Mr. McCoy. There is no limit on the width we can acquire. We don't always acquire that much. Senator MARTIN. I understand that, but you have unlimited authority? Mr. McCoy. That is correct. Senator GORE. As I understood the testimony this morning it is proposed that 250 feet be the minimum. Mr. McCoy. I think that is an approximation. I do not know what the minimum is that is proposed. I know that we do not always secure that much for the right-of-way, even with an 8-lane freeway. We build them eight lanes wide in places. Senator GORE. I suppose your organization realizes that the acquisition of a right-of-way from 250 feet up would destroy the commercial development on part of this 40,000 miles of the Interstate System? Mr. McCoy. That is correct. Senator GORE. What would be the cost? Has your organization estimated the cost of such a right-of-way? Mr. McCoy. If they have I do not have the figure, Senator. Senator GORE. That is one of the questions that I have indicated to the Secretary of Commerce that we would like to have information on. Will you continue? Mr. McCoy. If the program is to be expedited and be developed at a uniform level through all of the States at one time, the right of entry on the necessary right-of-way for construction will have to be facilitated. It is assumed the several States will improve their respective right-of-way laws, but it will be time-consuming. In building the Interstate System, the design standards and the need for access control will vary considerably with the terrain, population density, and land-use development. These same factors will call for a wide variation in design standards to adequately care for the traffic need. If an interstate program is financed substantially at Federal cost and completion be scheduled within a certain time, the Congress should give much thought to an apportioning feature which will assure that every State will get the proper amount of moneys to build their respective parts of the Interstate System to proper standards and at the same rate of development. We believe that, in the light of past performance, if the Congress should consider an accelerated program on the Interstate System, financed substantially at Federal cost, it should be administered by the Bureau of Public Roads and should be constructed by the highway departments, with the State highway departments assuming the obligation of maintaining and policing the system at State expense. Senator BUSH. You speak of highway departments twice in that statement. Does that mean State highway departments? That is in the next to the last sentence. Mr. McCoy. It should be constructed by the State highway departments and then the State highway departments assuming the cost of maintaining and policing. Senator BUSH. In other words, it is the State highway department in both cases? Mr. McCoy. Yes, sir. Senator GORE. Do you mean by this statement to indicate that you would prefer the Bureau of Roads to the proposed corporation? Mr. McCoy. As I understood from reading the bill, the corporation would operate through the Bureau of Roads. Maybe I misunderstood that. That is what I understand. Senator GORE. You do not mean to take a position here for or against the establishment of the corporation? Mr. McCoy. No, sir. I am taking no position on that one way or another. Senator MARTIN. As I understand it, you would want the highway departments of each of the States to do the construction of the roads even if financed by the Federal Government, and then to be policed and maintained by the various States? Mr. McCoy. Yes, sir. Senator MARTIN. Thank you. Mr. McCoy. We, as an association, have long been advocates of more money for highways, and we are probably in the best position of anyone to know the seriousness, magnitude, and cost of highway deficiencies. We favor any sound Federal-aid highway legislative proposal that will make more moneys available for highways, and we favor a balanced program making moneys available for the several Federal-aid systems. Federal-aid contributions to the total highway construction program over the past years has. not constituted a big percentage of the total, but it has exerted a stabilizing and healthy influence on the operation of the highway departments, and has been a big factor in uniformity of highway practice. Public Not too many years ago we usually had to preface our testimony, or any statements, by offering factual data that would show that we were losing the battle in providing adequate highways. We have made progress, for at the present time public opinion now has become highway conscious and the motor users and manufacturers are seeing the manifestations that we were aware of sometime ago. opinion is now accepting the fact that our highways are lagging behind the demands made upon them, and this public opinion is now wanting to do something about it. In the democratic form of government, this indicates a healthy condition and a normal development. We wish, however, for the record, to show some factual data as to the seriousness of the highway need. We have in use in the United States at this time approximately 48 million automobiles, 10 million trucks, and one-quarter of a million buses, and the present trends indicate a possible 81 million motor vehicles in use in 10 years. If all of the motor vehicles in use in the United States today could be fastened bumper to bumper they would form a continuous line of sufficient length to reach from the earth to the moon. We have a motor vehicle for every 700 feet of highway, road, street, or lane that exists in the United States. We are the owners of the world's largest and best highway system, although it is ailing and lagging behind the demands we place upon it. Our expanding economy and everyday pattern of life is based upon the motor vehicle, and the overall motor industry accounts for oneseventh of the Nation's gross products. The motor vehicle is no longer a luxury but an absolute necessity, and the bumper-to-bumper congestion between urban centers, the