GOVERNMENT

Storage

-1-

STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE

HIGHWAY NEEDS

'14 

.? 9411

805

(88-15)

rr HEARING .0u-) BEFORE THE

EITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

=9 t SE OF REPRESENTATIVES

r-R EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 8853

TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE TO MAKE A

COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY

NEEDS

NOVEMBER 21, 1963

Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

26-655 WASHINGTON: 1964
..#

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

CHARLES A. BUCKLEY, New York, Chairman

GEORGE H. FALLON, Maryland

CLIFFORD DAVIS, Tennessee

JOHN A. BLATNIK, Minnesota

ROBERT E. JONES, Alabama

JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Illinois

T. A. THOMPSON, Louisiana

JIM WRIGHT, Texas

KENNETH J. GRAY, Illinois

FRANK M. CLARK, Pennsylvania

ED EDMONDSON, Oklahoma

JOHN J. McFALL, California

JOHN YOUNG, Texas

HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California

W. J. BRYAN DORN, South Carolina

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina

ARNOLD OLSEN, Montana

HAROLD M. RYAN, Michigan

J. RUSSELL TUTEN, Georgia

JOHN M. MURPHY, New York

RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Chief Counsel

JOSEPH R. BRENNAN, Engineer-Consultant

CLIFTON W. ENFIELD, Minority Counsel

II

JAMES C. AUCHINCLOSS, New Jersey

WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Florida

JOHN F. BALDWIN, Ja., California

FRED SCHWENGEL, Iowa

HOWARD W. ROBISON, New York

WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio

JAMES HARVEY, Michigan

JOHN C. KUNKEL, Pennsylvania

ROBERT T. McLOSKEY, Illinois

JAMES R. GROVER, JR., New York

JAMES H. QUILLEN, Tennessee

CARL W. RICH, Ohio

JAMES C. CLEVELAND, New Hampshire

DON H. CLAUSEN, California

4
CONTENTS

Page

H.R. 8853 1

Statement by—

McMorran, J. Burch, president, American Association of State Highway Officials 18

Whitton, Rex M., Federal Highway Administrator, Bureau of Public

Roads, Department of Commerce 1

Additional information—

Beals, Alan, executive secretary, Maryland Municipal League, letter,

November 19, 1963 25

Cavanagh, Jerome P., mayor of Detroit, letter, November 19, 1963 28

Fascell, Hon. Dante B., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Florida letter, November 20, 1963 26

Head, J. Al., president, Institute of Traffic Engineers, letter, November

18, 1963, with enclosed resolution_ 25

Koch, Robert M., president National Limestone Institute Inc.,

statement 29

Maclean, Malcolm, mayor of Savannah, letters, November 18, 1963.. 27, 28

Muuss, Emil C. A., mayor of Sheboygan, letter, November 18, 1963_ _ 29

Prentiss, Maj. Gen. Louis W., statement for the American Road

Builders' Association 30

III

4

STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1963

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

TV ashington,D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:10 a.m., in

room 3102, Longworth Building, Hon. George H. Fallon presiding.

Mr. FALLON. The full committee will meet for the consideration

of bills to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to make a comprehensive study of certain future highway needs.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Public Works is meeting

this morning in open session to hear testimony on H.R. 8853, House

Joint Resolution 464, and similar bills, House Joint Resolution 499,

House Joint Resolution 572, House Joint Resolution 656, House Joint

Resolution 657, and House Joint Resolution 791 that would authorize

the Secretary of Commerce to make a comprehensive study of certain

future needs of the highway program.

(H.R. 8853 follows:)

[H.R. 8853, 88th Cong., 1st seas.]

A BILL To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to make a comprehensive study of certain

future highway needs

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to make a comprehensive study of the needs of the Federal-Aid Highway

System, including the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways,

after 1972. Such study shall be made in cooperation with State highway

departments and shall include but not be limited to costs, possible extensions

of such Interstate System, and such other considerations as the Secretary may

deem advisable. The Secretary shall submit a report of his findings to Congress

not later than January 1, 1967.

Mr. FALLON. We are honored and delighted to have this morning

as our first witness Mr. Rex M. Whitton, Federal Highway Administrator, Bureau of Public Roads, Department of Commerce.

Mr. Whitton?

First, on behalf of the committee, let me thank you for giving us

your time this morning, and for giving us the wealth of information

that you always do when you come before this committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. REX M. WHITTON, FEDERAL HIGHWAY

ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS, DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCE

Mr. WHITTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

May I bring with me Mr. Frank Turner and Mr. Ted Holmes,

please?

1
2 STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS

Mr. Frank Turner is Chief Engineer, as you know, and Mr. Ted

Holmes is Director of the Office of Planning.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am most happy

to have the opportunity of appearing before you once again, to present the views of the Department of Commerce and the Bureau of

Public Roads concerning H.R. 8853 and House Joint Resolution

464, House Joint Resolution 499, House Joint Resolution 572, House

Joint Resolution 656, House Joint Resolution 657, and House Joint

Resolution 791.

In the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, the Congress declared

it to be in the national interest to accelerate the construction of the

Federal aid highway systems, including the Interstate System. Subsequent law authorized funds to complete the 41,000-mile Interstate

System in the year 1972.

Now, near the end of 1963, we are approaching the halfway point

of this program.

At the Department of Commerce, and in the Bureau of Public

Roads we are constantly aware of the problems that will confront

the Federal aid highway program after 1972. The continuing nature

of highway planning in every State and in the Bureau is such that

data needed for long-range planning will be available to assist in the

development of future Federal programs.

The estimates of needs that were called for by the 1956 act provide

part of the basis for projecting future replacement and expansion

after the present highway program has been completed in 1972.

The fact remains, however, that definite plans must be formulated

as a basis for evaluating future transportation issues which must be

resolved in deciding upon future Federal aid highway investment

levels.

The growth of population and the pronounced restructuring of

urban environment accentuate the need for a periodic and thorough

reexamination of our plans and their redirection, where necessary.

For this reason, a thorough review of the Nation's highway program in the light of overall transportation problems and various

possible solutions will be necessary to permit intelligent decisions

on long-range plans for the Federal-aid highway program after 1972.

Such an action would be a source of great encouragement to all of us

in the highway field, in that it would provide a sound and acceptable

basis upon which future highway development programs can be

planned.

Today, the committee has under consideration two types of legislation dealing with studies of future highway needs. The resolutions

differ from the bill in that they spell out in considerable detail the outlines of the studies to be made and the subjects to be dealt with.

I am in full agreement with the basic objectives of all the resolutions,

which are both farsighted and comprehensive in their terms, and concur that items such as those mentioned are in need of study, and perhaps others as well.

However, the broader directive contained in H.R. 8853 would provide the Secretary with greater discretion to meet the challenge of new

events and changed conditions that may become apparent even as the

study progresses.
STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS 3

The broad discretionary directive also would permit the essential

element that highway planning be coordinated with planning to meet

total transportation requirements.

THE INTERSTATE SYSTEM

On the subject of specific highway issues, I would like to speak of

some of the things which a study of the highway program should

include.

First of all is the question of what, if anything, is to happen to the

National System of Interstate and Defense Highways after completion

of the program of construction that was begun in 1956. Is the present

41,000-mile system that will be completed in 1972 the Interstate System

that we, as a people, need and want, or should it be increased by some

unknown thousands of miles in the first 10 years after 1972, and again

increased in an ensuing 10-year program?

Such an end-on-end increase of the Interstate System has many

advocates, but may not necessarily be the solution. There are many

alternatives, and no decision should be made until they have all been

thoroughly explored.

We know that there are thousands of miles of important highways,

not now on the Interstate System, which are in need of being improved

to freeway or expressway standards. This is particularly true in and

near our great metropolitan areas.

The question is, Does this additional mileage—this "second tier" of

roads appropriately developable as freeways and express routes—

constitute a proper extension of the Interstate System?

The Interstate System is now being planned and designed to be truly

an interstate and interregional system, connecting our principal cities

and serving the through-traffic needs of our major industrial, commercial, and agricultural areas, while at the same time giving equal

consideration to local needs.

It is a matter of questioning and study whether or not this present

basic system of through-traffic roads, with their urban connections,

should be further expanded, or whether some new program of freeway

and express route development should be conceived and carried out

on a somewhat different basis.

Even without a large expansion of the Interstate System there is

much to do and much to plan in order that this present 41,000-mile

system may continue to perform the service for which it was developed.

In future years an important consideration will be replacement

of surfaces as they wear out, improvement in capacity use of existing

facilities, and increases in route capacity as the traffic burden increases or changes occur in the traffic pattern.

This capacity increase could be expected to affect those portions

of the Interstate System which were built prior to 1956, and those

built more recently to the 1957 design standard in force prior to the

enaotment of the Federal Aid Highway Amendments Act of 1963.

The networks of radial and circumferential highways that form

parts of the Interstate System in our principal metropolitan areas

should he studied in relation to the development of other possible

forms of urban transportation, to determine whether these highways

should be expanded beyond their present planned limits, and whether
k

4 STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS

further freeway development in these areas, if found warranted,

should be on one of the Federal aid systems other than the interstate.

Even if the decision is made to restrict the interstate mileage substantially to its present magnitude, there is a possibility that reexamination will reveal that some routes between key cities, omitted

from the present 41,000-mile system, should now be added.

Also, there is the question of whether there should be provision for

more than one route on the Interstate System within the traffic corridor between key cities, such as Boston and Washington, for example. The present system provides only one Interstate System route

between any pair of cities, regardless of traffic needs.

The question of whether the Federal Government should provide

funds to assist in maintenance of the Interstate System has also been

mentioned and discussed. Because of its far-reaching implications,

this proposition clearly requires careful study. Up to now, Federalaid funds, under normal circumstances, have been made avaliable only

for capital improvements.

I have spoken of alternatives to an end-on-end increase in the Interstate System mileage. What are these alternatives, and why should

they be considered?

