The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harrison will inquire. Mr. HARRISON. Going back again to your testimony about the consultation of the Bureau of Public Roads with the State highway associations before this 1,452 miles was allocated, I have been given a press release of October 18, 1957, from the Secretary of Commerce. I would like you to look at this, particularly the portion underlined, and refresh your recollection as to whether the States were consulted about that 1,452 miles. Doesn't that press release from the Secretary of Commerce show that the consultation was limited to the 1,000 extra miles on the basic system of 41,000? Mr. BARTELSMEYER. The previously referred to 13,000 miles that I mentioned were furnished the Bureau of Public Roads in request for the 1,000 miles. But it was always my understanding that the additional mileage was also chosen, or generally chosen, from that 13,000 miles. There may have been a few instances where they were not. In that case, the Bureau of Public Roads conferred with the States and gave them a chance to request locations along those routes, which was done. Mr. HARRISON. Doesn't that statement show, doesn't that press release show, that the first information that the States had that there were 1,400 extra miles to be allocated was from that press release? In other words, you read about it in the newspaper, isn't that true? Mr. BARTELSMEYER. Well, in my instance, I believe I was aware of it. Mr. HARRISON. You were aware of it? Mr. BARTELSMEYER. That is my recollection. Mr. HARRISON. Did the State highway departments of the various States know before that release that consideration was given to the allocation of anything more than the 1,000 extra miles? Doesn't that press release show they did not? Mr. BARTELSMEYER. Well, the press release would sort of contradict that. Mr. HARRISON. I ask that the press release be put into the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it may be included in the record. (The press release referred to follows:) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., October 18, 1957. TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND TWO MILES OF NEW ROUTES TO BE ADDED TO INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM Secretary of Commerce Sinclair Weeks today announced 2,102 miles of new routes to be added to the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. The new routes include not only a 1,000-mile expansion of the Interstate System authorized by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, but also 1,102 miles of estimated savings in mileage resulting from adoption of more direct locations of routes previously designated. The plan for the routes, approved by the Secretary, was recommended by Federal Highway Administrator Bertram D. Tallamy. Secretary Weeks said his action was taken with the concurrence of the Department of Defense. In developing the plan, consideration was given to proposals advanced by the various State highway departments for utilization of the 1,000-mile addition to the 40,000-mile Interstate System, previously authorized, as well as some other routes of obvious national significance. Four basic factors were considered in the choice of the routes. They are: 1. National defense. 2. System integration-the value of the route as a connector between numerous centers of population and industry which generate interregional traffic. 3. Industry-transportation requirements of the manufacturing, agriculture, mining, and forestry enterprises in the area traversed. 4. Population. Under the 1,000-mile addition authorized by Congress in 1956, four city-to-city routes were approved for designation: Ellensburg, Wash., to the vicinity of Pendleton, Oreg., 132 miles. Baton Rouge, La., eastward en route to Mobile, Ala., 91 miles. Denver, Colo., to the vicinity of Cove Fort, Utah, 547 miles. Fargo, N. Dak., to Sioux Falls, S. Dak., 230 miles. The routes chosen for designation under the original 40,000-mile authorization include five new city-to-city highways totaling 886 miles and 216 miles in or near urban areas. The city-to-city routes are: Canton, Ohio, to Charlotte, N.C., 431 miles. Ogden to Echo Junction, Utah, 40 miles. San Antonio to Corpus Christi, Tex., 143 miles. In addition, the 216 miles include urban connections in Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Washington, D.C., Kansas City, Louisville, Omaha, and Duluth, as well as the earmarking of mileage to provide circumferential or belt routes for cities of more than 200,000 population where routes already designated fail to provide such facilities. The cities involved are Cincinnati, Ohio, Louisville, Ky., San Diego, Calif., Akron, Ohio, Springfield-Holyoke, Mass., Dayton, Ohio, Hartford, Conn., Oklahoma City, Okla., Syracuse, N.Y. Jacksonville, Fla., Scranton, Pa., Salt Lake City, Utah, and Sacramento, Calif. Secretary Weeks directed the Bureau of Public Works to issue letters of approval for all routes in the group which have already been proposed by the State highway departments and to open discussions on the remaining routes to accomplish early designation through coordinated State and Federal action. The Secretary said that inclusion of the new routes in the Interstate System would greatly enhance its value as a transportation network, opening new arteries for the interflow of people and goods between important regions of the Nation. Residents and industries in large areas of Ohio, West Virginia, western Pennsylvania, and western New York, as well as those of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and a large part of North Carolina and Virginia lack adequate highway connections between the two regions. Likewise, St. Louis, Kansas City, and areas to the northwest had no interstate route connecting with the southeastern region of the United States. The Pittsburgh-Erie, the Canton-Charlotte, and the Nashville-Cairo additions make up for these deficiencies. The route westward from Denver is a modification of one proposed by the States of Colorado and Utah. The proposal involved a route from Denver to Spanish Fork, Utah, en route