Page images
PDF
EPUB

STATEMENT OF SHEPARD A. MAGIDSON, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN E. KALUPA, DEPUTY CITY COMPTROL LER; ALDERMAN MARTIN SCHREIBER; ALDERMAN ROBERT LA BELLE; ALDERMAN GEORGE WHITTOW; CLARENCE BURNINK, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COORDINATOR; GEL GUETZKOW, DIRECTOR OF PRIORITIES

Mr. KALUPA. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John E. Kalupa, deputy for Mr. Virgil H. Hurless, city comptroller of the city of Milwaukee.

We would like your honorable body to meet several members of the Milwaukee Common Council who came to Washington, with your permission.

First, Mr. Alderman Martin Schreiber; Alderman George Whittow and Alderman Robert La Belle. We also have our capital improvement coordinator, Mr. Clarence Burnik, and Mr. Gel Guetzkow, our director of priorities. We kind of ganged up on you this morning. Mr. FALLON. We are glad to have you.

Mr. KALUPA. And Mr. Shepard A. Magidson, our administrative assistant, who will make the statement before your honorable committee. Mr. Magidson.

Mr. MAGIDSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is Shepard A. Magidson. I am the administrative assistant to the comptroller of the city of Milwaukee and am presenting this statement on behalf of Mr. Virgil H. Hurless, comptroller of the city of Milwaukee, and the Mayor and Common Council of the City of Milwaukee. Before I begin, I wish to express our appreciation for the opportunity you have given our city government to present its views to you.

The problem which concerns us is the continued development not only of a national system of interstate highways, but also of an adequate system of Federal-aid highways in urban areas. This is of concern to our city, and to every city, and to the Nation as a whole.

Our cities are faced with a variety of demands for local improvements. Expanding urban areas all over the country require, among other things, schools to educate a growing population, sewers to make the metropolitan areas livable, streets to provide access to new developments, and highways for general traffic relief.

The bill you now have before you is aimed primarily at the accelerated construction of a national system of interstate highways. Admittedly, the construction of such a system is essential to our national defense as well as to an efficient national economy. However, construction of such a system should not blind either the Federal, State, or local governments to other highway needs, many of which are equally important to the averall traffic picture.

The Interstate System is intended to serve through traffic primarily. However, in major cities, such through traffic represents an extremely small percentage of the traffic on the through routes themselves and an even smaller proportion of the total traffic load in the metropolitan area.

A recent traffic survey on one of our important bypass highways lying mostly just beyond the urban area limits, where a high propor

tion of through traffic is to be expected, indicated that only about 5 percent of the total traffic volume was in that category. The rest had either its origin or destination or both within the urban area. Almost three-fourths of the vehicles counted had both their origin and destination in the urban area.

It is therefore apparent that in considering any comprehensive highway program, access roads and major trafficways within urban areas should be included. All the efforts of the various levels of government should not be concentrated only on the Interstate System. There is little point in shaving minutes from intercity trips by building multimillion dollar superhighways if you cannot get off the highway when you get to your destination or if you lose hours on inadequate feeder highways at either end of your journey.

As I have previously indicated, our local governments are already sorely pressed merely to provide the basic essentials of life within urban areas. They do not have the financial resources with which to meet the requirements of the motor vehicle for constantly improving and expanding the system of major highways within our urban limits. To meet the urban need for major trafficway improvements, it is therefore essential for local communities to look for State and Federal assistance. Our State and Federal Governments are in a position to levy taxes on highway users and hence can provide revenue for the construction of adequate highway facilities. Indeed, our State and local governments have preempted these sources of revenue.

The major portion of the Nation's highway requirements is found in urban areas. We believe it fair to ask that the Federal Government include the major street system in metropolitan areas in its consideration of a National System of Highways. The bill now before you partially covers the situation by providing for Federal assistance on urban access roads connected with the Interstate System. On the other hand, the bill reported out by the Senate committee is particularly deficient in this respect. It makes no mention at all of urban feeder roads and provides no aid whatsoever for them.

Previous Federal legislation recognized the need for through highways in urban areas by providing that the Federal-aid primary system and the interstate system shall be located both in urban and in rural areas. Previous Federal acts on this subject have also been construed by the Bureau of Public Roads to permit the establishment of Federal-aid urban systems of highways. Such systems were established in many of our major cities and represented a series of interconnections and major access highways within them.

