We were particularly pleased at the straightforward and bold action taken by this committee in proposing and fighting for the necessary tax increases to make the program possible in 1956, even during election year. We had great hopes for the future. Cities are on record opposing any stretchout of the program. In fact, we have testified that we believe the program should be accomplished in 10 years rather than 16 or 20 years. The great effect on our economy alone dictates that the program should be accelerated. But, even more, the saving in lives and serious accidents made possible by the modern, safe Interstate Highway System makes it almost unthinkable that we should let anything stand in the way of an early completion of the program as planned. I am sure that the people themselves, who are paying for the highways, although in favor of reduced taxes, would almost unanimously agree that the money they are putting into our highway system through the increased taxes is money well spent and they would not want the program reduced in any way.

There have been rumors that there is some sentiment favoring diverting the moneys apportioned to cities to rural areas. I can't believe that anyone familiar with the traffic problem in cities, and the much greater need of highways in cities, would think seriously of slowing up the program in cities at this time. Recently, I heard it said that "all cities grow is taxes." That is certainly true and we have been the goose that has been laying the golden eggs for a good number of years and certainly we know that you are not going to give very much consideration to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Mr. RICHARDS. First, I am sure, we, as cities, want no stretchout program. I am sure we will support any program that this committee, your committee, works out for the financing, and we will show we enthusiastically support the committee.

You did a wonderful job in 1956 under very bad circumstances. You provided taxes to build a program on a pay-as-you-go basis, although at that time we, as an association, felt that we should use bonds. We supported the Clay program for bond financing, revenuebond financing, but we were very pleased to see that this committee did provide the funds to carry out the program.

Mr. West is here now. I would like to let him present the main testimony to you.

I would like to say one thing in behalf of Detroit and Michigan. That is that we have worked hard to get this program underway. From 1916 to 1944 there was no money provided for cities at all. A good share of it came from cities and was spent outside of cities by congressional action.

From 1944 to 1956, we were allocated some share of the collected revenues to be used in cities. Some progress was made. But not until this committee and Congress took the action in 1956 was the cities' position given real recognition.

When you realize the importance of cities to this Nation, to the economy of this Nation, they should be considered. Since that time we have made progress. We are not satisfied with the progress. We don't want to be stopped in any way.

I would like to emphasize one thing, however; that we certainly are very much opposed to diverting any of the funds that have been allocated to cities, or to change the formula in any way that would lessen the work in cities. I have heard rumors that there is some talk in Congress that they ought to curtail the work in cities and push the work outside the cities. We are 100 percent against that, and I am sure you will hear from us fast if any such step is taken.

I know in your wisdom you will not do that. It doesn't make

sense.

I would like to introduce Mr. West, who will give the chief witness testimony.

STATEMENT OF BEN WEST, MAYOR OF NASHVILLE, TENN., ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION

The CHAIRMAN. Mayor West, from the great city of Nashville, Tenn., representing the American Municipal Association, we welcome you. We are glad to have you with us.

Mr. FRAZIER. I would like to have the privilege of introducing Mayor West, and to say to the committee that he is very interested in this program. I am sure his contribution will be very helpful to the committee.

Mr. WEST. Chairman Mills and Congressman Frazier, thank you very much.

I appear for the American Municipal Association, which represents some 13,000 cities, towns, and villages throughout the United States. It has been my pleasure to appear before congressional committees on the national highway program on previous occasions dating back to 1954 when the program was first conceived.

I am a past president of AMA, a member of its highway committee, cochairman of the Joint Committee on Highways of AMA and the American Association of State Highway Officials, and chairman of the National Committee on Urban Transportation. My own city of Nashville is engaged in an extensive highway and urban renewal program.

So I come before you, not as a highways expert, but as a mayor and politician who has literally lived with the problem of financing an adequate highway system at both the national and local levels.

To discuss financing intelligently, we must also think about the kind of a program that the Nation has committed itself to through the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956.

President Eisenhower set the goals for the program in 1954 when he called for—

a grand plan for a properly articulated (highway) system that solves the problems of speedy, safe transcontinental travel, intercity transportation, access highways, and farm-to-farm movement, metropolitan area congestion, bottlenecks, and parking.

