Page images
PDF
EPUB

with the Interstate System. These are continuous through routes. The access roads and I am being consistent with my testimony last year-are short segments of routes to connect specific facilities or developments, and which may or may not connect directly with the development system as we have defined it.

Mr. CRAMER. But it could connect with an interstate road and still be an access road?

Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes; or it could connect with an existing primary or secondary road, but the access road alone, yes, sir; and that is consistent with our testimony last year.

Mr. CRAMER. The basic reason why I asked the question is to, No. 1, try to see what the amendment does, and I still don't have a clear picture as to what changes were made of the mileage and, No. 2, to see what the result of that amendment is, whether intended or otherwise. All we can do is read the bill and see what the bill says.

It appears that you are requiring certain standards for your development highways, primary standards, by virtue of lines 10 to 13 on page 15:

Upon completion each individual highway shall be added to such estimates and shall be required to be maintained by the State.

That is the effect of that, is it not? Beyond the system they have to be upped to the primary and be maintained?

Mr. BRIDWELL. That is correct.

Mr. CRAMER. So the effect is the primary standards must be observed as they relate to the development highways?

Mr. BRIDWELL. The development highway system; yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. So you did not want access roads to be subject to that, so you took them out of the development highway system, and you put them in a separate category where there is no requirement relating to minimum standards under the draftsmanship of this record?

Mr. BRIDWELL. Your point is well taken, Mr. Cramer; it does have that effect.

Going back to last year, we stated—and I think Mr. Sweeney stated here this morning-that because we are not able to say to you today where these access roads will be, and precisely what they will serve, we have maintained the position, and still do, that there must be some flexibility in the location and design. This is particularly true in the design of access roads, because very high quality access roads may be needed for certain types of commercial or industrial development, whereas a much lower design criterion, or less expensive design criterion, can be used for certain other types of access roads; for example, forestry-type treatment or recreational-type development.

Mr. JONES. You are following the same pattern that has been historically followed in the road development program.

Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chairman. Had it been left as it was last year, under a very specific or technical interpretation of the language, we would also have been required to build

Mr. JONES I would like to remind you of this fact, when I first came on this committee we were appropriating-I think, Mr. Baldwin, around $5 million a year for roads and trails, and for timber access roads. What was the last figure that we approved?

Mr. BALDWIN. $70 million.

Mr. JONES. About $70 million.

We do not try to determine the standards of those roads because they were quite unique in serving the timber areas. You are going to be confronted with the same thing here.

Mr. CLEVELAND. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JONES. Yes.

Mr. CLEVELAND. I just wanted a point of information. Is not that $70 million for roads in national forests owned by the United States? Mr. JONES. No. For instance, here is the last Federal Aid Highway Act, Mr. Cleveland. We had for forest highways, $33 million; we had for forest development roads and trails, $85 million.

Mr. CLEVELAND. Were these national forest lands?

Mr. SULLIVAN. These are the national forests, Mr. Cleveland. Mr. JONES. We have bills pending before the committee where reimbursements to these roads are possible.

Mr. CRAMER. As I understand, that is in disaster areas where they are destroyed by disasters.

Mr. JONES. Yes. The point I am making, Mr. Cramer, is that you do not have to have the criteria set up for the Department of Interior, the Department of Agriculture, as to what quality of roads would be needed. It should not be necessary to be so exacting, or to build a superhighway to get some timber from an area that would never be habitated.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard in this connection? Mr. JONES. Yes.

Mr. SULLIVAN. The staff checked to see why the Senate did what it did, and the Senate did put this change in the language in, as Mr. Cramer correctly points out. The Senate staff advised the staff of this committee that the reason for this is to make a clear distinction between the 2,350 miles of primary roads and the 1,000 miles of access roads. That was the intent of the Public Works Committee of the Senate. That is the reason for this amendment.

Mr. JONES. The point I wanted to make, Mr. Cramer, was the fact that I do not think the Bureau of Public Roads should be exacting in such a degree to make quality control on access roads applicable as they would in the ABC systems of qualification.