The 1954 Highway Act, we thought, was intended to broaden the system of Federal-aid highways within urban areas by including, among the streets eligible for Federal aid, extensions of secondary roads. This was a sound expansion of the Federal-aid system in urban areas, since it recognized that a farm-to-market road has two ends one at the farm and the other at the market. It also recognized that it is as important to get customers to the market as merchants. Unfortunately, recent reinterpretations of Federal legislation on the Federal-aid system in urban areas have restricted the use of Federalaid funds only to urban, primary, or secondary highway extensions. Thus, at the very time at which all the discussion of an expanding program of Federal aid to highways is taking place, we in our city at least

are suddenly faced with a 30 percent reduction in the number of miles of our roads eligible for Federal aid. Under the interpretation that is now the rule, urban highways remain eligible for Federal assistance only so long as a portion, no matter how small, remains in rural areas. If the urban area expands and takes in the rural portion—as is happening in the case of our city-the entire traffic artery drops off the aid system, even though its importance to the area has increased many times. Expanding urban areas are enveloping many entire highways, parts of which were formerly on the Federal-aid secondary system.

In rural areas, important lateral or bypass routes to relieve congested main highways are generally eligible for Federal aids. If similar bypasses, perhaps carrying many times the traffic, are located wholly within urban areas, no such aids can be given. The inequities here are obvious. The remedy is also apparent. Aids should be provided for major urban trafficways in their own right without regard as to whether or not they represent extensions of rural roads.

We feel that the provisions of law relating to the Federal-aid system of highways within urban areas should be clarified. We understand that this subcommittee now has under consideration another bill, H. R. 234, by which this could be done. However, we also feel that there is no time like the present for correcting the present situation. The 1955 Highway Act should specifically authorize the use of Federal-aid urban funds on major trafficways within urban areas, regardless of whether such trafficways consist of urban sections of Federal-aid primary highways or secondary highway extensions. We believe that the bill now before you should be amended to establish by law a Federal-aid system of highways in urban areas, just as a secondary system has been established in rural areas, and to permit the expenditure of Federal-aid urban funds on such a system.

We favor strongly the provisions of bill number H. R. 4260 which permit the inclusion as part of the interstate system of “lateral, feeder, and distributing routes and circumferential routes as may be required to furnish maximum utility of the system within or adjacent to urban areas, provided that one or both ends of such routes shall lie on a route of the system." This language is necessary in order to make the interstate system a usable one within urban areas. It is equally necessary that the primary and secondary systems, which are not being abandoned, be made similarly useful.

We sincerely hope that your subcommittee will consider this matter in preparing your version of the 1955 Highway Act. We hope you will likewise seriously consider this problem in dealing with other legislation intended to codify existing Federal-aid highway laws that is now being considered by your subcommittee.

Both Governor Kohler, who has already appeared before your subcommittee, and our State highway commission are aware of this problem and are sympathetic to any attempt to reach a solution. We request the permission of the chairman to include in the record a copy of a letter from the Governor on this subject.

Once more, I would like to thank you for your courtesy. I am sure that our city government appreciates the opportunity that has been accorded us. We hope that we have answered your questions by our statement, but if you have any more questions, I or one of my colleagues will try to answer them.

Mr. FALLON. Thank you very much, Mr. Magidson. the Governor's letter included in the record?

Did you want

Mr. MAGIDSON. Yes, sir. I would appreciate that. Also we have a copy of a resolution by the common council which authorizes our appearance here. If we could, we would like to have them both included in the record.

Mr. FALLON. With no objection, the letter of the Governor of Wisconsin and the resolution of the common council will be included in the record at this point.

(The letter of the Governor of Wisconsin and the resolution of the common council are as follows:)

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
Madison, Wis., May 19, 1955.

DEAR MR. HURLESS: This will acknowledge and thank you for your recent letter relating to State and Federal aid, urban system.

It is my understanding that the city of Madison and other Wisconsin cities are petitioning the United States Congress to reestablish their past policies relative to Federal participation in urban-highway financing. This action along with the proposed appearance of representatives of the city of Milwaukee before the House of Representatives subcommittee hearing on May 25, appears to be the best possible course.

It is my earnest hope that the Congress will respond to your request.
With best wishes,

Sincerely yours,

(Signed) WALTER J. KOHLER, Governor.