Following this call for a grand plan, the President appointed the so-called Clay committee, the President's advisory committee on a national highway program, which produced a recommended program that formed the basis of the ensuing legislation.

The striking feature of the 1956 act is its incorporation of a balanced program providing for a modernized network of streets and highways; Federal, State, and local.

The decision to develop a balanced program is demonstrated by the Clay committee conclusion and recommendation that:

** * the Federal Government assume primary responsibility for the interstate network * * * to include the most essential urban arterial connections.

Today we have a national highway program that provides for a National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, the Federal primary and secondary systems and their urban extensions, and that vast system for which States, counties, and cities are alone responsible.

We are pleased with the balanced program concept and the way it is being carried out by the Bureau of Public Roads and the State

highway departments. It is our opinion that the grand plan must go forward without interruption and without modification.

Thus our short- and long-range financing must be focused on the program as originally conceived and implemented by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956.

Salient facts will bolster any faltering in our intentions:

(1) By 1975 there may be one passenger car for every 2.5 persons compared to one for every 3.3 persons today.

(2) There will be more than 100 million vehicles by 1975.
(3) Over two-thirds of our population is urban.

(4) Passenger cars account for 83 percent of registrations and 82 percent of travel.

(5) Urban traffic measured in vehicle miles is around 44 percent of all traffic.

These figures serve to prove that traffic takes place where people are. Find a concentration of U.S. citizens, and you will find a traffic problem.

For those who say we are pouring too much money into the highway segment of our transportation system, they should be reminded that, for example, 1956 was a record year for highway transportation, but its gains were matched by all other forms of transport.

Rumors have reached us that serious consideration is being given to the idea that the financing dilemma could be solved by keeping the Interstate System out of cities and other urban areas. This would be a terrible and tragic mistake. Since the result would be deliberate, national suicide in the form of slow strangulation by traffic, and since it would also be a tax inequity of the worst sort, the Nation's cities will fight any such proposal to the bitter end.

The wealth of this Nation expressed in such assets as industrial centers, educational and cultural centers, and great wholesale and retail centers, lies inside cities and urban areas. Many a mayor will tell you that the rubber-tired vehicle is strangling his city. Without efficient transportation, the cities will wither away.

On the equity side, we must remember that roughly one-half of highway trust fund revenues comes from cities and urban areas. This fact alone is sufficient to justify the allocation of roughly half of the trust fund money in urban areas. Incidentally, the cost per vehicle-mile of construction is less in cities than in the rural sections. And let me assure you that cities are not standing idle by.

Of the total 3,400,000 miles of streets, roads, and highways in this country, almost 2.7 million miles, 78 percent, are paid for locally. The Bureau of the Census reports that $11 billion in street programs was spent in 1957 by cities. Much of this construction is geared to the interstate and ABC systems which serve as the backbone of the local system.

The knowledge that the first years of the program would be short of funds which would be made up in later years is not new. In order to provide a period of level construction expenditures, this was essential.

The immediate temporary financing problem was created when the original legislation as passed by the House of Representatives was amended limiting expenditures to amounts of money actually in the highway trust fund.

It was anticipated by this committee at that time that the early years of the program would have to be financed by borrowing against future revenue of the trust fund. The program was to be paid from highway-user taxes on a pay-as-you-go basis over the total life of the period of construction.

Let me remind you that pay-as-you-go is a misnomer. It also means pay before you go.

A self-supporting fund was agreed to as being the proper procedure, but the House-approved measure clearly did not envision the disruptive influence of the Byrd amendment.

Now that the day of reckoning has arrived, we feel that the original pattern should be adhered to. Further suspension, as recommended in H.R. 5950 by the House Committee on Public Works, or repeal of the Byrd amendment, combined with the appropriation of repayable advances to the highway trust fund from the general fund, would accomplish this.

