Mr. NOWAK. Would you recommend then setting aside the new bill, whatever it may come out as, a part of that, those funds for such a study? Mr. EBERLE. I think a small portion of the highway trust fund, funds from the Mass Transportation Assistance Act, plus the funds that are already now committed to studies should be utilized in a coordinated way. By no means do I suggest that this should require a great big new organization. There is no way any one system can provide the necessary services in any area. We need different kinds of interfaces, and an understanding of what they are so when this comes up next time for review you will have a better idea of what the policy and system interface ought to be. Mr. NOWAK. I want to thank you very much. I think that is what we are trying to do here, to get the necessary background and data, to hear different witnesses, to pull out bits and pieces, then hopefully we can put them together to arrive at some type of a balanced transportation system, and, of course, fund that system at appropriate levels. So I want to thank you for your testimony. It has been very helpful, and has added something which I believe a great number of the members have trouble with, that is trying to pull together and interface, as you have said, all the systems to provide the most cost efficient way of transporting people and goods. Thank you very much. Mr. EBERLE. I might suggest a way to get started on this would be to assemble a colloquium of experts to identify what specific studies are needed and to suggest the priority among them and their funding, staffing, and management. I can assure you that we would make the best people in our industry available for this planning purpose. Mr. NOWAK. Thank you. Mr. HOWARD. The gentleman from New York. Mr. WALSH. Thank you. Mr. HOWARD. The gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. HAGEDORN. I would like to thank Mr. Eberle for bringing his testimony to the committee, and I indicate that I concur with most of the recommendations made by your organization, and appreciate the opportunity of hearing your testimony. Mr. HOWARD. The gentleman fom Pennsylvania, Mr. Edgar. I am intrigued with the contents of your statement, where you spend so much time talking about the need for these studies. I very much agree with you that studies need to be done in the areas you indicate, in addition to studies looking into possible revenue sources for expansion of trust fund mechanisms, and an expansion of funding sources. for urban mass transit, rural mass transit, and other forms of surface transportation needs. One of the problems I have with studies is that we tend to get so much paper containing so many assumptions that we never get a chance to analyze or react to them. The question that I have is after you have your colloquium, and after you have gone through a study process, what is your suggestion as how you get that study information into some usable form so that this committee and other committees of the House can take it and draw some real legislation from it? Mr. EBERLE. I think the best way is to put it in the form of what I call a data bank. These are the things that we know have merit, and here is the cost of doing these things. As an example: Do you build roads to last for 20 years to meet projected needs or do you build only certain roads to that level? What is that cost of construction versus the cost of maintenance? How do you most efficiently use the dollars? I think if you had the results of these studies and demonstrations within, as I say, a 12- to 18-month period, you would have a data bank on systems, studies, experiments, and cost-benefit analyses, that would be valuable in deciding what your policy ought to be. Now, the policy decision based on that data bank are not going to be made any easier. The decisions are going to be made very tough, and there will be black hats and white hats, but the decisions will be better decisions than would be the case without the data and studies. I think you will find that no one policy will be good for all States. You are going to have to have a number of different, flexible policies, but I am not prepared to say what these are at this time, because I simply do not know. Mr. EDGAR. In your opinion, why hasn't a national transportation policy been developed? Mr. EBERLE. Probably, I do not have any easy answer, but I guess I have to go back to say a number of reasons. First of all, the tendency of the 1960's of committing ourselves to more things than we could do. People did not have to face the need to make choices. We could do everything, and therefore we did not have to have any tradeoffs. Second, land and clean air were not the same kind of issues in the 1960's and the early 1970's as they are today. Problems such as the fiscal crisis in New York City were simply put in the background to be solved sometime in the future. I think we have approached a time when we cannot do everything for everybody. We know that the car itself in certain areas, as in Los Angeles, has created problems. We now have to face up to fundamental questions such as: What is the right relationship between the States and the Federal Government on transportation? What is the relationship between transportation and land use? It is these kinds of issues that we simply have not had to face up to, and they are going to be very difficult for us to face up to, but we have to do it. Mr. EDGAR. One final question. In a time where there are very difficult fiscal problems not having adequate funds for our highway systems, in your statement you mentioned the need to continue the highway trust fund, and to protect that concept. The administration says just for the Interstate; others would project funding just for all highways and