to Salt Lake City which would largely duplicate service provided by the designated Denver-Cheyenne-Salt Lake City route. By bending the western end of the route southward to provide a direct connection between Denver and southern Utah, it will be possible to serve traffic moving back and forth between southern California and the Denver region. The Sioux Falls-Fargo connection completes a link in a continuous route of continental importance running from Mexico City to Winnipeg, Canada. The route from Ellensburg to the vicinity of Portland completes a direct connection from the port of Seattle to the interior. The short route extending eastward from Baton Rouge is a link in an east-west route located inland from the exposed and vulnerable coast across southern Louisiana and Mississippi. The 40-mile cutoff between Ogden and Echo Junction is needed for service to traffic between the northwestern States and the interior. The Interstate System is financed by 90 percent Federal and 10 percent State funds. The legislation establishing it provided that the system "connect by routes, as direct as practicable, the principal metropolitan areas, cities, and industrial centers, to serve the national defense, and to connect at suitable border points with routes of continental importance in the Dominion of Canada and the Republic of Mexico." Since passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 some 1,950 miles of the system have been placed under construction. The CHAIRMAN. I think it is important to bear in mind that regardless of whether this additional amount should have been allocated or not, or made available, that there was not a mile of it that was not within the recommendations of the State highway officials in the overall 13,000 miles that they had recommended. They didn't go beyond that in any respect, did they, in making these allocations? Mr. BARTELSMEYER. Not to my knowledge. The CHAIRMAN. The Bureau of Public Roads had before it requests from the States for some 13,000 miles additional for the Interstate System. Is that not true? Mr. BARTELSMEYER. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Out of that 13,000 miles, 1,100 miles was selected; is that not true? Mr. BARTELSMEYER. Plus the additional amounts caused by shortening routes. The CHAIRMAN. Actually, they have not allotted to the States all of the 1,452 miles that resulted from shortening. They kept in reserve 350 miles. Mr. BARTELSMEYER. 350 miles; that is right. The CHAIRMAN. So it was 1,102 miles, as I recall, that was actually apportioned among the States, and that was done entirely out of the 13,000 miles additional to the Interstate System requested by all the various States, was it not? Mr. BARTELSMEYER. That is my understanding; yes. Mr. HARRISON. Your understanding? The CHAIRMAN. That is what you said earlier, or I understood you to say. Mr. BARTELSMEYER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. I would suggest that we be clear on this point. If you want to get the information and put it into the record, I would like to have it. Can you tell us, on the basis of the information you received, that all of this 1,102 miles came from this original 13,000 miles recommended by the States? Mr. BARTELSMEYER. I would suggest that that information could be received from the Bureau of Public Roads. The CHAIRMAN. I thought we had it in the record from the Bureau of Public Roads that that was the case. I did not know there was any question about it. Mr. BARTELSMEYER. That is my understanding. I will stand by it. The CHAIRMAN. We will try to get it from the Bureau of Public Roads, if it is not in the record. Mr. Bartelsmeyer, again we thank you, sir, for coming to the committee to give us the thinking of the American Association of State Highway Officials. We appreciate your being accompanied by Mr. Johnson. Mr. BARTELSMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I have been handed a statement by Mr. Everett S. Preston, director of highways of the State of Ohio. The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to include that in the record? Mr. BARTELSMEYER. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be included at this point. (Mr. Preston's statement follows:) STATEMENT OF E. S. PRESTON, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS I make this statement because my home State of Ohio, like the Federal Government, has a moral obligation to the people who pay taxes in both levels of government. Ohio is keeping faith with its 92 million residents and has moved forward in its efforts to construct as rapidly as possible the National Interstate and Defense System which Congress committed the Nation to in 1956. Because of the national highway financing problem, Ohio faces: 1. A curtailment of its highway program from $300 million a year to a rate of about $50 million annually. 2. Shelving of every interstate project. No interstate projects have been sold since June. Just this week, Ohio was forced to cancel the sale of $7 million in primary road projects because it also has used all its allocation of Federal primary funds. Interstate sales were halted earlier. 3. Unemployment of 10,000 workers in the highway construction industry with resulting loss in annual payroll in excess of $200 million. 4. A breakdown of negotiations with industry wanting to locate in the State because of proposed highways. 