CERTIFIED COPY OF RESOLUTION

File No. 54-3678

Resolution directing city finance officers to pursue feasibility of obtaining Federal aid in construction of the new city hall, the health department, and schools in same manner as aid has been given Chicago, New York, and other cities in the Nation, and providing funds to send representatives to Washington, Madison, or wherever necessary (p. 3053) by recommending the adoption of the following substitute resolution, viz:

File No. 54-3678

Resolution requesting city finance officers to do all things necessary and required to secure a maximum of Federal and State aids available in the carrying out of its capital improvement program and related services and providing an appropriation for maintaining liaison with both the legislative and administrative branches of the Federal and State Governments.

Whereas the city of Milwaukee has approved a comprehensive continuing program of major capital improvements, including streets, highways, sanitation facilities, bridges, public buildings, schools, etc.; and

Whereas in many instances State and Federal aids are known to have been granted to other communities and entities of government to assist in such projects; and

Whereas there is an apparent need for closer cooperation between the legis lative bodies of local government with those of State and National Governments in the formulation of such appropriation bills and enabling legislation; and

Whereas the city comptroller's office has been designated under resolution file No. 49-1330 as the official financial liaison with those Federal and State agencies which administer programs under which grants and aids become available for the financing of city services and improvements: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the common council of the city of Milwaukee, That its president be and is hereby authorized and directed to appoint from its various standing committees, five aldermen to maintain direct liaison with members of the city's delegation in the State legislature and Congress of the United States in respect to these matters; and be it further

Resolved, That the city attorney, commissioner of public works, and the heads of all departments and bureaus are hereby directed to assist both the comptroller and the council delegation in the carrying out of the aforementioned assignments; and be it further

63235-55--52

Resolved, That there be and is hereby appropriated from the permanent improvement adjustment fund reserve (account No. 9815-950, project No. 7100) the sum of $5,000 to be credited to the governmental relations fund (account No. 9825-950, project No. 7300), and made available for the carrying out of the aforementioned purposes.

Substitute accepted and substitute resolution adopted March 22, 1955. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, Milwaukee, Wis.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a copy of a resolution adopted by the common council of the city of Milwaukee on March 22, 1955.

STANLEY J. WITKOWSKI, City Clerk.

Mr. DEMPSEY. Your concern is primarily with the provisions of the new bill with regard to the urban and secondary roads.

Mr. MAGISDON. That is part of our concern, but what we are mostly concerned with is the fact that the urban system has apparently been killed off altogether.

Mr. DEMPSEY. That is not my understanding. The matter before this committee may be somewhat misunderstood by the public because of many statements going out through different sources, but I assumed we were considering here a bill for $27 billion, approximately, for interstate highways which does not affect the other categories of highways. There is in that bill an item of $623 million for the other categories. It is the intention to cut it down, but we have not considered that, and I am sure when we do it will not come out that way.

Mr. MAGIDSON. What we are primarily concerned with is the reinterpretation of existing law that has taken place. There was a Federalaid urban system established and the Bureau has by memorandum specifically abandoned the system. That is what we are concerned with, and we think the time to correct it is in this bill.

Mr. FALLON. Mr. Magidson, do I understand you to say that the formula in the 1952 act was changed in the 1954 act for the urban system?

Mr. MAGIDSON. Not the formula, but the phraseology as it affects urban areas was changed. I thought at the time the 1954 act was passed that the system was broadened. But now the whole system has been reinterpreted and narrowed, or at least in our case it has been narrowed.

Mr. McGREGOR. Was this not the reason why it was changed? We found some urban areas were taking advantage of funds that should have been and were previously intended by the Congress to be used on the primary or secondary roads. Some of the urban areas were using the primary and secondary and urban funds to build streets in an urban area. That is the reason why we said that the continuation of that particular system within the corporate limits had to be paid for by the city.

Governor Dempsey and our distingushed chairman

Mr. DEMPSEY. You are speaking of the 1954 bill.

Mr. McGREGOR. Yes.

Mr. DEMPSEY. But what the witness is speaking about is that he is satisfied with the broadening of the language in the 1954 bill, but in this bill it indicates there is going to be a sharp reduction in those items we set up in the bill before that.

Mr. McGREGOR. If the gentleman will yield, some of us are hoping that this particular legislation will apply only to the Interstate Sys

« PreviousContinue »