let public transportation, and mass transportation, and rail transportation fend its own way through general revenue process, thinking that it is inappropriate at this time to utilize this trust fund concept for some modes of transportation, but that it is a good concept to continue it for highways. Does not that put mass transit in a very difficult situation with the tight budget that we have? Mr. EBERLE. The answer is, on your premise, yes. But let me make a different suggestion. First of all, I do not justify the continuation of the highway trust fund on the basis that you have outlined. It is my contention, and our contention, that when you have user charges for a particular program, those user charges ought to be used for that program. If you are going to charge one group of people for one specific purpose, and then take that money for another purpose, I think it raises serious questions regarding the whole basis of taxation. Mr. EDGAR. Well, we have a basic disagreement, because I think we are all users of all modes of surface transportation, and if we broaden the umbrella, and put into a fund sufficient funds for both the highway systems and public mass transit systems, we could have an adequate system of trust fund funding for all of us who are users of all modes. I disagree with the philosophy that some others expressed on this committee, and which has been advanced by some witnesses in testimony-strict adhesion to the "user fund" concept. If the user concept were the only means of taxation in this Nation, we would have a very difficult time. You know, the whole trust fund concept is in question right now. We have a difference of opinion. I hope, however, that our end goal, and end result is the same, and that is to formulate a national transportation policy that integrates different modes of surface transportation. Mr. SHUSTER. Would the gentleman yield on that point? Mr. EDGAR. Yes. Mr. SHUSTER. The gentleman says we are all users of all modes, and I certainly agree with my good friend from Pennsylvania, that the people in urban areas are, as a generality, the users of the various modes. At least they have the various modes available to them. Would the gentleman agree that the vast majority of the people in America are not users of all modes, because they do not, nor will they ever, in some instances, because of their geographical location and population density, have available to them mass transit? Mr. EDGAR. I do not think that is quite accurate, because I think even in rural areas, with the increased cost of gasoline, that we will be seeing more and more bus systems arise that are mass transit systems in rural communities. Mr. SHUSTER. My question is-the thrust of it is, as a general statement is it not true that in rural America people generally do not have. available to them mass transit? Mr. EDGAR. It is only because we have spent the last 20 years investing large sums of money in our highway system, and I think we needed. both-highways and mass transit, either on highways or by other mechanisms. We needed the highway system, but we needed also some supplemental funds to initiate public transportation systems in rural America, and I think we can have both if our national transportation policy is not one or the other, but is interrelated. I would hope we could get away from saying "In my area or my community I do not have a rapid rail mass transit system; therefore, I do not want to support anyone else's mass rail transit system." I contend, too, that the people who ride that transit system in New York City, for example, help save gasoline and make it available for use by other people in other places. Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentleman would yield further. I agree that we must make a substantial effort to improve public transit in America, but I think that when we suggest that mass transit bus or rail is going, or could play a major role in moving the people of rural America, I think really that defies reality. Mr. EDGAR. Until we take seriously that possibility, it will never happen, and I contend that we need to take seriously what is efficient, and what makes sense for each region of our Nation, and realize that in each region of our Nation we need that mode which makes sense for that region. We need to provide the funds and flexibility to the States, so they can utilize their money in the best possible way, and not have highway people angry at mass transit people, or rural people angry at mass transit people, but all of us working together for a balanced system. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No further questions. Mr. HOWARD. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster? Mr. HOWARD. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Ambro. Mr. AMBRO. I have no questions. Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Eberle, we wish to thank you very much for your appearance and testimony. I am sure it will be of great value when we put together a surface transportation in the fall." The next witness before the subcommittee this morning is Mr. Langhorne Bond, secretary of the Illinois Department of Transportation, accompanied by the Hon. John D. Kramer, director, Planning, Programing, and Environmental Science, Illinois Department of Transportation. Mr. Bond, welcome to the subcommittee, and we wish to thank you for appearing here this morning. The subcommittee does have a copy of your statement, and without objection, that will be made a part of the record at this point. Please proceed as you wish. [The statement referred to follows:] STATEMENT OF LANGHORNE BOND, SECRETARY, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the future needs of our nation's surface transportation system and how these needs can best be