The Interstate System as it is now takes care of the principal

routes radiating out of metropolitan areas and connecting with other

such centers. On the other hand, the increase in urbanization and the

consequent growth of traffic indicates that other radial routes, of expressway standards, as well as circumferential highways further out

than those now planned, may need to be built after 1972.

Generally, however, the traffic on these needed routes will tend to

diminish in volume more rapidly with distance from the urban center

than does the traffic on the great connecting links of the present Interstate System. Thus, if we were to plot these needed routes for a given

State or on a nationwide map, they would present a pattern different

from that of the Interstate System.

This is the reason why it may be worthwhile to contemplate a future

program of arterial improvement somewhat different in its terms and

standards than that of a series of additions to the Interstate System.

OTHER FEDERAL AID SYSTEMS

Whether the program of freeway and expressway improvement will

consist of extensions to the Interstate System or of a sub-Interstate

System with somewhat different standards and objectives, it will still

be necessary to examine the service characteristics and improvements

needs of the remaining Federal aid highways.

This means taking a careful look at both the Federal aid primary

and the Federal aid secondary systems in each State. Is the system

classification we now have adequately functional, or do we need a

revision of both primary and secondary systems to bring the service

characteristics of each system more in line with present-day needs?

There is, for example, no specified limit on the size of the Federal

aid secondary system, and the proportion of Federal aid secondary

mileage to total mileage, therefore, varies among the States from 5

to 50 percent.
1

STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS 5

In this work we should proceed with caution and examine all the

conditions, National, State, and local. When we come to the Federal

aid secondary system level, it is necessary to think not only of National

and State objectives, but also of the intimate community and land use

aspects of highway service rendered by this system of roads.

The urban components of the Federal aid primary and Federal aid

secondary systems should also be examined to determine their service

or functional characteristics and the manner in which they mesh with

the total transportation plan of the urban or metropolitan area.

The urban transportation planning process was immeasurably

strengthened last year by. the 1962 Federal Aid Highway Act that

makes this process a requirement for approval, after July 1, 1965, of

Federal aid projects in all urban areas of 50,000 or more population.

The program to fulfill these planning requirements is now well

underway. It brings to the planning field some dramatic new techniques. The wisdom of this enactment is clearly shown by its effect

in forcing the long-needed cooperation between State and local officials, and among the local jurisdictions themselves. It is a solid

breakthrough in planning for urban transportation that promises,

with completion of the initial phases of the required studies, the first

realistic appraisal of highway needs for all urban areas.

It comes at a most fortunate time, for the broad studies required in

the future could not be competently carried out without the facts that

will be forthcoming in this vital area.

TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS

In planning for the future of highways and of Federal highway,

aid in particular, we must be very watchful of the trends in technological development that may affect highway transportation as well

as the other forms of transportation.

The research and planning of the Department of Commerce in this

general field, and of the Bureau of Public Roads in particular, are

geared to the study of such developments and the adaptation of our

highway plans to the course of probable trends.

The provisions of section 9 of the Federal Aid Highway Act of

1962 should make a contribution toward insuring the coordination of

long-range highway plans and programs in urban areas with plans

for other forms of transportation, such, for example, as rail rapid

transit, in the larger metropolitan areas.

We should, and will, be alert to the possibilities of developments in

other modes of transport that might modify the extent of growth

of freight and passenger movements by highway.

Most important of all, perhaps, the possibilities of basic change

in the nature of transportation itself must be watched and studied..

The Bureau of Public Roads, in its research on individual transportation systems, is developing studies that we hope will point out the

directions in which changes in the highway vehicle, its method of propulsion, its use of automated guidance systems, and other possible

developments are likely to go.

The research program is oriented to the increased efficiency of the

highway system and the results of these studies should contribute substantially to the determination of the scope and nature of any future

highway program.

26-655-64-2
6 STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS

PROBLEMS IN FINANCING

As the law stands at present, the authority to make expenditures for

the Federal aid program from certain designated highway-user taxes

deposited in the highway trust fund will expire on October 1, 1972.

The extent of Federal assistance in financing future highway programs can only be determined by a study of program objectives which

relate to (1) Federal and State resources available for highway improvement, maintenance, and operation, and (2) the allocation of resources on the basis of total transportation considerations to provide

services in the most effective and efficient manner.

Another subject which I think should be reviewed in such a study

is that of the ratios of Federal and State participation in the Federal

aid highway program, as well as the methods of apportionment, and

the 45-30-25 division of ABC funds into primary, secondary, and

urban shares.

The present Federal aid program has been evolved from a continuing

historic process and careful consideration by the Congress of the

many years of experience gained in the State-Federal partnership.

Nonetheless, conditions do undergo change with the times, and it

seems appropriate that the policies adopted years ago should be carefully reviewed in the light of modern developments and in anticipation

of the future, to insure the best management of this important

program.

From what I have said, I am sure you will see that the Department

and the Bureau are already developing plans for a broad gaged

study, which should be well advanced during the coming year.

Such a study must of necessity depend upon the cooperation and

support of the State highway departments, whose active participation

is essential.

I believe the study requested by the bill should be the most comprehensive we have undertaken, and should be closely coordinated with

developments in other modes of transportation and with the economic

and social factors which influence transportation.

The study should include the results of the comprehensive urban

planning process required by the Highway Act of 1962, and the study

should reflect the results of highway systems research now getting

underway. It, of course, should include the changing technology in

both highways and vehicles in order to constantly improve existing

highway utilization and capacity.

In order to take proper account of other but related planning and

research activities, I believe it is essential not to schedule program

reports to the Congress earlier than January 1, 1968.

This schedule will give us maximum opportunity to take into account all the factors necessary for any kind of a program to follow

completion of the interstate program in 1972. It still will allow ample

time to implement any program approved by the Congress without

deterioration of highway construction industry capability.

Enactment of H.R. 8853 would have the effect of giving congressional confirmation to the authority now held by the Secretary of

Commerce to perform the types of studies which would be authorized

in this legislation. Consideration of such studies and preliminary

planning already is underway in the Department of Commerce.
STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS 7

The Department of Commerce has no objection to the Congress expressing its intent along the lines suggested above.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FALLON. Thank you, Mr. Whitton, for your most comprehensive statement this morning.

Mr. Whitton, I noticed several times in your statement you mentioned emphasis on municipalities and help for urban areas. I have

received a number of letters from different groups that represent the

municipalities, and particularly the chairman of the highway group

of the American Municipal Association.

They are asking us, in making this study, to give their problem a very

thorough examination, because they are, of course, handicapped in

their position, whereas the State and the Federal Government have

preempted any chance for them to exercise any right to collect, from

the users of the streets and expressways that go through their cities,

any taxes that might help them to match the funds on the basis that the

States have allocated the money now, and most of the burden falls on

the nonusers within the cities, such as real estate tax, in many cities,

sales tax, and other local taxes they might have. But there is very

little chance, if any, in most cases, to tax highway users.

So they feel that that problem should be given careful study and

consideration.

Mr. WHITTON. Yes, Mr. Congressmen, it will. And of course the

legislation that you passed in the 1962 act, requiring transportation

planning after 1965 in order to obtain Federal aid for highways

within our urban areas, will make that contribution and give us the

information necessary to determine what is needed in those cities in

the way of expressways and arterials and improvement of present

streets.

Mr. FALLON. I have some letters later to make a part of the record,

from the municipal groups.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Auchincloss ?

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. I would like to ask just one question, Mr.

Whitton.

I first want to say that I think your statement is very interesting,

comprehensive, and constructive.

Mr. WHITTON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. And I am not surprised.

Mr. WurrroN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Whitton, is there any estimate at all about

what the cost of this survey would be?

Mr. WHrrrox. We have not made an estimate of it, Mr. Auchindoss. It is rather difficult to arrive at it. It will be made generally

with people that we now have in our organization and in the State's

organization.

Mr. AucHiNcLoss. It will be absorbed in the budget of the

Department?

Mr. WHirrox. Yes sir. I am sure that is true.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. ()Miller ?

Mr. CRAMER. I, too, want to congratulate Mr. Whitton for a very

fine and comprehensive statement, which I think is most helpful to
8 STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS

the committee in getting an idea as to what areas of investigation and

study the Bureau of Public Roads feels is justified at this time.

I was interested in regard to the specific legislative proposals before us, and your comment was to the effect that you felt that all of

these legislative proposals have merit, but that you prefer H.R. 8853.

Mr. Wiirrrow. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. And the justification you give for that is that it is

broader in scope. Is that correct?

Mr. WHITTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. I assume you are familiar with the other resolutions

introduced, such as House Joint Resolution 464, which I introduced on

June 10, and which, of course, was intended to give broad discretion

but also to spell out some specifics that some members of this committee, and apparently other Members of Congress as well, felt should definitely be included in any such study.

For instance, on page 4, line 4:

The investigation and study authorized by this section—

I am reading from House Joint Resolution 464—

shall include, but not be limited to the following.

So I think the intent and purpose, as drafted, gives broad discretion

to you, and the Secretary, to make such studies, does it not?

Mr. WHITTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. I assume you have reviewed these proposals rather

carefully. I notice in your statement that there was no reference in particular made to one aspect that is mentioned specifically in other resolutions, House Joint Resolution 461 being an example.

For instance, on the bottom of page 4, paragraph 5, line 23:

An examination of toll-road problems, the traditional policy that highways

constructed with Federal funds should be toll free, the extent to which toll facilities have been or may be established on existing Federal-aid highway systems, and whether or not other toll facilities should be established on existing or

future Federal-aid highway systems.

Now, that subject matter, as such, was not mentioned in your statement.

Mr. WHIT-row. I think the study should include it.

Mr. CRAMER. I wanted to make sure that was clear on the record.

Mr. WHITTON. That is my personal opinion; yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. And regardless of what legislation was passed, it

would be your intention to make such a study, would it not?

Mr. WHITTow. It would be my intention; yes, sir; and I am sure

that many States will have the same opinion.

Mr. CRAMER. Now, you suggest at the end of your statement, on page

11, that you do not believe the report should be made earlier than

1968, which is at variance with the bills before us, H.R. 464 having

suggested 1966, on page 5, line 6, and the proposal of the distinguished

chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Fallon, H.R. 8853, proposing, on

line 12, January 1 of 1967.

