzi, managing director, Public and Government Relations, American Automobile Association. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT BY JOHN DR LORENZI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION The American Automobile Association, with eleven million members, appreci- ates this opportunity to comment on the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, H.R. 16994 and HR. 17134. Besides authorizing funds and approving the 1968 cost estimate for comple- tion of the Interstate program, this Subcommittee is faced with numerous issues which must be resolved if we are to have an orderly development of the Federal- Aid highway program. 1968 COST ESTIMATE The 1968 cost estimate indicates a need for almost $17 billion in Federal-aid funds beyond that which has been made available through fiscal 1969. This is on the basis of 1966 prices. An Appendix to the report indicates price increases could add $3.35 million to the cost. Based on these estimates and a realistic assumption that the program will not be completed until 1975, authorizations at $4 billion per year should continue through fiscal 1974. A reduced amount should be authorized for fiscal 1975. Title 23 should be amended so as to extend the time for completion of the Interstate to June 30, 1975, from the present completion date of June 30, 1972. FOREST AND PUBLIC LANDS HIGHWAY Authorizations are contained in both measures for Forest Highways, Public Lands Highways, and similar categories. H.R. 16994 continues financing both Forest and Public Lands Highways from the general revenues of the Treasury, while H.R. 17134 Would place an addi- tional burden on the Highway Trust Fund of $49 million in both fiscal years 1970 and 1971. The AAA opposes switching the funding of either of the two programs to the Highway Trust Fund. Now is not the time to saddle the Trust Fund with additional liabilities. HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION H.R. 17134, in section 8, provides for authorizations for the Highway Beauti- fication Program, at the $5 million level for Outdoor Advertising, at the $10 million level for Oontrol of Junkyards, and at the $70 million level for land- scaping and scenic enhancement, for fiscal years 1969-71. No effort is made to correct the deficiencies in the original legislation. Some decision is needed in the near future on this program. When we testified before you on April 19, 1967 we recommended the continuation of the Highway Beautification Program, with some modifications. The AAA still opposes the penalty features of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965. Instead of penalties, we recommend the Federal Government provide incentives to those states enacting legislation meeting performance standards developed cooperatively between the states and the federal government. Methods of accomplishment of agreed-upon standards should be determined by the states. We again suggest that the Act be amended so as to provide control of off-site advertising on all limited access freeways and primary roads, all highways built on new location, and scenic corridors established by the state, Such con- trols should be extended to structures and buildings occupying air rights over or under Federal Aid highways. Exceptions for zoned industrial and commercial areas should be controlled and regulated through local zoning powers. In addition, the Highway Beautification Act should be amended to permit states to decide the question of compensation, and permit those states which are able to base renumeration on their police power. PAGENO="0786" 774 ADVANCE ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1966 required a study of advance acquisition of highway rights-of-way. This study has been concluded and reported to your Committee with the recommendation that a Federal revolving fund of $300 miilion-$100 million a year for three years-be established. The need for such a fund will become more critical as construction moves into urban areas where land prices frequently escalate at an alarming rate. Advance acquisition of the necessary rights-of-way for future highways can save the highway user millions of dollars. Both measures provide for the advance acquisition of rights-of-way, with $100 million annually. Mr. Cramer and other members of the full Committee have introduced separate legislation, H.R. 16622, with the same monetary provision on the subject. We support the creation of a fund for advance acquisition and recommend the language in Mr. Cramer's bill be substituted for that which appears in 11.11. 16994 and HR. 17134. Xeitber of these two provide a minimum time period before the land can be used. Mr. Cramer's bill requires two years to elapse before the land acquired with these funds may be used. This will prevent states from using advance acquisition money to buy land for immediate use, which would negate the purpose of the fund. URBAN AREA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS (TOPICS) Under the language in both pieces of legislation, money authorized under this program could be used on any street, road, or alley within an urban area. The program authorizes $250 million for each of five fiscal years 1970-1974- a total of $1.25 billion for urban traffic operations improvement. Expenditures are authorized for projects which "include but are not limited to those which directly facilitate and control traffic flow." There is no requirement that the projects must be on any Federal-aid route. Under H.R. 16994, but not under H.R. 17134, the Trust Fund would pay, wrongly we think, for work on city streets and conceivably for a host of other projects which have only an indirect relationship to the federal interest in highways. While AAA favors the objectives of the TOPICS program, it opposes the ex- penditure of Highway Trust Funds on non-Federal-aid roads. Federal-aid routes are already eligible to receive matching grants for a number of such improve- ments. There seems little justification to burden the Trust Fund with additional commitments for roads which are of more local than national importance. FRINGE PARKING Section 14 of 11.11. 17134 would authorize a 75-25 payment formula for the construction of fringe parking areas outside the central business district. AAA. is opposed to this because it uses Highway Trust Fund money for non-highway purposes and, in fact, the money is to be used to encourage other forms of transportation. AAA suggests that if fringe parking lots are necessary to provide convenient access to public transportation systems that the cost of their construction be assigned as a capital improvement to the transit system. Just as the cost of the construction of subway stations is charged to the transit agency. H.R. 17134 would fund the fringe parking program from money authorized for the Interstate program. We are already years behind in the construction of our Interstate highways and can ill afford to assign the construction of fringe parking lots a higher priority than the early and expeditious completion of the Interstate program. This completes our testimony on the items in the two pieces of legislation before you. I would like to bring up several related items which we suggest be added to the bill your Subcommittee reports out. HIGHWAY FUND CUTBACK The AAA is greatly concerned by the unilateral action of the Executive branch of the Federal Government in withholding previously authorized Federal-Aid Highway funds from the states. This has happened in two successive years, and PAGENO="0787" 775 has created uncertainty as to amounts of Federal funds available for reimburse- ment to the states. The disruption of construction planning and programming will cause many states to further delay completion of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Such a delay will have a direct effect on our efforts to save lives and increase highway safety. On-again, off-again support for our highway program gives impetus to toll road financing as a means of building critically needed modern highways. Equally serious is the damage done to the 50-year Federal-State partnership of joint responsibility for building highways. The action of the Executive branch relegates the states to junior partners. This Committee has 14 bills before it which would prevent further cutbacks (Appendix A). We recommend the principle of these bills be included in the legislation before you to firmly establish the role of Congress in determining highway transportation policy matters. THE POST-INTERSTATE PROGRAM The Committee has received a report from the American Association of State Highway Officials on the need for an expanded Federal-Aid Highway program after completion of the present one. The Committee has also received a report by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation (pursuant to P.L. 89-130) titled "1968 National Highway Needs Report." A review of these reports makes it evident the highway needs of this country in the decade 1975-1985 greatly exceed those of the previous decade. It becomes imperative, therefore, that the limited financial resources available be carefully assigned to projects which give the greatest traffic service for each dollar spent. We must spend our highway user taxes on roads where the traffic needs are greatest. If we are to be ready with a Post-Interstate program, Congress must act this year to ensure needed data is available upon which to base policy decisions for future highway programs. AA.A endorses the principle of continuing comprehensive studies of future highway needs and believes that the Bureau of Public Roads, working in cooperation with state and local units of government having roads and street responsibilities, should make such studies. In such studies, an analysis of efficiency and cost information on the basis of the character of traffic service provided, termed functional classification, is of primary importance. Only through such an analysis can a program be identi- fied which will produce an optimum return to the highway user taxpayer. The result of such studies if authorized now, could be available for Congres- sional review by July 1971. Congress can then prepare a program for the Federal- Aid Highway Act of 1972, to follow the current highway program. EXTENSION OF INTERSTATE MILEAGE As the Interstate program nears completion there is sentiment, as well as legislative proposals, for expansion beyond the statutory limit of 41,200 miles. According to studies made by the Bureau of Public Roads upgrading of limited mileage of Federal-Aid primary highways can make substantial contri- butions to improved traffic service. This mileage, comprising less than two percent of all rural mileage, `is expected to serve 15 percent of all rural travel. The Interstate System, comprising only one percent of the mileage, is expected to serve an additional 25% of rural travel. Thus, less than three percent of the rural mileage will ultimately serve 40% of all rural travel. The findings of this study reinforce the need for the long overdue functional classification of our street and highway network `which I have just mentioned. The degree of Federal interest in many routes proposed for an expanded Interstate System is substantially less than in the present System. The 90-10 matching funds is probably more responsible for proposals to expand the System than are traffic needs. Whereas most of the present System is truly Interstate in character, many routes proposed for an expanded System are intrastate, or lie in only two or three states. We suggest no extension of the Interstate System until completion of a func- tionally classified highway network study. Such a study should be mandated in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968. 96-O3O-GS-----~O PAGENO="0788" 776 TOLL ROADS BPR has a long-standing policy, disapproving interstate highway projects which would divert traffic from toll roads. By affording financial protection to toll interests, this policy is entrenching and inviting the extension of tolls and is stimulating toll entrapment. The policy also has been exploited by toll road advocates to block construction of segments of the Interstate Highway System which should be built on the basis of traffic needs. We urge Cogress to amend the Federal-Aid Highway Act to remove this pro- tection of toll interests and to discourage the construction of toll highways which are a part of, or may be substituted for, sections of toll-free Interstate. We further urge you to. amend the act to prohibit the relocation of already designated portions of the Interstate to allow connections with proposed toll facilities for the primary purpose of providing economic advantage to such facilities. HR. 14962, before your Committee, would reimburse states for the cost of constructing toll roads which have been incorporated into the Interstate System. The latest estimate of the cost of such reimbursement of depreciated value is $2.9 billion, up from the $2.3 billion calculated as of June 30, 1957. As of June 30, 1967 the depreciated value of toll roads originally incorporated into the System had dropped to $1.9 billion, but over $1 billion of additional toll facilities have been incorporated into the Interstate System since then. Clearly, we are regressing in the intent of Congress to provide a toll-free highway network. We oppose any attempt to "buy out" toll roads. The Trust Fund doesn't have the money, and additionally, the contractual problems raised in such an approach appear overwhelming. We would hope that the Special Subcommittee on the Federal-Aid Highway Program, which thoroughly investigated the problems of toll roads in 1966, will submit legislative proposals in the near future in accordance with the sub- committee's recommendations. DELAWARE RIVER TOLLS Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss a most unhappy situation ~vhich has arisen with the Delaware River Port Authority. In February, the Authority, flouting requests by the New Jersey legislature and others for a temporary postponement, arbitrarily doubled the bridge tolls on the Benjamin Franklin and Walt Whitman Bridges. Proceeds of the additional tolls are to be used to further the Authority's interest in additional toll crossings and provide construction funds for fixed rail transit. The Secretary of Transportation currently has authority, after the fact, to find that a toll increase is neither reasonable nor just. While the deliberations proceed, the motorists are charged the additional fee. What is needed is the approval of the Secretary before the tolls are increased, instead of fighting a rear-guard action. We therefore ask that Section 526 of Title 33 of the U.S. Code, as amended by Section 6(g) of Public Law 89-670, be amended to provide the Secretary with this power. Without this change, you will continue to find small authorities trying to emulate the New York Port Authority and attempting to build private kingdoms. Would you believe that one of the reasons given for~ increasing the tolls on the two bridges was that the George Washington and the Delaware Memorial Bridges each charge 50 cents, so why not the Franklin and Whitman Bridges? APPENDIX A BILLS PROTECTING THE HIGHWAY TRUsT FUND FRoM EXECUTIVE CONTROL H.R. 14641, Hon. William H. Harsha (R. Mhio). H.R. 14841, Hon. Edward J. Gurney (R.-Florida). H.R.. 14932, Hon. Ancher Nelsen (R.-Minnesota). H.R. 14953, Hon. Benjamin Blackburn (R.-Georgia). H.R. 15040, Hon. Robert V. Penney (R.-Nebraska). H.R. 15275, Hon. Jack H. McDonald (R.-Michigan). H.R. 15442, Hon. John M. Zwach (R.-Minnesota). H.R. 15483, Hon. Don Clausen (R.-California). PAGENO="0789" 777 H.R. 15656, Hon. Lawrence 1. Williams (R.-Pennsylvania). H.R. 15691, Hon. James G. Fulton (R.-Pennsylvania). H.R. 16007, Hon. Speedy 0. Long (D.-Louisiania). H.R. 16255, Hon. J. Irving Whalley (R.-Pennsylvania). FIR. 16896, Hon. William 0. Cramer (R.-Florida). H.R. 17118, Hon. Page Belcher (R.-Oklaboma). Mr. Bresnahan, it is a pleasure to have you before this committee again. STATEMENT BY WILLIAM A. BRESNAHAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC.; ACCOMPANIED BY EDWARD V. KILEY, RESEARCH GOU~SEL; LEWIS C. KIBBEE, DIRECTOR, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT; AND RICHARD A. LILL, CHIEF HIGHWAY ENGINEER-Resumed Mr. BRESNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KLuczYNsJiI. I am sorry I was not here yesterday morning, but there were primaries in the State of Illinois. I like my job so well, I thought I would shoot for another term. Mr. Schwengel, would you proceed please. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen of the trucking industry, I salute you and I hope as a result of this questioning no more messages will go out of here that I am against the trucking business. So if that emanated from you, and evidently it did from somewhere here-it was unfortunate, because I am not, nor am I against this bill. I want to establish that beyond a question of doubt before we begin. Mr. MCEWEN. Will the gentlemen from Iowa yield? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. Mr. KLU0zYNsKI. The gentleman from New York. Mr. MCEWEN. Mr. Chairman, I do not remember who made a re- sponse to my question earlier, the matter of State law, and it was brought out that New York State had passed a law including up to 102 inches. I just wanted to state at this time the inquiry I made indicated to me that law is predicated upon or conditioned upon the Federal law being changed to 102 inches. Mr. KLUOzYNsKI. That is my understanding. Mr. MOEWEN. Further, I believe there may be some serious reserva- tions in the New York State Department of Transportation on in- creasing weight, and particularly size of vehicles. I just wanted to bring that out to clarify the statement that was made. Thank you, Mr. Ohairman. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Schwengel. Mr. ScHwENGEL. When we left yesterday, the committee rose and went to the floor. We were talking about the number of trucks and you had just gotten through telling me there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 million trucks on America's highways today. The question I was about to ask but did not get a chance to ask and shall ask now: How many trucks in your view will take advantage of this increased width, length and weight if we give the authorization- if we pass this bill, in other words, and if the States react as you would like to see them react to this legislation? PAGENO="0790" 778 Mr. kILEY. That, Mr. Congressman, would vary considerably from State to State. There is really no way of telling exactly how man" trucks might be able to take advantage of the increases that would be permissible under this bill. You mentioned this is a permissive piece of legislation. This in and of itself changes nothing. It merely gives the States a right to move in a new direction if they wish to. Now, in many States, as our testimony indicates, you already have axieload limits above this. So in this area~ there would be no change and could be none. Now, there are about a million truck combinations in operation today. Now, the increases that could be obtained under this bill if the States that could move up by virtue of the fact their law is less than this bill did move up, most of the increase would be in this million, but not all of them would take advantage of it. It is very difficult to say. For example, many trucks today are carrying cargoes of such densities that increased weights would not be necessary or needed. On the other hand, in other areas, the freight-carrying vehicle does need more weight and can use more weight. Even out of the million category vehicle combinations, there are straight trucks today in operation which could take advantage of increased axle weight. So I do not believe there is one answer we could give you on that on how many vehicles that could take advantage, and would take advantage, eventually of these increased weights if the State laws were changed. However, we can say this, that these increases are vital and are needed, because the vehicles that can take the increase ulti- mately, when the State laws are changed, are very vital to the Nation's commerce, carrying millions of tons of goods of all types all over the country. But the exact number is very difficult to determine. Mr. SCHWENGEL. You have heard the testimony giving the figure of 250,000 trucks that would be affected. Is this anywhere near a correct estimate? Mr. KILEY. I do not believe it is, because the 250,000 estimate is a combination, four- and five-axle group. Many trucks in that four- and five-axle group will not take advantage by nature of the cargo that they carry and type of operation t.hey are in. There are some vehicles outside of the four and five, in the two- and three-axle category, who could take advantage of the increased axle weight. I do not think the 250,000 has any merit as far as that is concerned. Mr. SOHWENGEL. We have to have some information. You are in the business. If you cannot give us some estimates on these questions, I do not know who can. I would like to have you give us some figure so that we can make some judgment on how much, what percent of the traffic of the loads that are carried on the trucks would be affected, what percentage of increase, what would be the benefits in other words. That would be the ultimate answer that I would like to have. Mr. KILEY. The only way we could provide such a figure would be to assume such law were increased and every State moved up, you might arrive at some estimate how many vehicles ultimately might use this. PAGENO="0791" 779 You have the time factor. It will take many years to come about in States. Every State would not change the law immediately if it was disposed to do it. We could give you some more accurate figures. Mr. SCHWENGEL. The figure has been given us 250,000 trucks would probably take advantage of this if we passed this bill. Mr. KILEY. I would say, then, somewhere between 250,000 and about 800,000 trucks, somewhere in there, would be the figure that ultimately you would have if the State laws were revised upward to meet the new dimensions. Mr. SOHWENGEL. That would be roughly a 12-percent increase of traffic would result? Mr. KILTEY. Twelve-percent increase in traffic? Mr. SOHWENGEL. About 12-percent increase of traffic going via the heavier trucks? Twelve-percent increase on those 250,000 to 800,000 trucks? Mr. KILEY. You mean by increasing the weight, 12 percent? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Increasing the weight. Right. Mr. KILEY. Not necessarily; no, sir. Actually, in many cases you might have fewer trucks by virtue of the fact, by more economical payloads, you can carry more freight in fewer number of trucks under the type of gross weight formula this bill provides. Mr. SCHWENGEL. I am talking about the increased weight, not in- creased number of trucks; increased weight would be roughly on the 250,000 to 800,000 trucks, 12 percent? Mr. KILEY. No; I do not believe it would, because the weight could vary tremendously. The extent to which the various trucks could use the additional weight would vary. They would not all use maximum; some less thaii that, some less than that. So the extent of use would vary. Mr. SOJIWENGEL. Probably 5 or 6 percent? Mr. Kiu~y. That would probably be more close to it. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Of the 250,000 to 800,000 trucks? So considering the total of tonnage on the highways, that makes. an infinitesimal amount by comparison; is that not right? Probably less than 1 percent? The point I am getting at is we may be legislating for a 1-percent increase of truck traffic? Tonnage? Trucks that would take advantage of this? Mr. KILEY. Not necessarily. I do not believe so. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Two percent, 3 percent? Mr. KILEY. It would be somewhere higher than that, but exactly how much higher would be hard to tell. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Five percent of the total. I want to at least raise the point, because it is important in this consideration, and then match that against what apparently could be cost that is revealed from the testimony we already have. Mr. KILEY. I would like to make a comment on that if I could, Mr. Congressman, because the increased cost that the previous witness referred to that results, that he imputes would result, from increased axle load, which in turn was based on formulas derived from the Illinois road test, our witness, Mr. LilT, testified we believe to be PAGENO="0792" 780 inaccurate deductions from this formula. But even if you accepted that formula, which we do not-and we do not think you can accept it-the so-called increased cost assumes that, for exan~ple, if a State today had an 18,000-pound axle load limit and then it cannot move above that because of the Federal law, then the Federal law moved to 20,000 and this State revised its law to 20,000, every 18,000 pounds on the highway today would become 20,000; that is not correct. Some of these axleload limits would stay down by virtue of the commodity. They would not automatically go to the limit. Mr. SCHWENGEL. You are adding to my evidence here I want to present. We are actually talking about a very small percent of the total tonnage carried by the trucking industry? That is the point I am trying to establish here. And so I am trying to match that against the benefits now that would come to the consumer. So can you give us any estimate on what benefits, percentagewise or otherwise, would come to the consumer as a result of the increase in weights? Just weight, now. Mr. KILEY. I think it is difficult to tell you offhand what this would amount to, but I do not think it is infinitesimal by any stretch of the imagination; no, sir. It is very impOrtant. It is a very important increase of benefit to the entire economy. But you are asking to indicate exactly how many vehicles ultimately might be able to take advantage of this, and this is just a difficult thing to do. You just cannot say at this time. But I do not believe, by any stretch of the imagination, it would be called infinitesimal; no, sir. Mr. Br~sNAHAx. Mr. Schwengel, I might expand on that- Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes, sir. Mr. BRESNAHAN. We are neither trying to minimize nor maximize the potential benefit for the industry and the consumers and the country* from this legislation. It is awfully difficult to try to pinpoint it with the statistic here and that statistic there. I think it should be borne in mind that the trucking industry of the United States car- ries more tons of freight than any other form of transportation, in- cluding the railroads: amid that although trucking companies in- dividually are relatively small, in the aggregate the gross revenues of the for-hire trueking industry regulated by the Interstate Com- merce Commission exceeds the total freight gross revenue of the rail- roads. Now, I think you have to think in those large terms, and we could be led astray by trying to come up with indefinite statistics that are not available on a precise basis and then apply them and try to reach a conclusion. Mr. SOHWENGEL. First, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out some- thing to this gentleman. The loads you carry on your trucking in this Nation surpass that of the world in all forms of transportation. Mr. BRESNAHAX. Surpasses what, sir? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Transportation in the world, excluding shipping on the water. But on land transportation, your industry transports more goods and material across the country, on this continent, than the rest of the world. Mr. BRESNAHAN. I had not been aware of that. Mr. SCHWEXGEL. You have been a tremendous influence. I know something about this. I think I could substantiate that. docu- ment that, because I made. a special study of what I call the fifth great PAGENO="0793" 781 freedom, the freedom of movement of men and goods. And this is the reason I am so vitally interested in this area, and I want to be helpful and not be a hindrance to you. I want this committee to know all the facts before we act, and I think there has got to be an answer. And of all the known factors you have in transportation and the cost of operation and the efficiency that you have instituted in many ways, the motors you have developed, the miles you are getting on tires, surpasses any in the world. For you to sit here and tell me you cannot figure out how much benefits are going to come to the consumer I cannot believe, because there is some way to find this information and facilities you have, and we have in America with all our IBM and estimates and known figures we can feed into a machine, you can find an answer. I think you ought to find an answer, because I think this is important, what is the benefit to the consumer. You have always been a tremendous benefit to the consumer. Mr. KLuczYNsKI. Mr. Schwengel, we have to get to the floor. These are the last witnesses, as you know. Mr. SCHWENGEL. Yes. Mr. KLUCzYN5KI. Time is very short for us. We have to get to the floor in the next few moments. Could you finish your interrogation in the next 5 minutes? Mr. SCHWENGEL. No, I could not, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if we could have this understanding-I have great respect for these people they are really doing a great service, and there is a lot of information we will not be able to get in the record unless we have some understanding. I can present the questions and they can present their answers in writing. We can have that as part of the record. This will be quite fair. We would not have this kind of colloquy that brings out facts, but I would be willing to compromise on that. Mr. KLUczYN5KI. Then you would submit questions and these gen- tlemen would answer and we would have that in the record;. is that clear? Mr. BRESNAHAN. We would be most happy to do that, and I am sure we could give much more complete and accurate answers having a little time to analyze. Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. I am sure the committee would be very much interested. I have just this one question. Would this be limited to the inter- state? One of the basic elements here is that this bill actually leaves in the hands of the States what intentions would really be, or what the limitations would be. Many States are not un to these limits. Would you expect many of the States would go to these limits in the near future? Mr. BRESNAHAN. We would hope so, Mr. Chairman. But history shows that this is a long drawn out process and in some cases you never succeed. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, may I make a request? Mr. KLUCzYNsKT. Mr. Cramer. Mr. CRAMER. In addition to that made by the gentleman from Iowa, could I ask also that such comments and statements relating to the statement of AAA also be included in your submission? PAGENO="0794" 782 Mr. BRESNAHAN. Yes, sir; because I think some of those statements need some clarification. Mr. CRAMER. I gathered that you might want to comment on them, and I was going to ask you that question, but time does not permit. So would you submit that as well? Mr. BRESNAHAN. Thank you. Before Mr. Schwengel leaves now~ Mr. CRAMER. Is that all right, Mr. Chairman? Mr. KLUczYN5KI. Yes. Mr. BRESNAHAX. How will these questions be made available? Mr. SCHWENGEL. Maybe we can a.rrange to get together in my office, or I will write the questions out and I will be in touch or you be in touch with me. I will try to make some arrangements with the questions. Mr. BRESNAHAN. If you will be good enough to prepare them and just give us a call, we will come and get them. Mr. KLUCzYNsKI. Mr. Schwengel will submit the questions. Gentlemen, thank von for your appearance here. That concludes the hearing on the highway legislation. (The questions and replies referred to above are as follows:) Housn OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., June 28, 1968. Hon. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Chairman, Subcommittee 01 Roads, Public Works Committee. DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed is a copy of a letter addressed to Mr. William A. Bresnahan of American Trucking Associations, Inc., with questions and answers with some conclusions and observations of my own for the Committee hearings. Sincerely yours. FRED SCHWENGEL, 3Iem ber of Congress. JUNE 18, 1968. Mr. WILLIAM A. BRESNAHAN, Anzerican Trucking Asociationa, Inc. Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. BRESNAHAN: This is in response to a hand-delivered -let~er and also to the unanimous request made by me and. granted during the timeof the hearings on the bill that concerns the problem of weight, length~ and widthin the trucking industry. After reading the reports of the committee in the Senate it was quite apparent that the hearthgs didn't bring out a full and complete discussion of the facts and factors that relate to the provisions of the bill on width, length and weight under consideration before that committee. This was the reason for my pursuing this question further. Therefore. I am sorry that we have not had nor apparently will have an opportunity for discussion and colloquy that would have been afforded if the hearings bad been continued. I really believe that in fairness to the trucking interests and those who have the reslxnsibili.ty of building and maintaining highways that continued hearings would have served the public interest. Since that is not to be, `we will proceed under unanimous consent request which was obtained and hope better insight of problems and solutions will result. Now the questions: 1. How many trucks of four axles or more are likely to be able to take advan- tage of heavier axle weights and heavier gross weights if section 127 is amended as proposed in S. 265S as referred to the House? 2. How do the Western States compare with those in the East relating to average ton miles hauled under existing provisions of section 127. Title 23? 3. How many dues-paying members do you have in the American Trucking Association for whom you speak? PAGENO="0795" 783 4. How does the American Trucking Association develop its policy positions and what percentage of the total nurnher of truck owners participate in the development of these policy positiQns? 5. Is it not true that those `who transport livestock have no weight problem under the present laws and could benefit only by an increase in length? 6. During the hearings that brought `the interstate system into being there was a testimony that if the highway system was built there would be a great savings to the trucking industry and increase in the `efficiency in its operation. What can you say in response to this? Has it resulted in savings? 7. Can yo'u give us any examples of how the development of this system has helped in the maintenance and operation of machinery-~especially the motors? Has the number of daily revenue miles driven by truckers increased or decreased in recent years and, if so, `how much? 8. What has been the increase of the gasoline mileage and the consequent savings of the cost of gasoline? 9. What has `been the reduction of cost of maintenance of trucks? 10. What has `been you'r experience on the longevity of tires? 