met. As you know, surface transportation is especially important to Illinois. Our State stands at the hub of both the highway and railway systems in this country. It embraces the Illinois waterway which carries 60 percent of all barge traffic on the upper Mississippi River system. And it has, in the Chicago area, one of the largest urban mass transportation systems in the world. Illinois depends heavily upon its extensive surface transportation system, and we are keenly interested in maintaining and improving that system. We are pleased that, this year, we will be able to make substantial improvements to our highway network. Thanks to the foresight shown by this committee last winter in helping to enact H.R. 3786, which defers the State matching requirement and permits categorical flexibility in the Federal-aid highway program, Illinois this year will be able to undertake an $800 million highway program, the largest in the Nation. The improvements that will be made under this program will greatly improve the safety, comfort and efficiency of our highways. We will be able to widen and resurface 914 miles of highways, repair 251 bridges and construct 112 miles of new highways. This program will result in the employment of more than 75,000 Illinoisians. I am happy to be able to report to you that $368.1 million of this $800 million program for fiscal 1976 has already been awarded or is at the bidding stage. However, despite the excellent progress we have been able to make in improving our highway system-and that progress has largely been possible because of the work of this committee and the smoothly-running Federal/State partnership that has been established in the Federal-aid highway program-the outlook for surface transportation in Illinois is not altogether bright. Notwithstanding our substantial highway investments over the years, nearly 3,000 miles of highways on our 12,000-mile State highway system are still less than 24 feet wide or have a very rough surface. These roads were, for the most part, built prior to World War II, and little has been done to improve them since. The safety of our citizens demands that these roads be improved and maintained. In addition, our State's 10,500-mile railroad system-which is now and will continue to be of critical importance to the economic well-being of Illinois— is in deep trouble. Two major railroads serving our State, the Penn Central and the Rock Island, are bankrupt and a growing number of important rail companies operating within our boundaries are compiling enormous deficits despite the fact that they are not spending hundreds of millions of dollars that should be going to maintain their track and equipment. As a leading manufacturing and agricultural State, and one that relies heavily on the railroad industry itself as a source of employment, Illinois cannot tolerate any further decline in the rail sector. Neither, we believe, can the Nation as a whole, since it relies on Illinois railroads to move our State's huge corn and soybean crops to markets here and abroad. A growing number of States appear to share our alarm at the disintegration of this country's railroad network, and we understand the Congress may well address this problem in the very near future. We in Illinois have given substantial thought to the need to preserve the fine Federal/State relationship that now exists in the Federal-aid highway program, as well as the need to initiate significant and long-term Federal action to arrest and reverse the decline in the railroad industry. It is our conclusion that these goals can best be accomplished by extending and expanding both the current Federal/State highway partnership and the trust fund concept to embrace all modes of surface transportation. We believe this should be done by creating a unified surface transportation trust fund, which would provide both the longterm funding stability and the intermodal programing flexibility required to improve all modes of surface transportation in this country during the remainder of the 1970's and the 1980's. We would further recommend that the following programs be supported by the fund: An $8 billion a year highway program directed at completing the rural, intercity links of the Interstate System as quickly as possible coupled with a renewed and expanded commitment to renovate deteriorating portions of the Nation's existing highway and street system. A $2 billion annual program to upgrade railroad rights-of-way on an outgoing basis similar to the highway program. A $300 million annual program to operate and maintain the inland waterway system. A $1 billion annual turnback to the States, which would be permitted to use the funds turned back for any surface transportation purpose, including mass transportation. In the railroad sector, we believe the current Federal/State highway partnership should be adopted as the model for the new program to upgrade rights-ofway. The program should begin with an appropriate Federal agency designating a system of interstate railways linking major markets. These railways would be upgraded to a very high standard, comparable to those adopted for interstate highways. Following designation of the Interstate System, the Governors of the individual States should be permitted to designate most other existing rail lines as part of an intrastate or feeder-system. These lines would be upgraded to a lesser standard, comparable to that used for the Federal-aid primary and secondary systems. The railroads should then transfer title to the designated lines to the States. In return, the railroads should be relieved of the enormous maintenance and tax burden on these lines. Upgrading of the rights-of-way should be accomplished through grants from the trust fund to the States, which |