Mr. FALLON. If the gentleman will yield: This date of 1967 I put

in my bill after I had consulted with a number of people who are going

to be charged with the responsibility of making a study, and I think

the 1966 date was mentioned, and the 1968 date was mentioned.
STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS 9

The gentleman knows from my record here that I always try to

compromise where I think it is to the best interest of any program

we might be considering, so I used the date of 1967.

Mr. CRAMER. I appreciate that historical information to justify the

1967 date, and I would like to justify the 1966 date, Mr. Chairman.

Mine was not intended to be a compromise. From the evidence we

had before the committee previously, and also my having discussed it

with AASHO officials, the American Road Builders people, and others, it was my opinion, and I think it was testified to that efect, that

in order for us to properly tool up the 1972 construction termination

date of the present program, 1966 was the logical end of the study

period, in that it would probably take a couple of years for Congress

to act, based upon that study.

That brings us to 1968. And 1968 is the absolute date for necessary

commencement of programing right away, acquisition and otherwise,

for construction at the end of 1971 and in early 1972.

Now, would you care to comment on that analysis? Is that, in your

opinion, a correct analysis? In other words, is 1968 too late? Is

1966 a safer date?

And secondly, can the study be properly completed by 1966?

Nobody, so far as I know, wants to squeeze the Bureau and the

States in making the study, and yet I think it our duty to make sure

that adequate time is available to tool up for the job that has to be

done after 1971.

Mr. WHirroN. Mr. Cramer, your logic is always good. But I think

1966 is a little early, for a couple of reasons:

First, I think we need the time to do the job that 1966 possibly would

not give us. And then I think we also need some of the information

that we will gain from our urban studies that become mandatory in

July 1965. A lot of the urban studies, of course, are now being made,

but there will be some that perhaps will not start until early 1965.

And so I firmly and sincerely believe that 1966 is too early for the

presentation of the report.

I think that 1968, of course, gives more time for taking advantage

of the research that we will do and also taking advantage of the urban

studies and other planning studies that we will do. That would of

course make the study that will be presented to the Congress perhaps

more competent and full.

Mr. CRAMER. Having now satisfied the committee with regard to

1966, 1967, and 1968 

Mr. FALLON. If the gentleman will yield, I just received a letter that

further authenticates the date of 1967 from the Institute of Traffic

Engineers, in which they say:

The resolution includes that the Congress authorize and direct that such a

study be instituted without delay, so that it may be available no later than 1967.

So that that confirms the judgment of both you and I, because they

say no later than 1967. And I think even though it was a compromise,

it was the judgment of a lot of people in the best interests of all concerned that 1967 is the better date.

Mr. CRAMER. The chairman, in his usual adroit fashion, has certainly done away with Mr. Whitton's recommendation of 1968.

I do gather from your testimony that 1968 would be really too late

to tool up the job that has to start in 1972. Is that not correct.
10 STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS

Mr. WHrrrorr. Of course, I think the study will be so good that

Congress will act the first year it gets it, and will not take 2 years,

Mr. Cramer.

• Mr. CRAMER. You mean like they did on the Clay report?

• Mr. WHirrorr. This committee, I am sure, will accept the study

without delay.

Mr. CRAMER. I hope so. But it depends on how comprehensive the

study is. And if you get into some of the subject matters you suggested—and I am not saying they do not need study, but I would say

the question of what the Federal participation should be in maintenance, for instance, or what the ratios of Federal-State cost should be,

if they should be adjusted, and the questions of the trust fund financing, which also involves the Ways and Means Committee —should any

adjustment there be justified—I think it is obvious that if it is such a

comprehensive study, and I trust it will be, it is not going to be without

some controversy or some discussion within the Congress.

Mr. WHrrrorr. I am sure of that.

Mr. CRAMER. That was the reason I felt the 1966 date was a safe

date, because it appeared to me that probably it would be 1968 before

the Congress could fully digest the study and could make the policy

decisions that would have to be made, and pass the necessary legislation

to carry out those phases of it with which the Congress agreed.

That, Mr. Chairman, was the reason for the 1966 date.

I do realize, as you indicated on page 8, with regard to urban transportation planning processes

'

that that report is to be made July 1 of

1965. However, are you not now getting reports from areas that are

in the process of establishing such plans?

Mr. WHITTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. And you have that information, which I assume you

are even now feeding into this planning program.

Mr. WirrrroN. That is right.

Mr. CRAMER. So that before July 1, 1965, which is the terminal

date, you will undoubtedly have many plans, will you not?

Mr. Wrarrrort. I am sure we will. But right now we have 'alarming

going on in 113 of the 216 urban areas of over 50,000 population, so

about half of the group of cities are doing planning that would comply

with our regulations, but there still remains 100-some-odd to start

their work, and I think some of them will be laggard in starting.

Mr. CRAMER. I assume—and we have had pretty lengthy discussions

of this in previous hearings—that it is not expected that by July 1

of 1965 these metropolitan areas will have finalized their plans for

urban transportation process.

Mr. Wrirrrorr. It contemplates a continuing plan. It does not call

for a final plan.

Mr. CRAMER. The legislation calls for an urban transportation planning process. That does not mean specific planning for highway

versus rails versus subways Would be finalized by the July 1 of 1965

date.

Mr. WurrroN. No, it does not call for that.

Mr. CRAMER. Nor is it the policy of the Bureau, I trust, that such

finalized plans will necessarily have to be made by July 1 of 1965.

Mr. WHITToN. No, sir; it will not. There needs to be a planning

process. A planning process needs to be underway by that time.
STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS 11

Mr. CRAMER. So that actually, even as of July 1 of 1965, there will

not be actual plans of the coordinated mass transportation systems and

highway systems in the metropolitan areas. Those actual plans of

highways versus other types of transportation will not have been

finalized even on that basis, in many instances.

Mr. WHITTON. No, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. Then even as of 1966 or 1967, there is going to have to

be some gap in metropolitan long-range planning, and therefore not

have finalized programs in these metropolitan areas, to be considered

by Congress, even as a result of your report. Is that not correct?

Mr. WHITTON. That is right.

Mr. CRAMER. I assume, however, there will be some exceptions to

that, and possibly they will even straighten out the problem in the

District of Columbia by 1965. There may be some exceptions to that,

will there not, that will give you better information upon which you

can base your studies and reports to the Congress?

Mr. WHITTON. I am sure there will be.

Mr. CRAMER. The point I am getting at is this. I trust that, whatever report is made, it will not be held up by the fact that there may

still be some discussions and differences of opinion, perhaps, even in

the local areas, as to what the highway future in that area should be,

as compared to other mass transportation systems.

Mr. WHrrroN. The report will not be held up on that account.

Mr. CRAMER. On page 6, at the bottom of the page, you refer to:

This is the reason why it may be worthwhile to contemplate a future program

of arterial improvement somewhat different in terms of standards than that of

the series of additions to the Interstate System.

Would you enlarge on that, Mr. Whitton?

Mr. WHirrox. Yes. We have in mind that there could well be a

system of highways that would be an intermediate system between the

interstate and the primary, of somewhat lower type than present interstate standards, and perhaps the contribution of the Federal Government to this system of highways might be something less than 90

percent.

That is what is back of the statement, here.

Mr. CRAMER. In other words, they would be limited access expressways?

Mr. WHITTON. I think they should be limited access of an expressway type, but perhaps not to as high a standard as the present Interstate System.

Mr. CRAMER. In other words, you can have more on and off ramps,

more interchanges, where there now are pretty stiff standards for some

metropolitan areas?

Mr. WHirroN. Yes. And in Federal participation, we think the

Congress might want to consider some different participation.

Mr. CRAMER. Now, with regard to the Interstate System after 1971,

I assume you have had requests already for extensions of that system,

have you not?

Mr. WHITTorr. 15,000 miles, I think. Yes, they call on us quite

regularly for that.

Mr. CRAMER. And the State of Florida is one that has called on

you, is it not, for at least a discussion? I think they called on the

Bureau back in 1956. They submitted a prospectus and proposal for
12 STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS

an extension of the Interstate System between Tampa, St. Petersburg,

and Miami, as an example.

Mr. WiurroN. I believe that is correct, yes.

Mr. CRAMER. And it was turned down at that time, as I recall, on

the basis of inadequate traffic. And there are also a number of bills

that have been introduced to hopefully close that missing link, one of which I introduced some time ago.

I assume that is an example of the some 15,000 miles of extensions

which have already been asked for by the States. Is that correct?

Mr. WurrroN. Recommended by the States, yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. And you do not have any authority at the present

time to approve any of those additional mileages under the 41,000-

mile ceiling, do you?

Mr. WHirroN. Well, we have some limited mileage that is left, of

the 41,000.

Mr. CRAMER. Could you indicate to the committee how much that is? I would like to know, because I understood most of it was absorbed in West Virginia.

Mr. WHirroN. It changes from day to day, Mr. Congressman. I

would guess around 50 or 60 miles. It is a rather small amount.

The mileage that is designated of the 41,000—we arrived at most of it by measuring on the map. As the actual field surveys and measurements are made, those distances are changed, all of them change,

some more and some less.

So, since there are still some 12,000 miles unmeasured, we are trying

to retain a small mileage that could absorb the changes in links as they are measured, because we cannot end up with more than 41,000 miles.

Mr. CRAMER. So you would have around 50 miles in reserve, in effect, on the system at this time, so any discretion you exercise would be limited, from time to time, to approximately 50 miles.

Mr. WHITTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. So, obviously, if these substantial additions on the

Interstate System in mileage are to be approved at a future date, this could only be done through additional congressional authorizations?

Mr. WHrrroN. That is right yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. Adding to the top mileage limit, 41,000 miles. Is

that not correct?

Mr. WHirroN. That is right.

Mr. CRAMER. Now let's get to a further point, then. Do you not think that there might be justification, insofar as the Interstate Sys- tem and these extensions are concerned, to make a separate study,

apart from the general study, so the Congress could give consideration

to additional authorization of mileage above the 41,000-mile system prior to 1972, and that a preliminary study on that subject could and should be submitted to the Congress earlier than either the 1966 or 1967 date.