11. `Can you give us the average life in number of miles of truck tires for 1930, 1940, 1950 and 1960, as well as recent figures? How much of a saving ha's this item been to the trucking industry? 12. Wh'at will `be the anticipated savings if the increases propoSed in S. 2658 are granted? 13. Is it true as charged that if the width is established at 102" the overall width would be closer to 108"? 14. In areas where State Legislatures have approved increases in size and/or weight, has there been any reduction of shipping rates? 15. Have there been any savings in the operation passed on down to the consumer? If so, what is the percentage of savings and the total savings? 16. The proposed bill on increasing single and tandum axle weights pertaining to the interstate system AASHO conducted extensive road tests on pavement and bridges in Illinois to determine the effect of increased weights on pavements and structures. Do you know the results of the findings on the AASHO road test in relation to pavement damage caused by 20,000 lb. single axle as compared to 18,000 lb. single axle? 17. In the same ASSHO test a comparison was made between the damage caused by 32,000 lb. tandum axle and a 36,000 lb. tandum axle. Do you know the additional percentage of damage caused by the 36,000 lb. tandum over the 32,000 lb. tandum? 18. Do you feel the proposed 20,000 lb. single axle and the 34,000 lb. tandum axle maximum weight for the interstate system would automatically have to be applied to other highway and street systems? 19. Testimony has been given by ASSHO that the proposed 36,000 lb. tandum axle on the revised formula provided by the bill will not have the detrimental effects on those bridges designed for H S 20-44 loadings, but cannot be tolerated on bridges designed for lesser standards. Do you know what percentage of bridges on the interstate system and the ABC system are not designed to the higher H S 20-44 loading? 20. Considering all road systems in the LTnited States, how many bridges now in use would you estimate were constructed prior to 1936? 21. The Iowa 1967 loadometer studies indicate that 763 axles out of 13,933 axles would be carrying loads involving single axle weight of more than 16,000 lbs. If this is true the percentage in Iowa would be 5~2 % of the truckers taking advantage of this. Is this anywhere near the national average? 22. Do you share the feeling that most of the motoring public feels that the extra cost involved in increasing the load capacity of existing and future pave- ments and structures should be borne by the beneficiary of `the expenditure? 23. If future tests show that the life of the highway system is shortened as a result of truck traffic and especially because of increase of weights, will the American Trucking Association support a proposition to levy some type of tax or assessment to pay for the cost of replacement or rebuilding? 24. What is your reaction to a proposal suggested by the Department of Trans- portation that federal legislation establish a ceiling for truck size and weight for trucks operating over any federal aid highway? Under the proposal the industry could establish limits up to the ceiling but could not exceed the ceiling on any federal aid highway. PAGENO="0796" 784 Again. I want to commend the trucking industry for the tremendous contribu- tion they have made for the solution of our transportation problem and what I call the Fifth Great Freedom"-the movement of men and goods. The questions I have raised are not meant to be unfriendly. They are meant to bring, to the extent possible. the facts we need to know so we can make an intelligent decision on the policy arid laws that will affect you and all of us in the future. I also want to express my appreciation of your willingness to cooperate in answering the proposed questions. If you have further questions on the above, feel free to call or see me at our mutual convenience. With kind regards to all my friends, personal and otherwise, in your associa- tion and assurance of my interest in our problems. I am Cordially yours, FRED SOHWENGEL, Member of Congress. AMERICAN TRUCKING AssocIATIoNs, Inc., Washington, D.C., June 21,1968. Hon. FRED SCHWENGEL, House of Representatives, Washington~ D.C. DEAR Mn. SCHWENGEL: This is responsive to your June 18 letter containing 24 questions, to which we were asked to respond. These questions, and the answers, are attached. Respectfully submitted. W. A. BRESNAHAN. Question 1. How many trucks of four aales or more are likely to be able to take advantage of heavier aa~le weights and heavier gross weights if section 127 is amended as proposed in S. 2658 as referred to the House? Answer. There are at the present time about 762,469 combination trucks with four or more axles. Of these, 279,637 were registered for 60,000 pounds or more. These figures are estimated on the basis of data included in the Supplementary Report of the Highway Cost Allocation Study. House Document 124, 89th Con- gress. First Session, Table 8, page 46, and ron 1967 registrations in "American Trucking Trends," 1967, page 5. These vehicles will be the ones presumably that would be able to take advan- tage of the increases in gross vehicle weight that states would be allowed to per- mit on the Interstate System under the proposed legislation. Many other vehicles would be able to take advantage of the axle load increases. Three-axle dump trucks for example would be able to increase their payload by heavier axle loads even though their gross weight would not be at the top of the allowable grosses now realized. In other words a three-axle truck can now haul the sum of the axle loads under the Federal gross weight limit. This would also be true, pro- vided the wheelbase is sufficient. under the proposed. legislation. Thus, at the present limits of 18,000 and 32,000 pounds for single and tandem axles respec- tively. and with 10,000 pounds on the front axle this vehicle can gross 42,000 pounds. Under the proposed bill, with the same front axle load it could gross 44,000 pounds. This would amount to about two-thirds of a yard of gravel, for example. and would be very important in connection with the movement of low value bulk items. On a two-axle six tire farm truck, a pick up of 2,000 pounds would be possible also raising the amount that could be hauled, with 9,000 pounds on the front axle, from 27.000 pounds to 29,000 pounds. Thus, a fair estimate of the total number of trucks that could possibly take advantage of the increased weights permissible under the provisions of S. 2658 would be in the area of 700.000. Question 2. How do the Western states compare with those in the East relating to average ton miles hauled under ecvisting pro~vision~s of section 127, Title 23? Answer. Data on truck tons and ton-miles are not available on an individual state basis. Figures on tons and ton-miles are available from the Bureau of Public Roads for all trucks and combinations on main rural roads. by Census Bureau Divisions. Data are also available on a regional basis for ICC regulated carriers having annual gross revenues of 8200,000 or more. The BPR data covers the year 1966. while the ICC data covers 1965. The BPR data, from Highway Statistics. 1966, Table HT-1. page 50. shows that trucks and combinations carry the lightest average payloads in the Eastern Divisions and the heaviest payloads in the Western Divisions. The respective figures for truck combinations beiu~. 12.4 tons in the Eastern Divisions, 14.0 tons in the Central Divisions and 15.1 tons in the Western Divisions. The greater PAGENO="0797" 785 average payload in the West is achieved primarily through a higher percentage of loaded miles to total miles operated. In the Eastern regions combinations averaged 62.7 percent loaded to total miles, in the Central regions the average loaded miles were 67.6 percent of total, while in the Western regions the aver- age loaded miles of total miles was 75.1 percent. In terms of total ton-miles on main rural roads, the Central Divisions accounted for 158 billion, the Eastern Divisions for 73 billion and the Western Divisions for 43 billion. The ICC data for 1965 show that in the Rocky Mountain region, the carriers averaged 3,527 tons per unit and in the Pacific region, the average was 3,885 tons. By contrast the carriers in the New England region averaged 2.662 tons an- nually per unit and 3,241 tons was the average in the Middle Atlantic region. To a large extent the higher annual tonnage in the Western states is due to the greater annual mileages for each intercity unit indicated below: Average annual mileage per `unit Rocky Mountains States 87, 113 Pacific States 66, 012 New' England States 39, 124 Middle Atlantic States 47, 127 What these data also illustrate is the heavy dependence by the Western States on truck transportation and this is why the Western part of the country is in the vanguard in seeking the size and weight relief provided in 5.2658. Question 3. How many dues-paying members do you have in the American Trucking Association for whom von speak? Answer. American Trucking Associations, Inc. (note the plural) is a federa- tion. Its "members" are 51 affiliated and chartered state associations-one in each state and the District of Columbia-and affiliated conferences. Individual trucking companies are members of the state associations and/or the conferences. They number in the tens of thousands and are of all types and description, both for-hire and private. Question 4. How does the American Trucking Association develop its policy positions and what percentage of the total number of truck owners pa'rticipate in the development of these policy positions? Answer. Policy matters are reviewed by the 51 state associations and by 13 national conferences, representing different types of truck operation (automobile transporters, movers, tank carriers, general freight carriers, etc.). Each of these 64 affiliated but autonomous organizations has a representative (elected by them) on the ATA Executive Committee. The latter, in turn, makes the policy decisions. Decisions of the Executive Committeeinay be appealed to the Board of Directors, whose number is almost as great as the U.S. House of Representatives, and whose members represent every type owner and every area of the country. If there is a more democratic trade organization in the United States, it has not come to our attention. Question 5.-Is it not true that those who transport livestock have no weight problem `under the present laws and could benefit only by an increase in length? Answer. This is not true. Livestock carriers do have problems under existing size and weight laws, par- ticularly in those states which have limits of 18,000 pounds on a single axle, 32.000 pounds on a tenclem axle, or 73,280 pounds on gross. Livestock carriers advise that, if they were permitted to do so, they could make use of the proposed limits with their present equipment and without any increase in length. For example, the "possum belly" or "pot belly" tractor~semitrai1er combination is in common usage in livestock transportation today. (This is a combination in which the semitrailer has single compartments at each end and a double drop- center compartment in the middle.) The empty weight of this type of combina- tion is approximately 30,000 pounds. In states which have 18,000/32.000/73,280 pound limits, a 55' possum belly today can be loaded with approximately 43,000 pounds of fat hogs. This is done by double-decking the two-end compartments and triple-decking in the center. The gross weight is right at 73,280 pounds. If the proposed limits were allowed, how- ever, it would be practical to triple-deck the two cud compartments. This would allow a potential increase of as much as 9.000 pounds in the gross weight. Under the proposed gross weight formula, it probably would not be possible for the PAGENO="0798" 786 livestock carrier to utilize the full potential increase of 9,000 pounds, but he certainly could use a good portion of it. In transporting fat cattle in possum belly units, the livestock carrier today has a payload of 43,000 pounds or slightly more, depending upon the empty weight of the combination. The unit, however, even today has space for roughly 5,000 additional pounds of payload which cannot be achieved because of the gross weight limit of 73,280 pounds. Proportionate similar gains could be made on existing conventional livestock tractor-semitrailer combinations, using the standard floor trailer instead of the possum belly. In all types of equipment today, the livestock carrier has a constant problem with axle limits, because of the shifting nature of the cargo as well as the actual limits themselves. (In a few states, including Iowa, special provision has been made in the law to accommodate the shifting* nature of livestock cargo. This is not general, however, and is limited to those several states which had provided legislative sanction for noncompliance with axle limits by livestock carriers prior to 1956. The Iowa provision, for instance, was passed in 1949.) Question 6.-During the hearings that braught the interstate system into being there was a testimony that if the highway system was built there would bea great savings to the trucking industry and increase in the efficiency in its operation. What can you say in response to this? Has it resulted in savings? Answer. We were among those who supported the legislation providing for construction of the Interstate and Defense Highway System, including the por- tion of the legislation calling for the assessment of substantial user charges to finance the program. We were motivated by a belief that the nation needed such a system from the standpoint of its economic health and its national defense. In addition, of course, we hoped that someday the tax burden imposed to make the program possible would be offset by more efficient and economical operation of trucks as well as buses and automobiles. It must be stated-not by way of complaint, but merely as a statement of obvi- ous fact in answer to the question-that the balancing of benefits with the tax burden remains only a potential goal which might be achieved sometime in the future. Although the program generally is called a pay-as-you-go program, in reality it has been a pay-before-you-go program. The taxes started before the first shovel of dirt was dug. The system is still a long way from complete and substantial sections now in operation are toll roads. In the case of many regulated trucking companies, the Interstate Commerce Commission still is in the process of de- termining whether and to what extent they may use the Interstate System in lieu of older routes specified in their operating certificates. There naturally have been some savings to some truck operators in some parts of the country where meaningful mileages of the Interstate System are being used. The true extent of this is difficult to measure. Annual reports filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission by the Class I and II motor carriers mentioned above show that the per mile costs for interëity units for repairs and servicing, fuel and tires and tubes have leveled off or reduced slightly in recent years. These reductions, however, have been due mainly to rigid, new inspection and mainte- nance programs and new cost control techniques. Operations on the new Inter- state System have not begun to reflect themselves as many of these carriers are regular route common carriers who, as mentioned above, are still attempting to have the Interstate Commerce Commission authorize operations over the Inter- state System. Question 7. Cam you give us any ecampies of how the development of this .sys- teni has helped in the maintenance and operation of machinery-especially the motors? Has the number of daily revenue miles driven by truckers increased or decreased in recent years and. if so. Ii ow ;n itch? Answer. The first part of this question is answered in our reply to question #9 below. Data on annual average miles for trucks are only available for Class I and II ICC carriers. These carriers have increased their average mileage over the years. This is a long term trend and has not accelerated since enactment of the 1956 Highway Act. From 1945 through 1956 annual average miles for all power units in intercity service rose from 4~.000 to 54.000. By 1965, the latest year for which data are available, the figure had risen to 59,000. In the period before enactment of the Federal law the average annual increase in mileage was 820 miles; in the PAGENO="0799" 787 latter period, since enactment of the 1956 Act, the annual average increase was 555 miles. There is a substantial variation in annual miles per power unit by sections of the country. In New England for example the average annual miles per power unit was 39,000 in 1965 compared to an average of 87,000 in Rocky Mountain region. These differences reflect the greater distances that commodities must move in the West to reach markets. Question 8. What has been the increase of the gasoline mileage and the con- sequent savings of the cost of gasoline? Answer. When comparing fuel consumption on our older roads with consump- tion for travel on the Interstate System, there are several factors involved which tend to cancel out potential savings. Primarily, it is a case of higher rates of fuel consumption associated with increased speeds. As is the case with an automobile, trucks consume more fuel `at high speeds than they do at lower speeds. Thus, while the elimination of stop-and-go driving on the older roads, with the attendant high consumption rates, will improve trucking fuel efficiency, the higher operating speeds on the Interstate System result in more fuel being used. On balance, then, these factors tend to cancel each other out. Question 9. What has been the reduction of cost of maintenance of trucks? Answer. There have been no significant changes in maintenance costs for the trucking industry since 1956. Improved vehicles and components have helped to keep costs down in the face of general increases in wages, parts, etc. Put another way, better, and more expensive vehicles, have given better service overall at relatively lower maintenance costs per mile. The higher sustained speeds achieved on the Interstate System place greater stresses on engines, drive trains, cooling systems and bearings than .is the case with operation on older roads at lower speeds. On the other hand, the reduction in the number of gear changes and brake applications, and the better roadway surfaces on the Interstate, result in less wear on transmissions, clutches, and suspensions. On balance, it appears that the savings through Interstate opera- tion are balanced by the increased wear on some vehicle components. It must be remembered, however, that the vehicles the trucking industry is using today are not engineered and designed for the type of operations truly possible on modern highways such as the Interstate System. We cannot achieve the fullest efficiency in vehicle operation until the size and weight ban is lifted and the vehicle can be matched to the road. Question 10. What has been your enperience on the longevity of tires? Question 11. Can you give us the average life in number of miles of truck tires for 1930, 1940, 1950 and 1960, as well as recent figures? How much of a saving has this item been to the trucking industry? Answer. A single answer is possible for these questions as they deal with tire wear and expense. There would be much variance between the actual mileage figure for truck tires in general. rflle type of operation, plus the brand, type, and grade of tire used all affect tire wear so that it is impossible to give a tire mileage figure which would be generally accurate industiy wide. To avoid getting into meaningless numbers, it is best to say that in the past 30 years tire mileages for any operation have increased at least five times. It is well to note that not only have tire mileages increased but the loads and speeds which a tire will safely handle have also been increased. The reason that the rate of tire wear has decreased and the speed and loads which a tire will safely handle have increased over the 30 year span is that roads and restrictions on trucking have changed, enabling the trucking indus- try to update its operations and giving tire manufacturers reason to develop different and better tires. Changes in highways have resulted in better tire economy. Changing the road from a crowned, curvey, hilly section to the relatively flat, straight type of construction used for modern highways has changed the causes of tire wear and created the need for different types of tires. The older roads where crowns and curbs at the side of the road were common, caused tire wear through crown induced load transfer and direct, harsh abrasion caused by the curbs. Those problems don't exist on the Interstate System but the speeds which can be maintained on the Interstate System cause different types of tire wear problems. The trucking industry today is using the best tires the manufacturers have ever been able to offer. As with any piece of fine equipment, however, the bene- fits of those tires can only be realized through their use. Utilization is the key to deriving maximum benefits from tires, then, and it is in the area of `optimum PAGENO="0800" 788 utilization where operations on Interstate Highways offer the greatest potential. Operating under restrictions now imposed on the industry has limited utilization of tires available and restricted the development of better tires. Operations un- der changes possible through S. 2658 will permit safer and more efficient utiliza- tion of present equipment. The changes in S. 2658 will also give truck operators good reason to ask tire manufacturers to further develop their tires to handle new operations the bill would permit. Question 12. What will be time anticipated savings if the increases propesed in 2. 2658 are granted? Answer. It is not possible for us or anyone else to provide a definitive answer to this question. Some of the reasons are covered in our answer to question No. 6. In addition, there are many uncertainities. It will depend, for example, upon the extent to which individual states are willing to make adjustments; upon the nature and location of individual truck operations, and upon the ability of automotive engineers to design equipment to take advantage of whatever the states might allow. We can only say that enactment of the pending legislation would at least provide a necessary first step toward achieving savings which we cannot translate into specifics but which, we are confident, are potentially substantial. Question 13. Is it true as charged that if the width is established at 102" time overall width would be closer to 108"? Answer. The width limit of 102 inches is exclusive of safety devices, such as mirrors. However, this also applies to the width limit of 96 inches. Thus, if we are talking about an over-all width of 108 inches. with, supposedly. 6 inches for the mirror and not 102 inches, then the 108: inches must be compared with 96 inches plus 6 inches or 102 inches. Thus, it is a case of comparing 96 with 102 inches or 102 with 108 inches. Question 14. In areas where State Legislatures have approved increases in. size and/or weight, has there been any reduction of shipping rates? Answer. The vast majority of the trucking industry's rates are determined on a regional basis and not by state. There are some rates that are purely intrastate and controlled by state author- ities, but we have no knowledge of any direct relationship betw-een rate adjust- ment and vehicle gross weight changes. We do know, however, that increased payload aids immeasurably in cost control and is a paramount factor in preventing the strong pressure of rising costs from resulting in increased rates. Question. 15. Have there been. any savings in the operation. passed on dowim to the consumer? If so, what is time percentage of savings and the total savings? Answer. The transportation business is highly competitive, and truck opera- tors constantly search for ways to reduce cost in order to stay in business. Such savings are passed on to consumers. In cases where rates have been reduced this is obvious. However, like most other American businessmen, truck opera- tors have found that their best efforts to achieve greater efficiency and savings have not been able to keep up with increases in cost and inflation, the economiz- ing accomplished by the industry benefits consumers primarily by forestalling the need for a rate increase, or by reducing the magnitude of such increases. Enact- ment of the pending weight bill would provide the potential for savings in a most critical area-payload-an area which now is foreclosed almost completely. Qnestion 16. Time proposed bill on increasing single and tandem axle weights pertaining to the interstate system AASHO conducted extensive road tests on pavement and bridges in Illinois to determine time effect of increased weights on pavements ansi structwres. Do you know time results of the findings on the AASHO road test in. relation to pavement damage caused by 20,000 lb. single axle as compared to 18,000 lb. single axle? Question 17. In the same AASHO test a comparison was made between the damage caused by 32,000 lb. tandem axle and a. 36.000 lb. tandem. axle. Do you know the additional percentage of damage caused by the 36,000 lb. tandem over the 32,000 lb. tandem.? Answer. The answers to questions 16 and 17 are the same, so this discussion is directed to both. As a matter of record, it should be pointed out that there were no test axle loads at the AASHO Road Test of a 20000 pound single axle weight or of a 36,000 pound tandem axle weight. Statements applying to these particular axle loads are thus interpolations from the road test, not a part of it. PAGENO="0801" 789 More broadly, however, is the basic fallacy in the idea that any pavement, no matter how strong, is damaged by an 18,000 pound axle load, and that con- sequently, some heavier axle load causes more "damage." It is also incorrectly implied that the AASHO Road Test provided a basis for the valid estimation of pavement life, and for a change in pavement life if axle loads are changed. We know that the AASHO Road Test equations do not provide a valid esti- mate of pavement life, and hence do not provide a valid basis for an estimate of changes in pavement life. This is documented by the more than 1 million dollars spent in 1968 in attempts to "adapt" the road test to become a satisfactory de- sign method for conditions in the various states. If the Road Test equations satisfactorily predicted pavement life, then there would be no need for further research on the subject. There is much additional documentation of this fact, including a research project in Alabama which concluded that the Road Test equatnions could not be used directly or indirectly in Alabama without gross error possibility for both underdesign and overdesign. Thus, it must be concluded that the question of relative pavement damage, as outlined in the questions, is meaningless. The only question is the question of pavement life, and it is well established that the AASHO Road Test equations do not provide a valid estimate of this. Of course, in any circumstance, any actual increase in axle load to the 20,000 pound single or 34,000 pound tandem rests with the states, who have the knowl- edge about their highways. It should be remembered that at the AASHO Road Test, however, that concrete pavements 91/2 inches thick carried over 1,114,000 axle loads of both 22,400 pounds single and 40,000 pounds tandem with no signifi- cant wear. Since concrete pavements of 9" and 10" are common on the highway systems, it is clear that the axle loads in 5. 2658 are completely reasonable and are well within the capability of modern highway systems. Question 18. Do you feel the proposed 20,000 lb. single acole and the 34,000 lb. tandem awle mawimum weight for the Interstate System would automatically have to be applied to other highway and street systems? Answer. The new Federal limits of 20,000 lbs. on a single axle and 34,000 lbs. on a tandem axle, as provided in S. 2658, apply only to operations on the Interstate System, which is the case with the present limits of 18,000 lbs. on a single axle and 32,000 lbs. on a tandem. The states retain complete size and weight control on roads other than the Interstate System. A state that decides to increase its axle weights to the levels permitted by S. 2658 would do so at its own discretion and by the same procedure would decide whether or not the increases should be allowed on its other roads. There is nothing automatic in the provisions of S. 2658. It is purely permissive and would merely give the states the freedom to make the modest adjustments possible if they wished to make them. It should be kept in mind that even at the levels of 20,000 lbs. on a single axle and 34,000 lbs. on a tandem there still would be 15 states with higher single axle loads than 20,000 lbs. and 16 states with tandem axle loads higher than 34,000 lbs. Question 19. Testimony has bøen given by AASHO that the proposed 36,000 lb. tandem acole on the revised formula provided by the bill will not have the detri~ mental effects on those bridges designed for H 5 20-44 loadings, but cannot be tolerated on bridges designed for lesser standards. Do you know what percentage of bridges on the interstate system and the ABC system are not designed to the high H 520-44 loading? Answer. The first part of the question refers to testimony by AASHO that the proposed 36,000 pound tandem axle load and the formula provided by the bill could not be tolerated on bridges of lesser standards than these of H S 20-44 loadings. It should be pointed out that this testimony referred to the original tandem axle limits in S. 2658 as introduced, i.e., 36,000 pounds, in combination with a gross weight formula which did not specify further axle spacing restrictions to control weight concentration. Whatever the merits of this concern may be, S. 2658, as passed by the Senate and endorsed by the trucking industry before the House Roads Subcommittee, was modified to a maximum tandem axle load of 34,000 pounds and a much more restrictive gross weight formula which incorported the application of the formula to the interior axles so that all weight concentrations were controlled by the formula. PAGENO="0802" 790 Thus, the AASHO comment is not pertinent to S. 2658, as presented to the House Roads Subcommittee. In testimony before the Roads Subcommittee, AASHO has "accepted" the revised form of S. 2658, including the 34,000 pound tandem and the appropriate bridge formula. The conclusion is that the limitations are consistent with both HS 20-44 and 11-15 bridges. As to what percentage of bridges on the Interstate System and the ABC system are not designed to the HS 20-44 loading, the following is offered. The testimony of Ross G. Stapp, Chairman of the AASHO Committee on Transport. before the House Roads Subcom~ittee on May 28, 1968, contained the following table: PERCENTAGE OF AREA OF BRIDGE DECKS DESIGNED FOR LOADING Syztem H-15 or less H-il to 1-1-20 HS-20 or greater Interstate 6.7 4.4 88.9 ABC 53.3 24.0 22.7 it is noted, also, that the entire Interstate System must have bridges of a minimum of HS 20-44 design when completed. Thus, the question is academic as far as the IS is concerned. With respect to the ABC system, both AASHO and the Department of Trans- portation have supported the revised limits in S. 2658, for both Interstate Bridges and H-15 bridges, although there have been some vehicle type restrictions suggested for the older bridges. The point is, that as a practical matter, rec- ognizing traffic, age, and design, the propOsals are within the capabilities of the bridges on the non-interstate systems. Of course, in any instance where required, the State Highway Departments can and do restrict the traffic over any of the bridges under their controL Question 20. Consklering all road systems in the United states, how many bridges now in use would you estimate were constructed prior to 1936? Answer. This type of information is not available to the American Trucking Association in a form which would answer the question. We note, however, that on Tuesday, March 19, 1968, AASHO submitted data to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Roads of the committee on Pu,blic Works, which related to structures which were 30 years old or older and were maintained by the State Highway Departments. This information is tabulated on pages 84 and 85 of "Hearings before the Subcommittee on Roads of the Committee on Public Works, United States Senate, Ninetieth Congress, Second Session on Status of the Inspection, Maintenance, and Design of Bridges in the United States. March 18, 19, and 20, 1968." The tabulations also indicate the type of the bridge and its width. Unfortunately, there are no totals in the tabulation. We should comment, however, that age does not necessarily indicate strength, and that the majority of these bridges are obviously on low class roads which do not receive a significant amount of truck traffic. For instance, those which are timber bridges, or those which have lanes less than 10 feet wide or even one lane bridges. Question 21. Tue Iowa 1967 loadometer studies indicate that 763 axles out of 73,933 axles would be carrying loads involving single axle weight of more than 76,000 lbs. if this is true tile percentage in Iowa would be 5~% of tile truckers taking advantage of this. Is this anywhere near the national uverage? Answer. We do not know. Data on axle load frequences complied by the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads are by regions only and show frequencies in the axle load ranges of 18,000 lbs., or morei 20,000 lbs. or more, and 22,000 lbs. or more. The Bureau releases no data on loads in the range of 16,000 lbs. or more. The Bureau's data that are available show a natural relationship between heavier axle loads and the prevailing state laws. Qai~st'ion 22. Do you share the feeling that most of tile motoring public feels that the extra cost involved in increasing the load capacity of existing and future pavements and structures should be borne by the beneficiary of the expenditure? Question 23. If future tests sit ow that the life of the highway system is short- ened as a result of truck traffic and especially because of increase of weights, PAGENO="0803" 791 will the American Trucking Association support a proposition to levy some type of tax or assessment to pay for. the cost of replacement or rebuilding? Answer. Underlying these two questions are assumptions which are both hypothetical and debatable. Therefore, to give an affirmative answer could be misinterpreted as acceptance of premises which we do not necessarily accept. We can say, without equivocation, that the trucking industry has a long- standing and oft-stated policy expressing its willingness to pay its fair share of the cost of building and maintaining the highways. Determination of what constitutes a fair share is a very large, complex, technical and controversial su~ject which goes far beyond any isolated hypothesis. Question 24. What is your reaction to a proposal suggested by the Department of Transportation that Federal legislation establish a ceiling for truck size and weight for trucks operating over any Federal aid