FLORIDA'S POSITION ON THE MAJOR ISSUES OF THE
1973 FEDERAL AID HIGHWAY ACT

A.

Funding Level

Florida recommends the following funding levels based on a Highway Trust Fund annual commitment capacity of $7 billion:

This full-funding approach will implement the Federal commitment to the 70/30 matching formula. Interstate funding should be continued at the existing 90/10 ratio.

There should be a reduction in program categories, and constraints within program categories, to permit the states to more adequately meet their diverse needs.

Every effort should be made to complete the Interstate system as soon as possible. States should be permitted to substitute other Interstate highway projects anywhere within the state for those segments that are not essential Interstate connections and that cannot be completed. Substitution provisions must be subject to the approval of the Federal DOT Secretary, with the calculation of cost being on a dollar-for-dollar basis at the time of transfer.

The central role of the states should be maintained because they are in the best position to coordinate multi-modal planning and programming activities, as well as budgeting and fund balancing, toward a stable, unified work program.

E. Bus-Oriented Mass Transportation with Monies from the Highway Trust Fund

There should be permissive legislation to allow the use of urban and rural highway funds for bus-oriented mass transportation. However, these funds should not be used for bus system operating deficits. The new act should not permit the use of highway funds for rail transit at this time.

Any formulas, other than Interstate, that are changed or proposed should be based on the factors of urban population and highway transportation tax collections. Such formulas should insure that a state will receive not less than 80% of the taxes that it generates for the Highway Trust Fund.

February 19, 1973

Florida Department of Transportation

RESOLUTION
of

FLORIDA CONCRETE PIPE INSTITUTE, INC.

BE IT KNOWN THAT:

WHEREAS, the FLORIDA CONCRETE PIPE INSTITUTE, INC., represents the producers of concrete pipe within the State of Florida, and

WHEREAS, the members of this Institute and representatives of related industries are vitally interested in the utilization of Highway Trust Funds in the strategic area of highway construction, and

WHEREAS, Senate Bill S-502, "The Federal-Aid Highway

Act of 1973" provides for the completion of the Interstate Highway System and proposes annual spending for rural primary highways, rural secondary roads, urban extensions of primary and secondary highways and urban system highways, and

WHEREAS, there is a critical need within the State of Florida for improved and additional highways, and

WHEREAS, it is essential that Highway Trust Funds be expended for the acquisition of rights-of-way and construction of interstate, primary, secondary and urban highways and not for rail mass transit construction, bus purchases or public conveyance acquisition.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the FLORIDA CONCRETE PIPE INSTITUTE, INC., that this Institute urges the Congressional Delegation of the State of Florida to support that portion of Senate Bill S-502, "The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973", which provides funds for the construction of highways and that the Congressional Delegation of the State of

Florida oppose that provision of the proposed Act which

provides for the acquisition of buses and public conveyance vehicles, and requests that the Congressional Delegation

of the State of Florida oppose any amendment which would per

mit the Highway Trust Funds to be utilized for rail mass

transit construction, and

IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution

be forwarded to Florida's United States Senators, the Honorable Lawton M. Chiles, Jr., and the Honorable Edward J. Gurney, and Florida's United States Representatives, the Honorable Robert L. F. Sikes, Honorable Don Fuqua, Honorable Charles E. Bennett, Honorable William V. Chappell, Jr., Honorable Louis Frey, Jr., Honorable Sam M. Gibbons, Honorable James A. Haley, Honorable C. W. "Bill" Young, Honorable Paul G. Rogers, Honorable J. Herbert Burke, Honorable Claude Pepper, Honorable Dante B. Fascell, Honorable William Gunter, Honorable William Lehman, and Honorable L. A. Bafalis, in order that they may

be advised of the interest of the FLORIDA CONCRETE PIPE INSTI

TUTE, INC., in the expenditure of Federal funds for the construction of highways and the opposition of this Institute to the utilization of Highway Trust Funds for rail mass transit construction or the purchase of buses or public conveyance

vehicles.

PASSED AND CERTIFIED AS TO PASSAGE this 6th day of February, A. D. 1973, Lakeland, Polk County, Florida.

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. GRAHAM

OF BOSTON, MASS.

Re: S. 502

For at least thirty-five years The Congress and

the agencies of the Federal Government have been acting in a variety of ways to encourage people to drive automobiles.

From the enormous federal subsidies granted at the behest of the Highway Lobby to the recent ruling of the Internal Revenue Service that finance charges on oil company credit cards are tax deductible, we have had an accumulating pile of encouragements for people to drive, drive, drive.

While it is true there are some benefits from a national highway system, all too often there is a tendency to look upon the building of highways as necessarily GOOD and to omit the more accurate assessment of multiple highway construction as of DUBIOUS SOCIAL BENEFIT.

Consider, for instance, that the TOTAL COST of our highways has never been computed. In the matching-fund game, States have plunged far too deeply into debt to partially pay for construction of highways. States are now paying yearly penalties in ever-increasing highway maintenance costs at a time when they are severely pressed for funds to handle the costs of fundamental government programs.

But financial disaster hasn't been enough to overthrow the myth of the goodness of the automobile, the most expensive and

inefficient form of transportation ever devised.

Over the decades, psychologically and socially the

automobile has been as damaging as we now know it to be environ

mentally.

The social costs have been even greater than the

economic costs.

For a public educationally unable to resist the lures of the automobile status symbol has diverted scarce savings to the purchase of unnecessary cars to the detriment of prudent investment in housing and other socially desirable outlets. Many of the nation's ills have been steadily nourished on the social instability embodied in the excessive production and use of automobiles.

The problem now is how best to alter the bad policies of the past before we asphyxiate the population and black-top our cities.

Here are some suggestions:

1. Separate the concept of the Highway Trust Fund from the concept of Mass Transit Aid.

Simple justice necessitates the imposition of a User Tax on automobiles that is sufficient to cover all the costs to society that the continued use of automobiles visits upon the nation as a whole. The tax should be heavy enough to compensate for the damage to the environment as well as all the financial burden to the federal government (Department of Transportation, etc.) and to the states (maintenance costs). The Congress should think in terms of a minimum tax on automobiles of $2,000 at the