What would be your thought concerning that?

My thought is there may be some critical, serious areas that have developed since the 1956 act.

Mr. WiirrroN. The Congress has set 1972 as the date for completing the 41,000 miles. Now, my best information is that our money is
STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS 13

running pretty close to what it takes to do the job by that time. If we

add any additional mileage, then we either have to change the rate of

money going into the trust fund, or lengthen the time for the

completion.

So it is a difficult problem, Mr. Cramer. There are areas I frankly

admit, that could well be served by additions to the Interstate System.

But you have got to weigh that with whether or not you want to

complete it in 1972.

So I have dodged your question.

Mr. CRAMER. It me say that, as far as I am concerned, the 1972

completion date is an absolute necessity.

The point I was getting at is: Have there come to your attention

any areas that might be considered emergency or critical that need

relief before the 1972 date, with additional mileage?

Mr. WHirroN. In some urban areas there are some critical needs.

Mr. CRAMER. Let me put it this way, then: Do you think that a

study at this time would be justified on a minimal mileage increase,

say an additional thousand miles, just taking a figure out of the air?

Assuming that your projections indicate that there would be enough

money in the trust fund to build some additional mileage, do you

think that consideration of some additional mileage before 1972

would be justified, if the projections indicate—and of course a study

would have to be made to determine that, I assume—that the trust

fund could defray those additional costs?

Mr. WHITTON. Mr. Cramer, I would rather refrain from answering

that question. I have great desire to complete the 41,000 miles in

1972. I think we have made a commitment to the Congress, and the

Congress has set that date as its completing date, and it has been

pretty well publicized to the people.

Yet, at the same time, I do know that there are some urban sections

that are in very dire need of help through the interstate additions.

So you have asked me, "Should we do it, or shouldn't we do it ?"

It would not cost anything to look into it, into the feasibility of a

small amount of additions, but whether or not we added them would be

the Congress decision, of course.

Mr. CRAMER. Yes. That was the point I was making. Do you

think the situation, based on the applications you have pending, and

the facts that you are familiar with, is of sufficient importance for you

to give consideration to it and submit a report to the Congress prior to

this 1966 or 1967 report?

Mr. WifErroN. Perhaps so, yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. Then, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that consideration be given by the Bureau to this question, in that it is my understanding that there are some areas where there are some serious additional mileage needs.

Mr. B.ALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, before any such direction is given to

the Bureau, I would like to express objection to any committee

direction.

I think we set the target date of 1972 to complete the 41,000 miles.

If we start fooling around with additional miles and end up not completing it, we are going to have a lot of national editorials and --rticjes

on the point. - ,

26-655-64 3
14 STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS

I do not want to risk that until we know we can complete the 41,000

miles. Then, if we want to make a study, after we know that—and we

do not know it now—that is all right.

So I for one would be opposed to any committee request even for a

study at this time.

Mr. CRAMER. I will say to the gentleman that we are not in disagreement, as I, too, want the first priority consideration to be completed

by 1972. So we are not in disagreement on that at all.

The only question is: Is it justified at this time for the Bureau to

take another look at the trust fund, the anticipated revenues and the

requests they have for increased mileage, in considering whether a

nominal increase of the total 41,000 miles is justified, is needed, and could be financed out of the present trust fund, without extending at all the 1972 completion date.

Of course, I agree with the gentleman from California that delay of completion of the present system beyond 1972 would be the last thing I would propose.

Mr. ROBISON. Would the gentleman yield?

Recently the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Edmondson, and I ad- dressed a letter to Mr. Whitton requesting the projected status of the

trust fund toward the end of the construction period, and the reply I

had from Mr. Whitton dated November 4, 1963, indicates that, accord- ing to his projections, a surplus of only $19 million would exist in the

trust fund on or about October 1, 1972, when the Interstate System was

expected to be completed and the trust fund payments terminated.

I assume, then, Mr. Whitton, that this letter, in reply to Mr. Ed- mondson's and my letter, was based on a rather up-to-date review of the trust fund's capabilities that you had conducted sometime during

this year.

Would that be correct?

Mr. Wurrrox. That is right. That is the best information we

have as of that date.

In my statement a while ago, I said it was very close, and that is

very close.

Mr. ROBISON. I bring this in at this point because, if we are thinking about additions, if this projection is accurate, we are only going

to have some $19 or $20 million worth of trust fund moneys to apply

to that purpose.

Mr. CRAMER. I think the best way to handle it, Mr. Chairman, is

that I will direct a letter to Mr. Whitton, myself, 

i

asking that he ad- vise me with regard to the possibility of some increase in mileage

and financing it out of present trust fund moneys, without jeopardizing the 1972 date.

Mr. FALLON. I think that settles it, if Mr. Whitton has no objection

to answering the letter.

Mr. WHIrroN. We have answered a lot of them.

Not all from Mr. Cramer.

Mr. FALLON. Any questions?

Mr. Davis?

Mr. CRAMER. May I ask just one more, Mr. Chairman? Then I

will terminate.

Do I understand that you do not object to specifying certain areas

of investigation, which this committee, and subsequently the Con-
STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS 15

gress, might feel are essential, such as is contained in House Joint

Resolution 464, as an amendment to H.R. 8853? Do you have any

objection to that?

Mr. WHITTON. NO, sir.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Baldwin?

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Whitton, I notice on page 5 of your testimony,

at the bottom, you devote a paragraph to the question of maintenance,

and you say:

The question of whether the Federal Government should provide funds to

assist in maintenance of the Interstate System has also been mentioned and

discussed. Because of its far-reaching implications, this proposition clearly requires careful study. Up to now Federal aid funds under normal circumstances

have been made available only for capital improvement.

I take it, since this is a hearing to discuss this generally, you might

be interested in knowing what individual members of the committee

have in the way of reactions to certain proposals.

I personally feel very strongly that the breakdown between construction and maintenance has been a reasonable breakdown between

the Federal responsibility and the State responsibility, and if we

ever break through into maintenance, then I think we are going to hit

a bottomless pit, in which the States will try to push onto us as much of

the responsibility for maintenance as possible.

And I personally have no objection to a study being made of this,

but I would like to say at this time that if for any reason the study

proposed that the Federal Government enter into the maintenance

field, I think you will find very strenuous objection in Congress to

going into this new field, because we have had a hard enough time

even doing what we felt was proper in the field of construction.

And I for one think it would be a serious mistake, if the Federal

Government were to contemplate favorably entering into the maintenance field.

Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Chairman, I have one or two questions along the

same line as those posed to the witness earlier by Mr. Cramer.

I am a cosponsor of one of the several resolutions which would

authorize such a comprehensive study, my resolution being House

Joint Resolution 572, introduced on July 24 of this year.

Like Mr. Cramer's resolution, this also sets forth specific items for

study purposes.

The one item in which I am particularly interested, of course, is

that one which would direct the Bureau to undertake a study of the

perennial question of interstate highway reimbursement.

Let me make sure that I understand that H.R. 8853 is worded in

such a general fashion that, in your opinion, it would include a specific

study on the part of the Bureau into the question of interstate highway reimbursement.

Mr. WHITTON. Yes, sir, I think so.

Mr. ROBISON. Although you did not mention this topic in your

prepared statement, would it be your intention to include such an item

in such a study?

Mr. WHITTON. Yes sir.

Mr. ROBISON. One final question, then, Mr. Chairman.

I would hope that the study—although I realize the difficulties of

completing it in a prompt fashion—could be completed at least by '

1967, although I much would prefer 1966.
16 STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS

Let me ask you if you think the fact that such a study was underway

would preclude congressional action, in the meantime, in any one of

these specific areas, such as the toll road problem or the reimbursement

problem.

Mr. WiirrroN. Well, Mr. Robison, if it did not interfere with the completion of the system by 1972, I would see no objection.

Mr. ROBISON. I think you can understand the purpose of my question. As you know, as to the State of New York, both the toll road

problem and the reimbursement problem are of prime and important

concern.

We have had ample opportunity to be discouraged with the lack of resolution of these problems in the past, and we certainly would be

very disturbed to feel that, by virtue of such a study, a resolution of either one of these problems might have to be put off until 1967 or

1968, even.

Mr. WinrroN. Of course, I think the reimbursement problem ought

to be a part of the study. It is our intention to make it a part of the

study.

Mr. QUILLEN. I, too, would like to commend Mr. Whitton for a fine presentation this morning.

I have had a number of calls from my city managers, as well as the

Tennessee Municipal League, regarding a study for Federal aid in

urban areas. The present study, as authorized by Congress, is in areas

of over 50,000.

Is that correct?

Mr. Wurrrow. Yes, sir.

Mr. QUILLEN. In your statement, here, do you propose to study, as

a result of this resolution, Federal aid to roads in all urban areas, irrespective of population?

Mr. WHirroN. Yes, sir.

Mr. QUILLEN. That is very good. I just wanted a clarification of

that.

Thank you, Mr. Whitton.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Schwengel?

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I would like to say first that it is good to see an

old friend and neighbor before this committee.

Mr. Witrrrox. Thank you, Mr. Schwengel.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. He is a very highly respected man because of the

great work he did in the State of Missouri.

I appreciate the fine statement, and I appreciate your interest in

wanting to get on with this study. I am glad that the committee is

calling the session to consider it, and we hope we can give you some

authorization to proceed.

I have just one question.

You are aware of the Great River Road project?

Mr. WnrrroN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Will this study take into consideration that proposition, to consider how this might fit into the transportation system

of that area in any way?

Mr. WHITTON. I think it would, Mr. Schwengel. Of course, there

are some other areas, or some other bills, either in the Senate or in the

House, calling for a study of scenic highways.
STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS 17

This Great River Road can be built as a part of the Federal aid

system out of present money, if the State so desires.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I know that, but if our study could get into that

area, the study might be able to show the feasibility and advisability of

moving a little faster than the States are moving along this line.

It is really, as you and I know, more than just a scenic highway.