5. A declining economy in areas dependent on good roads. Although it recognizes the burden of taxes already imposed on the motorists it passed this year a 2 cents per gallon gasoline tax increase so it would be in a position to fulfill its part of the bargain with the Federal Government. makes the present combined Federal-State gasoline tax in Ohio 10 cents. This Ohio has its share of matching road money and is ready. But we cannot proceed without some assurance from the Federal Government that the 1961 allocation will be forthcoming. People in Ohio know the State already has lent the Federal Government $40 million through approved procedure as prescribed by the Bureau of Public Roads, because the State believed it was the intent of Congress to build the system as rapidly as possible. The loan was in the form of contracts let in anticipation of the 1961 allocation. People in Ohio also face the possibility of driving by huge stretches of interstate highways which cannot be used because the State will be unable to let contracts for connecting projects. We believe there are two very serious economic factors which should be taken into consideration before Congress arrives at a solution. We feel that a thorough understanding of these factors can lead to but one conclusion. That the highway construction program should be continued at or near past levels. The factors are these: The direct and indirect economic waste caused by any interruption or substantial curtailment of the program. If there is a substantial interruption in the program many contractors will be forced to cut back on their recently enlarged organization of both equipment and personnel. When the program is resumed a second buildup will be necessary. These rapid changes will cause losses which, without question, will show up in future construction costs. These increased costs represent one economic factor. The other one is this: These tremendous new highways are opening new frontiers for economic expansion-frontiers which have remained undeveloped because inadequate transportation facilities have been simply choking off economic expansin. Any delay in the building of these new interstate and defense highways will retard economic expansion we could otherwise confidently look forward to. As far as Ohio is concerned, the important factor is not how Congress solves the problem of continuing Federal-aid program; rather, the vital question is when. If Congress does not soon authorize the 1961 interstate and ABC allocations, it will result in the loss of at least 10,000 jobs in the highway-construction industry in Ohio alone. This would involve no less than $200 million in annual payroll. Like falling dominoes, the adverse impact will be felt in all allied business such as the suppliers of materials which go into highways and the manufacturers of roadbuilding equipment. When Congress passed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, it committed the Nation to building a very badly needed system of highways. The financing portion of the act provided for an amount of revenue equal to the then anticipated cost of the system. The financing section, however, did not contemplate then, and does not now, that revenue in each fiscal year would equal the amount spent in that particular year. An added amendment, commonly called the Byrd amendment, forced a situation in which the program had to be kept on a yearby-year pay-as-you-build schedule. The financing section, however, never was revised to meet this condition. As a result, even if Congress had not accelerated the program last year, and had the cost not increased substantially, the expenditures in some years would have exceeded income on the basis of a 13-year program. We believed then, and we are just as convinced now, that the system will pay for itself when it is built. The vital issue, it seems to Ohio, is to build it adequately as rapidly and economically as possible. We favor the pay-as-we-build concept, but we see nothing wrong with applying the principle to the life of the program, rather than on a year-to-year basis. If Congress feels that in order to continue the interstate program at or near past levels some tax adjustment must be made, we are convinced this would be much more acceptable to the American motorists than a complete cessation for a 2-year or longer period. Without being presumptuous, I would like to point out to this committee how inconsistent it would be to call a 1- or 2-year moratorium on allocation of Federal funds when related to action of Congress last year. As you recall, Congress then authorized the spending of an additional $1.6 billion on highways to counteract the recession. It certainly seems that halting the program at this time would completely negate any antirecession effect which last year's action may have had. In conclusion, I would like to summarize Ohio's position in this manner: Take any reasonable course you deem best to solve this impasse. But, by all means, keep the program moving at or near past levels. It is economically sound to continue the program and, conversely, economically unsound to interrupt the program. We firmly believe that Congress has an economic, moral, and political responsibility to continue this long-overdue highway-construction program. Any combination of the currently considered methods to allow continuance of the program would, in our opinion, be workable and acceptable. Whichever solution you select will be much more economical than halting the program entirely or authorizing only a token program. The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. Thomas. STATEMENT OF J. K. THOMAS, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR BUS OPERATORS The CHAIRMAN. Please identify yourself for the record by giving your full name, address, and the capacity in which you appear. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, my name is J. K. Thomas, and I appear today as chairman of the Legislative Committee of the National Association of Motor Bus Operators. I am a vice president of the Atlantic Greyhound Corp., a member of the association. Ours is the national trade association for the industry which provides intercity motor bus service. Our industry has consistently supported the expanded highway program. During the hearings on the 1956 Highway Act, we indicated our readiness to attempt to absorb the additional taxes originally proposed, despite the hardships involved. We presented irrefutable evidence at that time, however, that any further tax burdens on this industry would impose an intolerable financial burden and would jeopardize existing essential transportation services. Our position today is unchanged. We believe that the highway construction program can proceed substantially on schedule without undue delay by raising needed revenues from sources other than an increased tax burden on highway users. 44357-59- 24 |