highway? Under the proposal the industry could establish limits up to the ceiling bat could not exceed the ceiling on any Federal aid highway. Answer. If we properly interpret this question it deals with a recommendation by the Department of Transportation, submitted during the Senate hearings, to make the Federal weight limits applicable to all Federal-aid roads as well as the Interstate System. Although our governing body has not adopted a firm policy on this question, we do not think the industry would have strong attitudes about it one way or the other. On one hand, there probably would be some reluctance to advocate even deeper Federal. intervention in an area that can best be handled by the states. On the other hand, as a practical matter, it probably would not make much difference. SUPPLEmENTAL STATEMENT OF HON. FRED SCHwENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOwA DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: As an addendum I should like to point out first of all that the record shows that I have been very friendly to transportation interests and, especially, the trucking community of our country. I am interested because they are involved more effectively with what I call the "Fifth Great Freedom.", "The Freedom of Movement of Men and Goods." A freedom that is so necessary for a prosperous society. Because of this freedom in America along with our other great freedoms, we have also a more prosperous and productive society than any other nation. From these freedoms, we have developed a distribution system that is unmatched by any other nation . . . we call it "Free Enterprise." Because free enterprise is competitive in America; because it has good manage- ment; because it has financial and fiscal structure that is sound, flexible and adaptable; because we have freedom of speech and with it the American ingenious advertising system, we have realized great prosperity for all our people. The trucking industry has taken advantage of, benefited more from and served the public better with greater volume than any other aspect of our transportation system. Competition has forced the research and experiments necessary to increase their efficiency. This, along with the help of the public who built the roads, have made its services unmatched by any other country in the world. It is interesting to note and consider the impact of the tonnage movement by the class 1 and 2 carriers in the interstate areas by both the common and contract truck associations. The ton mile traveled in 1967 was 381 billion tons of intercity freight. This I believe, surpasses the volume carried by truck in any other combination of four or five nations in the world and could conceivably equal the volume in the rest of the world. This all was made possible because of a very happy understanding and effec- tive relationship between the private sector and the public . . . the private sector furnishing the trucks, the drivers and the movement, the public offering unusual cooperation with private enterprise to aid in building and maintaining the roads and highways. This record of volume does not include, the "piggy-back" truck movement on the railroads nor does it include the freight carried by the railroads, the water- ways and air ways within the United States. This is a part of the competitive system and is another most impressive story. ` , ` . Mr. Chairman, I repeat it is unfortunate that we could not have more hear- ings so we could have developed a better understanding of the problems and 96-030-G8----51 PAGENO="0804" 792 understanding in the colloquy that should have been provided for in the Com- mittee. In response to that need, let me comment briefly to some of the answers to the questions that I had presented to the American Trucking Associations, Inc. and their answers. A further answer to the figures quoted in response to question 2 should reveal that the West is already hauling more tonnage than the East and so the ques- tion is raised, "Why do they feel, if they actually do, a disadvantage?" Also, it should be noted that Table HT-206 on page 48 of the Highway Statis- tics Summary it shows that since 1941 trucks operating in the Mountain and Pacific division have consistently carried heavier loads than any other census division. It should be noted that we don't mean ton miles, but average loads. A further observation on question 5 in addition to the answer given by the truckers there should be given special note that in 1966 about 1% of trucks were livestock carriers including the drop-frame type mentioned (1,236 units out of a total 113,542 was the figure noted on page 17 in the 1967 edition of Motor Truck Facts). If this 1% is representative of 1966 information data for 1966 then there are perhaps 14,400 livestock trailers in the United States and some unknown but smaller number are the "possum belly" type. In answer to question 9, I would like to make this addendum to the answer given by the truckers and it is this. Interstate roads are designed for 18,000-32,000 and so are the bridges so the logical question is: How can we match road and weight if there is constant agitation to change vehicle size and weight? Is not the logical conclusion that we need federal ceilings? As further note on question 7, I ask all interested parties to see pages 81, 161 and 162 of House Document 354, 88th Congress, 2nd session, which shows a $72 reduction in truck operating cost for every $1 invested in highway construction. This is on the 20,000-36,000 weight, and I think it is logical to conclude that it would be less on 20,000-34,000, but still substantial. There might be a misunderstanding from the answer given to question 13 so I would like to make this addendum. Section 127 of Title 23 says "96 inches" period. There are no exclusions in Title 23: as I understand it. It could be that the states permit them but if so, they are in violation of federal statute. A question that occurs to me on question 15 is this. In answer to question 14 the respondent had no knowledge of any relationship between rate reduction and adjustments in gross weights. (How then can increase in payload made possible by adjustment in gross weights be beld out as potential savings?). On question 17, I should like to observe that additional tests will always be needed. AASHO tests only establish the base line. Climate conditions and topo- graphical and geographical conditions in different areas of the country have to be used to apply to local conditions. (See page 61 of House Document 354.) I should like to comment further on paragraph 5 in answer to question 17 by saying that I would hope that we apparently have not wasted $27 million of highway trust money since the determination of desirably dimensions and weights was its major purpose of Section 108(k) of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 and the AASHO test (not only for interstate, but all federal aid highways). Further, I would hope that the trucking industry is not assuming the position of challenging the validity of AASHO road tests which involved the best engineers and research minds in the country and I would hope that they would not suggest in offering no substitute data that the weight of a truck has no relationship to pavement damage or pavement life. In answer to question 19 I think it should be pointed out that paragraph 5 of the answer may be wrong and should be challenged. (To verify this I asked that you turn to page 1 of Ward Goodman's statement before House Roads Sub- committee dated May 28, 1968. See also page14). A further comment on answer to question 24. This is one of the most important questions and I am happy to note that the industry would not have strong atti- tudes about this one way or another. If we should decide that the 20,000-34,000 limitations are right and reasonable for the best of our highways, the interstate system, they ought not be exceeded on any federal highway system. On safety I am willing to accept the American Trucking Associations, Inc. statement on the safety record rather than that presented by other testimony and I think it fair to add that the record as claimed by the industry is not a good one and I think it is fair to conclude also by the increasing of width, length and weight as proposed will not add to the prospect for improvement of the safety record. PAGENO="0805" 793 If I understood the testimony of those who testified for the buses, I under-P stood them to say they had no desire for length more than 40' and would be glad to establish that as a maximum. I also understood them to say there was no desire or prospect for increasing the length of buses and yet, I have evidence in the December 8, 1967, issue, page 3, of Passenger Transport and from other sources that there are actual experiments in testing of combination buses that are similar to a small train extending up to 60 feet. This should be established beyond question before we give serious consideration to the length problem of buses. (Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the hearing was conc~uded.) PAGENO="0806" PAGENO="0807" APPENDIX On May 15, 1968, Mr. Kluczynski transmitted the following tele- gram to State highway departments; MAY 15, 1968. Subcommittee on Roads will begin hearings May 23 on administration's pro- posed 1968 Federal-aid highway legislation as well as other related proposals including relocation policy, officially or unofficially, before the committee. Would appreciate your informing me at earliest possible date minimum estimate your needs additional interstate mileage and approximate locations. Would also ap- preciate your advising me or Mrs. Warren, subcommittee staff, whether you wish to testify during these hearings. Sincerely, JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI. The replies received follow: ALABAMA MONTGOMERY, ALA., May 17, 1968. Alabama Highway Department recommends that only very limited mileage be added to presently approved Interstate System. We believe the presently ap- proved system with limited additions should be completed and then funds going into highway trust funds be allocated to States for improving ABC system to required standards determined by States `and Bureau of Public Roads on 75 Mobile INTERSTATE SYSTEM INCOMPLETE WITHOUT THIS CONNECTION prepared for ALABAMA HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT by PALMER AND BAKER ENGINEERS,lNt. Consulting Engineers MOBILE WASHINGTON NEW ORLEANS FEBRUARY, 195$ (795) PAGENO="0808" 796 percent Federal, 25 percent State matching basis. A small percentage of highway trust fund not exceeding 10 percent should be allotted for upgrading Interstate System. On this very limited basis of extension we request approval of only a 6- mile connection in urban area of Mobile on Water Street extending from Inter- state Route [-10 to 1-65. This connection was inadvertently omitted from orgi- nally approved Interstate System and should have been approved from reserve mileage as requested by State and is badly needed for the presently approved system to function properly. The State and Bureau of Public Roads have both agreed that this is the No. 1 priority in the State of Alabama. We strongly recommend approval of this short connection as a part of the Inter- state System at earliest possible date. If Congress should decide on a more liberal extension of the Interstate System mileage then Alabama has a number of routes which should be considered; namely, Birmingham to Mississippi State line along U.S. Route 78 toward Memphis, Tean., 91.3 miles; U.S. No 80 from a point east of Tuskegee at 1-85 to Columbus, Ga., 36.8 miles and loop connection from 1-65 through Huntsville (Rocket City), 40 miles. H. L. NELsON, Alabama Highway Director. ARIZONA MAY 16, 1968. Regarding your telegram May 15, Arizona has immediate need for 5 addi- tionni miles of interstate highway in Phoenix which we believe could be allocated out of the existing 41,000-mile designation. Arizona goes along with the AASHO recommendation that additionni milthge not be added to the present 41,000 miles, but that on completion of the present Interstate System the moneys in the trust fund be allocated to the States for improvements to the ABC system. If, however, it is the desire of Congress to add considerably more mileage to the present Interstate System nt this time, Arizoita has extensive needs on our pres- ent ABC system which could logically be added to the Interstate System. We will be unable to appear at the hearing. Ju5TIN HERMAN, Arizona State Highway Director. LITTLE ROCK, ARK., May 16,1968. Hon. JOHN C. KLUCZYN5KI, Member of Congress, Washington, D.C.: Regarding telegram May 15. Should Congress elect to expand the Interstate System, Arkansas would request consideration of following as a minimum, not necessarily in order of importance: For a route from KanSas City to New Orleans via Arkansas U.S. 71. Miles in Arkansas, 297. For a route from Kansas City to New Orleans via Arkansas U.S. 6.5. Miles in Arkansas, 281. For a route from Little Rock to St. Louis via Arkansas U.S. 67. Miles in Arkansas, 169. More depending on the amount additional authorized. Arkansas does not choose to testify at the hearing. Our statement will be by AASHO. WARD GOODMAN, Director of Highways, Arkansas State Highway Department. CALIFORNIA STATE OF 1.IFORNIA-TAANSPORTATION AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, DIvIsIoN OF HIGHwAYs, Sacramento, May 20, 1968. Hon. JOHN KLUCZYNSKI, Chairman, Subcommittee on Roads of Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. KLuczmsKI: This is in reply to your telegram of May 15, 1968, re- questing an estimate of minimum needs for additional Interstate System mileage. PAGENO="0809" 797 Our batic position has been and remnins that there should be no additions to the presently authorized 41,000-mile Interstate System except as may already be provided for by existing law. ll~wever, we recognize that there mhy be certain freeways which are essential to proper functioning of the presently detligntated System and would therefore be extremely desirable additions to th~ System. Using this criteria, the following additions to the Interstate System in Call- fornia are deemed to be necessary and supportable: i~. E~ttension of InterState 605 from present terminus at Interstate 10 northerly to Interstate 210 in the Los Angeles metropolitan area-5.5 miles. 2. Connection between InterState 580 and Interstate 680 in Alameda County to close gap in inner loop around San Ftaneis~cu Bay-14.8 miles. If there is to be a further expansion of the Interstate System we Would, of course, have to make a complete reassessment of our needs which might include such vitally important routes as U.S. 50, U.S. 101, and U.S. 395, as well as routes in several other rural and *uthan ti~affic corridors. In this respect, we strongly urge that before any changes are made in the presently designated Interstate System, or any firm commitments made in regard to any elements of a ~ontinu- ing Federal-aid highway program ("After `75"), a uniformly administered functional classification Study and needs study be made. We believe that the classification and needs study should include all highways, roads and streets, not just the present Federal-aid Systems. It is our opinion that only after such studies can a proper assessment be made of the relative responsibilities of Federal, State, and local jurisdictions. We respectfully request to be permitted to teStify before your committee. One of our major concerns is that the apportionment factors used for the Interstate System in the draft legislation prepared by the Department of Transportation for the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1968, do not include the cost of the Century Freeway which has been added to the Interstate System in California as a re- placement for the routes deleted from the InterState System in San Francisco in 1965. Attached is a copy of a letter from Mr. Samuel B. Nelson, Director of Public Works, to Chairman Foflon, which discusses this subject in detail. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these important matters, and to appear before your committee. `Sincerely, J. A. LEGARRA, Btate Highway Engineer. By SAM HELMER, Deputy $tate Highway Engineer. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, House Public Works Committee, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. FALLON: There is a matter of grave concern to us here in California which I want to bring to your attention at this time since very shortly your committee will be considering legislation which will result in the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1908. We have recently received a copy of a draft of a proposed bill cited `as the "Federal-aid Highway Act of 1968" which was transmitted to the House of Representatives by Secretary of Transportation Alan S. Boyd under date of April 20, 1968. Section 3 of the proposed bill authorizes the Secretary of Trans- portation to make apportionments for the Interstate System for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1970, and 1971, using the apportionment factors contained in Table 5 of House Document No. 199, 90th Congress. The apportionment factors contained in Table 5 are based on the estimated Federal share of funds required to complete the Interstate System as developed in the 1968 Interstate System Cost Estimate. As you know, in August, 1965, certain routes were deleted from the Interstate System in San Francisco. This was done by agreement between the State and the Federal Government since we were unable to reach agreement with local officials as to the location of these Interstate routes. Based on the 1965 Inter- state System Cost Estimate, these deleted routes were estimated to cost some $332 million. At the time agreement was reached to delete the Interstate routes in San Francisco, we requested that the Century Freeway in the Los Angeles area be added to the Interstate System. There was agreement at that time by Federal officials that the Century Freeway meets the criteria for an Interstate route. However, no action was taken on our request at that time. Public Law 90-238 which was approved on January 2, 1968, provides a com- pletely new legal process and legislative direction for adjustments in the Inter- PAGENO="0810" 798 state System. In those instances where a portion of the System cannot be constructed. this Statute authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to with- draw mileage from the Interstate System and substitute other mileage therefor. As a result of this legislation, the Century Freeway was added to the Inter- state System in California effective March 20, 1968. The estimated cost to con- struct the Century Freeway as approved is $277 million as reported by us to the Department of Transportation on February 5, 1968. California's 1968 Interstate System Cost Estimate included neither the Inter- state routes in San Francisco, which had been deleted, nor the Century Free- way in Los Angeles, which bad not yet been approved as an addition to the Interstate System. As a consequence, our apportionment factor has been reduced from the previous 9.787% as determined by the 1965 estimate to 7.752% based on the 1968 estimate and included in Table S of House Document No. 199 re- ferred to above. Obviously, this is a very substantial reduction and will seriously impair our ability to complete the Interstate System on a timely basis in view of the recent addition of the Century Freeway to the Interstate System. We know of no other instance in the Nation where adjustments in the Interstate System were made under the provisions of Public Law 90-238 with no adjust- ment being made for the substitute mileage as has happened in California. We have had discussions concerning this matter with Mr. Lowell K. Bridwell, Federal Highway Administrator, and have assumed that appropriate adjust- ments in the estimate of cost would be made. We have learned that no action in this regard has been taken yet. For this reason I am calling the matter to your attention so that proper consideration can be given to this serious problem and appropriate action taken while the proposed legislation relating to the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1968 is still under consideration. I would be most happy to furnish any additional information or documentation which you might require. Respectfully, SAMUEL B. NELSON, Director of Public Works. JAMES A. Mon, Chief Deputy Director. MAY 16, 1968. CONNECTICUT Connecticut supports position that there should be no increase in mileage of interstate system until original 41.000 miles is completed. If congress decides additional mileage should be authorized at this time Connecticut requests addi- tion of the following: (A) Conn 291-extension of 1-291 to complete Hartford circumferential 5 miles. (B) Hartford, Conn. to Rhode Island State line on route to Providence, Rhode Island 40 miles. (C) New Haven circumferential 12 miles. Connecticut does not propose to testify at hearing at this time but will be represented by AASHO. RALPH L. HAGER, Dep itty Highway Commissioner- COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, STATE OF COLORADO, May 16, 1968. Hon. JOHN C. KLUCzYNSKI, Member of Congress, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dnsn REPRESENTATIVE JOHN: This is in reply to your telegram of May 15, rela- tive to the proposed hearings on the 1968 Federal-aid highway legislation. As far as the relocation policy is concerned, and in view of the wide vari- ance among the various states and Government agencies on this matter, I think PAGENO="0811" 799 it would be well for the Congress to spell out, insofar as possible, a uniform policy On this subject. It has never been a major problem in our State, but there have been times when a conflict in policy between Federal agencies has caused considerable comment among our people engaged in right of way acquisition. Insofar as extensions to the Interstate system are concerned, Colorado has one particularly vital extension which we feel is eligible under the present Interstate law, but which we have been unable to obtain designation for because of the lim- ited undesignated mileage remaining of the presently designated 41,000 miles. You will recall, I am sure, that in the original 40,000 mile limitation of the Interstate system, as passed by the Congress in 1956, Interstate Route 70 terminated at its junction with Interstate Route 25 in the city of Denver, and Colorado had no Interstate désighation west from Denver. In 1957 when the circumferential routes of the major Metropolitan area were designated as a j*rt of the Interstate system, we received designation for the southeasterly and northeasterly circumferential routes around the city of Denver. However, inasmuch as we had no Interstate designation West from Denver, there was no designation made of the southwesterly and northwesterly circumferential routes. In 1958 when the Interstate system was expanded to 41,000 miles by the Con- gress, Colorado did receive, together with Utah, a d~signation of Interstate Route 70 from Denver westerly to a connection with Interstate Route 15 in Utah. Since that time almost yearly we have made application for the northwest and southwest circumferential routes which are in accordance with the original Interstate plan. However, we have been advised from time to time by the Bureau of Public Roads that there was insufficient mileage to grant these circumferential connec- tions in the southwest and northwest quandrants of the Denver Metropolitan area. This mileage is 46+ miles and we feel it is most essential if we are to fully complete the Interstate system. in the Denver Metropolitan area. If it is the intention of the Congress to make substantial additions to the Interstate System, Colorado has one segment which we feel is not only im- portant to the states of Colorado and Kansas, but also can readily qualify as a part of the National system. This would be the designation of an Interstate route following generally along the route of present U.S. 50 from Wichita, Kansas to the Colorado state line near Holly, Colorado and then extending westerly along the general route of present designated U.S. 50 to a junction. with Interstate Route 70 in Grand Junction, Colorado near the western edge of our state. The total length of this route in Colorado will be approximately 438 miles. I am almost certain that the state of Kansas will also be making a similar request for that portion lying within the state of Kansas, if substantial additional mileage is added to the Interstate system. As I am sure you are aware, AASHO is not recommending any increase in the presen't Interstate system until the existing mileage is completed, and I feel that this probably is a pretty sound position, but I also realize the problem which the Congress is confronted within relation to this subject. It has not been my intention to appear before your Committee to testify dur- ing the hearings. However, you may rest assured that I will be most willing to provide your committee with ~ny information you may request. With very best personal wishes, I remain, Sincerely yours, CHA5. E. SHUMATE, Chief Engineer. DELAWARE STATE OF DELAWARE, STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Dover, Del., Maqj 17,1968. Hon. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Member of Congress, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. KLUCZYNSKI: This is in reply to your telegram of 15 June 1968 requesting information on Delaware's need for additional Interstate mileage and approximate locations. PAGENO="0812" 800 As an Officer of the AASHO and after having participated in the vote formu- lating AASHO policy for a continuing highway program, I feel duty bound to concur with that policy. As you know it recommends no additional mileage to the presently authorized Interstate System although it recommends that 5% of the highway funds be made available for upgrading the presently authorized 41,000 miles. If, however, the Congress determines to increase interstate mileage the fol- lowing would be Delaware's minimum mileage and locations. Miles U.S. 202-Route 141-Wilmington area 17. 5 U.S. 13-Md-Dl. Line to Wilmington area 85. 8 Total 103. 3 Our Department does not desire to testify at the hearings. Yours very truly ERNEST A. DAVIDSON, Director. FLORIDA MAY 16, 1968. Re telegram minimum needs for additional interstate mileage in Florida are: from Tampa to Fort Myers to Miami, 268 miles; from Miami to Homstead, 28 miles; and Florida's portion of a route from Montgomery, Ala., to 1-10 in vicinity of Marianna, 16 miles. Request for these 312 miles of additions were made in 1956 and are still on file with the Bureau of Public Roads. I do not wish to testify during the hearings. JAY W. BROWN, Commissioner, Florida State Road Department. GEORGIA MAY 17, 1968. Reference to your wire of May 15, 1968, requesting information on proposed Federal-aid highway legislation, Georgia has definite present and future need for over 10,000 miles of multilane freeways in addition to our 1,100 miles of the Interstate System. These additional facilities are documented in Georgia's compre- hensive highways needs study. We are strongly in favor of legislation enabling us to construct such highways following completion of the present Interstate System as additions to that system where appropriate and as primary free- ways similar in design. If more immediate legislation is to be considered, then Georgia will be ready to initiate justification and be able to document its support of the following high-priority segments of freeways as additions to the current Interstate System. Our suggested priorities are in order as numbered. 1. Alabama line at Columbus to 1-16 southeast of Macon 85 miles. 2. Projected Federal-aid primary, Route F-056 through Atlanta from 1-75 southeast of Atlanta near Stockbridge to junction with 1-285 north of Atlanta, exclusive of 4 miles common with Iaritl-20 miles. 3. From 1-75 at Tifton northeast via vicinity of McRae, Dublin, Swainsboro, Louisville and to a junction with 1-20 at Augusta-168 miles. 4. From the Florida line, north of Tallahasee, via Thomasville and Moultrie to a junction with 1-75 at Tifton-64 miles. 5. From Columbus at a junction with No. I above, via Dawson and Albany, to 1-75 at Tifton-125 miles. These proposals total approximately 462 miles within Georgia. As we now see the situation there is no desire on our part to testify at the scheduled hearings. JIM L. GILLIs, Sr., Director, State Highway Department of Georgia. IDAHO Hon. JoHN. C. KLUCzYN5KI, Congressman from Illinois, Chairman, Subcommittee on Roads, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: Minimum estimate Idaho needs for additional interstate mileage is 658 miles. Locations are as follows: PAGENO="0813" 801 1. Idaho-Wyoming state line to McCammon, Idaho, presently designated U.S. 30-N-98 miles. 2. Idaho-Oregon state line to Idaho Canadian international boundary, presently designated U.S. 95 and connecting with the Alcan highway in Canada-560 miles. Total 658 miles Idaho does wish to file written testimony on this matter in con- junction with hearings on proposed 1068 Federal-aid highway legislation begin- ning May 23. This will be done through Idaho's Congressional delegation. E. L. MATHE5, State Highway Engineer, Idaho Department of Highways. INDIANA Re your telegram requesting minimum needs interstate mileage and approxi- mate locations extend 1-69 from its present termination at 1-465 in northeast Marion County southwesterly to an intersection with 1-64 northeast of Evans- ville approximate distance 170 miles. Approval of additional route would integrate industrial metropolitan area of Michigan and Ohio with national recreation area near Paducah, Ky. If state of Kentucky either completes Pennyrile Parkway south of Evansville or requests extension of 1-69 from Evansville area to its junction with I-24 near Paducah and Kentucky Lakes National Recreation Area. However, in addition to an Inter- state System slightly larger than that now approved there are many miles of principal highways of regional importance which must ultimately be con- structed to the same high standards of interstate routes. Indiana's recently com- pleted highway needs study indicates this to be true and supports the sections of 5. 3381 pertaining to this type program. Will furish more details. Justification upon request. Indiana does not desire to testify. MARTIN L. HAYES, Evecutive Director, Indiana State Highway Commission. IOWA IowA STATE HIGHWAY CoMMIasIoN, Ames, Iowa, May 16, 1968. Hon. JOHN 0. KLUOzYN5KI, Member of Congress, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mx. KLuOZYN5KI: This is in reply to your telegram of May 25, 1968 con- cerning the hearings beginning May 23 on 1908 proposed Federal Aid Highway Legislation. Attached please find various documents expressing the position of the Iowa State Highway Commission on various legislative matters with brief explanations as follows: (1) Position Paper on Weight and Dimension Limitations for Commer- cial Vehicles: This paper was prepared in response to the proposed legislation con- `tamed in the Magnuson Bill which has passed the Senate with the tan- dem. axle weight being reduced from 36,000 pounds to 34,000 pounds. The basic position of the Iowa State Highway Commission is that no change be adopted at the Federal or state level unless such changes are accompanied by appropriate legislation that would increase the financial contribution to the highway systems made by commercial vehicles. (2) Position paper on the' Continuing Federal Aid Program After Com- pletion of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways:' This paper is self-explanatory with the position of `the Commission expressed in relation to proposed A.A.S.H.O. recommendations as can be noted on Page 3 under HI. A.1. The Highway Commission supports the position of A.A.S.H.O. and reèommends that no mileage' be `added under the present formula and concept. ` ` ` ` This paper also covers apportionment among states and systems. PAGENO="0814" 802 (3) The attached map shows the proposed network of freeways and expressways adopted by the Iowa State Highway Commission to supplement the Interstate System in the state. Although the Commission had previously adopted a Freeway-Expressway System, a more thorough analysis was made to develop this proposed system in relation to regional service, traffic assign- ments and cost estimates. This latest network of freeways and expressways was adopted on February 7, 1968 and basic information is contained in the press release also attached. If new major mileage is to be added nationwide to the Interstate System, the proposed freeways shown in blue on the map would qualify for additional mileage. A proposed Freeway System of 759 miles in length is to be built to full freeway standards like the Interstate System and, in general, serve the same type of traffic as the Interstate System in Iowa. (4) A presentation was made before the Democratic Platform Committee on May 15, 1968 concerning very basic positions on Federal legislation and state legislation: Item 3 on Page 2 expresses our concern on deferrals of the release of Federal money to the states from the Highway Trust Fund. Item 4 on Page 3 recommends that consideration be given to Federal legislation authorizing and appropriating funds for commencing devel- opment of the Mississippi River Parkway as part of the overall Federal Parkway System. The two position papers above as well as information pertaining to the Missis- sippi River Parkway Commission and proposed Freeway and Expressway Net- work have been submitted to Iowa's Congressional Delegation. J. R. COUPAL, Jr., The Highway Commission will be pleased to have representation at the hear- ings which are commencing May 23. We would appreciate your advising us of the date on which you desire a specific statement of our position. Very truly yours, J. R. COUPAL, Jr., Director of Highwa'ys. KANSAS Re telegram May 15, regret we cannot attend hearings and testify May 23. The American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) will testify for the States May 28. Kansas is in accord with the position which will be presented by AASHO. In the event additional interstate mileage is made available to the States, our urgent needs approximate 175 miles generally following the route of US 69 from the Oklahoma line northward to Kansas City and extended northwesterly and northerly toward the Kansas City-International Airport in Missouri. JOHN D. MONTGOMERY, Director of Highways, state Highway Commission of Kansas. KENTUCKY COMMONwEALTH OF KENTUCKY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Franlefort, Ky., May 21, 1968. Representative JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear REPRESENTATIVE KLuczYN5KI: In reply to your wire dated May 15, 1968, the Kentucky Department of Highways would like to offer the following comments. While the Department has not been able to study in detail all the facets of the Administration's proposed 1968 Federal Aid Highway Legislation, there are certain areas which we feel we should comment on at this time. As for the proposal relative to the relocation policy, the Department is in favor of raising the three thousand dollar limit for moving businesses but is not PAGENO="0815" 803 in favor of paying compensation for the loss of business during the relocation. We feel that the two hundred dollar limit for residences is adequate. Kentucky's needs for additional Interstate mileage is primarily to better serve its metropolitan areas. Preliminary studies have indicated additional Interstate needs as follows: 1. Spur from I 64 to Ashland-Approximate length 6.6 miles with esti- mated cost of 13.5 million dollars. 