It has great commercial value in many areas, especially in Missouri

and the central and eastern parts of Iowa. It has great industrial

value.

Mr. WHITTON. It has great potential there.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I am glad to hear you say that you will consider

this proposition as you go into that study.

Mr. WHITTON. The committee in its wisdom could include that, of

course, 

in the bill.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. I might say in addition, Mr. Chairman, that I am

the author of one of these bills, also, and for some reason it got sent to

the Rules Committee. The provisions of my bill are very similar.

Mr. FALLON. Are there any other questions?

Mr. CRAMER. Would the gentleman yield?

In H.R. 8853, line 6, the study is keyed to "the need of the Federal

aid highway system, including a national system of interstate and de.

fense highways after 1972."

Is that the correct date?

As I understand it, money is available under present authorizations

through fiscal year 1972, and construction is to be completed in the

year of 1972.

Mr. WHirroN. 1971 is the last authorization.

Mr. CRAMER. That is the point I am making. The last authorization is for calendar year 1971; is it not?

Mr. WHIrroN. Fiscal year 1971.

Mr. CRAMER. Do you have any recommendations, then, with regard

to the date, so that the study commences at the time that the present

authorizations end?

Mr. WHrrroN. The construction would end in 1972, and, of course,

I would hope that the new study could be received by the Congress

in time that there would not be any lag in our activity, either engineering or contracting, because we will have, and have now, a fine organization through the States and through the contractors and through

their material suppliers and all the people of industry who are interested in this program.

And it would not be good business to have a gap in the program,

where they would be looking some place else for a job, so I feel that I

know the Congress will take that into consideration and will provide

so that there will not be a lag in the program.

Mr. CRAMER. The point I am making is the question of whether the

amendment is needed, instead of after 1972, after fiscal year 1971,

for instance, so that your study obviously starts as soon as the present

authorization ends.

Mr. WHITroN. You may have a good point, there.

Mr. FALLON. Will the gentleman yield?

I think that changing the date 1972 might confuse some people, or

the public, if we make it, say, 1971. They would say, "Well, your

program is going to be completed in 1971. That is fine."
18 STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS

I think when the study comes, after we receive the study, and it is

put into legislative form—I think that would be the time to make a

decision on just where to go in 1970, 1971, and 1972.

Mr. WHITTON. I think that the mechanics could be worked out

very well along that line.

Mr. CRAMER. The actual date of the termination of the present

program is June 30, 1972. Is that not correct?

Mr. WHIrroN. October 1 is the date we use for completion of the

program. There is some disagreement about that, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. CRAMER. Then I think it should be clarified in the report or

some way just what date is being spoken of. The study should be

related to the termination date, what should be done as of the termination date of the program. I think it could be clarified in the report.

Mr. FALLON. I think that might be the better way, rather than to

change the date in the legislation.

Are there any other questions of Mr. Whitton?

Mr. Whitton, thank you very much.

Mr. WmTrort. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a pleasure

to appear before all of you.

Mr. FALLON. Our next witness this morning is Mr. J. Burch McMorran, president of the American Association of State Highway

Officials, accompanied by Mr. Alf Johnson, executive secretary.

Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Chairman, might I have the pleasure of introducing to the committee, as well as to you, sir, the superintendent of

public works of the great State of New York, the Honorable J.

Burch McMorran, a very capable and able public servant?

I am sure his appearance here will be most helpful to the committee.

Mr. FALLON. I might say I intended to say the same thing, but you

have done it so much better I will let the record stand with your

expression.

Mr. McMorran on behalf of the committee, I want to welcome you

here, for the first lime, as president of the Association of State Highway Officials.

For myself and the others who attended your convention in Portland

several weeks ago, I want to thank you and Mr. Johnson for the fine

hospitality that was shown us while we were there.

STATEMENT OF J. BURCH MeMORRAN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN

ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY OFFICTATS

Mr. MCMORRAN. Thank you, sir.

I want to thank both you and Mr. Robison for your very kind remarks, also.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: I am J. Burch McMorran, superintendent of the department of public works for the

State of New York, and I am privileged to appear today as the president of the American Association of State Highway Officials, to speak

for the member State highway departments.

We welcome the opportunity to support H.R. 8853. This bill conforms in all aspects to the action that we urged when testifying before

your committee on the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1963. We are

happy that House Joint Resolution 464, House Joint Resolution 572,
STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS 19

House Joint Resolution 656, and House Joint Resolution 657, together

with similar proposals, have been introduced.

All these proposals indicate that this committee recognizes the need

for a complete look at the Nation's highway needs .of the foreseeable

future in order to determine the course of the Federal-aid highway

programs for this Nation for the period after 1972.

In our policy statement, developed a year ago, we recognized the

need for such a comprehensive nationwide highway review, and offered our full resources and cooperation to the Congress, and to the

Secretary of Commerce, in making such a study at that time.

This same policy action was adopted again in our 1964 statement,

with the addition that the State highway departments should have an

appropriate role in developing the study, and in its interpretation into

a recommended program.

As a direct result, this association has authorized its president to

appoint a high-level AASHO committee to work as an advisory group

with the Bureau of Public Roads in developing a manual to be used

for gathering the necessary factual data for a study, and to assist the

Bureau of Public Roads in interpreting the results into a recommended and balanced Federal aid highway program that could be

proposed to the Congress.

Through the association's committee on finance, it is our plan to

also develop a complete analysis of the individual States' financial

abilities in order that we may have this type of essential companion information to aid in translating the study, into a practical and feasible

program.

At our recent annual meeting in Portland, Oreg., some of our member

State highway departments sincerely felt that they were ready at this

time to submit their contribution for such a nationwide highway needs

study.

However, in looking back at our experiences in 1953 and 1954, we

believe that a great deal of thought must be given initially to the detailed type and the uniform format of the information that the States

must furnish.

We believe that this is essential if the information is to be blended

into a nationwide overall report by the Secretary of Commerce that can

be of value to the Congress.

We realize that the time is getting short for making a decision as to

what type of Federal aid program will be authorized subsequent to

1972.

We are of the definite opinion that a severe adverse economic effect

would be experienced by this country in case there were to be a major

interruption in an orderly highway development program.

We believe, however, that the influence of increasing urbanization

would dictate that we have the best possible information on highway

needs in our urban areas. Only a limited amount of this type of information will exist prior to 1965, and any study submitted to the Congress on highway needs must contain as much of this type of information as is possible.

We know also that the State highway departments are utilizing their

personnel for the development of the new estimate of completing the

Interstate System, that is called for in 1965.
20 STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS

We feel that the Secretary of Commerce must have sufficient time to

review the information that will be received from the States and other

sources, and to compile it into a report of needs. This operation could

well take from 9 to 10 months.

It would therefore appear that the reporting date of January 1967,

as contained in H.R. 8853, is more realistic than the reporting dates specified in the various House joint resolutions being considered.

At the present time, the last authorized Interstate System apportionment is scheduled to be made in 1969, for the 1971 fiscal year. It is essential that the States and the highway industry know what is to

follow after 1972, not later than this 1969 apportioning date. The

1967 date as contained in H.R. 8853 would permit such a schedule.

We emphasize that H.R. 8853 recognizes the proper role of the

State highway departments in the Federal aid highway program.

The State highway departments of this Nation are the public bodies

charged with the major road responsibility.

We are proud of our "partnership" between the State highway departments and the Bureau of Public Roads, that extends back over

a period of nearly 50 years.

We believe that the accomplishments of this "partnership" have

been substantial, and in the public interest. We believe further that this partnership arrangement should be continued and protected, and

should cover both the planning of recommended programs as well as

the construction phases.

We know that the only complete and continuing source of factual

basic information of the Nation's highway inventory and highway

needs is in the State highway departments.

We believe that the State highway departments-Bureau of Public

Roads "partnership" is best qualified to make a meaningful highway

needs study.

We have been somewhat concerned over rumors of the possibility

of certain highway needs studies being done by a congressional staff

through hiring outside and temporary assistance, with the States playing little or no role in the matter.

We strongly believe that any program in which State participation

and financing are involved, and where the roads in question are a part

of the State highway,systems, that the role of the States should be recognized in the legislation, as provided in H.R. 8853.

We believe that the study, to which we are referring, should be comprehensive and adequate enough to the degree that the Congress

may make a judgment on such things as the following:

1. The extent of the Federal interest, participation, and responsi- bility in the continuation of a Federal aid highway program.

3. Do changing conditions indicate any revisions in the Federal aid and, if so, to what extent, and what should be the warrants for such extensions?

3. Do changing conditions indicate any revisions in the Federal aid

A—B—C programs, in order that they will be adequate, equitable, and

serve the foreseeable and possible changing needs of the country?

4. In light of increasing urbanization, and, in particular, the important role of personal transportation in suburban areas, should an additional category of Federal aid programs be created?
STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS 21

5. Should there be a practical mileage limitation and specified

criteria set forth for roads to be included in the various Federal aid

systems?

6. Is the present basis of apportionment of Federal aid funds and

the pro rata matching basis on the Federal aid systems adequate, equitable, and compatible with the Federal and State interests and responsibilities in such systems?

Any Federal aid program must have built-in flexibility to assure that

the national interests in highway transportation are satisfied, yet take

care of the needs of the individual States.

The present ABC systems have been developed over a period of from

20 to 40 years in the past, and it is entirely 'possible that a balanced

highway program, to match the needs of the future, may require some

review.

In case the legislation being discussed here today had not been introduced, it was the plan of the State highway departments, in cooperation with the Bureau of Public Roads, to immediately undertake the

development of a highway needs study, and to recommend a Federal

aid program subsequent to 1972, to the Congress by 1967. We had

planned to make this a report to the Congress on our stewardship, the

status of the current program, and the future highway needs as determined by the study.

We prefer, however, to have the Congress to direct the Secretary of

Commerce, in cooperation with the State highway departments, to do

this job, as it will add prestige to and give added encouragement and

interest to the State highway departments in undertaking this rather

extensive and complex operation.

In closing, we urge the enactment of H.R. 8853.

I thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. FALLON. That was a short statement, but it was full of meat

from the beginning to the end.

Mr. McMoRRAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. FALLON. I might say that when we can get a short statement

with all the meat in it that this has, this committee is very happy.

We have had much longer discussions at times without getting the

thought of the people who are testifying.

We certainly understand it, because it is written so that it could be

understood very easily. At the same time it is indicative of the tremendous job that the State highway departments have done in the past.

We certainly have utmost confidence in what you guarantee us that

you can do in the future.

Mr. CRAMER. You mention on page 3 the date that you think a determination by Congress should be made, based upon the study, and you

say:

At the present time, the last authorized Interstate System apportionment is

scheduled to be made in 1969, for the 1971 fiscal year. It is essential that the

States and the highway industry know what is to follow after 1972, not later

than this 1969 apportioning date.

Now, as I understood it, the present law authorizes the last apportionment on the Interstate System to be made for the fiscal year 1971,

and that apportionment actually is made in July or August of the

year of 1969, is it not?
•

22 STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS

Mr. MCMORRAN. I believe that is right. I think it is in the fall

of the year, as I understand it.

Mr. CRAMER. Then your position is that as of that time, in order

to carry on a continuing program, congressional action should be

completed. Is that right?

Mr. MCMORRAN. That is what we hope, yes

'

sir.

Mr. CRAMER. Then July or August of 1969 should be the target date

for congressional action. Is that right?

Mr. MCMORRAN. That is correct, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. Then I ask you whether you feel that your recommendation of January of 1967 gives adequate assurance that the Comgress will act by 1969. Does it give adequate time?

Mr. MCMORRAN. Well, we would hope so, sir.

We had quite a little discussion of this at the Portland meeting, on

this date question. As I indicated here, certain States felt that they

had sufficient data already, but the majority of them felt it would

take some time to assemble their data, and that the 1967 date was the

most realistic we could shoot for to have the data assembled and ready

to present to the Congress.

Mr. CRAMER. The reason I used the 1966 date, as was previously discussed, in my resolution, was that I felt that in order to meet the same

criteria you suggest, the apportionment date of July or August of

1969, the Congress very possibly would take a couple of years to act

upon the recommendation, and therefore the 1966 date was chosen

for that purpose to make certain that adequate time was left for

Congress to act before the last apportionment date came about.

Mr. MCMORRAN. I understand, that, and I appreciate the deliberations that are necessary and should be given to the bill. However, we

feel that the preparation of the report should not be hurriedly gotten

together, that it should be complete and factual, and just as thorough

as we can make it, particularly with urbanized areas.

Mr. CRAMER. Mainly because the urban reports are not finalized

until July of 1965 is the basic reason for it, is it not?

Mr. MCMORRAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. Now, I notice that you mentioned some subject matters

you think should be studied, and I agree with those subject matters,

but that was not intended to be an exclusive list, was it?

Mr. MCMORRAN. Oh, no. As a matter of fact, I thoroughly concur

with the resolutions as outlined to that effect. We think that all those

fields that are indicated in the resolutions have to be explored and reported upon.

Mr. CRAMER. And you feel, as contained in House Joint Resolution

464, that paragraph (5) , the part stating that highways constructed

with Federal funds should be toll free, and so forth—that that, too,

should be a part of the study ?

Mr. MCMORRAN. Yes, I think that is quite correct.

Mr. CRAMER. And obviously, what additional mileage on the existing system should be considered, such as existing missing links, such

as that between Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Miami—you are familiar

with that missing link?

Mr. MCMORRAN. I am not too familiar with it, but I have heard

something about it.

Mr. CRAMER. And so additional mileage is one of the obvious matters to be studied?
STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS 23

Mr. MCMORRAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. I am rather interested in your observation on page 4,

your concern over rumors of _possible highway needs studies being

done by congressional staff. Can you tell me something about it?

Mr. MCMORRAN. There was some discussion, I think largely newspaper talk, that possibly a bill of this kind would be offered and prepared by a staff. I think it was in the Senate, though.

Mr. FALLON- If the gentleman will yield, I think that rumor came

from the other body.

Mr. McMoRRAN. I think that is correct.

Mr. FALLON. I think the rumor was started by a staff member. I

do not think that it had any real authority when it was made. But as

I understand, even the man who started the rumor has given up the

idea.

Mr. MCMORRAN. I am glad to hear that.

Mr. FALLON. Or starting rumors.

Mr. MCMORRAN. I am sure your deliberation will not be based on

rumor.

Mr. CRAMER. I, too, heard such a rumor, and I hope that such highway studies will not be conducted by a congressional staff or congressional committees through hiring of outside temporary assistants.

I trust that the chairman's comments help clarify that once and

for all.

Mr. FALLON. When I heard the rumor, I suggested hiring the State

highway officials to make that study.

Mr. MCMORRAN. I have no comment.

Mr. CRAMER. I want to congratulate the American Association of

State Highway Officials for the job they have already started doing in.

this respect, and I appreciate your comments with regard to the legislation involved, and the cooperation that the highway officials have

given in the highway program from the beginning, and are giving

in this particular matter.

I congratulate you on your statement.

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I have only one comment. It is not

directly related to this statement, but I have noticed, Mr. McMorran,

particularly in some of the recent issues of some of the road magazines,

some of the road magazines issued by some of the roadbuilding organizations, not AASHO, some quite critical comments about what 

they charge as a slowup or delay in getting clearance as to construction, and as near as I can get from reading the articles, it is an indirect

attack on the Blatnik committee, the committee investigating the

Federal-aid highway program.

As I understand the gist of the articles, the effect of the hearings

that our subcommittee has held with regard to a number of States has

caused, first, the Bureau to tighten up on its inspection procedures,

and second, the States to do so and so some of the highway contractors

seem to be quite unhappy because of the tightened up standards, and

particularly about delays apparently in getting clearances sometimes

as to whether a road meets certain standards or not.

But the implication of the articles seemed to be an -attack on the

special investigating subcommittee.
24 STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS

I hope that AASHO, wherever it can—and I know you have close

relationships with the roadbuilders—will do everything you can to

see that the roadbuilders do not continue this line of attack by implications on the committee, because I have come to the conclusion, after

serving on it for 4 years, that it has served a very essential purpose

from the standpoint of the welfare of the citizens of this country and

the taxpayers.

And I personally realize that the attack is mainly from the roadbuilders, but nevertheless, I think that AASHO may be of some help

in getting the roadbuilders to see this in proper perspective.

They must know that without this committee some very shoddy

construction would have been performed.

Mr. MCMORRAN. I agree with you completely. I think that in many

cases this investigation was justified, and has turned up things which

we should have been aware of, but were not.

I think corrective measures have been taken in every instance I have

heard of, and I agree with you that AASHO's stand should be along

the line that you indicate.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Robison?

Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cramer tied down the toll road

problem as being a specific subject for study, according to Mr. McMorran's recommendation. I would like to do the same for the interstate reimbursement problem.

Would it be your idea, Mr. McMorran, that this should also be a

topic of study?

Mr. MCMORRAN. I believe the committee should investigate that

also yes, sir.

Mr. CRAMER. Do you feel it is essential that this bill be passed this

session, in order to get the study underway soon enough to review the

job by the termination date suggested?

Mr. MCMORRAN. It is our idea to proceed as fast as we can, in cooperation with the Bureau, naming the committee and outlining

what we believe should be gotten together.

Of course, we would be anxious to see the bill passed as soon as

possible.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. McMorran, thank you very much for giving us

your time this morning.

I thank Mr. Johnson, who seems to accompany some of the best

witnesses we have appearing before this committee.

And I also congratulate Mr. Johnson for the help that he has

given this committee many times.

Mr. MCMORRAN. I thank you gentlemen very much.

Mr. FALLON. I would like to ask unanimous consent to insert some

letters that I have received and the committee has received, first from

the chairman of the highway group of the American Municipal

League, and second, the Institute of Traffic Engineers, and another

from the Maryland Municipal League, on the same subject, and one

from my colleague from Florida, Congressman Fascell, and the mayor

of Savannah, Ga., and the mayor of Detroit, and the mayor of Sheboygan, Wis., and a statement from the National Limestone Institute.

(The letters referred to follow:)
STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS 25

INSTITUTE OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERS,

Washington, D.C., November 18, 1963.

THE PRESIDENT,

The White House,

Washington, D.C.

Mr. PRESIDENT: The National System of Interstate and Defense Highways

is scheduled for completion by 1972, and it is evident that systematic planning

and building to meet urban and rural highway transportation needs must continue beyond this point.

The Institute of Traffic Engineers, which numbers among its members virtually every professionally qualified traffic engineer of every major city, State,

and other public and private organizations in the Nation, is vitally concerned.

Probably no other organization and its members are closer to this problem.

In this connection, members of the Institute of Traffic Engineers attending

the recent annual meeting approved a resolution regarding a comprehensive

study of highway needs after the Interstate System is completed. The resolution, a copy of which is enclosed, calls upon the President and the Congress

to authorize and direct that such a study be instituted without delay, so that

it might be available by no later than 1967.

Speaking for the institute and its members, may I offer to you and the Congress our fullest cooperation in contributing to the implementation of this tremendously important study.

We hope that our resolution will give added emphasis to the recognition which

you have already expressed for a comprehensive well-planned urban highway

system.

Respectfully yours,

J. AL. HEAD, President.

Enclosure: Copy of resolution adopted at 33d annual meeting, Institute of

Traffic Engineers.

RESOLUTION REGARDING A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF HIGHWAY NEEDS AFTER THE

INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM IS COMPLETED

Whereas the system of Interstate and Defense Highways originally conceived

in 1944 is scheduled for completion within 9 years; and

Whereas a national program to continue the systematic improvement of highway transportation facilities, both urban and rural, is essential to further expansion of our economic and social well-being; and

Whereas such a program should be based on a comprehensive study of continuing and future highway transportation requirements as well as a review of

resources and responsibilities of the several levels of government for improving components of the highway network; and

Whereas development of a soundly conceived program requires substantial

time for technical study, public reaction and policy determination: Therefore be it

Resolved, That the Institute of Traffic Engineers call upon the President and

the Congress of the United States to authorize and direct that a comprehensive

study of urban and rural highway needs in the period following 1972 be instituted without delay so that the completed study be available to Congress and the

public by no later than 1967.

