National Highway Program

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI,
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
Jackson, March 9, 1955.

DEAR SENATOR: In regard to the bill introduced by you in the Senate, copy of which you have kindly sent to me, I am pleased to advise that I instructed our highway department to analyze and send their report to me. A copy of their report of March 8 has been sent to you which analyzes both Senate bill 1048 and Senate bill 1160.

If there is any further information you wish, please advise me.
With best wishes, I am,

Sincerely,

HUGH WHITE, Governor.

MISSISSIPPI STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT,
Jackson, March 8, 1955.

DEAR SENATOR GORE: We are forwarding you a copy of a report to our Governor, as requested by him.

DEAR GOVERNOR: Pursuant to your request of February 26, we have attempted to analyze Senate bill 1048 as introduced by Senator Gore, and Senate bill 1160 as introduced by Senators Martin, Chavez, and Case.

Senate bill 1048 would bring to Mississippi in Federal grants-in-aid the amounts listed here, with required State matching funds set opposite each :

Senate bill 1160 would bring to Mississippi in Federal grants-in-aid amounts listed here, with State matching-fund requirement set opposite each :

Interstate (amount to be determined by relative need of the various States from approximately $2 billion per year, with final authority for distribution to States resting in the authority of a corporate body of 5).

2,351, 330
410, 482

2,351, 330

410, 482

1,836, 044

There is no formula established in Senate bill 1160; therefore, the amount of Federal funds for the Interstate System that would come to Mississippi is indeterminate on any exact basis but, on what would be our best guess at this amount, it would run approximately $30 million annually.

It appears that Senate bill 1048 would almost ideally bring about a uniform development of the various highway systems in Mississippi and offer a considerable acceleration in the rate of bringing our various highway systems up to adequacy. It is our belief that any Federal legislation for highways can not ideally fit the problems of each State and, in addition, that to achieve an integrated system of highways that will be of the greatest service to our entire county, there must be some control at the national level.

We believe that both of these bills have considerable merit and that with elements of each bill incorporated into a bill would result in a program of highway development that could be adapted and point toward the objective sought by all.

With reference to the corporate body set up in Senate bill 1160, while not presuming to be experts in any manner in finance, we do not see why the accomplishment of bond issues if finally determined to be the proper finance method could not be handled by the Treasury Department. However this may be, we do not think that part of the corporate body is the most objectionable, but we think that the authority proposed in this bill should rest more in the Bureau of Public Roads, which organization has been tried and proven to be workable over many years of great progress in highway development.

It is our opinion that some formula, if possible, be established so that the distribution or apportionment of funds available to the various States would be accomplished in the legislation rather than some body determining the amount of money that each State should get from time to time. We realize that the establishment of a formula would be difficult, but it is believed that with the information that is available it would be possible to make an apportionment even though an exact mathematical formula could not be established. This method, we believe, would make possible at the State level planning on a more long-range basis than would be possible under the method proposed in this bill. There is also a provision in this bill that provides that all of the revenue from gasoline and fuel taxes in excess of a fixed amount of $622,500,000 annually be turned over to the corporate body mentioned in the bill for financing the Interstate System. We believe this is objectionable for the reason that as traffic increases on all of the systems there should be an ever-increasing amount of funds available for the improvement and replacement of these systems, which would be prohibited by this provision. In other words, we believe it would be much better if it is determined that a fixed division of funds for the purpose of financing the Interstate System is necessary that it be predicated on a division of the income rather than predetermining a fixed figure for either system. If there should be a fixed amount for any system, we believe this should be the Interstate rather than the other systems which will grow in mileage as well as in intensity of traffic.

We think that the provision for highway legislation on a basis of 5 years, as provided in Senate bill 1048, is very desirable and we should like to see it incorporated into any final legislation.

To try to condense our thinking into a few definite points, we would summarize by stating:

1. We believe that desirable legislation can come from a combination of the bills reviewed by more nearly following the provisions in Senate bill 1048 for the primary and secondary systems, and Senate bill 1160 for the Interstate System.