2. Crosstown Freeway in Lexington-Approximate length 9.0 miles with estimated cost of 32 million dollars. 3. In the Louisville area .there is critical need to upgrade the Watterson Expressway (I 264) for a distance of 12.7 miles with an estimated cost of 62 million dollars. Also in Louisville to construct two new radial connectors a total distance of approximately 26.5 miles with an estimated cost of 64 million dollars. Reference is made to telegram by Indiana Highway Commission relative to the extension of I 69 to Evansville. Kentucky now has under construction toll road facilities which will serve the I 69 route from Evansville across the Ohio to Henderson onto a connection with 124 near Paducah. I certainly appreciate your asking whether I would like to testify before the Subcommittee at the hearings to begin on May 23, but believe that I will decline at this time because I feel that Kentucky's position is very much like that stated by various State Highway Department officials and Highway Agencies who have already submitted testimonies before the Subcommittee on Roads. Very truly yours, W. B. HAZELRIGG, Commissioner of Highways. LOUISIANA Hon. JoHN C. KLuczYNsKI, Chairman, House Roads Subcommittee, Hoitse of Rejwesentatives, Washington, D.C.: Regarding your wire of May 15. Minimum additions to Interstate: Dixie Free- way, 47 miles belt loop in New Orleans; north-south interstate from New Orleans to Shreveport 250 miles. Desirable: South belt, Shreveport; extension 1-310, Riverfront in New Orleans. OREN B~&Icnn, Chief Engineer, Louisiana Department of Highways. MASSACHUS1~TTS THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Boston, May 20, 1968. Hon. Jonx C. KLUCZYNSKI, Member of Congress, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN KLUCZYNSKI: This will acknowledge receipt of your tele- gram concerning the Subcommittee on Roads hearings which will start on May 23. Regarding additional Interstate mileage, the State of Massachusetts is opposed to any substantial increase in Interstate mileage. However, should Congress elect to increase the presently authorized mileage, I am submitting plans show- ing tentative locations of three projects all of which concern the States of Rhode Island and Massachusetts. There is agreement between the two States on these projects and the approximate location at which each would cross the State line. We have previously submitted requests for additional mileage which have not been acknowledged and we hope that these requests will be given consideration in any future allocations. Regarding relocation assistance, this State is most heartily in favor of any legislation that would make the relocation assistance for highway relocation compatible with that of other government agencies. Additional information on relocation assistance is attached. PAGENO="0816" TH*E COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 20 milts DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS ROUTE NUMBERING SYSTEM July 1959 N~W KAM~ ~ I 0 I c ONN~ 0 0 N TU~1T PAGENO="0817" 805 Regarding the Department's desire to testify, the State of Massachusetts is desirous of participating to whatever extent you or other members of the Sub- committee feel would be beneficial in this cause, and I trust I may hear from you regarding your wishes in this matter. Very truly yours, EDWARD J. Rim~s, Commissioner. MAINE Hon. JOHN C. KLIJCZYNSKI: The reply `to your telegram of May 15, 1968, is as follows: 1. The Maine State Highway Commission believes that present Interstate System of 41,000 miles, countrywide, `should be constructed before additional mileage is authorized for this system. 2. We believe emphasis should be pl'ac~ed on construction of primary roads which under the ABC program have been neglected to some extent in favor of construction on the Interstate System, this emphasis to take place on completion of the present Interstate `System. S 3. In the event that additional mileage is to be authorized by Congress at this time the `following routes and niileage `should he con'sid~red in the State of Maine. (a) Houl'ton to Fort Kent, via Van Bu.ren-122 miles. (b) Brunswick to `Calais-244 miles. (Note section from Brunswick to Bath, 8 miles, now constructed to interstate standards through use of primary and urban funds.) (c) Calais to Bangor-97 miles; and Pittsfield to Fryeburg-103 miles (Maine-New Hampshire border) this is part of proposed Maine-to-New York Highway. (d) Portland to Fryeburg-40 miles. 4. I do not plan to appear before your committee hut will rely on presentation by AASHO which I `understand is to be made on May28. Thank you for advising us of the hearings and for the invitation to attend. DAVID H. STEVENS, Chairman, Maine state Highway Commission. MICHIGAN SPATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF STATE HIGHWAYS, Lansing, Mich., May 20, 1968. Hon. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, House of' Representatives, A8ubcommittee on Roads, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN KLUCZYNSKI: In response to your telegram dated May 15, 1968, we are pleased to have this opportunity to `express Michigan's opposition to any expansion of the Interstate System. There is no question that constructing the existing Interstate System has been one of the great public works programs of all time, and the results have been spectacular. To accomplish this tremendous `task, it has been necessary to utilize most of our financial resources. It has not been accomplished without a detrimentai effect on the `remainder of the highway system. Federal-aid Primary, Urban and Secondary programs have not kept `pace with `the increasing needs of our motorists. We are concerned that an expanded Interstate System would again put emphasis on a mhilmum amount of mileage to the detriment of the remainder of `the highway system. We are loud in our praise of the Interstate System, however, `it is our belief that `by 1975, we should be turning most of our attention to the Primary, Urban and Secondary Systems of our total highway network. Also, the need for addi- tional financial assistance on the arterial highways in our major metropolitan areas is of great concern. We propose that the Highway Trust Fund be extended and these funds `be used to finance a `balanced highway program including all of the Federal-aid Highway Systems. The need for additional freeways is evident, `but these freeways, as well as' the upgrading of the existing. Interstate System, can and should bC financed through expanded primary and urban PAGENO="0818" 806 programs. We believe that the matching ratio on all Federal-aid projects should be identical. Our studies indicate that the most feasible and effective ratio for future programing would be 75 percent by the federal government and 25 percent by state and local sources. Elimination of both preferred funding and a preferred matching ratio will provide the states with more flexibility in their use of federal funds and in meeting their highway needs on a priority basis. If it is the decision of the Congress to expand the Interstate System, Michigan would expect to receive additional mileage and could easily justify doubling its existing system of 1081 miles. However, inasmuch as you asked for a minimum estimate, we are submitting only a 750-mile expansion at this time. Actually, there are many more miles in our state that could be justified on the basis of existing criteria. The attached map and listing indicate those routes which would make up our minimum expansion requirements. Sincerely, HENRIK E. STAFSETH, State Highway Director. PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE INTERSTATE SYSTEM, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE HIGHWAYS IDollar amounts in thousands) Estimated Description miles Estimated cost Construction Right-of-way Total 1. Detroit Inner Loop (Davison-T5cNichols-Connors- Vernor axis) 15 $109,000 $46,000 $155,000 2. Extension of 1-275 north to 1-75 21 59,160 17,748 76,908 3. Mound Rd.IM-53 axis from McNichols north to pro- posed 1-69 43 88,284 24,186 112,470 4. Extension of -69 northeast to Port Huron 156 126,487 25,913 152,400 5. Kalamazoo Spur 6 23,400 6,300 29,700 6. Grand Rapidssouth bypass 17 20,000 5,222 25,222 7. U.S.-31, from 1-196 north to Straits of Mackisac 253 229,768 47, 264 277, 032 8. U.S. 41, Menominee to Marquette 129 182, 754 31,964 214, 718 9. US. 2, U.S. 41, east to 1-75 110 80,088 12, 465 92, 553 Total 750 918,941217,062 1,136,003 MINNESOTA Hon. JOHN C.. KLCTCZYNSKI: Relative to your wire of May 15, AASHO will present a statement on proposed 1908 Federal-aid highway legislation, Minnesota endorses the AASHO state- ment and does not wish to testify separately. Minnesota does not favor additions to total authorized interstate mileage at this time. Favor completing system within present total mileage limitation as quickly as funds will permit. N. P. WALDOR, Commissioner Minnesota Highway Department, St. Paul. MISSISSIPPI Missrss~~i STA~ HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Jackson, May 16, 1968. Hon. JOHN C. KLUcZYNSKI, Chairman, Rubcomnzittee on Roads, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: With reference to your telegram dated May 15, 1908, your advising us of subcommittee hearings on the Administration's proposed 1968 Federal-aid highway legislation, as well as related proposals, including relocation policy, and giving us the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee are deeply appreciated. Attached hereto is a copy of a reply to a questionnaire regarding the Adminis- tration's proposals which state this department's position relative to the various sections. It is our feeling that the addition of interstate mileage to the presently authorized 41,000 miles would not be in the best public interest, as construction PAGENO="0819" 807 of an Interstate System would continue indefinitely, and in all likelihood at the expense of accelerating improvements on the ABC system. An enlarged ABC program would permit States to build appropriate portions of highways to the same standards as the Interstate System; and if authorized by Congress, sections of highways built to these standards, which would constitute an appropriate addition to the presently authorized Interstate System, could be so marked. In the event it is the decision of your subcommittee, the Public Works Com- mittee, and `Congress to add mileage to the presently authorized Interstate System, U.S. 78, for a length of 122 miles in Mississippi, which would form part of a route between Birmingham, Alabama `and Memphis, Tennes'see, should be added. it is believed that the relocation poli'cy `should make some provisi'on for pay- ments to persons and businesses displaced by acquisition of highway rights-of- way to permit their `relocation in `comparable quarters and comparable environments. Due to the present `needs on the ABC System, it is our opinion that highway funds should not `at `this time be used to finance the construction of parking areas or garages. It would seem preferable for a fund to be made available from which local jurisdictions could finance the construction of such facilities and repay the loan with revenue obtained from operation of the parking lot or garage. The invitation to appear before your Subcommittee is sincerely appreciated, but this Department floes not pl'an t'o have anyone te'stify on May 23, 1968. Yours very truly, T. C. ROBBINS, Director. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY OFFICIALS, 341 NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 RESPONSE SHEET ON: THE DOT DRAFT LEGISLATION "FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1968" (TO AUTHORIZE APPORTIONMENTS FOR 1970 AND 1971) (TRANSMITTED TO AASIIO MEMBER DEPARTMENTS ON APRIL 25, 1968) Section 2 of the Bill: (Freezes authorization at $4 `Billion starting with 1970) Comments: `The apportionments to the Interstate System should be the maxi- mum that the `Trust Fund can `bear (after increased taxes, `if any) less the ABC apportionment's. Section 4 of the Bill: (The dates specified do no,t `appear to be the final completion dates.) Comments: There should be a completion date established and financing pro- vided for fulfillment. Section 5 of `the Bill: (1) Comments: Satisfactory. (2) Comments: (For TOPICS Program) There is no end to conflicting juris- dictions. `Oppose in principle and oppose the Trust Fund diversion. (3) & (4) (`Note to come from Trust Fund), Comments: Oppose any raid on the Fund. Imperative the Interstate system be completed as rapidly as possible. Section 6 of the Bill: Comments: None. Section 7 of the Bill: Comments: None, Section 8 of the Bill: Comments : `Proper method of handling financing. Secti:on 9 of `the Bill: (All Subsections) `Comments: This w'ould advance States' share. Oppose as all this will do will save the States interest on it's share, but will decrease interest revenue to Trust Fund. Section 10 of the Bill: Comments: Satisfactory. Section 11 of the Bill Comments: Satisfactory. Section 12 of the Bill: `Comments: Oppose for same reason as given under Section 5(2). Section 13 of the Bill: Comments: Oppose.. Section 14. Oppose. (5) T. C. ROBBINS, Director. 96-030-68------52 PAGENO="0820" 808 Important: This form is to be completed, signed by the Chief Administrative Official of the Department and returned to the AASHO Office no later than May 10, 1968. MISSOURI MAY 20, 1968. Hon. JoHN C. KLUczYN5KI: Reference your wire May 15 AASHO has recommended that no additional mileage be added to the Interstate System to be financed 90-10 from the trust funds. To this we agree. We believe that the trust fund should be continued by revenues at least equal to the present and that matching ratio for all systems be changed to 75-25. Thus States can then build to Interstate standards and mark with Interstate markers those highways within each State that justify such action. If Congress chooses to take another course and authorize additional mileage to be financed 90-10 from the trust fund Missouri would need a total of 1,847 additional miles of highway built to Interstate standards. The location of these highways is shown in the after 1975 report submitted to your committee by AASHO. We realize the mileage will have~ to be adjusted in accordance with the national total allowed by Congress if any. I do not intend to testify during the hearings. 1~I. J. SNIDER, Chief Engineer. MONTANA MONTANA HIGHWAY CoMMIssIoN, Helena, Mont., May 15, 1968. Hon. JOHN C. KLuCzYN5KI, House Roads Subeomni~ittee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN KLUCZYNSKI: In reply to your telegram of May 15, 1968, we wish to notify you that we support the position of the American Association of State Highway Officials that the Interstate System be kept at the present 41,000 mile size. We are of the opinion that any additional freeway mileage can be handled adequately under the regular ABC program. In the event, however, that the size of the system is to be increased, we recommend that U.S. 87 from Billings to Great Falls (220 miles) and U.S. 2 across the state (667 miles) be included in the system. We favor relocation assistance payments since our present state law permits us to pay $6,000 for business relocation or $400 for private residence relocation. We do not believe, however, that the situation in Montana is so critical that it requires that the Highway Department find suitable residences for dislocated persons. Very truly yours, LEWIS M. CHITTmi, P.E., state Highway Engineer. NEBRASKA STATE OF NEBRASKA, I4neoln, May 21,1968. Mr. JOHN C. KLUczYN5KI, Chairman, Bubcainnvlttee on Roads, House Committee on Pubtie Works, House Office Building, Wa8hin.gton, D.C. DEAR Mit. KLUCZYNSKI: Reference is made to your telegram of May 15, 1968, relative to the fact that you will soon begin hearings on the administration's proposed 1968 Federal-aid Highway Legislation. Our views on that legislation have been submitted to Aif Johnson, the Executive Director of the American Association of State Highway Officials. The President of AASHO and Mr. John- son will appear before your committee with the views of the State Highway Departments on this important legislation. Insofar as additional Interstate mileage is concerned, we support the official AASHO position on this matter, as we feel that after the present 41,000 system is completed, that the highway revenues can better be applied to modernizing our Federal-aid Primary, Secondary, and Urban highways as in other states. PAGENO="0821" 809 We in Nebraska do have great needs on our highway systems. Many of these segments will ultimately require four-lane divided type improvements similar to those used on the Interstate. We do feel, however, that we can get more for our highway dollar if Federal funds are allocated among the several existing Federal-aid systems rather than spending most of those funds on extensive Interstate additions. Under such a plan each segment would be built to the appropriate standards for the traffic which it will serve. Thus, we could con- centrate the Interstate type improvements on those segments which are vital to the highway service of our State, where volumes are such that freeway type improvements would markedly reduce the accident toll, rather than having it spent on routes criss-crossing the State and nation, portions of which would carry lighter traffic volumes. Since 156 and until about 1975 the "lions share" of our Federal funds have been allocated to the completion of the Interstate system. Since an integrated cross-country network to our major cities and defense installations was essen- tial this was proper. This has meant, however, that the normal highway systems of our country were neglected as we concentrated our funds upon this "super highway" system. In our opinion, when the 41,000 miles are complete, we should then concentrate our efforts on a modernization of our regular Federal-aid highway systems. For the reasons above noted, we feel that the revenues going to the Highway Trust Fund should definitely be continued, but that they should be allocated for work on the existing systems with perhaps some added emphasis in urban areas, and with standards selected appropriate for the anticipated traffic volumes. In our state at least, this would give us considerably more highway service for the dollars involved. Naturally if extra Interstate mileage were to be added by Congress, we would have several routes to suggest for inclusion in that extended system. However, we doubt that system extension is in the nation's best interest. We do appreciate your invitation to testify at the bearing, but feel that the AASHO representatives will adequately present our views on the matter. Should you have need for additional information, feel free to call upon us. Very truly yours, JOHN W. HossAcK, $tate Engineer. NEVADA Hon. JOHN C. KLUCzYN5KI: Re your wire of May 15, 19138, State of Nevada has supported AASHO stand on any extension of Interstate System until present system completed. In the event that extension will be made the State of Nevada, with States of Utah and California, have and will support extension of Interstate 70 from Cove Fort, Utah along U.S. 50 in Nevada and California to Sacramento. This has gained considerable support from U.S. 50 association and communities located along the route. The length of this proposed route in Nevada is some 410 miles. We also feel that a connection from Interstate 80 in Reno along U.S. 395 to Carson City, the capitol of our State is significant. This would be some 30 miles in length. We would also support along with Oregon and Idaho the addition of U.S. 95 from Winnemucca and Interstate 80 northerly to the Nevada-Oregon State line. The routing would then extend along U.S. 95 through Oregon and a junction with the existing Interstate System in Idaho. The length of this route will be some 74 miles in Nevada. JOHN E. BAWDEN, State Highway Engineer. NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE OF Nnw HAMPSHIRE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, Concord, May 17, 1968. Hon. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Roads, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN KLUCZYNSKI: I am grateful for your telegram of Ma31 15 relative to New Hampshire's needs for additional Interstate mileage and will respond to the questions it poses in the following paragraphs: PAGENO="0822" .~. 8pm to boOt Ic .~. Uo& Ccmstruciion ~ 968-69-10 Pro~rom ~ tterc~oo~e Number 810 - ADDITIONAL NTERSTATE REQUIREMENTS While I suppose that the other 49 States will indicate that they also were short-changed in the initial dispensation of Interstate mileage, I have known since the beginning of the program, that ~ew Hampshire was short-changed. In support of my position, I invite your attention to the fact that New Hampshire's PAGENO="0823" 811 neighbor to the west, Vermont, which has a considerably smaller population and correspondingly smaller economy was awarded 321 miles as compared to New Hampshire's 214.5 miles. By the same token, Maine on the east was accorded 312 miles and Massachusetts on the south was granted 453 miles. Congressman Cleveland of your Committee can ably attest to this disparity and to New Hampshire's needs. Back in 1956 and 1957 when an additional 1000 miles of Interstate mileage was available for distribution to the Federal Highway Administration, my Depart- ment made a strong plea for a cross-state route and for a connection leading through the northern part of the State to the Quebec `border. Since that time, as the result of the accelerated industrial, commercial and recreational develop- ment of New Hampshire, the need has become more acute and more obvious for cross-state expressway routes. Whereas in 1956 I could foresee the need for only one of these cross-state facilities, there is now no question in my mind for the need of at least two. There is still an urgent need for a north-south connection to the Quebec border in the northern tip of New Hampshire which provides the shortest and best route between New England and Quebec City. Last, but by no means least, there is a need for a north-south expressway facility along the eastern side of New Hampshire. As a matter of fact, New Hampshire with its own funds has already completed the beginning of such a facility as far north as the City of Rochester. Attached hereto for convenient reference is a small map showing the general locations of the routes previously described. The total mileage involved is ap- proximately 350 miles.. Based on Ne\v Hampshire's experience with Interstate construction to date in its particularly rugged terrain, I would place a dollar value on this additional mileage of 1 million dollars per mile or a total of $350,000,000. * If the Congress, in its wisdom, sees fit to extend the mileage of the Interstate and Defense Highway System, I believe that the above mileage `represents the minimum to which New Hampshire is entitled. Thus, it is possible to at least partially correct an initial inequity as well as make provisions to serve New Hampshire's rapidly expanding economy. While I have indicated the above needs as an expansion of the Interstate sys- tem, they represent basic expressway needs regardless of whether they are in- cluded as Interstate extensions or whether they are treated on a uniform matching basis. While I do not plan to testify before your Committee in my capacity as a State Highway Commissioner, I shall appreciate the opportunity to appear on this subject as President of AASHO. Thanking you for your continued earnest `interest and support of the Highway Program, and with kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely, JOHN 0. MORToN, Commissioner. NEW JERSEY Hon. JOHN C. KLUCZYN5KI, house of Representatives, Was\hington, D.C. In reply to your telegram of May 16 minimum additional Interstate require- nients total 482.9 miles at estimated cost of $1.65 `billion details following in letter which sets forth department's position. DAVID J. GOLDBERG, New Jersey Commissioner of Transportation. NEW MEXICO NEw MExIco STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Santa Fe, N. Mccc., May 16, 1968. HON. JOHN C. KLUOZYNSKI, Chairman, Roads Subcommittee, Public Works Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. KLUczYNsKI: This is to acknowledge receipt of your telegram of May 15, offering an opportunity to comment regarding the continuing Federal- aid highway program. PAGENO="0824" 812 New Mexico has had on file with the Bureau of Public Roads since 1955 a request for addition to the Interstate System of loops through the Albuquerque area on both Interstate Route 25 and Interstate Route 40, totaling approximately 42 miles. In 1956, a further request was made for the addition of U.S. Highway 70 from Las Cruces, New Mexico via Alamogordo, Roswell, Portales and Clovis to the Texas line, being approximately 303 miles in length. We were advised by the Texas Highway Department that Texas concurred in the extension of the latter route via U.S. Highways 60 and 87 to connect with Interstate 40 at Ama- rillo. A map showing the present routing is attached hereto. It would be earnestly hoped that funds for any enlargement of the Inter- state System would be provided in addition to those needed for the urgent and critical needs of the Federal-aid Primary and Secondary Systems. PAGENO="0825" 813 With regard to the relocation of persons and businesses displaced by urban highway construction, we would hope that an arrangement could be devised whereby monies which are available for urban re-development from other sources than the Highway Trust Fund could be provided and coordinated with the use of Trust Fund monies for that portion of the cost which may be determined to be patently a road-user responsibility. I must advise that my commitments would not permit me to testify at the upcoming hearings, but I wish to express my sincere appreciation of this op- portunity to reply concerning the matters mentioned in your telegram. Very truly yours, L. G. BOLES.. State Highway Engineer. NEW YORK May 20, 1968. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, House of Representatives: If Congress sees fit to increase interstate highway mileage limitation, New York State's request for interstate designations and their mileage in New York State would include North Country Expressway from Interstate 81 north of Watertown to Interstate 87 north of Plattsburgh and thence to Interstate 89 in Vermont, 150 miles; Southern Tier Expressway from Interstate 90 at Erie, Pa., to Suffern (Interstate 287) N425 miles; Route 219 from Buffalo to connect with Pittsburgh area or to Interstate 76 south of Johnstown-Altoona. As Penn- sylvania may desire 70 miles, adjustments to the system in the New York City area of approximately 20 miles, Binghamton to Interstate 878 in Albany-Sche- nectady-Troy area, 150 miles; and, if the other States involved concur, thence to Portland, Maine, via Vermont and New Hampshire, 35 miles. Prior commit- ments preclude my appearance at May 23 hearings. J. BURCH MCMORRAN, Comim4ssioner. NORTH CAROLINA STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Raleigh, N.C., June 5, 1968. HON. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Roads, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN KLUOYNSKI: I am writing in reference to your telegram of May 15, 1968, `to the North Carolina State Highway Commission which ad- vised the House Subcommittee on Roads will hold hearings on the Administra- tion's Proposed 1968 Federal-aid Highway Legislation and related matters and which requested a "minimum" estimate of North Carolina's need for additional Interstate mileage and approximate locations. Unfortunately, there is not a clear-cut answer to this inquiry. There is a great need in North Carolina for more highway facilities of the type and char- acter of the Interstate System. The presently established Interstate System of Highways does not adequately tie together and meet the demands generated by the many regions of our State and of the surrounding States. North Carolina received only 770 miles of the presently designated Interstate System which is substantially less than the mileage allocated to other States with similar charac- teristics. (For example: Tennessee-1,051 miles; Virginia-1,061 miles; Georgia- 1,106 miles; Florida-1,154 miles; etc.) Our costal recreational areas, our State ports, our larger urban centers, our industrial piedmont, our State Capitol, and the military installations of national importance located in North Carolina are not adequately served by the existing Interstate System. More than 1,200 miles of additional Interstate System mileage are required to meet our existing minimum need. Also, many miles of the existing Interstate System was designed for 1975 traffic volumes; and, it will be necessary to upgrade or supplement these facilities within `the foreseeable future. PAGENO="0826" 814 We feel that in order to develop a rational determination of the need for addi- tional Interstate mileage, it is necessary that we take a look at our overall high- way needs and a look at the available financial programs to meet these needs. There is no question but that the concentrated effort that has been placed on the existing Interstate System of Highways has resulted in a deterioration of our other urban and rural primary highway systems. The present Federal-aid Pro- gram does not provide for sufficient funds to meet the needs on these systems, and a further enlargement of the Interstate System would continue to "drain off" funds for the betterment of one system of highways while allowing the other systems to continue `to deteriorate. It is my firm belief that Congress should make a detailed study of the matter of distribution of Federal-aid Highway Funds before increasing the size of the Interstate System inasmuch as the presently designated system will not be com- pleted until the late 1970's. There are a great many inequities in the present Fed- eral-aid Highway Program in that many States are penalized by the apportion- ment of Federal Funds with these inequities directly related to the fixed nature of the Interstate System. To emphasize this situation, I have tabulated below the Federal-aid Funds apportioned to North Carolina from the Trust Fund for an average five-year period along with the estimated revenues paid from North Carolina to the Trust Fund. Federal-aid funds apportioned to 2%Tortlt Carolina from ltigl~way trwst fund Amount (v~illions Fiscal year: of dollars.) 1968 54. 3 1967 50. 4 1966 46. 3 1965 44. 3 1964 43. 1 Estimated Federal emcise revenues paid. into highway trust fund by worth Carolina Amount (millions Fiscal year: of dollars) 1966 106. 9 1965 103. 3 1964 98. 9 1963 93. 6 1962 86. 4 It is to be noted that North Carolina has been receiving less than a 50% return on the funds paid into the Trust Fund. This does not appear to be an equitable approach: and, according to recent statistics, North Carolina receives the lowest percentage return from the Highway Trust Fund of any State in the country. During the life of the Interstate Program, North Carolina will have paid into the Trust Fund in excess of a bifflon dollars more than it will receive in return. This has placed a very heavy financial burden on North Carolina and made it ex- tremely difficult to keep abreast with the need for the improvement of the Pri- mary, Secondary, and Urban Systems. In 1965, a $300,000,000 bond issue was passed by the people of North Carolina in order to attempt to keep up with in- creasing highway demands. Even with this additional funding, North Carolina continues to fall behind because so much of the revenue sent to the Trust Fund is distributed to other States. All of which has taken place because the Interstate System in North Carolina is far less than in similar States and particularly be- cause North Carolina does not have the many needed Interstate circumferential and spur routes into and around our metropolitan areas. It has been estimated that North Carolina, with more than 21/2% of the population in the country, is receiving about 1% of the total Interstate funding. It would, therefore, be my judgment that any new long-range highway program that may be considered by the Congress should be established in a manner that no Stat.e would be severely penalized in terms of the funds collected as revenues and the funds made available for Federal-aid construction. North Carolina would not be in a position to support Federal-aid Highway Legislation that does not provide for such an equitable return. PAGENO="0827" 815 I would hope that the Congress will come up with a program that will provide equity to all States and believe that the States should be given more latitude in determining where new facilities are needed. This type of an approach would allow our State to upgrade its total Primary, Urban, Secondary, and Interstate type routes most effectively. I recognize the difficult task which your subcom- mittee has and its great responsibilities in developing a Federal-aid Highway Program. I want to assure you of North Carolina's interest in this program and its willingness to work with the subcommittee in anyway possible. Sincerely, J. M. HUNT, Jr., Chairman. NORTH DAKOTA MAY 17, 1068. Hon. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSK1, Subcommittee on Roads, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: Regarding North Dakota highway needs, 20-year needs for State highway sys- tem is $406 million plus $147 million to complete present Interstate System; 20- year needs for State local roads is $529 million. Additional interstate mileage needed is from Portal N. Dak. to S. Dak. via Minot and Bismark and from Williston to Grand Forks via Minot and Devils Lake-approximately 650 miles at an additional cost of $125 million. Will not be available to testify during these hearings. WALTER R. HELLE, Highway Commission, North Dakota Highway Department. OHIO STATE OF OHIO, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Columbus, Ohio, May 17, 1968. Re proposed Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1908. Hon. JOHN C. KLUOZYNSKI, House Public Works Committee, House of Representatives, TVashingt on, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE KLUCZYNSKI: In response to your telegram of May 15, 1968, we are forwarding the following: 1. Copy of a booklet entitled "Ohio Highway Needs for Tomorrow's Growth, 1975-1985". Ohio's needs are summarized on the third from last page in the booklet. We contemplate no additional interstate mileage. The needs shown are to upgrade the present Interstate System and to expand this system by building freeways to supplement the interstate, however, as part of the primary system. 2. Copy of a letter the Governor of Ohio recently forwarded to Representative William C. Cramer in response to his request for comments on subjects which may be considered for inclusion in highway legislation this year. We consider return of administrative control to the Bureau of Public Roads of prime im- portance in future legislation. 