Adopted August 28, 1963, 33d annual meeting, Institute of Traffic Engineers.

MARYLAND MUNICIPAL LEAGUE,

College Park, Md., November 19, 1963.

Hon. GEORGE H. FALLON,

Member of Congress, House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN FALLON : It is my understanding that the Committee

on Public Works of the U.S. House of Representatives will hold an open hearing on proposed legislation to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to make a

comprehensive study of highway needs after 1972. A number of bills have been

introduced to accomplish this purpose.

The following resolution was adopted unanimously by the Maryland Municipal League at its recent convention:
26 STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS

Whereas a national system of highways and streets has been recognized as

absolutely necessary by all levels of government, the American Municipal Association, other national associations, State municipal leagues, and the public,

and it is generally agreed that these streets and highways should be financed

from highway user revenues; and

Whereas the State and Federal Government, however, have preempted highway taxes for this purpose, and the cities and urban communities—where the

need is greatest—have little, if any, authority to raise highway-user taxes; and

Whereas the highway system in urban areas, therefore is becoming more

deficient while the Interstate and Defense System and the State, primary and

secondary systems in rural areas are being brought up to high standards; and

Whereas it is officially estimated that the Federal highway trust fund will be

receiving revenues at a rate of $4,212 million in 1972, and that the Interstate and

Defense System will be completely financed at the end of that year, and it is

anticipated that Federal assistance to the State primary, secondary, and urban

extensions will be funded at an annual rate of $1 billion should be used in the

Nation's urban areas where the highway and major thoroughfare needs are the

greatest; and

Whereas the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads should immediately begin a study

to determine the extent of the need for a Federal aid urban system, set standards,

and recommend methods of financing for such a system: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Maryland Municipal League in convention assembled in

Easton, October 26, 1963, does hereby urge that Congress enact legislation directing the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads to begin such a study immediately of

the major thoroughfare needs in all the Nation's urban communities of 2,500

or more population.

The Maryland Municipal League strongly urges that language be included

in whatever bill will be approved by the committee to state that:

Such study shall include an examination of the need for a new Federal-aid

urban highway system encompassing those arterial, lateral, feeder, distributor,

and circumferential routes as may be required to furnish maximum utility to the

existing Federal aid systems within or adjacent to urban places of 2,500 or more

in population.

We would appreciate your favorable consideration on this matter.

Sincerely yours,

ALAN BEALS, Executive Secretary.

AB :es

cc: Congressmen Sickles, Morton, Long, Garmatz, Lankford, Mathias, and

Friedel ; American Municipal Association.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D.C., November 20, 1963.

Hon. CFIARES A. BUCKLEY.

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am glad to have the opportunity to present to the

Committee on Public Works my statement in behalf of the legislation authorizing

the Secretary of Commerce to make a comprehensive study of certain future

highway needs.

Today, with the enormous expansion in the number of automobiles in the

United States and the corresponding increase in use of the Nation's highways,

I believe the Congress should give careful consideration to an increase in the

allotted mileage of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.

In my own State of Florida, there is a pressing need for a large, limited access

highway between Tampa on the west coast and Miami on the east coast. I,

along with other members of the Florida delegation, introduced bills in the 85th,

86th, and 87th Congresses to provide for an increase in the authorized mileage

in the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Congress has

recognized that this problem cannot be effectively coped with on the local or

State level; that the magnitude of need and the corresponding cost requirement

make Federal participation mandatory.

At the same time, however, it is obvious that Congress should not consider

piecemeal additions to the Interstate System. Piecemeal additions could only

produce a haphazard conglomeration of hodgepodged concrete that would relate
STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS 27

itself only to local needs and not in any way service the original and continuing

congressional intent to construct a nationwide network of technically approved,

interconnecting serviceable highways.

The construction of a Tampa to Miami highway is of paramount importance to

the citizens of south Florida, as well as to those persons wishing to travel from

Tampa to Miami. Interstate 75 now ends in Tampa and for a distance of approximately 250 miles between the two cities, motorists are forced to travel

U.S. 41, which is an antiquated, narrow, two-lane highway with many bridge

abutments, narrow shoulders, deep canals at the sides, and rimmed by marshlands.

The seriousness of the traffic safety problems involved on U.S. 41, one of the

most heavily used highways in the Nation, has been recognized by a number

of prominent newspapers throughout Florida. The Miami Herald, the Miami

News, the Sarasota Journal, and the American Automobile Association Florida

Explorer are among those who have repeatedly expressed concern.

In addition, the chambers of commerce of many States and cities are on record

as supporting the inclusion of this highway link in the Federal Interstate System,

along with numerous municipal governments within Florida, the Florida State

Highway Department, and the American Automobile Association.

The Nation's defense is an important factor in this proposal. There are many

defense installations in south and central Florida whose primary objective is to

guard the southeastern approaches to the U.S. mainland. The highway network

in central and south Florida must be adequate to facilitate the ever-enlarging

military and defense industry traffic. This need was acute during the recent

Cuban crisis.

The Dade County Redlands agricultural area which supplies a large part of

the Nation's vegetable and fruit market is dependent on adequate highways to

transport fresh produce to the rest of the Nation. Construction of this highway

would accelerate and insure a steady flow of fruits and vegetables from the Redlands area to all points of the South, North, and Midwestern States.

I am sure that many of my colleagues have similar highway needs in their districts and States. I am hopeful that the committee will give early and serious

consideration to a sizable increase in the authorized mileage in the National

System of Interstate and Defense Highways.

As the first step in alleviating this need, I have cosponsored the legislation now

before the committee calling for studies of the Nation's present and future

highway needs.

I am pleased and gratified, Mr. Chairman, that hearings will be held on this

proposed legislation, and I wish to express my appreciation once again for the

opportunity to present this statement in support of the legislation.

Sincerely,

DANTE B. FASCELL, Member of Congress.

CITY OF SAVANNAH. GA..

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR,

November 18, 196$.

HOD. G. ELLIOTT HAGAN.

Old House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR ELLIOTT: It is my understanding on next Thursday, November 21, the

Committee on Public Works of the House will hold an open hearing on proposed legislation to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to make a comprehensive study of certain future highway needs after 1972.

While you are not on this committee, I wonder if you would ask them to include

In this bill specific directions to study urban highway needs. It is in places

like Savannah that the highway needs are particularly acute insofar as planning is concerned. It seems to me that the bill should include language such as

the following:

"Such study shall include an examination of the need for a new Federal-aid

urban highway system encompassing those arterial, lateral, feeder, distributor,

and circumferential routes as may be required to furnish maximum utility to the

existing Federal aid systems within or adjacent to urban places of 2,500 or more

in population."

Respectfully yours,

MALCOLM MACLEAN, Mayor.
28 STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS

CITY OF SAVANNAH, GA.,

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR,

November 18, 1963. Hon. W. J. BRYAN DORN,

Congressman from south Carolina,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. DORN : As you come from our neighboring State (my wife's home State) and have spoken in Savannah several times, I am taking the liberty of writing you about a bill that comes before a Committee on Public Works, of which

you are a member, this week. Your committee will hold an open hearing on proposed legislation to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to make a compre- hensive study of future highway needs after 1972.

It would seem to me that any such general bill should include specific directions to study urban highway needs. I am sure that J. Palmer Gaillard of Charleston, and the mayors of Greenville, Spartanburg, Greenwood, and Columbia would probably agree with me.

I would suggest that whatever bill is finally passed should include language such as the following:

"Such study shall include an examination of the need for a new Federal-aid urban highway system encompassing those arterial, lateral, feeder, distributor, and circumferential routes as may be required to furnish maximum utility to the existing Federal aid systems within or adjacent to urban places of 2,500 or more in population."

Respectfully yours,

MALCOLM MACLEAN, Mayor.

CITY OF DETROIT,

EXECUTIVE OFFICE,

November 19, 1963. To Members of the House Public Works Committee.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I have been informed by the American Municipal As- sociation that H.R. 8853, by Representative George Fallon, has been introduced and that hearings will be started on Thursday, November 21, on this bill and other resolutions which have been presented by other Members of Congress. The bill by Congressman Fallon and the resolutions do not make any specific reference to the needs of urban areas. It appears to me that a very fine job is being done with the assistance of Federal aid on the State trunkline system and the Interstate System. While no one questions the need to continuously improve these systems, I would like to recommend that any new study take par- ticular recognition of the fact that the county highways in urban areas, the extension of these county systems through cities, and the heavily traveled main thoroughfares in cities under the control of city government have been neglected in recent years.

The Federal and State highway departments have preempted highway-user taxes which leaves very little tax money available in the metropolitan areas for cities or counties to meet the growing demand for these very important arterial highways. It is my opinion that, in addition to looking at the long-range program of the interstate and State primary systems and devising ways and means of financing future work on these systems, Congress should take an immediate look at the heavily traveled thoroughfares in urban areas and provide increased appropriations to meet these urgent needs which exist today.

We concur in the need for the proposed study and will be glad to support this legislation if it is amended by introducing the following section:

"Such study shall include an examination of the need for a new Federal-aid urban highway system encompassing those arterial, lateral, feeder, distributor, and circumferential routes as may be required to furnish maximum utility to the existing Federal-aid systems within or adjacent to urban places of 2,500 or

more in population.

We would appreciate your support of this legislation, if amended, to meet our urban needs. We would also appreciate any effort on your part in providing amendments to the existing legislation which will recognize the growing prob- lem of inadequate arterial highways in urban areas.

Very truly yours,

JEROME P. CAVANAGH, Mayor.
I

STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS 29

CITY OF SHEBOYGAN, WIS., November 18, 1963.

Subject: Post-1972 interstate highway needs study.

Hon. CHARLES A. BUCKLEY,

Chairman, House Public Works Committee,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR Mn. BUCKLEY : Unfortunately, Wisconsin does not have a Representative

serving on your committee. However, it is my impression that every Member

of the Wisconsin congressional delegation is very much aware of the evergrowing importance of our Nation's highways.