Mr. CRAMER. The point I am making, Mr. Chairman, is to try to find out what the effect of the amendment is. I think it has been established it takes access roads out from under the system.

Secondly, by handling it in this manner, it does not make access roads in the future a part of any system, and the further effect of it is therefore there is no standard of construction criteria for access roads.

They are not comparable, in my opinion, to the roads that you mentioned, forest highway development and so forth. These are constructed by the Federal Government. They have their standards for those highways. Now we are talking about the States building highway access-this is what I am concerned about-without the Congress indicating what standards it thinks should be established, if any. The way it is now, there are no standards.

Mr. JONES. I do not think that should be an exacting thing for Congress to do. What good would it do for me to sit up here and tell the highway engineer what he should do and what he should not do and

how he is to select materials? We are here to serve the legislative functions. The engineering considerations will be observed under the direction of the State highway departments.

I think that the Bureau of Public Roads and Department of Commerce will insist and demand that we get reasonable standards. I do not think for one moment that the States, after they assume the responsibility for these highways, are going to pay the maintenance costs of them and ask for inferior roads that will impose a great burden on them in years to come.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, you struck at exactly the point I am coming to, maintenance. If these access roads become no part of any system, if there is no standard with regard to their construction, in particular if they become no part of any system, there is no obligation on the part of the State to maintain them.

Is that not correct?

Mr. BRIDWELL. We believe the committee may wish to consider clarifying language. We believe that this is covered under section 116 of title 23, Mr. Cramer, or easily could be made to come under section 116, which is the maintenance provision of title 23.

Of course, you will note on page 14, starting on line 11, and continuing for the rest of the paragraph:

"The provisions of title 23, U.S. Code," et cetera, "shall apply," and then the words are added "and the local access roads". So that we think through title 23, section 116 on maintenance, that is covered. Mr. CRAMER. By adding to it "and access roads"?

Mr. BRIDWELL. The words "and the local access roads" were added by the Senate.

Mr. CRAMER. Where does that language appear, "local access roads"? Mr. BRIDWELL. It appears in my copy of the printed bill of S. 3, Mr. Cramer.

Mr. CRAMER. Are you referring to line 15, page 14?

Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes. Page 14, lines 15 and 16.

Mr. CRAMER. Then what happens to the Secretary determining that is inconsistent with that act, which is also the language of the Senate? Mr. BRIDWELL (reading):

and which the Secretary determines are not inconsistent with this Act. That is a negative finding on his part, so if he does not find negatively, then section 116 is applicable, in our opinion.

Mr. CRAMER. Then why did you not include the access roads in specific requirement of maintenance on page 15, lines 12 and 13? It says:

your

Each development highway not already on the Federal aid primary system shall be added to such system and shall be required to be maintained by the State.

Mr. BRIDWELL. Once again I say your point is well taken-I will not argue that this does not need some clarification, and that the committee may wish to consider this.

We think that it is covered, but if it is open to debate, the committee may want to consider whether it needs clarification.

Mr. CRAMER. You would not object to adding "local access roads" to the section requiring maintenance?

Mr. BRIDWELL. I think without any question, Mr. Cramer, the position of the executive branch has always been where Federal money is expended on highways, maintenance of those highways shall be required.

Mr. CRAMER. The problem we have, section 116 provides:

The State's obligation to the United States to maintain any such project shall cease when it no longer constitutes a part of a Federal aid system.

Mr. BRIDWELL. Yes, sir. Please go on to paragraph (b), Mr. Cramer, of section 116.

Mr. CRAMER (reading):

In any State wherein the highway department is without legal authority to maintain a project constructed on the Federal aid secondary system, or within a municipality, such highway department shall enter into a formal agreement for its maintenance with the appropriate official of the county or municipality. This is not within the secondary system. It is not within a municipality.

Mr. BRIDWELL. Then, in other words, paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) are at least an attempt to cover all eventualities, and I quote from paragraph (c):

If at any time the Secretary shall find that any project constructed under the provisions of this chapter, or constructed under the provisions of prior acts, is not being properly maintained, he shall call such fact to the attention of the State highway department.