3. Copy of a letter recently forwarded to Representative George H. Fallon regarding the proposed Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968. A copy of the same letter was sent to Senator Jennings Randolph. I appreciate your interest in obtaining statements of the State's needs and views on highways and have taken this opportunity to provide you with a sum- mary of Ohio's comments to other Members of Congress on these matters. We support the position of AASHO which has been developed from a survey of the determinations of the various states. We specifically support the AASHO testimony on proposed weights and sizes legislation. Because of this agreement with the AASHO proposed testimony, I do not believe that specific testimony from Ohio at this time would be necessary. However, if we can be of help, please let us know. Very truly yours, P. E. MASHETER, Director. PAGENO="0828" 816 MAY 8, 1968. Re proposed Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1908. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Chairman, House Public Works Committee, House of Representatives, Washingtom, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE FALLON: The Department of Transportation's proposed Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 has been made available to the states through AASHO for preliminary review and comment. We note that the proposed bill goes into considerable detail and are taking this opportunity to pass our com- ments along to you for your consideration as Chairman of the House Public Works Committee. Relative to revision of appropriations for the Interstate System-we don't think that completion of the Interstate System by 1973 should be abandoned at this time. There is a need to evaluate the time of completion in conjunction with major decisions still to be made on a Continuing Federal-Aid Highway Program. Relative to Sections 5(2), 12 and 13-we question the need for defining and funding a separate program such as Topics. This should not be a matter of legislation. Some municipalities have been progressive in the application of traffic engineering principles, and may have more urgent needs. Relative to Section 5(3) and (4)-we are opposed to financing forest and public lands highway out of the Highway Trust Fund. Relative to Section 7-the proposed allocations are too high. Would prefer that more funds be allocated to Highw-ay Safety Programs under Section 6. Relative to Section 8-Ohio has recognized landscaping, erosion control, rest areas, or work that is normally a part of highway construction, as a necessary and proper use of highway user taxes and supports this concept. We question the need for other beautification programs. If special programs are considered necessary, they should be financed from other than Trust Funds. Relative to Sections 14 and 15-we are opposed to a special program for Fringe Parking. The above are specific comments of objection. In general, we would recommend that new concepts and proposals be limited until such time as a Continuing Federal-Aid Highway Program has been thoroughly studied and some guidelines established. We would appreciate your consideration of the above comments. Very truly yours, P. E. MASHETER, Director. APRIL 29, 1968. Re: Federal-aid highway legislation and a continuing Federal-aid highway program. Hon. WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Mernbei of Congress. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Ofilce Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE CRAMER: In response to your letter of April 10, 1968, relative to developing desirable and needed Federal-aid highway legislation, I have reviewed with the Dapartment of Highways the listing of subjects which you indicate may be considered for inclusion in highway legislation this year. Director Masheter has informed me that all the subject matter contained in your questionnaire is being considered by the several State Highway Departments and that the American Association of State Highway Officials will assemble this information and present it to Congress with recommendation at a later date. However, in order that you may have current information of our thinking in Ohio, we are presenting the following comments for your consideration: A. Right-of-Way Acquisition 1. The concerns listed are real and are in keeping with our desire to adequately compensate affected property owners; however, once you start to enumerate individual items there is no end of it. It is our thought that numerous individual items would become difficult to control and administer. The fair market concept of negotiation and settlement, now used in Ohio, evaluates the various contingent items without undue administrative details. 2. Relocation of persons and businesses displaced by highway construction: PAGENO="0829" 817 Ohio concurs that a uniform policy on all Federal and federally assisted programs should be obtained, and that better coordination of housing pro- grams with highway construction is desirable. However, we do not believe the policy should be oriented to the highway program for coordination responsibility. It could become a serious delaying factor. We are in full accord with the principle of relocation payments. Again, for administrative purposes, it is desirable that lump sum or flat payments with ceilings be retained. B. Metropolitan Areas 1. Multiple use of rights-of-way. Ohio favors maximum use of airspace and has work of this type underway. In the area of niulitple use of highways provision should be made for the sharing of right-of-way costs by all using agencies according to the value of the rights required by each. Almost every presentation of the joint use concept proposes that the highway program pay "residue damages" to the additional land acquired, thus making joint use very attractive to other users who thereby obtain land rights at bargain prices, but at the expense of the Highway Trust Fund. The highway program should not be required in this way to subsidize these other uses. We are opposed to utilization of highway rights-of-way for rapid rail transit. Separate traffic lanes for exclusive use of buses should be considered on the basis of project by project justification. 2. Use of design concept teams made up of engineers, architects, etc. We do not consider this a matter that should be directed by legislation. It is recognized that organized planning is desirable, and the 1962 Highway Act on Urban Transportation Planning accomplishes this goal. Highway engineers have primary responsibility for highway locations and must provide leadership and decisions. Through consultant use or by establishing staff positions to supplement Urban Transportation Comprehensive Planning, the same goals can be accomplished. U. Federal-aid Financing of Highway Construction Ohio favors the continuation of the Highway Trust Fund but not necessarily restricted to its present revenues. For instance, the 7% automobile excise tax should be directed into the Trust Fund as a revenue resource, and this additional income could provide funds for a federally financed advance right-of-way acquisition program. We are against any diversion of monies from the Highway Trust Fund for non-federal highway purposes, including other modes of transportation. The present three-year period for obligation of Federal funds is reasonable and we endorse it. Highway safety features and corrective work to reduce hazards is a proper use of Trust Funds and a highway user payment responsibility as much as other highway improvements. We subscribe to the use of regular Trust Funds for this work at the regular participation rate as for other highway improvements. We strongly favor enactment of law to prohibit the executive branch from withholding apportioned Federal-aid highway funds from obligations. Since allocations must match revenues on a pay-as-you-go program, we feel that Congress should accept the responsibility of providing the revenue-obligation balance. D. Highway beantification Ohio has recognized landscaping, erosion control, rest areas, or work that is normally a part of highway construction, as a necessary and proper use of highway user taxes and supports this concept. We are opposed to use of Highway Trust Funds for beautification purposes that are not within this concept. We would recommend extensive revision of the billboard and junkyard sec- tions of the Beautification Act to cut down the cost of the program and to allow the States more leeway to control these items as they see fit. For example, the States should have the option to control by police power or to pay compensation, and the States should not be forced to control these items inside of municipali- ties. The 10% penalty for non-compliance should be repealed as this is strictly arm-twisting and repugnant to the whole concept of Federal-State partnership. PAGENO="0830" 818 E. Administration Legislation should be passed which will restructure the Department of Trans- portation and eliminate the administrative level between the Secretary of Trans- portation and the Director of Public Roads. The Bureau of Public Roads should be given the clear responsibility to develop policies for highway activities and be empowered to act as tecimical and engineering partners with the States in the accomplishment of the highway program. A reduction of "red tape" and delays in approval could be accomplished through use of a Federal-aid Plan for all Federal-aid highway systems such as the current Secondary Road Plan. Such a procedure sets forth guidelines of procedure that are acceptable to all agencies involved and effectively reduces multiple review and approval time. Secondary Road Plan procedures have been tested and have proved effective in application. F. "After 1975" Federal-aid Highway Program Ohio has followed closely the development of the AASHO recommendations for a continuing Federal-aid Highway Program and subscribe to them. We feel that a workable program will be presented ~to Congress that will be equitable and administratively feasible. We are not in favor of Federal-aid highway maintenance. If states reach the point that they must rely on Federal-aid for non-capital improvements, it is time to look at the highway user tax structure relationship between federal, state and local governments. Wnith the tremendous need for revenues to meet our present highway programs, we see no reason at this time to take on the extra burden of paying off toll roads and paying states for free highways incorporated into the Interstate System. We strongly urge that Congress take steps toward establishing a continuing Federal-aid Highway Program at an early date. Guidelines for such a program should be established this year. We endorse the AASHO recommendations. We are particularly conceriied that continued delay will be to the detriment of the Highway Trust Fund. More and more, we are noting public statements by the Department of Transportation which indicate that the Trust Fund con- cept of financing should be abolished when the Interstate Highway System is completed. Firm guidelines would assist in controlling the numerous attempts to threct highway user funds to other programs. We are opposed to the trend toward defining and enacting separate highway programs within the broad scope of a total highway program. It is believed that all essential coordination in respect to objectives, standards, priorities, and funds can be effectively attained without the detailed individual programs, trans- action by transaction, decision by decision, supervision and audit by ever- increasing numbers of employees whose primary contribution to the program is delay, procrastination, red tape-all supported by an endless stream of ever- expanding regulations and procedures directed to the control of the most elemental, routine activities of competent State highway organizations. We appreciate your interest in highway legislation and your giving us the opportunity to comment on the items that may be given consideration for legislative action. Very truly yours, JAMES A. RHODES, Goveruor. OKLAHOMA STATE OF OKLAHOMA, D~ARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Oklal?oma City, Okia., May 17, 1968. Hon. JOHN KLUCZYNSKI, Chairman, House 1?oa4s Committee, TJ.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAn CONGRESSMAN KLUCZYNSKI: Regarding your telegram of May 15, 19~8 requesting information concerning future Interstate needs in Oklahoma; we are submitting a map and cost information, however, there are a number of factors bearing on this matter that should be considered during the formulation of any future highway program. While we certainly agree that need does exist for some revision in the existing designated Interstate System, we would hesitate to support any action resulting in immediate addition to the Interstate System of significant amounts of addi- tional mileage. When it is considered that the Interstate Program as now con- PAGENO="0831" 819 stituted will require an additional three or more years past the original 1972 target date to fund to completion, it does not seem economically sound to add to the problem at this time. We would much rather, now, see some practical means developed to fund the existing program to insure its completion with a reasonable time period. If a significant amount of additional mileage is added to the Interstate System now, this will, in effect, create a continuing Interstate Program which could have further effect by reducing the amount of funds available for the ABC Systems. This is assuming the Interstate Program would continue to utilize the major portion of the Trust Fund and the continued proliferation of efforts to divert trust funds to other purposes. This would contribute to continuing increase in obsolescence of existing non-Interstate facilities. In order to properly define needed additions to the Interstate System, a functional classification study must be cooperatively conducted by the individual states and must be coordinated at state line crossings The development of additional Interstate mileage by the states without coordinating efforts to develop the major traffic corridors between major traffic generators in adjacent states cannot reasonably be justified. Oklahoma has done considerable work on functional classification and the development of major arterial traffic corridors. On the basis of these previous studies, we have prepared the answer to your request. We are furnishing you a map on which we have indicated the existing Interstate System and those existing additional Interstate needs that can be justified from both an economic and traffic service standpoint. We also have indicated future Interstate needs as estimated for the period 175 through 1985. Since there is considerable mileage of toll roads in Oklahoma and since they affect traffic service to principle traffic corridors, we are also showing toll roads. The immediate Interstate needs in Oklahoma consist of additional mileage in the Urban Areas of Oklahoma City and Tulsa which fill voids in existing Inter- state routes and are critically needed to adequately complete the Interstate System in these Urban Areas. The total mileage of these Urban Interstate routes is 11.2 miles. The estimated cost to construct to Interstate standards is $22,108,- 000. We have shown on large-scale maps the locations of these proposed Urban extensions and their relationship to existing Interstate routes in the areas. In both Oklahoma City and Tulsa, comprehensive transportation studies have been made and the locations proposed as additions to the Interstate System were developed by study data and are high in priority in terms of immediate need. The other immediate Interstate addition which we would recommend is existing US 69 beginning at the junction of Interstate 44 in northeastern Okla- homa and extending southwesterly to a connection with Interstate 35 in the Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas vicinity. The total length in Oklahoma is 202.4 miles. The estimated cost to improve this route to Interstate standards is $96,502,000. The US 69 route was included in Oklahoma's original submission requesting Interstate mileage, as were the two urban loops. The proposed US 69 Interstate route will provide a critically needed connection between the lead and zinc mine areas in the tn-state areas of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri and the coal mining areas in east-central Oklahoma. US 69 at this time carries the largest percentage of heavy commercial vehicles of any highway in Oklahoma. Its crossing of the Verdigris River is of utmost importance, since the River will be navigable as part of the Arkansas River Navigation System. Coal and ores will be transferred at this point to river transportation for shipment to points along the Arkansas River and on to the Mississippi River. The US 69 route traverses the Ozarks Regional Economic Development Area and will pro- vide vital high-type access through the area. SUMMARY OF INTERSTATE NEEDS (OKLAHOMA) Miles Amount Immediate additional interstate needs: Rural Urban Total 1975-85 interstate needs: Rural Urban 202.4 11.2 $96,502,000 22,108,000 213.6 118,610,000 694.0 224. 0 453,600,000 299, 500, 000 753, 100,000. Total 918. 0 PAGENO="0832" 820 We have estimated Interstate needs for the period 1975 to 1985 at 694 miles of Rural Interstate and 224 miles in Urban areas, for a total of 918 miles of additional Interstate-type needs by 1985. The Urban portion of these future needs are based on findings of comprehensive transportation studies. The Rural portion has been developed from state-wide traffic and functional classification studies. The estimated improvement cost for the 1985 needs is 453.6 million dollars Rural, and 299.5 million dollars Urban. The following tabulation summarizes Oklahoma's immediate and future Inter- state needs. We trust the information furnished you will be of value to your committee. Please accept our appreciation for being given this opportunity to express our thoughts on this matter. Should you desire additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, W. M. D~cE, P.E., Director. Hon. JOHN 0. KI.ucz~sKI, Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mx. KLUCZYNSKI: Thank you for your May 15 wire concerning hearings on the Department of Transportation's proposed 1968 Federal Highway Bill. OREGON STATE OF OREGON, STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Salem~ Oreg., May 17,1968. PAGENO="0833" 821 Oregon is not seeking significant additional Interstate mileage, only some adjustments and minor additions to make the existing system more workable. We do feel some improvement can and should be made in connection with the relocation of displaced persons. For example, we favor a realistic reimbursement for moving expenses. We favor some type of relief to the individual who has a favorable mortgage interest rate and through relocation is forced into a higher cost financing. Also, there is the occasional problem of the senior citizens with modest in- comes who are occupying adequate housing and are unable to find suitable :~` replacements for the market value of their premises. We feel that the above items have probably contributed to a major degree in the dissatisfaction expressed over highway and freeway construction. We feel that people who are forced to move because of highway building should be made whole. Oregon is generally in accord with the proposals which will be made by AASHO; therefore, in the interest of conserving the valuable time of the Committee, we do not feel it is necessary that we make an appearance. We appreciate the opportunity you have afforded us to present our views. Very truly yours, FORREST COOPER, State Highway Engineer. PENNSYLVANIA MAY 23, 1968. Hon. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Honse 01 Representatives, Washington, D.C. In reply to your wire of May 15, 1968, we firmly believe that no major exten- sions to the 41,000-mile Interstate System be considered at this time,. However, it is apparent that certain additions to the system in Pennsylvania are vital to adequately serve the needs of the motoring public. In this regard, therefore, the following extensions are recommended: (1) T.R. 219 from New York State line to 1-76 approximately 150 miles; (2) Pittsburgh-Oakland-Crosstown Ex- pressway from 1-76 to 1-79, approximately 9 miles; (3) Pittsburgh-from 1-279 to 1-76, approximately 4 miles; (4) Harrisburg-I-83 connector to 1-81-West Shore Expressway, approximately 8 miles; (5) Philadelphia-from 1-476 to I-695-Landsdowne Expressway approximately 6 miles; (6) Philadelphia- 1-76 to I-95-Crosstown Expressway, approximately 3 miles; Philadelphia- from 1-695 to 1-76-7 #2nd Street Expressway Connector, approximately 5 miles. I regret my inability to attend your hearing May 23. ROBERT G. BARTLETT, secretary of Highways, Pennsylvania. RHODE ISLAND STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Providence, R.I., May 16, 1968. Hon. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Chairman, Subcommittee on Roads, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN KLUCZYNSKI: Reference is made to your telegram of May 15, 1968, relative to the proposed 1968 Federal-Aid Highway Legislation. Rhode Island has for some time studied the desirability of extending its present Interstate. In this endeavor, we have co-ordinated with the neighboring States of Massachusetts and Connecticut. We have determined that the following additions would favorably compliment the existing Interstate System and would prove advantageous to the related urban areas: (1) An east-west route enbodying the State's expressway Route 37 and ex- tending from a junction with Interstate Route 295 eastward across the Provi- PAGENO="0834" 822 dence River to the State line enroute to a junction with Massachusetts Interstate Route 195 in North Swansea. This extension would represent an addition of 13 miles in Rhode Island. It is envisioned that Massachusetts would continue the route northerly from the junction in North Swansea to Interstate Route 95 in Attleboro thereby completing the encirclement of the Providence Metropolitan Area by Interstate Route 295. In effect it would achieve a sort of belt route to integrate important radials emanating from this urban complex which has a population of 750,000. (2) Our second suggestion is a route extending from existingInterstate Route 95 in downtown Providence westward generally on the alignment of U.S. 6 ~ enroute to Hartford, Connecticut. This would require an addition of 21 miles arid would directly connect the second and third largest metropolitan centers in New England with their combined population of over 1,500,000. (3) The third candidate for Interstate System additions would be a route following the alignment of Rhode Island State Route 146 from a downtown Providence junction with existing Interstate Route. 95 proceeding north-westerly enroute to Worcester, Massachusetts. Worcester also ranks high as arnetropoli- tan area, having a population of over 600,000 and is fifth largest in New England. This would add 16 miles in Rhode Island. (4) A final suggested addition would be a spur from Interstate Route 495 (a circumferential route in Massachusetts) south-westerly into and through Woonsocket, Rhode Island, to make a connection with present State Route 146 in North Smithfield. This would involve only a 5 mile addition in Rhode Island, but it would be useful in making 1-495 more accessible from Woonsocket and environs (population 50,000). Thus for your purposes, Rhode Island considers that four additions aggregat- ing 55 miles would be well worthwhile. Thank you for your telegram and we appreciate the opportunity to convey to you our wishes with respect to Interstate System extensions. Very truly yours, ANGELO A. MARCELLO, Director. SOUTH CAROLINA S0IJTH CAROLINA, STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Columbia, S.C., May 17, 1968. HON. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Member of Cangress, Lou gworth House O~lce Building, Washingto~i, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN KLUczYNSKI: This is in reference to your telegram con- cerning proposed 1968 Federal-Aid Highway Legislation and our needs for additional Interstate mileage. I am a member of AASHO "After 75 Committee," and it is my understanding that this committee's proposals will be submitted to your committee. I am strongly in favor of the proposals to be submitted by AASHO "After 75 Com- mittee". Also, it is my understanding that, in this proposal, AASHO is recom- mending that five (5) percent of the Federal-Aid funds be allocated for up- grading the existing 41,000 Interstate mileage and that no additional Inter- state mileage be added. Additional controlled access highways would be con- structed from Federal-Aid Primary or Urban funds apportioned to the states on an equitable formula. Provisions are being proposed that any such highways constructed which would comply as logical extensions of the Interstate System could be added after construction and officially approved for addition to the Interstate System. I am of the opinion that is the fairest means of allocating the Federal funds to the states and would provide for logical additions to the Interstate mileage. The states would be in much better position for planning their future highway program if the formula apportionment basis is used for all Federal-Aid distribution of funds except for the five (5) percent established for upgrading the existing Interstate mileage. We do have need for additional highways constructed to Interstate standards in our State, but it is believed that the proposal being submitted by AASHO is the most desirable plan for the total highway program. This plan as indicated PAGENO="0835" 823 above will enable additional mileage to be added to the Interstate system and the states will have the choice of using their funds for the greatest need. There is a great need for extensive highway improvements in our larger urban areas and the formula apportionment basis of funds to the states will permit the use of the funds where the need is greatest Also I would like to recommend that the financing ratio for all Federal Aid Highway System programs be the same except the five (5) percent funds for upgrading the present Interstate mileage It would be helpful to the states if Congress would indicate as soon as feasible should they concur in the AASHO recommendations that most of the Federal Aid funds, after completion of the present `Interstate System, would be on a formula apportionment basis rather than the present basis for financing the Interstate System. This would enable the states to proceed with future planning of highway improvements and not have to wait to determine what highway needs may be satisfied by additional Interstate mileage. I wish to express my appreciation for your interest and assistance in the National Highway Program and for the opportunity to furnish my views with regard to the future highway program. Yours very truly, S. N. Pearman, Chief Highway Commissioner. SOUTH DAKOTA THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, PIERRE, May 16, 1968. Hon. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Member of Congress, House Office Building, TVashington, D.C. Dear Congressman KLUCZYNSKI: South Dakota's estimated need for addi- tional Interstate mileage included: 1. 10+ miles within Sioux Falls metropolitan area 2. 6+ miles within Rapid City area 3. 240+ miles generally following U.S. 83 north to south across the state The Sioux Falls area is now bounded by I 90 to the north, I 29 to the west and I 229 along the south and east sides. The required mileage would provide SOUTH DAKOTA INTERSTATE ROUTES AS APPROVED JANUARY I, 1967 -*~ SOUT~DKOTA 9O~ ~ RAPID Cur 90 *AL8ERT LEA I, go _9iXX._~.- SIOUX FALLS - flNE8RASKA~~ ~ o STATE LINE CONTROL AREP~ E~NAMED CONTROL AREA 96-030-68-53 PAGENO="0836" 824 for an east-west facility serving the CBD. The Rapid City addition would serve the CBD area. The north and south route would be South Dakota's section of an Interstate route beginning on the Canadian border north of Minot, North Dakota, that would connect Bismarck, North Dakota, Pierre, South Dakota (both State cap- itals) with points in Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. This is the route included in the Portland Cement Association's recent publication entitled "Major Highway Corridors of North America," and we feel it would have definite defense benefits in addition to providing an avenue for north and south com- merce long needed. However, this route could be initiallyplanned without limited access. ~77g RAPID CITY The attached map shows the approved Interstate in South Dakota and the recommended additions. All of the above recommendations have been furnished to AASHO in Studies for After `75. In line with this fact, we wish to emphasize again that we feel our present Interstate mileage should be completed prior to construction on these proposals. Sincerely, JOHN EMMETT OLSON, Director. TENNESSEE MAY 21, 1968. JOHN C. KLUCEYNsKI, Member of Congress, Washington, D.C. AASHO will present statement relative to proposed act of 1968 Tennessee sup- ports AASHO statement. Additional interstate mileage proposals are: 1. U.S. 78 (PA 4) Memphis to Mississippi state line (connect Memphis- Birmingham). 2. U.S. 51 (PA 3) Memphis to Fulton, Ky. at Purchase Parkway (connect Memphis-Louisville). 3. U.S. 23 (PA 36) North Carolina line via Johnson City and Kingsport to Virginia state line (connect Asheville, N.C. to Columbus, Ohio. 4. U.S. 64 (PA 40) 1-75 at Cleveland to North Carolina line (connect Chatta- nooga-Asheville, N.C.). 5. U.S. 72 (PA 27) Alabama state line to 1-24 near Jasper (connect Chatta- nooga and Huntsville to Memphis-Birmingham route). C. W. SPEIGHT, Commissioner, State Highway Department, iVashviUe, Ten,n. NASHVILLE, TENN., May 23, 1968. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Member of Congress, Washington, D.C. Further reference to your telegram of May 15 and to my reply of May 21, revise additional interstate mileage proposals to provide following: !9 I PAGENO="0837" 825 1. U.S. 78 (F.A* 4) Memphis to Mississippi State line (connect Memphis- Birmingham). 2. Continuation of 1-155 from Dyersburg to 1-40 at Jackson. 3. U.S. 23 (F.A. 36) North Carolina line via Johnson City and Kingsport to Virginia State line (connect Asheville, N.C. to Columbus, Ohio). 4. From 1-155 at Dyersburg to 1-24 near Clarksville. 5. U.S. 72 (F.A. 27) Alabama State line to 1-24 near Jasper (connect Chat- tanooga and Huntsville to Memphis-Birmingham route). C. W. SPEIGHT, Commissioner, State Highway Department, Nashville, Tenu. TEXAS TEXAS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Austin, Tear., May 16, 1965. Hon. JOHN C. KLTJOZYNSKI, Member of Congress, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN KLUCZYNSKI: Thank you for your telegram of May 15th advising of the Roads Committee Hearings scheduled to begin May 23rd covering the Administration's Federal-aid Highway legislation and inviting comments from the Texas Highway Commission as to its position on increased mileage to the existing Interstate System. Since receiving your telegram, I have polled my Commission on this matter, and it is our collective judgment that the minimum additional nee~1 to the Inter- state System in Texas is approximatey 1,500 miles at this time, even though the commission has heard in public hearing justifiable requests from delegations over the State for substantially more mileage than this amount. For the Committee's information, Texas still had two cities and excess of 100,000 population which are not on the present Interstate System. These two cities are Lubbock and Witchita Falls. In an effort to complement the Interstate System with improved routes to Lubbock and Wichita Falls, as well a some other areas of the state, Texas has already expended millions of dollars of its Primary and State Fund in the build- ing of primary routes to slightly lower standards than Interstate requirements. If it appears that additional Interstate mileage is not in the picture, Texas could live with a proposition which will probably be submitted by the American Association of State Highway Officials to the effect. "That if a State or States elects to improve a section of the Primary System to Interstate standards and that it would make a logical addition to that System, that it be marked with an Interstate marker." If additional Interstate mileage is approved or financed in some manner as "expessways" on the primary system, substantially as indicated in the "quote" above, it is our considered opinion that some of the severe "control of access" provisions as now required on Interstate construction should be relaxed in order to save expending millions of dollars in revising and upgrading primary routes already constructed to slightly less imposing standards than Interstate stand- ards. We have been advised that AASHO will testify before your Committee on May 28th. Should the Texas Highway Department wish to appear before your Committee, we will submit such request to you or the Committee Secretary by telegram at a later date. Sincerely yours, J. C. DINGWALL, State Highway Engineer. UTAH MAY 20, 1968. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Member of Congress, Chairman, Subcommittee on Roads, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Re: hearings on Federal-aid highway legislation, further extensions of inter- state system mileage would be detrimental to highway program needs in Utah. PAGENO="0838" 826 Need for improvement on primary, secondary and urban systems in Utah is becoming critical. Increase in authorization for these systems would provide opportunity. to improve road system where need is greatest. Will be unable to testify during these hearings but would like our convictions entered in the corn- mittee record. HENRY C. HELLAND, Director of highways, Utah State Department of Highways. VERMONT MAY 17, 1968. Ron. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Re your telegram of May 16, 1908. No additional interstate mileage requested at this time. Prefer monies be expended on ABC program. I will be unable to testify. `L. S. LARSEN, Commissioner of Highways. VIRGINIA MAY 16, 1968. JOHN C. KLuczYNsKI, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. If interstate program were extended Virginia would request substantial addi- tional mileage principally in urban areas of State. We feel however that total road system would best be served by completing presently authorized mileage before considering extensions and then only within the framework of theAASHO after-interstate recommendations. DOUGLAS B. FUGATE, Commissioner, Virginia Departm,ent of Highways. WASHINGTON MAY 23, 1968. Representative JOHN C. KLUcZYNsKI, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C~ Reurtel May 15, Washington Department of Highways requires approximate- ly 28 miles of additional interstate to accommodate recommended location of Interstate 82 in southeastern Washington, however, understand Federal High- way Administrator may be able to accommodate within presently authorized mileage. in general, Washington concurs in position of AASHO regarding auth- orization of additional interstate mileage. We believe States should complete presently authorized 41,000 miles before authorizing new highway program. Con- sidering urgent need for upgrading ABC system, believe Federal funds after completion of Interstate should be allocated per AASHO recommendations. State of Washington has justification for' additional interstate mileage if Con- gress decides additional mileage should be' added to present 41,000 miles. If this occurs, recommend States be required to submit their requests within uniform and equitable criteria. Consider AASHO statement to Public Works Committees will represent my views. Under these conditions, do not consider it necessary for me to testify at forthcoming hearings. C. G. PRAHL, Director of Highways. WEST VIRGINIA MAY 17,1968. Hon. JOHN KLUCZYNSKI, Chairman, House Roads subcommittee, U.S. Congress, Hovse Office Building, Washington, D.C. Reurtel May 15th. Approximately 135 miles now designated Appalachian de- velopment Highway Corridor H, from connection with Interstate 79 eastward to PAGENO="0839" 827 West Virginia-Virginia State line, where it would then proceed to a connection with Interstate 81 in Virginia, should be incorporated into new interstate mile- age in view of Defense Department's recognition of this route as important to Defense Highway System, and in view of Federal Highway Administrator's resultant designation of this route for 16' vertical clearance. M. R. HAMMILL, Commissioner, West Virginia state Road Commission. WISCONSIN STATE OF WIscONsIN, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Madison, Wis., May 20, 1968. Subcommittee on Roads, interstate mileage proposal. Hon. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Member of Congress, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN KLUCZYNSKI: In reply to your telegram of May 15, re~ questing minimum Interstate mileage additions, we submit the following information: 1. It is the recommendation of Wisconsin that no additions be made to the presently authorized Interstate System and, in lieu of such additions that the trust fund monies be apportioned to the states on the present formula basis and used on a matching ratio of two-third Federal-one-third State, as recommended by AASHO for all highway systems. 2. Should it develop that additions are to be made to the Interstate System,. we submit the following: (a) The presently approved State Highway Plan for 1990 indicates an an- ticipated long-range highway need for freeway-type facilities of 1,630 miles by 1990, excluding the presently designated Interstate System. (b) The immediate and minimum needed portions of the long-range plan for freeways for which studies are being conducted in most cases, but completion is not scheduled for a number of years due to lack of financing include the following: Route: MufF From I.H. 94 at Milwaukee to I.H. 535 at Superior via Green Bay, Wausau, and Hurley (see enclosed February 1963 report) 411 From I.H. 94 at Eau Claire to I.H. 535 at Superior (partially under construction) 154 From I.H. 90-94 at Wisconsin Dells to Illinois State line near Lake Geneva via West of Madison, Fort Atkinson, and Whitewater 124 From 1.11. 894 at Milwaukee to 1.11. 90 at Beloit1 60 Belt Freeway-Milwaukee (From 1-794 to IJ.S.H. 41) 1 36 Bay Freeway-Milwaukee (From 1-794 to Belt Freeway) 1 15 Lake Freeway-Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha (extension south from 1-794 to Illinois State line) 1 43 Green Bay Freeway Loop 30 Madison Freeway Loop (see enclosed February 1963 report) 13 La Crosse Freeway (see enclosed February 1963 report) 5 Total 891 1 Approved routes of Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission's land use- transportation plan. In the event the Congress determines that a maximum expansion of the I-System is desirable and essential at this time, then Wisconsin feels the entire mileage of freeways indicated on the 1990 plan would be eligible for considera- tion. These are the major long haul traffic routes which will be essential to serve the projected economy of the state. We have made our position eminently clear to the Bureau of Public Roads and the American Association of State Highway Officials on the matter of relocation hearings. We are convinced that the hearings are a state responsibility, that they must be conducted in accordance with state laws and regulations, and should not be strictly controlled by Federal regulations. PAGENO="0840" 828 We believe we have conducted our hearings in a very fair and open manner. The final determinations of the Commission have always given consideration to the sworn testimony presented at the hearing. Numerous times alignment changes have been made upon consideration of the hearing testimony. We appreciate the opportunity to make this presentation to your Committee. We do not anticipate making a personal appearance. We are enclosing copies of our map of the State Highway Plan for 1990 on which is shown the Freeway System which we have described herein. We are also enclosing copies of previous submissions by the Commission for Interstate route additions, dated February 1, 1903, and May 21, 1063. Sincerely W. R. REDMOND, Highway Commission Ch~tirman. WYOMING MAY 16, 1988. Hon. JoHN C. KLU0ZYNSKI, UJS. Congressman, Wasliingtoa, D.C. 1. U.S. 30N Granger Junction-Idaho State line 100 miles. 2. U.S. 20 Nebraska State line to Shoshoni thence to U.S. 26 to Moran Junc- tion thence new road to Idaho State line east of Aston, Idaho, 350 miles. 3. Rawlins to Casper via Muddy Gap, 120 miles. 4. Belt routes connecting 1-80 and 1-25 Cheyenne urban area, 30 miles. ~. Belt route for 1-25 Casper urban area, 20 miles. Do not plan to attend hearing. R. G. STAPP, ~8uperintendent, Wyoming Highway Department. STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS G. DUNN, MAYOR OF ELIZABETH, N.J., Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Thomas G. Dunn. I am the mayor of Elizabeth, New Jersey, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee in opposition to proposed legislation to in- crease the size and weight limitations on trucks using the Interstate Highway System. Mr. Chairman, Elizabeth is a city of 117,000 people located in the northeastern section of New Jersey. The city has an area of approximately 12 square miles. Elizabeth is highly urbanized and industrialized with the world's largest contain- ship port in operation on our waterfront. The city's roads are of constant concern to me and it is because of this concern for the safety of our citizens and the high cost of road and highway construction that I appear before you today. As mayor of Elizabeth. I feel that this legislation will cause serious difficulties in the exercise of local street and highway responsibilities. Under present law, the mayor and city council of Elizabeth are empowered, with certain limitations, to set weight limitations on trucks using certain streets and bridges within the City of Elizabeth. If these sizes and weights are increased, cities, such as Eliza- beth, which attempt to regulate roads stand a chance of being bypassed as major traffic terminals, as localities with more liberal limits will be in a better com- petitive position to attract industry. I would like to add here that limitations are made for the sake of safety and as a means to smooth, rather than restrict, travel. Mr. Chairman, liberalization of size and weight limits, as a practical matter, cannot be limited to the Interstate System: The current size and weight limita- tions for Interstate highways have provided a standard for highway construction on almost all roads. Local roads, such as those in Elizabeth. are designed with current cr lower limitations in mind. Liberalization will substantially increase wear and tear and raise maintenance costs on these roads, I feel that deteriora- tion will be substantially greater on older roads and bridges. Serious safety prob- lems will arise, particularly on bridges designed for much less size and weight than those anticipated by this bill. In order to maintain safety and viability of local road systems, particularly in the cities, a great financial burden will be shifted to the already under-financed city and county governments. Without a massive re-direction of Federal assist- ance for building local roads, I feel that cities such as Elizabeth, will be unable to PAGENO="0841" 829 assume such expenditures. Very few miles of urban arterials are currently eligible for Federal aid, and the city share of State user fees supports only a minimal share of local street and highway costs. Mr. Chairman, the impact of this legislation on highways and streets off the Interstate System will, I think, create problems adverse to the broad national interest. I would hope that, taking this into consideration, this Subcommittee will not act favorably on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention one further aspect of Federal High- way Policy today. The Interstate System, as authorized in 1956, provides for a network of 41,000 limited access highway miles. I understand that 1975 is the target date for completion of this system. From the local level, I know that there remain pressing needs for Interstate-type highways in New Jersey. The tight Interstate Market, if I may call it that, has resulted in transportation planning and allocation of priorities that do not reflect a consideration of the realities of the future. For a case in point, the State of New Jersey recommended some time ago con- struction of a road within the Interstate System, 1-278, to connect the Goethals Bridge with Interstate 78 in New Jersey. This vital link was planned in order to meet the critical masses of commuters who are expected to flow between New Jersey and New York over the Goethals Bridge. To ignore this vital connector means that this traffic burden will literally be dumped into the already over- crowded streets of Elizabeth and neighboring Linden, New Jersey. Because of local opposition from some of the smaller towns along the proposed route of 1-278, the State has dropped plans to complete 1-278, nine miles of which are already completed, and the Department of Transportation is attempting to work some kind of a switch in order to construct a Central Jersey Expressway. Both of these roads are badly needed for the future prosperity of New Jersey, but because of the unavailability of Interstate mileage, the State has been pres- sured into abandoning 1-278. This does not indicate to me a sound approach to planning. I urge you to act immediately to expand significantly the Interstate System so that we may begin to plan to avoid the congestion that threatens our future. Thank you. PAN AMERICAN HIGHWAY AssoCIATIoN, INC., Belleville, Kans., June 8, 1968. Congressman ROnERT V. DENNEY, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DENNEY: I regret not being able to come to Washington recently for the House Subcommittee Reports, but having visited with George Moyer, Jr., of Madison, Neb., I am advised that you still could add to this mate- rial, and we certainly want The Pan American Highway Association included in the report. I would like to report to you that the state of Kansas is planning the exten- sion of 1-35W due north to Belleville, Kan., and the Nebraska state line (at Chester) as a four-lane freeway project, and is acquiring land right-of-way for this extension along the route of US81 which is due north from Sauna. Acquired land and the routing is already established to within 30-miles of the Nebraska line. May I remind you of the bill you and a number of other Congressmen and Senators submitted last year for the extension of 1-35W along US 81 highway as the "Pan American Highway." As you know this route already stretches com- pletely across the North American continent through North and South America through some 12 countries and in all these countries (except the United States and Canada) this routing is officially known as the Pan American Highway. Road signs along the route in Costa Rica, and the various countries indicate the high- way as such-and there being no highway designation other than this name it is the oniy way the North and South highway is known. Already the Pan American Highway is a paved highway more than 10,000 miles long-yet needs to be completed across the United States from Sauna on due north to Winnipeg, Canada. Any study of present maps will already show the US 81 route is carrying more north and south traffic than any other highway- and the country needs a good North and South Freeway-a direct one and one not built just to serve a few cities along the way. PAGENO="0842" 830 Congressman Denney, the Pan American Highway Association, made up of members in six states asks your support on the extension of this much-needed north and south freeway. It can mean a lot to the midwest-but it must be built for the traveler, not just a business builder for the cities. The business will fol- low, but the routing is of first importance. There is no doubt that in the Nebraska area of US 81 most are showing their preference that the new 4-lane freeway would not be an Interstate, but a limited access freeway which would attract more industry. The Pan American Highway Association can understand this and the importance of developing industry. I would like to point out to you that the US 81 route splits 1-80 at York-just between Grand Island and Hastings and Lincoln and Omaha. This makes Ne- braska have an "ideal" crossroads and distribution point of this interstate traffic. Any other routing to the west or the east would be catering to an indirect route. If this North and South Route is to be effective it must stretch across the continent into all countries-Canada, the U.S.A., Central, South America and Mexico. If you will be kind enough to look over some of the enclosed material you will see we feel that the Pan American Highway Project is a very important highway need and your support continued will be appreciated. Yours very truly, MERLE M. MILLER, President. [Reprinted from the March 9, 1967, issue of the Belleville Teiesc~pe] HIGHwAY FUTURE? We have become thoroughly convinced that the need for a North and South Highway across the United States is probably one of the country's greatest highway needs. We feel that after two years of serious study of the question of inter- continental highways that this is a carefully measured statement, and that the need is real and should receive the full support of the federal government and the five states-Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South and North Dakota through which the Pan American Highway-this north and south route should go. Anyone examining a map of the United States interstate highway system will find that everyone of the states named above has at least one east to west inter- state crossing its boundaries. On the other hand one will find that there are virtually no direct (straight) north and south interstate routes across the United States. The closest one can come in the midwest to finding such a north and south route is 135W from Laredo through San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, Oklahoma City to Sauna, Kansas. At this point 35W returns to the federal designation 11581- the identification most of this highway held before becoming part of the Inter- state System. We firmly believe that this highway needs to be completed on directly north through Concordia and Belleville, Kan., York and Columbus, Neb., to Yankton and then to Watertown, S.D., connecting with the already built 129 which it would follow into Canada and Winnipeg. In the past few years a number of diagonal interstate, free-way or toll road routes have been proposed. We think that some of these would be beneficial but the direct routes, both north and south and east and west should receive the priority and first attention. CENTER, Tax., May 22, 1968. Hon. JoHN KLUCZYNSKI, TVasltingtou, D.C.: Toledo Bend Lake in the Sabine National Forest covering 186,000 surface acres is now full. Lack of roads greatly hampering access to this fine lake. Speaking for the members of this club, we ask your support in providing more funds for forest road development. K. KEMPER LATHAM. Prerident, ~S'1zeThy County Sportman Club. PAGENO="0843" 831 RIvERsIDE, CALIF., June 1, 1968. AUDREY WARREN, House Public Works Committee, Washington, D.C.: The. Water Shed Fire Council of Southern California passed resolutions June 1966 urging passage of National forest development roads bill due to hazardous fire conditions. We again urge your committees support of H.R. 16994 national forest development roads for $170 million. ROBERT RADFORD, Chairman, Water Shed Fire Council of Southern California. CENTER, TEX., May 22,1968. Hon. JOHN KLUCZYNSKI, Washington, D.C.: Funds for forest development roads in Sabine National Forest in east Texas along Toledo Bend Reservoir are vitally needed if this lake is to help the economic growth of this area. Greatest need at this time is access roads. Re- spectfully request your support. W. W. LANE, Mayor, and City Council. CENTER, TEX., May 22, 1968. Hon. JOHN KLUGZYNSKI, Washington, D.C.: Re Federal Aid Highway Act of 1908. Request your support to prevent reduc- tion in funds for forest development roads and trails. A large part of the shore- line of Toledo Bend Reservoir in Texas is a part of Sabine National Forest. This largest manmade lake in the south with 1,200 miles of shoreline must have access roads for full economic and recreational development. Shelby County with one- half the Texas shoreline pledges its full support and cooperation in developing more roads but must have the help of the Sabine National Forest. Request this be made part of record. Judge V. V. PATE, County Judge and the Comm'issioners Court of Shelby County. CENTER, TEX., May 22, 1968. Hon. JOHN KLUCZYNSKI, Washington, D.C.: Urgently request no reduction in funds for forest development roads and trails, Federal act of 1908. Approximately one-half of shoreline of giant Toledo Bend Reservoir in Texas is a part of the Sabine National Forest. This is largest man- made lake in the South and access roads are a vital necessity for development. Urge your support. Request this be made part of record. JACK MOTLEY, President, Ces~ter Development Foundation Center. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., May 1~, 1968. Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON, Cli airman, Public Works Committee, Rayburn House Office Building. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: It is my understanding that hearings will be held next week on the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968. I am forwarding the comments of Henry C. Helland, Director of the Utah State Department of Highways, for the consideration of the committee. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very respectfully, LAURENCE J. BURTON, Member of Congress. PAGENO="0844" 832 UTAH STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS. Salt Lake City, May 9, 1968. Hon. LAURENCE J. BURTON, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. BURTON: Enclosed is a copy of our comments on the Department of Transportation's proposed 1968 Highway Act. The comments were prepared for AASHO but should be of interest to you. AASHO has organized an "After 1975 Committee" to prepare recommendations for a continuing program to be implemented upon completion or shortly prior to completion of the presently authorized Interstate Highway Program. A great effort is being made by the Community and it has the support of the Utah High- way Department. Recommendations to Congress by the Committee and action by the present Congress on the AASHO Program would be premature. There are, however, sev- eral items of importance to the highway program in Utah of which you should be aware. It would be detrimental to the Utah Program were any extensiOns of the In- terstate System mileage to be authorized. Such an action would defer the time when funds now going to the Interstate Program could be channeled into pro- grams on the Primary and Secondary Systems. The need for improvement on Primary and Secondary Highways in Utah is becoming critical. Particularly is this true with regard to federal-aid Secondary Highways. The present alloca- tion of Secondary projects in Utah is $3,000.000 per year. Under federal regula- tions one-half of this amount is made available to Counties for improvements to the County Secondary System. The balance, with State matching funds, totals $2,000,000 per year. A large proportion of these funds has been used to con- struct approaches to the Interstate System and consequently little has been or can be done on other State Secondary roads. Public demand for improvements is high but funds are not available. A similar, though less critical situation, exists on the Primary System, particularly in Urban areas. Relief cannot wait upon completion of the Interstate System. An increase in the authorization for Primary, Secondary and Urban roads from $1,000,000,000 to $1,500,000,000 is needed now. The DOT bill does not provide such an increase. It does propose an allocation of $250,000,000 for the TOPICS program. The funds could be better used in the regular federal-aid program with a reduced amount of $50 to $100 million being made available for the TOPICS program. Your assistance in supporting any effort to increase ABC apportionments and to resist any attempts to expand the Interstate System would be appreciated. We would be happy to funish any other information which you may desire concerning proposed federal legislation pertaining to the highway program. Very truly yours, R. W. GRIFFIN, (For Henry C. Hellan, Director of Highways.) RESPONSE SHEET BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY OFFICIALs ON THE DOT DRAFT LEGIsLATION, "FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1968" Sectioa 4 of the WiT1 Comments: With the extension of time needed to complete the system the next cost estimate need not be required before January 1971. The present estimate could be used for apportionments through fiscal year 1972 or later. Section 5 of the bill (1) Comments: The current back-log of needs on the Primary and Secondary Systems need immediate relief. ABC authorization should be increased by 50% to $1,500.000,000. (2) Comments: (For TOPICS Program) The TOPICS Program needs to be financed but $250,000,000 is too much. In some States this would exceed the alloca- tion for Primary construction. An amount between $50 and $100 million would be more appropriate. (3) and (4) (Note to come from Trust Fund.) Comments: Public Land and Forest Highway Programs should be financed from the General Fund, not the Trust Fund. Increases in these funds should be considered. 1 The dates specified do not appear ~o be the final completion dates. PAGENO="0845" 833 Section 9 of the bill (all subsections) Comments: The period for advance acquisition should be extended to at least ten years. Section 12 of the bill Comments: Refer to Section ~(2). Section 13 of the bill Comments: Financing of parking areas should be accomplished outside the Highway Trust Fund. STATEMENT OF C. W. "RED" BECK, STATE REPRESENTATIVE, 23D DISTRICT, STATE OF WASHINGTON Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Mr. C. W. Beck of Port Orchard, Washington. I am a State Representative from the 23rd District of our State and have been a member of our Legislature since 1961. I sincerely appreciate this opportunity of presenting testimony to your Committee, outlining my ideas of a federal-aid highway program following completion of the Inter- state system. In submitting this testimony to you, I feel that I might be considered a "typical" state legislator from a typical state. Washington is a state of about medium population, with a full range of population densities from heavily- urbanized to sparsely-populated areas. My county contains about 96,000 people and has one medium-sized urban area, the City of Bremerton, which has a population of approximately 38,000. Therefore, my district is concerned with not only rural highways but the problems of urban transportation as well. I am particularly concerned with plans of the Congress for the authorization of a federal-aid highway program to follow completion of the Interstate system.~ Although the date for completion of the Interstate appears to be somewhat in- definite at this time, I realize that the planning for any new program requires several years, and 1 hope that my comments here today will be of some value to you in considering future legislation for a federal-aid program to follow the Interstate. First, I should explain the vital interest of the Legislature of the State of Washington in our highway system and the importance of highways to the economy of our state. In the State of Washington, we have an interim Joint Committee on Highways, which concerns itself with highway matters between the biennial sessions of the Legislature. The Committee is composed of 24 Sen- ators and Representatives from both parties. It has a number of subcommittees which work continuously throughout the biennium on various problems and studies for the betterment of our highway program. I have the honor and privilege of being a member and Secretary of the present Joint Committee on Highways and am finding its work most rewarding. The Committee works closely with our Department of Highways in solving many highway problems and making studies which facilitate the work of the Legislature at its regular ses- sions every two years. Although the Interstate highway program has not directly benefited my par- ticular part of the state or my legislative district, I fully recognize its great value to our state and all of the states of the Nation. The Congress is to be congratulated on its foresight in authorizing and financing this monumental program. It is evident it will prove invaluable to the transportation system of our Nation. At the same time, all of us recognize that improvement of other highways in our states has lagged as a result of needs for financing the Interstate system. These other highways are not being improved nearly as rapidly as needed. It is urgent that some new program be authorized as soon as practical which will permit the states to meet the demands of their rapidly-increasing automobile traffic. I hope the suggestions I make here today will be of benefit to your Com- mittee in evaluating a course of action in considering a new federal-aid highway program to follow the completion of the Interstate system. As a student of highway affairs, I have taken the opportunity to follow closely the urgent highway problems which are prevalent around the country today. I know you have received a great deal of testimony from the large urban areas and the problems they are experiencing in trying to overcome traffic congestion in PAGENO="0846" 834 these large city areas. I am most sympathetic to their problems and believe greater efforts must be made in these large cities to solve the traffic problems. On the other hand, there are literally thousands of urban areas similar to the medium-sized one in my particular district where there are also highway trans- portation problems which must be met. Highways are vital to our transporta- tion needs and the present program is not adequate to solve these needs. In making these comments, I am in no way critical of either the present fed- eral highway program or the highway program of my State of Washington. The present federal-aid highway program, including the Interstate, is well-conceived, and I congratulate the Congress on the wisdom it has shown over the years in assisting the states in solving their transportation problems. Our State Highway Department in Washington is doing its very best within its available funds, but needs are rapidly outstripping the funds available to build more highways. This is my real purpose in being here today. Before outlining my views on what I feel a future highway program should encompass, I should tell you what we are doing in the State of Washington to help ourselves in solving the highway transportation problems. As in the case of all of the other states, we are heavily dependent upon federal-aid funds to build our highways, but at the same time we have not sat waiting for the federal government to solve all of our problems. In 1063, the Washington State Legislature enacted a Priority Programming Act which provides for the development of our state highways in Washington on a priority basis. All of our highways are classified according to their importance and the major amount of available state highway funds are used to improve the highways of greatest importance to the state. We believe this Priority Pro- gramming Act is one of the best-conceived systems in the country for putting highway dollars where they are needed most. Despite the fact that the State of Washington was tied with two or three other states for the highest state gasoline tax in the Nation prior to 1967, our 1967 Legislature chose to increase the state gasoline tax by 1~ cents, up to 9 cents per gallon. Without a doubt. we now have the highest gasoline tax of any state in the Nation. This substantial increase in our gasoline tax was not easy to come by, but was recognized as an absolute necessity in order to partially relieve traffic congestion in the urban areas of our state. In fact. the funds de- rived from the 11A cent increase in our gasoline tax are specifically earmarked to improve state highways, county roads and city arterials in the urban areas of our state having populations of 5,000 or more people. In order to complete the program as soon as practical, the revenues from the 11/2 cent gasoline tax increase will be utilized to back up two $200 million bond issues to improve the highways, roads and streets in the urban areas with the idea that the whole program will be completed in six to ten years. Again, I believe the State of Washington has faced up to the problem of traffic congestion and is doing its part to overcome the problem. We sincerely hope that the Congress will assist us further. Although our state program will help a great deal toward solving our problem, much remains to be done. Over the past several years, the economy and population of the State of Washington has been increasing at an extremely rapid rate, and our need for highways has increased by leaps and bounds. We are anxiously awaiting com- pletion of the Interstate system with the hope that the very large amount of highway dollars going into the Interstate can be diverted for the improvement of our primary and secondary highway system. As somewhat of a layman legislator, it would be presumptuous for me to attempt to come before this Committee with a specific and detailed proposal for a federal-aid highway program after completion of the Interstate program. For instance, my community would be delighted to have an Interstate highway built in our area to help solve our problems. I am sure a great many more areas similar to my own would like to have the same thing. But at the same time, I realize that a major increase in the Interstate system would tie up revenues of the Federal Trust Fund for many years to come and would intensify the need for improvement of the primary and secondary systems. With this as a backdrop, and speaking in terms of what I believe the average legislator around our country feels. I pronose that the Congress authorize a fed- eral-aid hirhway program following the completion of the Interstate along the following lines: 1. Following completion of the Interstate system, continue the present Federal Highway Trust Fund and revenues going into it for Improvement of the primary and secondary federal-aid highways of the various states. PAGENO="0847" 835 2. The objectives of the Federal Interstate program has not been fully realized. There is a vital need for a small limited addition of mileage to this system. The 00/10 ratio should apply to this additional mileage. In my state we have two significant metropolitan areas and one of the most vital military and naval in- stallations on the Pacific O~ast that have no access to the Interstate system. 3. Continue to recognize the urgent needs for highway, road and street im- provements in the urban areas which are off the state highway systems and allocate a part of the Federal Trust Fund monies to improve these urban high- ways. I suggest that the extent of this program be determined after asking the states to submit estimates of needs and that the funds for improving the urban highways, arterials and streets be allocated to the states on an equitable basis. 4. Presently the motorists are paying a federal excise tax on all new cars into the general fund. In my state, the motorist pays for off highway use a 2% excise tax on the value of the car each year for schools and a $4.60 fee for State Patrol, also a 4.5% sales and use tax everytime the vehicle ownership changes hands. With this diversion of funds, I would urgently request that no further diversions from the motorist be included in any new legislation. I specifically point out highway beautification off highway rights of way and urban transit systems, and parking lots. These functions are legitimate costs that should be absorbed by some fund other than the motorists. The motorist is paying his fair share of the cost of government by paying for the cost of highways. 