Congressman Fallon's bill (H.R. 8853) deserves the enthusiastic recommendation of your committee on public works.

This bill would be even better if it included a specific direction to study urban

as well as interurban and interstate highway needs, and I urge that appropriate

language be added to the proposed bill before it is sent along to the House for

consideration.

Optimistically yours,

Emu, C. A. Muuss, Mayor.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. KOCH, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL LIMESTONE INSTITUTE, INC.

The National Limestone Institute, an organization of 554 limestone producers

currently operating in 34 States, wishes to go on record enthusiastically endorsing H.R. 8853. As material suppliers to the Nation's highway systems, we are

intimately connected with the day-to-day problems of traffic and construction.

We have seen our communities about us expand and prosper as their road

systems have improved. Unfortunately, all too many of us have seen the stifling

effect of inadequate roads in too many of our marketing areas. While we are

making tremendous progress in breaking the many existing bottlenecks, we have

long been concerned about the apparent complacency which exists in many areas

concerning future planning.

H.R. 8853, introduced by Chairman Fallon of the Subcommittee on Roads, is,

in our opinion, not only necessary but this Nation cannot afford to longer put

off action on this vital problem. Congressman Cramer also very ably pointed up

the critical nature of this problem at the time he introduced his bill, House Joint

Resolution 464, on the same subject.

Attached is a resolution which the board of directors passed at their semiannual meeting at the Sheraton-Blackstone Hotel in Chicago on June 11 of this

year, indicating their concern over the necessity to begin drawing now the plans

for our future highway programing. Congressinan Fallon put this in the Congressional Record on August 1, so I am using a reprint from the Record as a

means of making it part of this statement.

I might add that on the basis of numerous contacts at the State highway

level since then it is our belief that sufficient information is available to these

officials that it is conceivable that the report requested by the Fallon bill could

readily be developed prior to January 1, 1967.

We have recently studied some of the records and, as you can see from the

attached charts, to say nothing of the projections of those items, the ABC system

should have their current annual increment of $25 million continued. If this is

to be accomplished, it will, of course, require congressional action considerably

before the report on this bill is due.

We want to thank the chairman and the committee for the privilege of presenting this statement.

[From the Congressional Record, Aug. 1, 1963]

RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF THE NATIONAL LIMESTONE INSTITUTE, INC.

(Remarks of Hon. George H. Fallon, of Maryland, in the House of

Representatives, August 1, 1963)

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Record,

I include the resolution passed by the board of the National Limestone Institute,

Inc., of Washington, D.C., passed at its recent meeting in Chicago in connection

with planning for the national highway program after 1973:
30 STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS

"RESOLUTION ON THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY PLAN PASSED BY THE BOARD OF

DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL LIMESTONE INSTITUTE, INC.

"Whereas the Federal-aid highway program, created by a foresighted 84th

Congress in 1956, is progressing toward its 1972 completion through the coordinated effort of Bureau of Public Roads and State highway personnel with all

phases of the highway construction team; and

"Whereas such modern, well designed, quality constructed highways serve the

national defense and economy; and

"Whereas continuation of similar expanded highway programs on a soundly

conceived and economical plan subsequent to 1972 is in the best interest of a

growing nation; and

"Whereas such new, badly needed highway programs require considerable

planning to insure quality and economy: Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved, That we, the board of directors of the National Limestone Institute, Inc., in a meeting assembled in Chicago, Ill., this 11th day of June 1963,

urge the Congress of the United States to promptly begin consideration of the

national highway plan to take effect in 1973, immediately upon completion of our

current highway program."

Annual increases of motor vehicle registrations and mileage traveled

Year

Motor vehicle registration Estimated motor vehicle. travel

Number Percent increase Number Percent increase

1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963' 

47, 161,691 51, 913, 965 53, 265,406 56,279, 864 58, 589,863 62, 760,395 65, 153, 810 67, 131, 071 68, 299,408 71, 211, 868 73,589, 518 75,846, 532 79, 022, 916 82, 000, 000

458, 246, 000 5.6 491, 093, 000 2. 6 513, 581, 000 5. 7 544, 433, 000 4. 1 560, 857, 000 7. 2 603, 434,000 3. 9 627, 843,000 3.0 1 637, 000, 000 1.7 647, 004, 000 4. 3 700, 478, 000 3.3 718, 845, 000 2.8 737, 535,000 4.2 1 767, 000, 000 3.0 

7.2 4.6 6.0 3.0 7.6 4. 1, 1.5 1.6 8.3 2.6 2.6 4.0.

1 Estimate.

Mr. FALLON. I would also like to ask unanimous consent that the American Road. Builders be able to put their statement in the record,

which is not quite ready this morning.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

(Statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. Louis W. PRENTISS, USA ( RET. ) , FOR THE AMERICAN

ROAD BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION

(In re H.R. 8853, H.J. Res. 464, H.J. Res. 499, H.J. Res. 572, H.J. Res. 656,

LI.J. Res. 657, and H.J. Res. 791) relating to a study of national highway needs,

after 1972)

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the American Road Builders'

Association has consistently emphasized the importance of long-range planning

in highway construction programs, and has voiced this position by formal resolution at a number of our annual conventions.

Last May, we had the privilege of appearing before the Subcommittee on

Roads of the Committee on Public Works in support of the then-pending Federal-aid Highway Amendments Act of 1963. Although the subject was not relevant to the bill under consideration at that time, we took advantage of the opportunity to urge prompt attention to the extremely important question of the
STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS 31

Federal-aid highway program beyond 1972. At that time, we said that we felt

it was imperative that comprehensive studies be commenced in the near future

to consider the highway construction needs of our Nation in the decade beginning

in 1971. We recommended that these studies be conducted by the Bureau of

Public Roads in cooperation with the State highway departments and the results

of the studies reported to Congress at the earliest feasible date.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to support legislation calling

for a study of highway needs beyond the present cutoff date of 1972.

The success, to date, of the present interstate program demonstrates the wisdom of the long-range approach to highway development. Surely this concept

of long-range planning, backed by a sound plan of financing, should not be

abandoned.

When we stop to consider that the final construction contracts for the completion of the Interstate System should be let to contract in 1970, it becomes

apparent that the final design work and right-of-way acquisition should be

started no later than 1968, and that, right now, we should be making the last

of the studies on route locations. In other words, one phase of the job of building the Interstate System is almost completed right now. We are almost ready,

right now, to start in in the early phases of whatever program is to follow.

Unless we can arrive at some basic decisions about the shape and size of

the program, the highway industry and the State highway departments will

have no sound basis for long-range planning.

As recently as 1953, Federal-aid for highway construction amounted to no

more than a one-half billion dollars per year, as compared with $3.5 billion apportioned among the States for fiscal year 1965. The acceleration of the Federalaid highway program has been accomplished in an orderly manner, permitting

the State highway departments and the highway industry to gear up for the expanded programs.

Contractors, equipment manufacturers, and materials suppliers have made

large capital investments in machinery. Skilled manpower has been recruited

and trained.

This large investment in machinery and manpower has made it possible to

perform the tremendous job efficiently and economically.

If the highway industry were confronted today with the certain knowledge that

the Federal-aid program would be abolished or sharply curtailed in 1972, the

process of shutting down would begin immediately. New capital investments

would be held to the minimum. Young engineers would be encouraged to stay

out of the highway field and seek employment elsewhere.

On the other hand, if the industry can be assured of a continuing program

of substantial size, research and development activities will continue, new capital investments will be made, and the industry will be ready to meet the Nation's

needs.

The period of uncertainty, if extended, will be costly to the highway program,

simply because it inhibits long-range planning.

The economic impact of the Federal-aid highway program extends throughout

the national economy.

A recent study by the U.S. Department of Labor indicates that highway construction, in 1961, provided the equivalent of about 290,000 full-time jobs at

construction sites and an additional 360,000 jobs in producing, selling and transporting the construction materials, supplies, and equipment. These jobs have

an unusually wide geographic spread due to the dispersed nature of highway

construction and the dispersed location of the plants producing the principal

highway materials. Construction paychecks typically are cashed and spent

with little delay, so that each dollar paid in wages generates locally $4 in

spending.

In short, an interruption in the highway program would have serious economic effects on the highway industry and on the economy as a whole.

No doubt the proposed study will include new forecasts of motor-vehicle registrations and highway travel, as a basis for determining the types of highways

which will be needed in the future and the size of the program necessary to meet

the requirement. We see no leveling off of the historic upward trend in both

vehicle registrations and highway use but the present projections, which indicate

that highway travel by 1990 will be approximately double that of the present,

should be reviewed.
1

32 STUDY OF CERTAIN FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS

We need to know not only the gross volume of vehicle-miles which may be

expected but also the components. What percentage of the total vehicle-miles

will be accounted for by trucks and other heavy vehicles? What percentage of

the total increase will be concentrated in urban areas? What percentage of trips

will be short, local trips and what percentage will be longer intercity journeys?

Questions of this kind are not easily answered. The proposed study will be

complex and time-consuming. Therefore, an early beginning is essential.

It should be noted that the last scheduled apportionment for the Interstate

program, that for fiscal year 1971, will be made in the summer of 1969. The

deadline for congressional action to avert an interruption in the highway program should be considered in that context.

Considering the leadtime which is necessary for both highway departments and

industry to plan and organize for the execution of a national highway program,

congressional action to firm up the program during the session of 1967 would

be none too soon. And considering the many points of view which must be

harmonized, and the complexity of the legislative job, we must anticipate that it

will take many months for Congress to consider the report of the study and to act

on implementing legislation.

We strongly urge, therefore, that the 1967 deadline written into H.R. 8853

be retained.

Mr. FALLON. Thank you, all of you, for coming here this morning,

because we do like to see a group of people who are interested in the

progress of this highway program, which we feel is so important to

the safety and economy of this Nation.

And, if you will excuse the committee, we would like to now go into

executive session.

(Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the committee proceeded into executive

session.)