Once again, I think it is up to the committee to decide whether this is amply protected, or whether it wishes any clarification.

Mr. CRAMER. I think it is perfectly obvious if it is not included for maintenance an access road does not have to be maintained, as I read the basic law. I think it is obvious when you leave maintenance out as it relates to access roads, you so intend it.

If you want them maintained, the language should so provide on line 13, page 14.

Mr. BRIDWELL. I repeat my statement that the administration has always taken the position where Federal money is expended on highways, maintenance of those highways shall be required.

Mr. Chairman, if there is any clarification needed, it results from a change which was made in the legislation by the Senate earlier this week.

Mr. Chairman, we are not asking for clarifying language. I have attempted to tell the committee we believe it is amply covered. I have said if the committee desires, or if the committee

Mr. JONES. What do you recommend?

Mr. BRIDWELL. I believe that the maintenance requirement, the point that Mr. Cramer raised, is covered under section 116. That is our opinion.

Mr. JONES. But you have some doubts about it. You just expressed them.

Mr. CRAMER. I think a reading of the language would result in doubt in anybody's mind, Mr. Chairman, the language in section 116. It certainly raises one in mine.

Mr. JONES. Go ahead, Mr. Cramer.

Mr. CRAMER. I do hope, in an effort to try to understand what the bill does say, and what improvements might be made on it, there is

not going to be any suggestion an amendment should not be made by the committee if it is justified, based on the testimony we have received. My objective was to find out why a thousand miles of access roads do not require State maintenance.

I think that is a serious shortcoming, and the only way I know of providing for this is to include this in the language.

I don't believe Mr. Sweeney considered himself to be an authority on highways, but do you agree with his statement that the estimated cost of the thousand miles, after reconsideration, is the same as the estimated 500 miles when this was submitted last year?

Mr. BRIDWELL. Mr. Cramer, last year when we estimated the cost of the 500 miles, we said to the committee quite specifically, because we didn't know the precise location or the design, the requirements for the access roads we put them in at a flat $100,000 per mile. Based upon an analysis of what has actually occurred in several States under the secondary highway program, we believe we can shave a little bit off that $100,000.

There is also the opportunity here for stage construction, which is clearly possible and feasible under title 23, and these access roads in varying stages can be provided within that amount of money.

Mr. CRAMER. Then you say now that a thousand miles of access roads would cost $50,000, whereas last year it was thought it would be $100,000. Therefore, no extra money is needed for this section relating to the development and access highways, and you base that on further experience in secondary road construction.

But, as a matter of fact, you do not know where these roads are going to be, do you?

Mr. BRIDWELL. That is correct, we do not, and we have so stated.

Mr. CRAMER. How can you really make an honest estimate? It is just a guess, is it not?

Mr. BRIDWELL. Certainly, it is.

Mr. CRAMER. Do you have the breakdown of proposed allocations of that thousand miles to the different States involved in the 11 States?

Mr. BRIDWELL. No, sir, no such allocation has been attempted.

Mr. CRAMER. Have the States been asked to submit estimates of what access mileage they may need in order to carry out the purpose of this proposed legislation?

Mr. BRIDWELL. They have been asked to devote attention to that. The key to it, Mr. Cramer, is the other portion of the Appalachian development program, the location of commercial, industrial, recreational facilities that are yet to be developed under the terms of the

act.

When there is more knowledge on the specific location of these, then we will be able to define where the access roads should go.

Mr. CRAMER. So this too is a departure from the usual procedure where States or areas get certain allocated mileage based upon certain fixed factors; they know in advance approximately what mileage they are going to get as a result of the contribution they make, so as a matter of fact, there is nothing to keep some States from getting most of this mileage, and other States getting very little mileage?

Mr. BRIDWELL. There certainly is, Mr. Cramer; the fact that all the States sit on the Commission is ample guarantee, I would say, that no State is going to get it all.

« PreviousContinue »