5. The major part of the Federal Trust Fund monies should be allocated to a new federal-aid program to upgrade primary and secondary highway systems, the funds to be allocated to the states on the basis of relative needs. We believe our priority system in the State of Washington is a model for other states but rec- ognize that conditions differ around the country. Therefore, I would suggest that the composition of the new federal-aid system and the allocation of funds to the various states be determined after a comprehensive classification and needs study. I have no magic formulas to suggest, either as to the method of classifying state highways or the determination of needs. I believe the Directors of High- ways of the various state highway departments and federal officials concerned with these matters are fully competent to provide you with this information. The major point I desire to make is that all of us fervently desire that the Federal Trust Fund monies be continued and utilized to improve our primary and sec- ondary highway systems. Gentlemen, I am deeply grateful for the privilege of appearing before you and giving you my views on highway improvements in the State of Washington. I feel our highway problems in the State of Washington are very much similar to those which exist in the other states, and I hope my views are representative of a great many state legislators around the country. I hope also I have made it clear that I don't pretend to represent the large metropolitan areas of my own state or others. Nor do I feel that I am from a completely rural area. I sin- cerely believe I represent a completely "average" legislative district in one of the states of the Nation where adequate highway transportation is the life blood of our economy and our well-being. In considering a federal highway program after completion of the Interstate system, I sincerely hope you will not overlook the interests of the many thousands of legislative districts similar to my own. It has been an honor and a privilege to appear before you today and to be able to submit to you my views on the needs for highway improvements in my state. Thank you. STATEMENT OF FREDERICK B. DRAKE Mr. Chairman and honorable members of this distinguished Committee, I am Frederick B. Drake, Director of Purchasing & Real Estate for Air Products and. Chemicals, Inc. Air Products, headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania, is active interna- tionally in the design, construction and operation of industrial gas, chemical and fertilizer plants. The photographs of the Michoud Facility presented by Mr. Ferguson, show the relative scale and degree of sophistication involved within a typical Air Products plant complex. May I first take this opportunity to compliment the Corps of Engineers for their excellent report of December 8, 1967. If all forecasts within this report fare out as well as the statistics predicted for Air Products, I believe you PAGENO="0848" 836 gentlemen can respOnd confidently and positively to the conclusions and recom- mendations presented therein. In comparing actual exports of Anhydrous Ammonia .to those projected within Figure 5, Page AiG of the Corps' report, it can be seen that total 1966 through 1968 exports should approximate those forecasted. This will occur despite the effects of Hurricane Betsy, which caused an approximate 50% reduction in 1966 exports. In 1967 we were just about on target, exporting 46,300 tons and this year ~we should make up the 1966 deficit by exporting 71,500 tons. In considering further expansion into foreign markets, Air Products must Teact in proportion to her relative competitiveness. Of course, the lower our export costs, the more competitive we can become and the greater our incen- tive for capital investment. This modification and improvement project will help Air Products reduce the export costs through direct access to deep water transportation. With lower anticipated export costs we become motivated towards considerations of capital expenditures which would otherwise be economically unjustifiable. Increased capital expansion could allow production cost reductions through the efficiencies associated with expanded volume. Prices could then be lowered within our export markets and help enhance our world position. Expanded production facilities would also benefit the American farmer by inducing lower domestic prices. With lower cost production capacity, Air Prod- ucts would expand domestic efforts. This increased supply would stimulate national competition into reducing prices and provide the catalyst for technical improvements of their products. Deep water transportation ability would also tend to motivate Air Products towards diversification into other commodity exports and to allow the domestic manufacture of certain goods instead of through foreign subsidiaries. These factors, of course, would contribute towards improving this country's balance of trade. In addition to these economic benefits and to those outlined in the report by the Corps of Engineers are the employment opportunities created for unskilled and semi-skilled workers. We could conceivably aid in the training of "hard- core" unemployed. Therefore, gentlemen, Air Products strongly solicits your support for this modi- fication and improvement project, and requests your favorable support of the Corps of Engineer's conclusions and recommendations. Thank you again, gentlemen. I have submitted a copy of my comments for the record. STATEMENT OF THE BOARD OF CoMMIssIoNERs OF THE PORT OF NEW ORLEANS The following statement is submitted in behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, an agency of the State of Louisiana, in support of the proposed project for enlargement of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway east of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet and the Michoud Canal to provide ship chan- nels in these waterways. The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans created by the Con- stitution and statutory laws of the State of Louisiana is empowered and charged with the responsibility of constructing and maintaining wharves and other port facilities, of regulating the commerce and traffic of the port and harbor of New Orleans and of administering the affairs thereof in such a manner as may, in the Board's judgment, be best for the maintenance and development of the port. The Board is composed of five members prominently identified with the commerce and business interests of the port. The members of the Board are appointed by the Governor of the State of Louisiana, each to serve a term of five years. The jurisdiction of the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans embraces the Parishes (Counties) of Orleans, Jefferson and St. Bernard in Louisiana. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway from Lake Borgne to the Inner Harbor-Navigation Canal and the Micioud Canal, as well as the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, are within the limits of the Port of New Orleans. In addition to its other duties, the Board was designated by the then Governor Earl K. Long on December 10, 1956, as the assuring agency for the State of Louisiana, to obtain and convey to the LTnited States of America the rights-of- way and spoil disposal areas and to satisfy other provisions of local cooperation required of the State in connection with the construction, operation and main- PAGENO="0849" 837 tenance of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, in accordance with Public Law 455,84th Congress, approved March 29, 1956. The Chief of Engineers of the Department of the Army has recommended the modification of the existing project for the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet to provide a deep-draft navigation channel in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and Michoud Canal by enlargement to a depth of 36 feet over a bottom width of 250 feet from the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet channel to and including a turning basin 800 feet square at the north end of the Michoud Canal. The report of the Chief of Engineers reflects a benefit-cost ratio of 7.1 to 1. The recommendations of the Chief of Engineers concerning this project In- clude the requirements that prior to construction local interests shall agree to: a. Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easements, and rights-of-way required for construction and subsequent maintenance of the project and for aids to navigation upon the request of the Chief of Engineers, including suitable areas determined by the Chief of Engineers, to be re- quired in the general public interest for initial and subsequent disposal of spoil, and also retaining dikes for disposal of spail from maintenance dredg- ing, if required; b. Accomplish without cost to the United States such utility or other re- locations or alterations as necessary for project purposes; c. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the con- struction and subsequent maintenance of the project, including any erosion beyond the rights-of-way furnished; and d. Provide, maintain and operate without cost to the United States ade- quate public wharf facilities on the Michoud Canal open to all on equal terms. NOTE: The italic portions of subparagraph "a" above ifid not appear in the requirements of local cooperation as contained in the report of the District Engineer on this project, and were added to the requirements on the recommendation of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans at a regular meeting held on October 13, 1967, adopted a resolution indicating that the Board was willing and able to provide the assurances of local cooperation, as proposed in the reports of the Division and District Engineers, should the project be au- thorized by the Congress of the United States; and further, authorized the Director of the Port to sign, execute and deliver to the Corps of Engineers a state- ment in such form and containing such provisions as in the sole discretion of said Director of the Port shall seem proper, evidencing the willingness and ability of the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans to provide the required assurances of local cooperation. The assurances of the Board in this regard have been furnished to the District Engineer, New Orleans District, Corps of Engineers, by letter, dated October 19, 1967, and a copy of such letter and resolution of the Board are contained in the District Engineer's project report dated December 18, 1967. The additional requirements of local cooperation as recommended by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors do not appear to be unduly burdensome and such requirements will be satisfied by the Board. The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans has concluded negotiations with the owners of the property adjoining the proposed navigation improvements to the point that the availability of rights-of-way for initial construction and for the deposit of spoil therefrom is assured. Furthermore, the Board has concluded negotiotions and possesses an option to purchase a site for the construction of public port facilities on the Michoud Canal. Also, within the Board's Capital Facilities Program for the period 1968-4972, is included a project for the construction of public terminal facilities on the Michoud Canal schedul- ing the amount of $4,400,000 for this project. It may be observed, therefore, that the requirements for local cooperation not only have been assured but are in such a status as to permit the immediate initiation and completion of the pro- posed project. The plan of development as contained in the report of the Chief of Engineers has been approved by the Board's engineers and such plans are considered to be entirely suitable and completely consistent with the master plan for develop- ment and expansion of the Port of New Orleans. The proposed project not only will serve importantly the trade and commerce of the Port of New Orleans but also will serve and encourage the industrial development of the private lands abutting the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and PAGENO="0850" 838 Michoud Canal to the economic benefit of the City of New Orleans, the State of Louisiana and the entire nation. The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans strongly endorses the proposed project for the deepening and widening of the Gulf Intrâcoastal Waterway east of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet and the deepening and widening of the Michoud Canal as proposed in the report by the Chief of Engi- neers. The early approval of this project by the Congress of the United States is respectfully requested. STATEMENT OF Jos~n V. FERGUSON II, ATTORNEY, NEW ORLEANS, LA., ON BEHALF OF Am PRODUCTS & CHEMICALS. INC., NEW ORLEANS EAST, INC., INTERNATIONAL AUTO SALES .& SERVICE, INC., OKLAHOMA CEMENT Co., DUNDEE CEMENT Co., LOUISIANA MATERIALS, INC., GERTLER-HEBERT Co., PRATT FARNSWORTH, INC., DIXIE MILL SUPPLY Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee on Public Works of the United States House of Representatives. I am Joseph Ferguson, an attorney in New Orleans, Louisiana. I appear be- fore this Committee to speak on behalf of the local interests sponsoring the proposal to modify the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway from its junction with the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet to the Michoud Canal, and the Michoud Canal, to provide, in addition to the water transportation now available by virtue of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the MissiSsippi River-Gulf Outlet, deep Water transportation to a rapidly developing industrial area situated in the eastern part of the City of New Orleans. This project has the whole-hearted support and approval of all of the property owners in the area. I wish to express my thanks and the thanks of the other parties who will speak to you on behalf of this project for the opportunity to appear before this Committee and to present our views. A report with respect to this proposed modification has been prepared b~' the U.S. Army Engineering District, New Orleans, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana dated December 18, 1967, which report has been approved by the Division Engineer, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and the Chief of Engineers. A hearing was held by the Committee on Public Works of the United States Senate on May 23, 1908. This proposed modification is presently before this Committee for consideration. The District Engineer has estimated that the improvements and modifica- tion to the existing waterways can be constructed at a cost of $1,300,000, cx- elusive of $20,000 for aids to navigation. He has estimated that the annual average benefits will be in the sum of $495,000 resulting in a benefit cost ratio of 7 to 1. To permit you to quickly familiarize and orient yourself with the area in- volved and its present industrial development, we have caused a current aerial photograph of the area involved to be made and will also submit addi- tional photographs and charts reflecting progress in the area which has taken place subsequent to the report prepared by the District Engineer. Exhibit 1 reflects existing waterways and the area of the proposed modifica- tion. The modification is for a depth of 36 feet and a bottom width of 250 feet. You will observe that we are dealing with a very limited area where modifica- tion and improvements are proposed. The area involved is from the juncture of the Mississippi River outlet in the Michoud Canal which is shown on this photo- graph at this point. It proceeds easterly along the Intracoastal Waterway for a distance of approximately one and one-half miles to the junction of the Michoud Canal which runs in a northerly direction for a distance of approximately one and one-half miles. The proposed modification includes the construction of a turning basin at the northern end of the Michoud Canal. I direct your attention to the photograph which we identified as Exhibit 1A. Please note on this photograph that the plant of Air Reduction Company which appears in the 1965 photograph appended to the District Engineer's report has now been completed and is in operation. A plant has been constructed by the Dundee Cement Company at this point, subsequent to the study by the District Engineer. The property owned by Louisiana Materials Company, a subsidiary of the American Marine Company, is presently being used as a storage area; how- ever, the long range plans of this corporation include the construction of a yard for the building of barges, ships and other vessels. PAGENO="0851" 839 Pratt Farnsworth has moved its construction yard from another location in the City of New Orleans to its Michoud site here. I now submit for your consideration Exhibit 2 which is a colored aerial photograph of the Air Products and Chemicals Plant looking in a westerly direc- tion. This photograph shows a portion of the Michoud Canal and lying directly opposite the Air Products Plant on the opposite canal is the NASA Michoud facility. I submit Exhibit 3, a colored aerial photograph of the Air Products and Chemicals Plant looking in a northeasterly direction. This photograph discloses the facilities originally constructed by Air Products and Chemicals to service barge and other forms of water transportation from its Michoud Plant. These facilities are being continuously improved. In the extreme upper right hand corner you may observe a portion of the spoil area with respect to which Air Products has granted a spoil disposal right-of- way or easement. In the upper left hand corner it discloses a portion of the prop- erty with respect to which Air Products has granted a right-of-way or easement for the construction of the turning basin. Exhibit 4 is a colored photograph of the Air Products and Chemicals Plant during its operation at night and is submitted as evidence of the continuous oper- ation of this plant. The concept of modifying the Intracoastal Waterway and the Michoud Canal to provide deep water transportation to that area was originated by several of the industries which had located or planned to locate facilities on the Michoud Canal. One of the originators of this project, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., of Allentown, Pennsylvania, produces at its plants gaseous nitrogen which it de- livers to NASA at Michoud and liquid hydrogen and oxygen which it delivers to NASA at its Mississippi test site and other points of use. Although several loca- tions were available and were considered by management for the location of this plant, the Michoud site was finally chosen because it offered the prospect of deep water transportation at some time in the future which would permit Air Prod- ucts to expand its plant so that it could manufacture fertilizers, principally Anhy- drous ammonia, uria, phosphates, potash and nitrogeneous fertilizers which it could ship directly to domestic and foreign markets. If deep water transportation is available to Air Products at its Michoud plant, Air Products will be able to offer for sale fertilizers produced at this plant at materially reduced prices to consumers because of substantial transportation savings. At the present time, in many instances, these products must be handled twice, first into a barge or truck and then into a ship and transportation costs are substantial. While its Michoud chemical complex was under construction Air Products and Chemicals discussed its views with Mr. Harold Cook, Executive Vice President of New Orleans East, Inc., which corporation is the owner of large tracts of land in the area and is engaged in the development thereof. The proposal was also discussed with Mr. Willard Robertson of International Auto Sales and Service, Inc., the owner of another large tract abutting the Michoud Canal. The suggestion was reviewed and considered by these companies for some time taking into consideration the possible requirements which might be established by the District Engineer and their ability to satisfy them if the modification was considered worthy. Thereafter, meetings were held with other companies or local interests in the Michoud area, that is, the Oklahoma Cement Company, Pratt Farnsworth, Inc., Gertler-Hebert Company, Dundee Cement and Louisiana Materials, Inc., Dixie Mill Supply Company and the Sewerage & Water Board of the City of New Orleans. All of these property owners agreed that the proposed modification was meritorious and to lend it their support. Meetings were then held with the District Engineer, New Orleans Engineer District, and members of his staff concerning the proposed modification. Prelimi- nary discussions with them indicated that the proposal was feasible and war- ranted action. The local interests next contacted Senator Allen J. Ellender, Senator Russell Long and Congressman F. Edw. Hébert of Louisiana's First Congressional Dis- trict where the area in question is located, for their assistance to obtain the funds necessary for a study of the proposed modification to be made by the District Engineer. Through their efforts the funds for the study were provided. A public hearing was held in New Orleans on December 18, 1964, by the District Engineer and was attended by all of the local interests or their representatives as well as many other persons interested in or who could be affected by the 96-030-68-----54 PAGENO="0852" 840 proposed modification. No objection to the modification was expressed by anyone at that time or any other time. The Board of Commissioners of the Port :of New Orleans and the Department of Public Works of the State of Louisiana both indicated at the hearing on December 18, 1964, their approval of the proposed modification. The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans was requested to act as public sponsor; however, at the time the public hearing was held the require- ments of local cooperation were not known and the Board decided to wait until such requirements were established before reaching a determination as to whether or not it could act as the public sponsor. When the study was completed by the District Engineer, but prior to the preparation of his report of December 18, 1967, the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans and the local interests were informed of the proposed requirements of local cooperation in order that they might determine if the proposed requirements could be met and satisfied. These requirements are set forth in his report and in the interest of brevity will be only summarized here. They consisted of: (a) To furnish the United States without cost land, easements and rights-of-way for the construction and maintenance of the modification including suitable areas for the deposit of spoil, (b) Relocation without cost to the United States of public utilities in the area, (c) A release in favor of the United States for damages due to construc- tion, maintenance of the modification and possible erosion, and (d) Provide and maintain public wharf facilities on Michoud Canal. Many conferences were held with Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans and the various property owners whose property would be involved in satisfying the requirements of local cooperation with respect to the form and nature of the required agreements. All of these agreements have now been prepared and executed by Air Products and Chemicals, New Orleans East, Inc., Higgins, Inc.. predecessor in title to International Auto Sales and Service, Sewerage and Water Board of the City of New Orleans, Oklahoma Cement Com- pany, Dundee Cement Company, Dixie Mill Supply Company, Louisiana Mate- rials, Inc., Gertler-Hebert Company and Pratt Farnsworth and Company and delivered to the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans. I now submit Exhibit 5 which is a drawing of the Michoud Canal, the turn- ing basin and the spoil disposal areas. The area colored blue represents the right-of-way in the Michoud Canal and the access to the area reserved for a public wharf granted by its owner, New Orleans East, Inc. The area colored in yellow represents the right-of-way in the Michoud Canal and the access to the area reserved for a public wharf granted by its owner, New Orleans East, Inc. The area colored in yellow represents the area which Air Products and Chemi- cals has granted a right-of-way or servitude for the construction of the turning basin and the area colored in brown is the area for which it has granted a right-of-way or servitude for spoil disposal. The orange area represents the right-of-way or spoil disposal area provided by New Orleans East, Inc., and the red area represents the area affected by the agreement with the Board of Commissioners for the Port of New Orleans relating to the proposed public wharf facility. The area colored in green represents the area with respect to which releases from damage have been granted by the local interests in favor of the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans and the U.S. Engineers. The Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, upon delivery of the above-mentioned agreements, has agreed to be the public sponsor. Thus it is apparent that the local interests have already satisfied the require- ments of local cooperation set forth in the report of the District Engineer. Colonel William Lewis, representing the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans, will also appear before this Committee and inform you that the Board is prepared to satisfy the requirement with respect to a public wharf facility. I further direct the Committee's attention to the fact that the United States will be one of the principal beneficiaries of this proposed modification. The NASA property extends a distance of approximately a mile and one-half along the north bank of the Intracoastal Waterway and approximately a mile along the west bank of the Michoud Canal. Deep water transportation is not presently available in this area. At some future time, the availability of deep water trans- PAGENO="0853" 841 portation from this property may serve a very useful function for the United States or one of its Departments or Agencies as a deep water transportation point or considerably enhance its value should the site ever be declared surplus and placed upon the market for sale. In order to reach the area of the proposed modification, vessels will normally use the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet in entering and returning from the Port of New Orleans, and thus materially increase the use of that waterway. The modification of the existing waterway submitted to this Committee for consideration, if authorized and funded, will satisfy an immediate and pressing need for the industries located or which will locate in the area in question. For example, Air Products and Chemicals is now prepared to use deep water trans- portation for shipments from its Michoud Plant. International Auto Sales and Service is prepared to construct a wharf and other facilities on its property and commence the importation of automobiles which may ultimately serve as the focal point of the importation of these automobiles in the Gulf Coast area. Mr. Willard Robertson of International Auto Sales and Service will appear before you and provide additional details as to the extent of this operation. The area lying behind the Michoud Canal owned by New Orleans East has been set aside for industrial development and as these industries move in they will require deep water transportation in addition to the rail and highway transportation now available. Mr. Cook of New Orleans East, who will also ap- pear before you, will provide additional details concerning their plans for development. In summary and conclusion I direct the Committee's attention to the fact that we are considering a modification and improvement to existing waterways. This is not a new project, but rather an extension of and better use for existing water- ways in this area, in particular, the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet. Private industry and individuals recognize the immediate need for this modi- fication, as evidenced by their sustained efforts over a long period of time seeking its approval, culminated by their appearance here and their furnishing without cost to the United States and the public sponsor valuable property rights in the area of the modification, including releases from damages to their properties. The relatively modest cost of this modification, the benefits which will accrue to the public resulting from lower transportation costs of industry located in the area, the employment by industry of additional skilled, semi-skilled and un- skilled labor are all material and relevant to your consideration of this modification. The District Engineer investigated and evaluated the above mentioned public benefits in his favorable report of December 18, 1907, concerning this modifi- cation. As heretofore stated, this report has been approved by the Division Engi- neer, the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and the Chief of Engineers. The progress which has been made thus far is an encouraging example of a United States Department, State Agency and political subdivision, and pirvate enterprise recognizing a need, then working in close cooperation and harmony to satisfy such need. We now find ourselves at the point where approval by this Committee of this modification is the next step in the road from conception to fulfillment. We trust that you will assist us in obtaining this necessary modification by your support and approval. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, Washi'ivgtolI, D.C., June 11, 1968. Hon. JOHN 0. KLTJCZYNSKI, Civairman, &~bcomm'ittee on Roa~fs, Committee on Pub fle Works, House of Representatives, Waslvington, DL!. DEAR Mn. KLTJczYN5KI: The Chamber of Commerce of the United States urges the House Subcommittee on Roads to delete Section 14 from H.R. 17134, a bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal years 1970-1974 for the construction of certain highways, and for other purposes. Section 14 of this bill would permit money from the Highway Trust Fund, derived from user charges on a "pay-as-you-build" basis, to be diverted to finance publicly-owned fringe parking facilities. While the chamber believes that adequate urban parking facilities should be considered within the context of overall urban transportation planning, we oppose the Section and urge its deletion, for three reasons: PAGENO="0854" 842 First, we believe Highway Trust Fund money should be used solely for its intended purpose-meeting highway construction expenses. We do not believe the money should be diverted from this essential purpose and used for design, construction or maintenance of public off-street parking facilities or other non- highway purposes. Second, we note that Highway Trust Fund money already seems to be in short supply-inasmuch as Section 2 of the bill authorizes a stretch-out to 1974 of construction of the Interstate System. Further shortening of the money supply, by using it for parking facifities, would be detrimental to completion of the Interstate System. Third, we view this proposal for federally' financing fringe parking facilities as an example of unwarranted government competition with private enterprise. We do not believe it appropriate for the Federal Government to encourage the provision of parking facilities by other levels of government. Where it is de- sirable to supply free or below cost off-street parking, the businessman and property owners benefitting therefrom should provide it without government subsidy, as they have been doing. For the foregoing reasons, the Chamber requests deletion of Section 14 from H.R. 17134. If there is a sufficiently strong interest in a Federal subsidy for providing publicly-owned fringe parking facilities, we would recommend that the subject be heard in separate hearings, where it could be judged on its own merits. I would appreciate you making this letter a part of the record of Committee hearings. Cordially, Dox A. GOODALL, General Manager, Legislative Action. STANDARD LIME & REFRACTORmS Co., Baltimore, Md., June 6, 1968. Hon. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Member, Public Works Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN KLUczYNSKI: We urge your support for enactment of House Bill 14474 as this legislation would liberalize existing limitations and enable States so desiring to modernize their present motor truck size and weight standards. As you know, present maximum truck size and weight limitations which were established by the Congress in 1956 are based on standards adopted by the American Association of State Highway Officials in 1946. Affirmative action is required to allow individual States an opportunity to adopt modern size and weight standards. We respectfully request that our views be made a part of the record. Very truly yours, LEWIS RUMFORD II, President. INSURANCE INSTITUTE FOR HIGHWAY SAr~TY, Washington., D.C.. June 7, 1968. Hon. JOHN C. KLUCZYXSKI, Chairman, ,S'ubcommittee on Roads of the Public Works Committee, House of Repi-esen.tativeg, Washington, D.C. DEAR Ma. KLUCZYNSKI: The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ear- nestly seeks the support of your subcommittee for the traffic and highway safety authorizations contained in H.R. 17134 and H.R. 16994. If the traffic safety program of the nation is to go forward it is essential that the states, the local communities, and others concerned with the mounting high- way carnage be assured of Congressional leadership and willingness to spend tax dollars for this purpose. A fine start has been made in dealing with this massive social problem, due in no small part to the leadership exhibited by yourself and other members of the House Committee on Public Works. From our close association with the problem it is apparent that the minimum authorization for state and community highway programs for 1070 and 1971 should be the $50 and $75 million figures respectively cited in the two House PAGENO="0855" 843 bills. Likewise, the smns of $30 and $40 million for highway safety research and development will meet only minimum needs in this important program area. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which is actively involved in traffic safety activities complimentary to those underway in Washington and in the state capitals, urges favorable action on the safety sections of the two bills as written. We respectively request that this letter be made a part of the hearings record. The IIHS stands ready to assist your subcommittee in any way possible in at- tacking the social disgrace represented by traffic deaths, injuries, and property damage. Sincerely, NILs A. LOFGREN, Acting President. NATIONAL HIGHWAY 50 FEDERATION, La Junta, Cob. To: Congressional Delegates, Governors, State Highway Commissions, State Highway Departments of the States of California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, and Mary- land, The United States Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration in Washington, D.C. From: National Highway 50 Federation, Post Office Box 316, La Junta, Colorado. Subject: Upgrading and improvement of U.S. Highway 50, and a proposal to have U.S. Highway 50 included in any subsequent legislation that will out- line the next major highway improvement program that will follow after the present National System of Interstate and Defense Highways is completed. PREFACE U.S. Highway 50 is a coast to coast highway between the points of Ocean City, Maryland on the Atlantic Coast and San Francisco, California on the Pacific Coast. It traverses on an east-west basis the 12 States noted above, plus the District of Columbia. It is 3,241 miles in length and affords the traveler the most direct highway route coast to coast and is located midway between the Canadian and Mexican Borders. The National Highway 50 Federation is an association of individual business people and organizations who have joined together in an effort to promote more travel and highway improvements on this key arterial route. It is governed by a board of directors consisting of members from each of the 12 States served by U.S. 50. In the Federal Aid Highway Acts of 1956 and 1958, Congress set up the Na- tional System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Very little mileage of U.S. 50 was included in this 41,000 mile network of four lane, limited access highways. It has come to our attention that within the next several months, Congress will start considering what type of new highway improvement program will follow upon completion of the present Interstate System sometime in the mid 1970's. It has also been indicated that in all probability one of three programs will be initiated in this regard: 1. The addition of mileage to the present Interstate Highway System. 2. The creation of an entirely new system of upgraded highways. 