Mr. DEMPSEY. Thank you, Commissioner Moses. Without objection, the prepared statement of Commissioner Moses will be made a part of the record at this point. (The prepared statement of Mr. Moses is as follows:) The notice of the scheduled hearings on road legislation indicates that the nembers of this committee are agreed upon the desirability of an accelerated national highway program and that the question is not of need but of method. Of the questions prepared by the committee, the most basic is that of "pay-asyou-go" compared with "pay-as-you-use." The record of progress on the Federalaid highway program is ample evidence that "pay-as-you-go" does not work. I do not minimize the progress that has been made and freely admit that without past Federal aid the entire highway system would not have advanced as far as it has and would be in many States at a standstill. The fact remains that $27 billion is required to complete the Interstate System alone and that at the present rate of appropriations it will take 50 years to bring the highway system to a point where it will meet today's traffic needs. "Pay-asyou-go" was the policy of New York State for the last decade and was abandoned by Governor Dewey last year in favor of a highway bond issue because intensive study showed that the State was not keeping up with highway needs and was falling behind each year. "Pay-as-you-go" is fine in theory, but it does not recognize that highways are an investment for the future, that the right-of-way becomes a permanent asset of government, and that many of the physical improvements have a very long life. I see nothing wrong with placing a part of this cost upon future users. This is particularly true in the more populous States and urban areas because if the improvements are not made today the expansion of residential and commercial development will make them impossible in the future. As open land is subdivided and built upon and resident populations grow, the moving of people off rights-of-way becomes more and more difficult, expensive, and unpopular. Insofar as Federal aid is concerned, I recommend that major emphasis be placed upon the completion of the interstate highway system with modest increases in the amounts allocated for the Federal-aid primary and secondary systems. The interstate system connects all major cities in the country, is most important from a defense standpoint, cannot be properly coordinated and progressed without Federal supervision, and carries the greater part of interstate and inter-regional commercial and passenger traffic. It is because of its importance to the national economy that I recommend Federal Government participation be not less than 90 percent of the cost. The primary and secondary systems,' which are of more local value and character, should continue at the present level which calls for 50 percent by the Federal Government and 50 percent by the State. It would be both impractical and undesirable to establish a separate engineering department of the Bureau of Public Roads to prepare plans and supervise construction of the interstate system. This would be a duplication of existing State highway departments which have competent personnel, are familiar with local problems, have the wealth of background material necessary to carry out an enlarged program in an efficient and orderly manner, and have local support. The Bureau of Public Roads in its supervisory capacity, by fixing standards and by insuring orderly progress of the entire program, will accomplish all that is necessary on the Federal level. With respect to the extent and means of financing, I am disappointed that none of the bills so far before Congress encourage the expansion of the interstate system through revenue bonds issued by local public authorities established under State law. The complicated credit system proposed in the administration bill seems to me to be unworkable, and to the extent that it gives credit for past completed projects, controversial, undesirable, and unnecessary. These arteries are now being paid for out of user taxes because of their convenience and saving in time and money and have not been an expense to the State. I would go further and recommend that, to the extent possible, the interstate system be expanded as toll facilities, and that in borderline cases either a direct grant or a guaranty against deficit be given to make possible the construction of toll facilities which cannot be financed in the private market without these 1 My comment which refers to Federal primary and secondary systems is intended to include the urban system to the extent that it is not a part of the Interstate System. additional assurances. There is nothing unusual about such a procedure. It is the basis for the financing and sale of bonds of the public housing authorities. State guaranties were necessary in the construction of the New York State Thruway, and they have been provided in one way or another by many States and Counties throughout the Nation. I am satisfied that some 4,000 miles of the interstate system at a cost of roughly $5 billion, including many sections which have been found not feasible under present conditions, could be carried out in this way. The cost, if any, to the Government or one of its agencies would be nominal and it would reduce substantially the amounts to be raised both by the States and Federal Government for highway purposes. I do not favor a Federal public corporation having the right to build toll facilities on a national basis. This is a field which should be left to the States and their subdivisions. There is no advantage in having a Federal corporation do this under the provisions of Senate 1573, since the revenue bonds would not be a general obligation of the corporation proposed under this bill and would be supported only by revenues from the facilities. This could be done just as well at the local level. On the other hand, I recommend a Federal public corporation which would have as its basic purpose the financing of a part of an enlarged highway program through the guaranties or grants to borderline toll facilities, and to provide the capital expenditures required for the interstate system. On the assumption that about $5 billion of the interstate system could be financed as toll projects, this corporation would have to raise about $20 billion. This could be financed with 30-year bonds amortized through annual appropriations of a part of the anticipated income from the Federal gasoline tax. There would remain sufficient income from the tax to permit an expanded Federal-aid program for primary and secondary highways and for primary and secondary highways in urban areas. Legislation for this purpose should not fix Federal