2. That if a corporate body is required to provide finances, its authority in matters other than the actual providing of funds be not greater than that of the Bureau of Public Roads.

3. That the relationship between the States and the Bureau of Public Roads remain on a partnership basis as it has existed.

4. That the provisions of Senate bill 1160 fixing the amount that can be provided for primary and secondary roads be removed and that a division of funds be made on a basis that will permit the amounts for these systems to increase with increased need.

5. That the apportionment of funds be fixed in the legislation.

If there are any other services you would have us render you in connection with this legislation, please advise us.

Chairman.
Commissioner.
Commissioner.
Director.

STATE OF MISSOURI,
EXECUTIVE OFFICE,

Jefferson City, March 28, 1955.

DEAR SENATOR GORE: I have your recent telegram inviting my views with respect to the ability and present inclination of our State to raise additional funds to match and implement proposals now being considered by the Subcom61030-55-65

mittee on Public Roads. I appreciate your courtesy in asking my opinion in this matter.

I have checked with the Missouri State Highway Commission and find that it presently has approximately $42 million available annually for matching Federal funds for construction purposes. It is my information that Senate bill 1048 would provide Missouri with an annual allocation of $44,507,000, and would require Missouri to put up matching funds of $37,765,000, which we would be able to do out of the $42 million that we have available, with some left over, as you can see.

With Senate bill 1160, which we understand will require 5 percent matching basis on Interstate allocation and a 50 percent matching basis on the remainder, it is our information that this bill will provide approximately $74 million annually for Missouri and require our State to put up $22,404,667 for matching purposes which, of course, we would have available out of our $42 million, with a considerable sum left over.

It seems to me that each bill is very desirable. However, if the money made available for the Interstate System under Senate bill 1160 and the money made available for the primary, secondary, and urban system, as provided under Senate bill 1048, could be incorporated into 1 bill, it would make it possible to complete our Interstate System in 10 years, which seems highly desirable and necessary to me, and at the same time carry on work on the other 3 systems which are also highly important. I find that under such an arrangement Missouri would receive $85,329,655; and, using the 5 percent matching basis on Interstate as proposed in Senate bill 1160, it would require Missouri to put up $33,738,332 to match which, of course, we would have available under our present financing program, which provides, as stated above, $42 million annually for matching purposes.

Another feature in Senate bill 1048, which I feel highly desirable but which should be increased, is the 10 percent transfer of funds between primary, secondary and urban. I feel that Missouri would be greatly benefited if this transfer of funds could be extended to 25 percent. As an example of what I have in mind: Our present 10-year program provides for the completion of the secondary system in 10 years, which will produce along with what is already built a system of approximately 22,000 or 23,000 miles of secondary roads. We expect to improve this system to a desirable standard with an annual expenditure on secondary roads of $11,800,000 a year.

Under Senate bill 1048 in order to match the available Federal funds, we would have to spend both Federal and State money, approximately $19,326,000 a year, which is more than we think is necessary to adequately handle our proposed secondary program. We believe that this additional money could be better used in our State on either the primary or urban system, and thus think that this 25 percent transfer of funds is highly desirable. We also know that more money is needed in some States on secondary roads than is made available under Senate bill 1048; so we highly recommend the 25 percent transfer allowance to be made so as to give each State a leeway in adjusting its financial program so as to do the most good possible in each State.

With kindest regards, I am

Sincerely,

PHIL M. DONNELLY, Governor.

HELENA, MONT., March 22, 1955.

Hon. ALBERT GORE,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Roads,
Senate Public Works Committee,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.:

Montana State highway revenues derived substantially from 7-cent gasoline tax, 9-cent diesel-fuel tax and gross-vehicle-weight tax on trucks, after necessary deductions for administration and maintenance cost leaves but $9,500,000 approximately for the matching of Federal aid. This is barely sufficient to match the allocations to this State under the provisions of the 1954 Federal Aid Highway Act. The vehicles license-plate taxes, as well as the property taxes for road and bridge construction go to the local governmental units for utilization on projects which are not adapted to Federal-aid highway requirements or procedures. There is no prospect of any increase being favorably considered here which would provide additional State or other local revenues for Federal aid highway construction above the State revenues now being received. Conse quently Montana is definitely opposed to any change in the Federal Aid Highway Act which would call for an increase in State matching funds. We favor

continuation of the 1954 Federal Aid Highway Act appropriations and matching ratios for the primary highway system other than the Interstate System, and for the secondary and the urban systems. We further favor such increase in the Federal appropriations for the construction of the Interstate System as may be necessary to expedite its completion at the earliest practicable date on the basis of not less than a 90-percent Federal to a 10-percent State matching ratio. J. HUGO ARONSON, Governor, State of Montana.

[Telegram]

CARSON CITY, NEV., March 8, 1955.

Nevada would be unable to match Federal funds provided in Senate bill 1048. The authorization contained in Senate bill 1160 much more satisfactory but believe that Federal matching share for Interstate System should be materially increased.

[Telegram]

CHARLES H. RUSSELL, Governor, State of Nevada.

CONCORD, N. H., March 15, 1955.

In response to your telegram concerning highway legislation I of course subscribe to the sentiments of the governors' conference as presented to you by Governors Kennon and Kohler. I believe my statement which you kindly permitted me to file with you will adequately cover my personal observations on the subject and I of course intended to convey the thought that the program I was suggesting would seem to be within the potential ability of the State to match.

LANE DWINELL,

Governor of New Hampshire.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,

Trenton, March 10, 1955.

DEAR MR. GORE: New Jersey has a density of traffic seven times the national average. Its highways are utilized as corridors by New England, New York, Pennsylvania, and other States. We believe our Federal Interstate System, plus pending application for several additional routes to be included under such classification, has need of special consideration due to the importance of these arteries not only to our own State but to the Nation. We had not understood that there was to be any change effected in respect to secondary road funds, primary or urban funds. These we believed were to remain on a 50-50 matching basis between the State and the Federal Government.

We further understood that the General Clay presentation contemplated the withdrawal of present Interstate allocations and in substitution therefor and in addition thereto the corporation would provide $27 billion, $3 billion of which was to service feeder roads to the Federal Interstate System and $24 billion to be allocated to classified Federal Interstate Systems on either a 90-, 95,- or 100percent basis. The importance of the Interstate System to the country as a whole and the great need of additional capacity and some new alinements in the present Interstate routes in New Jersey imposes an expenditure of such magnitude that it would be utterly impossible for the State to go along on any program which would impose on the State for such routes a contribution in excess of 5 or 10 percent for the total cost incurred. We favor this phase of the Clay report as being the only practical and effective means of accomplishing the program the essentiality of which is obvious.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT B. MEYNER, Governor.

MARCH 21, 1955.

Hon. ROBERT B. MEYNER,

Governor of New Jersey, Trenton, N. J.

DEAR GOVERNOR MEYNER: In the telegram which I addressed to you on March 7 on behalf of the Roads Subcommittee, I inquired specifically as to "the ability and present inclination" of New Jersey to "raise the additional funds to match and implement" S. 1048 and S. 1160. At that time I was unable to supply you with an official estimate of the amount which New Jersey and local governmental

units within the State would be expected to spend on highways during the next 10 years by the Clay report. I now have that estimate. It is $3,037,606,000. In view of the specific information now available with respect to the Clay plan, the committee would appreciae it if you would be so kind as to advise us of the ability and present inclination of the State of New Jersey to raise funds to match the additional funds provided in S. 1048 or to implement the plan proposed in the report of Gen. Lucius D. Clay.

As you must know, we are earnestly trying to develop a sound program and the information here requested will be very helpful.

Sincerely,

ALBERT GORE.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
Trenton, April 4, 1955.

DEAR SENATOR GORE: In order that I might provide you and your associates of the Roads Subcommittee with some authentic figures to reflect some of the traffic problems my State faces I have had the following compiled.

A breakdown of traffic counts of river crossings during 1954 between New Jersey and New York, and New Jersey and Pennsylvania evidences the great need for expanded facilities on interstate routes in New Jersey.