3. Adoption of a program to upgrade the present primary and secondary highways throughout the Nation. Although there are many sections of U.S. Highway 50 that need immediate improvement, the National Highway 50 Federation respectfully asks that the entire length of U.S. 50 be considered for inclusion in any future highway up- grading program, whether passed by Congressional legislation or initiated at the State level. In order to better present the Highway 50 needs, we would like to briefly out- line on a State or regional basis what we feel are the key points for an overall improvement program. CALIFORNIA, NEVADA, UTAH These three States will be considered jointly, as we feel the continuation of Interstate 70 from its present dead end at Cove Fort, Utah, on west through Ely, Nevada; Carson City, Nevada; South Lake Tahoe, California; and on west to join with Interstate 80 at Sacramento, would solve this entire problem. PAGENO="0856" 844 A quick glance at a map of the National System of Interstate and Defense High- ways will show that Interstate 70, which begins in Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, Maryland, proceeds west through 10 States only to terminate in west- central Utah. where it joins Interstate 15 that rims in a southwest-northeast direction. Interstate 70 is the only east-west interstate highway that dead-ends rather than joining with another interstate highway going in the same direction. There is only one east-west interstate highway that serves the West Coast of the United States from Portland on the north to Los Angeles on the south, a distance of 1,001 miles. Approaching this problem from a defense angle, it would seem that there should be more than one east-west interstate highway serving such a large area. In case of an emergency. and the present one interstate (Interstate 80) is blocked, the entire West Coast area would be isolated from the inland. This in itself is reason enough for the extention of Interstate 70 west to Sacramento. In California, the population is centered around two key areas-Los Angeles in the south and San Francisco-Bay Area in the north. There are actually four interstate highways crossing the border of Southern California on an east- west basis, while the San Francisco-Bay Area has only one. Also in California there is an immediate need for a four lane highway from Sacramento east through Placerville to South Lake Tahoe. At the present time many parts of this road are very narrow and the accident rate is quite high. The present use dictates that this road is going to have to be four laned as soon as funds become available. From Cove Fort, Utah, where Interstate 70 presently ends, on west is the largest land area in the United States that is not being served by an interstate highway. Interstate 70 serves Denver, Colorado. There is a definite business need for a direct route on the Interstate System between the San Francisco-Bay Area and the State of Colorado. There is no interstate highway at the present time that links these two regions. Interstate 80 is the only interstate highway serv- ing San Francisco on an east-west basis and it goes to Reno, Salt Lake City, and Cheyenne, missing the entire State of Colorado. We feel that the above reasons warrant the extension of Interstate Highway 70 from its dead end at Cove Fort, Utah, on west to Sacramento and San Fran- cisco, California. It is also requested that that portion of U.S. 50 between Green River, Utah, and Spanish Fork, Utah. be improved to an interstate status. The distance be- tween these two points is 132 miles. From Green River east to Grand Junction, Colorado, U.S. 50 and Interstate 70 will be a joint route. COLORADO Between the Utah-Colorado State Line and Grand Junction, Colorado, U.S. 50 will be a joint highway with Interstate 70. It is requested that U.S. 50 between Grand Junction and the Colorado-Kansas State Line, a distance of 440 miles, be included in the next interstate or similar major highway program. This route serves much of the tourist area of the State and would offer the best route to serve the south-central part of Colorado as Interstate 70 now serves Denver and the northern part of the State. Pueblo, an industrial center, and the second largest city in Colorado, does not have an east-west interstate highway. U.S. 50 should be designated as such a route, as this highway is the key east-west route serving this metropolitan area. U.S. 50 is also the key artery serving the areas of construction for the Frying Pan Arkansas Project and the Curecanti Project of the Upper Colorado River Storage Project. Right now there is an immediate need to four lane that portion of U.S. 50 between the four inning east of Pueblo and Manzanola, a distance of 2i miles. There is also a great need for continua- tion of four laning from Lamar on west to connect with present four Inning east of La Junta. U.S. 50 is the second largest carrier of traffic between Kansas and Colorado and therefore U.S. 50 should be the next major east-west highway in Colorado. KANSAS From Kansas City west to Emporia. a distance of 114 miles, U.S. 50 will be a joint highway with Interstate 35. The Jorgensen Report, which is a survey accepted by the Kansas State Highway Commission, has recommended that that portion of U.S. 50 between Emporia and Hutchinson, a distance of 10~ miles. be added to the freeway system in Kansas. We request that U.S. 50 from Hutchin- PAGENO="0857" 845 son on west to the Kansas-Colorado State Line, a distance of 246 miles, be placed on the next interstate or similar major highway system. By-passes are urgently needed now at Newton and Hutchinson. It was pointed out above that U.S. 50 in the second largest carrier of traffic between Kansas and Colorado. This, com- bined with the fact that U.S. 50 is centrally located to serve the south-central part of Kansas on a direct east-west basis, would qualify it for the next major highway in Kansas. Interstate 70 presently serves the northern part of Kansas. MISSOURI From St. Louis west in Union, Missouri, a distance of 48 miles, U.S. 50 will be a joint highway with Interstate 44. It is requested that U.S. 50 from Union west to Kansas City, a distance of 225 miles, be included in the next interstate or similar major highway program. U.S. 50 is the key east-west route serving Jefferson City, which is the Capital of Missouri. At the present time, Jefferson City is one of the few State Capitols in the Nation not being served by an interstate highway. The Missouri State Highway Department is making immediate plans to four lane U.S. 50 between Kansas City and Sedalia, with future plans to con- tinue this four laning on to the State Capitol at Jefferson City. This in itself indi- cates the importance of U.S. 50 to the State of Missouri, thereby qualifying it for the next major east-west highway in the State. ILLINOIS, INDIANA U.S. Highway 50 is the most direct route between St. Louis, Missouri, and Cincinnati, Ohio, a distance of 350 miles. At one time, Interstate 64 was sched- uled to be on U.S. 50 from St. Louis east to Shoals, Indiana, a distance of 194 miles, but was changed to a more southerly route after the initial interstate routings had been adopted. As a result, only a very small section of U.S. 50 east of East St. Louis will be on the Interstate System, as the new location for Inter- state 64 goes south to Evanville, Indiana, and on into Louisville, Kentucky. Four laning on U.S. 50 has already been completed in Illinois and Indiana in the vicinity of Vincennes, Indiana. Interstate 70 serves central Indiana and Illinois and U.S. 50 would be the next logical route south to serve the southern part of these two States on an east-west basis. Recreational developments in the vicinity of Salem, Illinois by the Corps of Engineers will require more adequate roads to serve the traveling public. A portion of U.S. 50 from Aurora, Indiana, on west to Versailles, Indiana, has already been four laned and more is scheduled in the near future. OHIO, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA There is a definite need for a four lane highway between Cincinnati, Ohio and Washington, D.C., a distance of 500 miles. U.S. 50 is the most direct route between these two centers of population. Under the Appalachia Program, 127 miles of this distance are being four laned from Athens, Ohio east to a point just east of Clarksburg, West Virginia. This leaves 154 miles in Ohio, 129 miles in West Virginia, and 90 in Virginia that need to be four laned. Millions of dollars are presently scheduled for reconstruction of U.S. 50 just east of Cm- cinnati. Additional projects are being scheduled for the improvement of U.S. 50 in Ohio. In West Virginia, the Rowlesburg Dam will cause the relocation of U.S. 50 in the vicinity of Aurora and will increase tremendously the tourist interest in that area. Interstate 70 is presently serving the central area of Ohio. It is felt that U.S. 50 should be the next east-west major artery serving southern Ohio, northern West Virginia and the heavily populated area in Virginia west of Washington, D.C. and for that reason should be included in the next interstate or similar major highway system. MARYLAND Except for a section of U.S. 50 over the Choptank River and through Cam- bridge, and a small section near Vienna, U.S. 50 is four laned from Washington, D.C. to Ocean City. We ask that these two areas be brought to a freeway status as soon as possible. It is also important that a major cloverleaf inter- change be built at the junction of U.S. 50 and U.S. 113 west of Ocean City. U.S. 113 is a major north-south route, while U.S. 50 is a major east-west route. The four way stop being used is unsafe for the traffic that uses these two routes and many accidents have occurred at this point. Since U.S. 50 is the key PAGENO="0858" 846 artery from the heavily populated area in and around the District of Columbia, it is requested that U.S. 50 in Maryland be placed on the next interstate or similar major highway system. For the above reasons, the National Highway 50 Federation respectfully solicits your consideration in making U.S. Highway 50 a part of the next interstate or similar major highway improvement program. Sincerely, JOHN GIANOT'rI, President. DOYLE L. DAVIDSON, Ewecutive Vice President. NATIONAL HIGHWAY 50 FEDERATION, La Junta, Cob., June 21, 1968. Hon. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Representative, Rayburn Bvitding, Washington, D.C. DEA.R CONGRESSMAN KLUCZYNSKI: In line with your telegram to me dated June 21 I am herewith enclosing a written statement to be included in the record of your hearings in the Subcommittee on Roads. The attached material will outline fully the project that we propose in regard to increasing the mileage of the Interstate Highway System. As you can see our proposal to you is that Interstate Highway 70 be extended from its dead-end at Cove Fort, Utah on west to Sacramento and San Francisco, along the general route of present U.S. Highway 50. All of Northern California has only one east-west Interstate Highway-Interstate 80. Should it be closed for any reason there would not be an Interstate Highway available to the entire West Coast from Portland to Los Angeles, a distance of 1,001 miles. The ex- tension of Interstate 70 would decrease the mileage between San Francisco and Denver by 143 miles thereby resulting in a tremendous savings to the traveling public. There is a great industrial interest between California in the .San Fran- cisco Bay Area and Denver. Southern California has four east-west Interstate Highways. Northern California has only one and another one is definitely needed. The continuation of Interstate 70 is the logical route. In California U.S. 50 between Sacramento and South Lake Tahoe is carry- ing almost as much traffic as Interstate 80 to the north. An Interstate type highway is vitally needed in this area and this extension would serve this purpose. The three states involved, California, Nevada, and Utah have all gone on record in favor of this extension. A copy of the Nevada resolution is enclosed. For the reasons attached in the enclosed proposal we sincerely ask that your committee give favorable reaction to the extension of Interstate 70 from Cove Fort, Utah to Sacramento, California. Should this entire extension be greater than can be allowed at this time we ask that consideration especially be given to that section between Sacramento and South Lake Tahoe, a distance of 103.5 miles. We sincerely ask your consideration of the above mentioned proposal. Sincerely, DOYLE L. DAVIDSON, Executive Vice President. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL BY BOARD OF HIGHWAY DIRECTORS OF THE NEVADA HIGH- WAY DEPARTMENT FOE DESIGNATING PORTIONS OF U.S. HIGHWAY No. .50 IN UTAH, NEVADA, AND CALU'ORNIA AS AN EXTENSION TO INTERSTATE HIGHWAY No. 70, AND FURTHER CONSIDER FUNDING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO UPGRADE THIS SEC- TION OF PRIMARY HIGHWAY TO STANDARDS COMMENSURATE WITH INTERSTATE Whereas, the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways is being constructed to provide a nationwide transportation system for use during an emergency as well as to serve the overall general traveling public, and Whereas, Interstate Highway 70 will be constructed from the East Coast west to Southwestern Utah and will be the only Interstate Highway crossing the Rocky Mountains between Albuquerque on the south and Cheyenne, Wyoming, on the north, and PAGENO="0859" 847 Whereas, Interstate Highway 70 is terminated at a point in southwestern Utah called Cove Fort, and Whereas, there will be only one Interstate highway in the present system under construction serving the San Francisco Bay area on any east-west basis and this will be the only such highway between Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon, a distance of 1,001 miles, and Whereas, there is both a need for a second east-west defense highway from the San Francisco Bay area and this need is increasing yearly, and Whereas, the present routing of U.S. Highway 50, especially between Sacra- mento and Lake Tahoe South Shore is inadequate to properly and safely carry the present traffic flow now using this road, and Whereas, there is a definite need for an Interstate highway between Colorado and the San Francisco Bay area, and Whereas, there have been expressions of all segments of the public and officials from Nevada, California, and Utah dating back to 1964 requesting Interstate 70 not be dead-ended in Utah, but to continue into Nevada and California along the present U. 5. 50 routing, and Whereas, U. S. 50 is the main route of travel through the central part of Nevada and necessary to the economic, agricultural and industrial development of the heart of the State of Nevada, and also is of the most extreme importance as a defense facility, Whereas, it appears that within the next few years Congress will be con- sidering what direction the future highway program will take, Therefore, be it resolved, that in the best public interest and safety, the Nevada State Highway Board of Directors urges the Bureau of Public Roads, the Department of Transportation, and all others in authority to exercise all means within their power to bring about the continuation of Interstate 70 from its present terminal point at Cove Fort, Utah, on west through Ely, Nevada, and thence along U.S. 50 to Carson City, Nevada, South Lake Tahoe, Echo Summit, Placerville, and on into Sacramento, California. That further, regardless of what type program may be considered, it must include critical sections of the Primary System such as U.S. 50 and provide the additional funds needed to upgrade to Interstate standards at an early date. Dated this 31st day of May 1968. NEVADA STATE HIGHWAY BOARD OF DIRECTORS, PAuL LAXALT, Chairman, Governor. HARVEY DICKERsoN, Member, Attorney General. WILSON MCGOWAN, Member, State Controller. Presented by: JOHN E. BAWDEN, State Highway Engineer. Attest: STANLEY D. Secretary. NATIONAL HIGHWAY 50 FEDERATION, La Junta, Cob. TO: Congressional Delegates, Governors, and State Highway Departments of The States of California, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado and the Bureau of Public Roads. FROM: National Highway 50 Federation, P0 Box 316, La ~Tunta, Colorado. SUBJECT: Proposal to Have Interstate 70 Extended From Its Present Ter- minal Point in Southwestern Utah on West Along the Present General Route of US Highway 50 to Sacramento and San Francisco, California. Preface.-At the present time the 41,000 mile National System of Interstate and Defense Highways is under construction. It crosses the nation coast to coast and border to border and is scheduled for completion in the mid 1970's. While the total mileage in this system is only a little more than one percent of our country's 3,360,000 miles of roads, these Interstate routes will carry more than 20 percent of all the traffic. In the Federal Aid Highway Acts of 1956 and 1958, Congress provided for a thirteen year program of federal-state coopera- PAGENO="0860" 848 tion to complete this heavy duty system to standards of design and construc- tion adequate to handle the traffic of 1975. When completed, this Interstate System will be expected to carry the heaviest loads and the highest traffic vol- umes for many years. With the target completion date only a few years away, government groups, both state and federal, are beginning to think seriously about anticipated highway needs after this date. We have been told that the Bureau of Public Roads is asking the individual states to submit their ideas to the federal organization by 1987. We are also told that Congress will then probably act in 1968 on what additional highway programs will be put into force after 1975. In talking with both federal and state highway leaders, we find at the present time no one knows whether the present interstate system will be extended, whether a new interstate system will be authorized, whether the present primary and secondary roads will be up graded to four lane stand- ards or whether something altogether new will be planned. It is the thinking of the National Highway 50 Federation that consideration should be given to ex- tending Interstate 70 from its present terminal point in Western Utah on west to San Francisco and that such should be included in whatever new program is authorized by Congress. We have been told that this extension can not be included in the present Interstate system as the mileage was set by Congres- sional action and that all such mileage has been allotted. Locat~oa of Interstate 70.-I 70 N begins in Baltimore, Maryland, and I 70 S starts in Washington. D.C. These two join in Fredrick, Maryland, as I 70. It then continues on north-west where it merges with the Pennsylvania Turnpike (also I 80) and follows this expressway into Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It then goes south-west to Wheeling, West Virginia, thence west through Columbus, Ohio; Indianapolis, Indiana; St. Louis, Missouri; Kansas City, Missouri; Den- ver, Colorado and to the terminal point of Cove Fort, Utah. At this point it junctions with I 15 which is a north-south interstate serving Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Pocatello, Butte and Helena. In looking at a map of the Interstate system, one will note that this is the only place where a major east- west interstate highway dead-ends rather than merge with another interstate going in the same direction. Why should Interstate 70 be eaten4ed?-We shall attempt to outline the many reasons why Interstate Highway TO should be extended on to the West Coast rather than to end as presently scheduled at Cove Fort, Utah. 1. As mentioned above, it seems to be the only one that serves such a major portion of the United States that dead-ends without junctioning with a similar highway going in the same direction. There isn't even a secondary road that continues on west from this terminal point. 2. There is only one east-west Interstate Highway that serves the West Coast on an Interstate basis between Portland on the north and Los Angeles on the South, a distance of 1,001 miles. This one Interstate Highway is I 80 which goes from San Francisco east through Reno, Salt Lake City, Cheyenne, Omaha, and on east to Chicago and New York. Approaching this problem especially from a defense angle it would seem that there should be more than one east-west Interstate serving a 1,000 mile length of the West Coast. In case of emergency, an enemy could block I 80 as it crosses the high Sierra Nevada Mountain Range west of Reno and should this happen, all east-west transportation of defense materials would have to go South to Los Angeles or north to Portland in order to take advantage of an Interstate Highway. This in itself is reason enough for the construction of a second Interstate Highway in this area. - 3. In California. the population is centered around two key areas, Los Angeles in the south and the San Francisco-Bay Area in the north. There are actually four interstate highways crossing the border of Southern California on an east- west basis while the San Francisco-Bay area has only one-Interstate 80. 4. In California there is a definite need at the present time for a four lane highway from Sacramento through Placerville to Lake Tahoe South Shore and on into Carson City, Nevada. At the present time many parts of this road are very narrow and the accident rate is quite high. The present flow of traffic dic- tates that this road is going to have to be four laned as soon as funds become available. Why not put this routing on the Interstate System and thereby pre- vent duplication of effort? 5. There is a definite business need for a direct route on the Interstate System between the San Francisco-Bay Area and Colorado. There is not an Interstate Route at the present time that links these two areas. Interstate 80 goes north of Colorado through Wyoming and the next Interstate Route south of Colorado PAGENO="0861" PAGENO="0862" .~ `~a~ ~\4L~:. ~ ~1~k PROPOSED EXTENSION OP I 70 WEST PRc~c COVE: POR~ 1!rA}I ¶L~~ SACRAHEN~rO, CALIFo~fl~ (t~ttr~c1 ij~ rE~preseflts th~ g~mara - I location of the pr~~~),~ai I PAGENO="0863" 849 is Interstate 40 going through Albuquerque, New Mexico. The logical route that would connect the above two mentioned areas would be the continuation of Interstate 70 from Cove Fort on into San Francisco as Interstate 70 now goes through Denver. 6. This new proposed route would provide the shortest driving distance be- tween the San Francisco Bay Area and Denver, Kansas City, and other points east thereby affording a tremendous savings to the motoring public. What is being doite to promote the continuation of Interstate 70 from its present termination point in western Utah on west to Sacramento and San Francisco 7-The National Highway 50 Federation at its annual meeting held in La Junta, Colorado, on October 1, 1964, adopted a resolution asking for this con- tinuation of Interstate 70. (Copy attached.) At the same time the Federation is contacting all interested chambers of commerce, cities, counties, business firms, community service organizations, and individuals asking them to support this resolution or a similar one of their own choosing. There is much interest for this proposed route and it is the goal of the National Highway 50 Federation to carry on a full program of education and information to show a definite need for this route. RESOLUTION OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 50 FEDERATION, LA JUNTA, CoLo. Whereas, the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways is being constructed to provide a Nation-Wide transportation system for use during an emergency as well as to serve the overall general traveling public, and Whereas, Interstate Highway 50 will be constructed from the East Coast west to southwestern Utah and will be the only interstate highway crossing the Rocky Mountains between Albuquerque on the south and Cheyenne, Wyoming, on the north, and Whereas, Interstate Highway 50 is terminated at a point in Southwestern Utah called Cove Fort, and Whereas, there will be only one interstate highway in the present system under construction serving the San Francisco Bay area on an east-west basis and this will be the only such highway between Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon, a distance of 1,001 miles, and Whereas, there is both a need for a second east-west defense highway from the San Francisco Bay area and this need is Increasing yearly, and Whereas, the present routing of US Highway 50, especially between Sacra- mento and Lake Tahoe South Shore is inadequate to properly and safely carry the present traffic flow now using this road, and Whereas, there is a definite need for an interstate highway between Colorado and the San Francisco Bay area - Therefore be it resolved, that, in the best public interest and safety the Na- tional Highway 50 Federation urges the Bureau of Public Roads, The State Highway Departments, Governors, State Legislators, and Congressional Dele- gates from the States of California, Nevada, and Utah, and all others in au- thority to do everything within their' power to bring about, the continuation of Interstate 70 from Its present terminal point at Cove Fort, Utah, on west through Ely, Nevada, and thence along the present routing of US Highway 50 to Carson City, Nevada, Lake Tahoe South Shore, and on into Sacramento, California. It is further requested that these recommendation's be included in reports presently being prepared for Congressional action on highway needs after 1972. Dated this 1st clay of October, 1964. GEORGE KOENIG, President.' Attest: DOYLE L. DAVID5OK, Thvecutive Vice President. DUKE CITY LUMBER Co., INC., Albuquerque, N. Meat., June 1, 1968. Hon. THOMAS G. MORRIS, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. MORRIS: We have watched with great interest the recent appropri- ations to the U.S. Forest Service because more and more we recognize the PAGENO="0864" 850 gigantic task that the Forest Service has in providing stewardship and manage- ment of our Nation's timber resources. We, in the forest products industry, are aware of the expanded demands that are being placed upon our National Forests to provide the additional needs of recreation, wildlife, range, water, etc. It seems apparent that a new degree of intensity of forest management is required so that more volume of timber can be grown on a diminishing area of forest land. In our opinion, the most useful tool that can be provided to enact this new intensive practice of forestry is a network of well designed and engineered forest roads. It has recently come to our attention that the appropriated sum of $91 million for forest roads and trails as provided for in H.R. 17354 is now being recon- sidered in H.R. 16994 and S. 3418 wherein the above amount is contemplated to be cut in half. Please be assured of our awareness of the need for, and agreement to provide for, a reduction of $6 billion in federal expenditures for fiscal year 1969. We are not so presumptuous as to designate or determine where these reductions should occur, but we do submit that maximum funds available for forest roads and trails is a matter of extreme importance and urgency. It is my personal belief that an extensive program of forest road development and improvement would have a far greater impact upon our economy and solu- tion of our depressed area problems, than many of our O.E.O. and anti-poverty programs now carried on in our state. Only one case in point is cited in recent testimony submitted to the "Special Subcommittee on Economic Development" of the "Committee on Public Works"; wherein, Nick L. Salazar, President of the North Central New Mexico Economic Development District, stated, "and to carry the logic a step further, if that man has a small farm and a paved road to carry him to a place of employment, wouldn't this in effect be establish- ment of long-range employment? We believed it would." We sincerely believe that a maximum program for forest roads and trails will provide immediate benefit to all segments of our society and economy. Accordingly, your efforts and support to restore the United States Forest Service appropriations will be greatly appreciated. Very sincerely, YA~i~ WEINsTEIN. WESTERN FORESTRY & CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, Portland, Oreg., Ma~ 29, 1968. Hon. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, C1iairnian~ subcommittee on Roads, Committee on Public Works, House of Repre- sentatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN KLUCZYNSKI: Reference is made to H.R. 16994, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, which provides for. among other things. Forest Development Roads and Trails, Forest Highways and Public Lands High- ways authorizations for Fiscal Years 1970 and 1971. Western Forestry and Conservation Association respectfully urges your con- sideration of an amendment to this Bill to provide for the authorization of 8170,000,000 for Forest Development Roads and Trails. This amount has been the authorization for Fiscal Years 1908 and 1969 and is needed to provide the opportunity to appropriate more nearly sufficient funds for access to the forests of the western United States. Western Forestry and Conservation Association has since 1909 been active in advocating legislation which will result in better forest management and protection. To this end, a section of the 1908 Policy Statement reads as follows: "The Association recognizes that basic to any sound program of timber utiliza- tion, as well as to an effective protection system, is an adequate forest access road system which will permit orderly harvest and salvage of current mortality. The Association urges a more aggressive federal mainline access road program to permit the full development of the multiple-use potential of our Western public forests. Further, the Association recommends that governmental agencies determine areas most urgently in need of access roads to permit adequate forest management and to meet essential community requirements. The As- sociation urges prompt salvage of dead and dying timber." Passage of H.R. 16994 without the restoration of the 845.000.000 authorization cut contcmplutcd i~ the Bill would ~ to lie A t~te~ bá~l~wârd in the récogni- tion of the need for access to and management of extensive public forested areas PAGENO="0865" 851 in the West which are badly in need of protection from insec.ts, disease and fire to which many of the stands are susceptible due to overage and debility The Association begs your favorable consideration of its request for the con tinuation of the present authorization for Forest Development Roads and Trails and asks that this letter be included in the Hearing record on ELR. 16994. Yours very truly, ARTHUR M. ROBERTS, Forest Counsel. CoNGREss OF THE UNITED STATES, HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington. DfJ.. May 29,1968. Hon. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Chairman, Subcommittee on Roads, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: 1 understand that your Subcommittee on Roads is this week holding hearings on various highway legislation including the proposed legislation to prohibit future cutbacks in monies apportioned for the Federal-aid to Highway Program. I want to express my strong supportof such legislation, and would behappyto see it reported favorably out of your Committee as soon as possible. Thank you for your attention to thismatter. My kindest regards. Sincerely, LAWRENCE G. WILLIAMS, Member of Congress. NORTH WEST TIMBER ASSOCIATION, Eugene, Oreg., June 3, 1968. SUBCOMMITTEE ON ROADS, PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Mn. CHAIRMAN: I understand that the bill presented by the Department of Transportation to Congress for the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968 provides authorization of $125,000,000 for Forest Development of Roads and Trails for fiscal year 1970 and 1971. This is a reduction of the present authorization by $45,000,000. I realize that the appropriation last year was only $120,000,000, which is below this new proposed authorization. I am confident that this proposed authorization limit did not consider the pressing need to accelerate our road development pro- gram in order to do an acceptable job of managing the Forest Land. Forest Service Thinning and Salvage programs are essential to realize our maximum yield from these lands. I am sure you are aware of the tremendous ac- tivities and pressures of industry to harvest every available board foot of timber under the sustained yield limitation. Only 25 percent of the commercial National Forest timber land is adequately roaded, thus it is impossible at the present to salvage all of the annual mortality or do the necessary intermediate cuttings in the young growth stands. The volume lost to decay or loss of increased yield must be considerable lost revenue. The maximum production of these lands is essential to provide the raw material for the dependent communities and provide the maxi- mum revenue from the land. Maximum production can only be attained through an aggressive road development program. Forest recreation of all types is increasing tremendously, and in turn demand- ing more and better roads. This increased traffic, from a safety standpoint, requires higher standard roads, which in turn means higher road construction costs. This increased use also requires increased maintenance costs. It appears the recreation uses will continue to rise rather than level off. We need the roads to accommodate the motoring public-the family weekend campers and pie- nickers, the family sightseeing drives, etc. Road construction costs have increased for several reasons. All construction costs are increasing at the rate of 3 to 5% per year. In addition to this increment in costs, much of the remaining road construction is farther back in the higher and more rugged terrain, thus increasing the construction cost. PAGENO="0866" 852 In addition to the need of financing the above described items, there is an out- standing need for accelerated completion of the Forest Highway System. At the current rate of road construction, it will take 25 to 30 years to complete the Forest Development Transportation System. This system is the backbone for the development and use of the National Forest. For the above reasons, I urge that you maintain the authorization for Forest Development Roads and Trails for F.Y. 1970 and 1971 at the $170,000,000 level. ARNOLD D. EwING, E~eeeiwtive Vice President. STATEMENT OF HON. W. L. DIcKINSoN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to offer a brief statement in support of completion of the proposed route of a four lane highway from Pensacola, Florida to connect with Interstate Route 1-65 in Alabama. I am familiar with the fact that there are divergent views on the project, as to routing, so I merely want to stand in support of the completion of the project as it is a needed connection between two states. There is considerable traffic in this area which is a highly desirable recreation situation for tourists in and out of the states involved. Also, Mr. Chairman, the completion of such a connection would greatly enhance Alabama's industry potential. I appreciate the opportunity to submit a state- meat in support of this worthy project and I thank the chairman and members of this subcommittee for any help they may be able to render. (Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the hearing was concluded.) 0