With respect to the proposal for a temporary 112-cent increase in the Federal gasoline tax, we have felt that it would encroach on the ability of State governments to finance their share of the national highway program and their own non-Federal-aid construction programs. For that reason we favor borrowing from the Treasury to be repaid from future trust fund revenues.

It is our contention that the long-range methods of financing of the national highway program should not be determined at this time. In 1961, Congress will have before it the section 210 study required by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 regarding the relative benefits which will be received by users and by other beneficiaries. At the same time new cost estimates will also be available. From these reports, an equitable system of spreading the costs can be evolved. Furthermore, the AASHO road tests will be completed and the results at hand.

Our position on the financing problem assumes that the national highway program will proceed as planned with no change in program content and no stretchout of construction time. In brief, we support: Repeal or further suspension of the Byrd amendment;

Repayable advances or loans from the Treasury to finance the temporary deficit in the highway trust fund;

A review of the entire financing formula in 1961 when the highway cost allocation study and AASHO road tests will be completed.

You gentlemen have the difficult task of putting together the legislation that will enable this country to continue with the job of putting its highway system in order. We will support you in a compromise solution if that is required.

The single, most important recommendation we can make is that a temporary financing formula must be found. The cities of the United States cannot wait for stretchouts or delays.

In closing, I would like to call your attention to the recent Sagamore Conference on Highways and Urban Development. We have copies of that trade report for the committee members.

This conference and the guidelines developed there constitute a most significant contribution to the development of the high level of cooperation needed among the various governmental jurisdictions having highway responsibilities. Here is an example of the kind of

44357-59--26

cooperative activity that the joint committee on highways of AMA and AASHO is trying to stimulate.

I would also like to file a copy of the American Municipal Association's "National Municipal Policy Statement" with the committee. I also have with me, which I would like to file, copies of a resolution which the City Council of Nashville has just adopted, addressed to the Congress of the United States, opposing the proposition of cutting urban areas out of the national highway program.

I also have copies of an article in the Nashville Tennessean of July 18, 1955, "U.S. Road Funds Here Shifted," talking of Nashville. (The article referred to follows:)

[From the Nashville Tennessean, July 18, 1959]

U.S. ROAD FUNDS HERE SHIFTED

(By William Keel)

Funds totaling $6 million to $7 million have been shifted from three Nashville expressway projects because of the deadlock between President Eisenhower and Congress over superhighway financing.

L. M. Bare, Federal-aid engineer, said yesterday the funds have been shifted to other interstate superhighway construction in Tennessee. He said the shift was caused by failure of Congress to provide more revenue for the trust fund set up to finance the superhighway network.

Bare said that, across the State, funds for projects that are not scheduled for immediate starts are being transferred to construction planned at an early date. "The prospects are still in the program," he said, "but are being held in abeyance until we get more Federal funds."

The funds are being shifted from the right-of-way budget to the construction budget.

Eisenhower has insisted that Congress increase the Federal gasoline tax to finance the superhighway program. Congress has refused to do this, and has held for bond financing, which Eisenhower opposes.

H. D. Long, chief State highway engineer, said the State will become extremely cautious about awarding highway-construction contracts if Congress fails to make funds actually available. Long said that under Federal law the Federal Government is obligated only if funds are available, even though it has authorized the work.

In the absence of actual funds, Long said, Tennessee could be left holding the bag. The Federal Government provided 90 percent of the cost of the superhighways with the State putting up the other 10 percent. On the other Federal highways the State must match Federal money on a 50-50 basis.

"We have the money to pay for the jobs on which we will take bids this month," said Long. "But after that we will be real cautious unless Congress acts."

John Lassing, the city's land-acquisition director, listed the projects from which right-of-way funds have been withdrawn as—

A part of the inner loop of the Nashville expressway system from 3d Avenue and Bush Lake to Clinton Street, including an interchange at 12th Avenue and Jefferson Street.

A section of the outer expressway loop extending westward and crossing Jefferson Street, from 26th to 35th Avenues.

A part of the Memphis leg of the expressway system extended from 35th Avenue to Robertson Road.

Lassing said the only rights-of-way purchased for these sections thus far have been "hardship cases." Instances where people were forced to sell their

homes.