aid at the present level. It should permit a further expansion of the program to the extent deemed advisable by Congress. It is important that the congressional limitation of 40,000 miles for the Interstate System be modified to permit the Secretary of Commerce in his discretion to include important urban feeders and extensions in the Interstate System without regard to the limitation. All but 2,400 miles of the Interstate System have been designated by the Secretary as required by law and there remain only 2.400 miles which can be allocated for the Interstate System in urban areas and for feeders and extensions of this system. This is not enough to meet the needs of the entire Nation. When this 40,000-mile limitation was established many years ago, the purpose was to provide an interstate system connecting the major cities and it did not take into consideration the needs for passing through cities and of providing suitable connections and extensions from the through routes to the centers of traffic. It is now an established fact that the heaviest traffic is between cities. The Interstate System will not serve its purpose if it does not provide adequate connections with the most populous areas. Mr. DEMPSEY. The committee will be adjourned, to meet tomorrow morning at 10 a. m. (Whereupon, at 12: 10 p. m. the committee adjourned until 10 a. m. the following day, Tuesday, May 10, 1955.) NATIONAL HIGHWAY PROGRAM TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1955 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:05 a. m., in room 1302, New House Office Building, Hon. John J. Dempsey presiding. Mr. DEMPSEY. The committee will take up H. R. 4260. The first witness is George T. McCoy, State highway engineer of the State of California, also the president of the American Association of State Highway Officials. Mr. McCoy. Mr. Chairman, I have a very bad cold, and I am going to ask Mr. Rex Whitton, chief engineer of the State of Missouri, also a member of the executive committee, to read the presentation that I would have made had I been able to-if I have your permission. Mr. DEMPSEY. I am very sorry you have a cold, Mr. McCoy, but we will be happy to hear from Mr. Whitton. Mr. WHITTON. Mr. Chairman, I am Rex Whitton, chief engineer of Missouri and a member of the executive committee of the AASHO. Mr. DEMPSEY. We are very glad to have you with us, Mr. Whitton. We may receive a call to go to the House. We have a very important bill up over there. But if we do, we will try and come back, if it is agreeable to the other members, immediately after we make sure we are recorded as being present and continue this hearing, because we would like to get through today with the witnesses scheduled for today. Many of you probably want to return home. If you want to stay over another day, it is perfectly all right. Mr. WHITTON. Thank you, sir. STATEMENT OF GEORGE T. McCOY, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY OFFICIALS, ACCOMPANIED BY REX WHITTON, CHIEF ENGINEER OF MISSOURI AND MEMBER OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY OFFICIALS Mr. WHITTON. I am appearing for Mr. McCoy, who is president of the American Association of State Highway Officials, an organization composed of the State highway departments of the 48 States, the District of Columbia, and the Territories of Hawaii and Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Public Roads. Mr. MACHROWITZ. Mr. Chairman, we just had a quorum call. I think it would probably be better to hear the whole thing in its entirety, not to be cut off in the middle. Maybe we should suspend. Mr. DEMPSEY. I agree with you. If you gentlemen do not mind, we will suspend now and return here just as quickly as we can, and continue. I do not think we will have another interruption after this one. We will take a 15-minute recess. (Whereupon, at 10:07 a. m., the committee was recessed until 10:30 a. m.) Mr. DEMPSEY. Mr. Whitton, you can start now. Mr. WHITTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, again I am appearing here as a representative of Mr. McCoy, president of the American Association of State Highway Officials, an organization composed of the State highway departments of the 48 States, the District of Columbia, and the Territories of Hawaii and Puerto Rico, and the Bureau of Public Roads. The American Association of State Highway Officials is made up of the organizations which have had the responsibility of executing your Federal-aid highway programs, and the only organizations testifying before you who are partners with the Federal Government in this venture. We take great pride in our record. We are the acknowledged world's leader in the development of highway design standards, construction specifications, and highway-materials specifications. Membership in our association is by State highway departments, rather than by individuals, and there are no associate nor commercial memberships nor any contributing agencies, other than the member departments. We carry on our activities through our several administrative and engineering committees. We have collectively developed the design standards and the specifications that are adopted by the Bureau of Public Roads in administering Federal-aid highway programs. Cooporation of this kind has resulted in the Federal-aid highway program being one of the finest examples of Federal-State cooperation. Our association held its 40th annual meeting at Seattle, Wash., last November, at which time the chief administrative officials of the member highway departments adopted a policy statement to serve as a guide for legislative testimony that might be given by association officials during congressional hearings held this year. Our constitution provides that an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the membership is required to adopt legislative policy. The voting for the Seattle policy statement was 46 departments in the affirmative, 1 in the negative, and 4 did not answer the roll call. and the Bureau of Public Roads was recorded as not voting. The policy statement expressed the gratitude of the association to the President of the United States for his progressive proposal for the advancement of the highway improvement program to more nearly keep pace with the expansion of the American economy and pledging our cooperation to the President, his Highway Advisory Committee, the governors' conference highway committee, and the Congress in assembling data and information necessary for the formulation of a program of action. The policy statement also proposed that Federal-aid moneys for the secondary and the urban and primary systems, less the interstate portions thereof, should be continued in at least the same amounts as at present. |