queueing up of long lines of traffic on our obsolete primary highways, and our dusty and rough farm-to-market roads are exacting a heavy economic toll, and furnish everyday proof that the motor vehicle use has outdistanced facilities upon which to conveniently and safely travel. Several things contribute to this condition: First, there was the great depression of the thirties, then the World War II period when roads were considered expendable, and the postwar period when the dollar has devaluated more than 50 percent, as far as buying highway construction and maintenance is concerned. To meet modern motor demands, a new highway must be wider, thicker, and straighter; therefore, necessarily more expensive. Since World War II we have seen a doubling of traffic with a resulting doubling of revenue available for highways, but we have also seen the doubling of construction and cost of maintaining highways, so our relative financial ability has remained static, and sufficient funds are presently not available to provide modern facilities commensurate with the traffic increase and traffic demands. Referring again to the gross national product, we find that since World War II we have been putting only about one-half as much of the gross national product into highway construction as we did in prewar days. We also find that the typical user is spending only about 10 percent of his motor transportation dollar for highway construction. We find that the typical user is spending more for motor vehicle insurance premiums than he is for highway construction. In reality we are operating our large fleet of motor vehicles over the same highway system that we had before World War II started. There have been some notable improvements, however, and considerable rehabilitation and resurfacing which can only be considered as everyday stopgap work. Section 13 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1954 requested the Secretary of Commerce to prepare an estimate of need for the nation's 3.350,000 miles of roads, streets, and highways. The State highway departments cooperated with the Bureau of Public Roads in this undertaking. Please bear in mind that this is an estimate and not a proposed program, and it is the first time that an attempt has been made to place a dollar value upon the total highway needs of the Nation. The estimate was made on the basis of providing an Interstate System for the indicated needs of 1974 and for all other roads and streets for the needs during the next 10 years. I refer to the $101 billion estimate used in the Clay committee report to the President that was released to the public in January of this year. This comprehensive estimate placed the total needs on the Federal-aid systems, including the Interstate, at $68 billion, and currently we are spending something less than $3 billion annually on the task. It is obvious that it will take approximately 25 years or so to finance, at the current rate of spending, the construction that is needed during the next 10 years; and with our dependence upon the motor vehicle, and with the current rate of growth of the motorvehicle use, we cannot take that length of time to build up our highway system. It is the considered opinion of our association that failure to build our highway system to match our expanding economy will result in the decline of highway traffic; whereas, growth is needed for the increased goods and services. When this happens, our present expanding economy will start to contract and our standard of living will decline. Highways and motor vehicles are truly the keystone of the American way of life. We are grateful to you for the confidence you have placed in our association by accepting our counsel regarding the Federal-aid highway program over the years. We feel we are qualified to advise the Congress as to the seriousness and magnitude of the highway problem and in suggesting the type of program required, but, being engineers and highway economists, but not financiers, it would be presumptuous on our part to suggest the financial plan necessary to provide funds. It is, however, our firm conviction that some sound financial plan must and can be found to achieve the type of program which is now needed. Recently two Senate bills with reference to roads have been introduced, S. 1048 and S. 1160. In reality there is no conflict, as S. 1160 provides for the Interstate System and S. 1048 provides for the other Federal-aid systems. It is apparent that the interstate portion of S. 1048 will not suffice, inasmuch as it would require more than 30 years to build a system so vital to the Nation's economy, but it is believed that the other amounts represent the needs of the other Federal-aid systems. Both bills have items which are controversial, but which should be resolved so as to accomplish the objective of providing Federal funds and leadership to assist the States to build a system of highways needed for the economy and the defense of this country. It is believed that the differences can be reconciled in harmony with the American Association of State Highway Officials statement of policy made last fall in Seattle, Wash. We have, over the years, learned to respect the good judgment of you gentlemen in giving the Nation a good balanced Federal-aid highway program. We feel that, after you have analyzed the problem and considered the resources available, you will find a sound solution which will be agreeable and acceptable to all, and sensibly providing the program which we have recommended to you. We have conveyed to you faithfully and accurately the spirit of the resolution adopted by our association. It may well be that you might wish our views on alternate plans which may be suggested during your deliberations. In such event, we will attempt to obtain and present to you promptly the recommendation of our association on any questions you might desire to present to us. We thank you for the privilege and opportunity of appearing before you and making this statement, and we pledge our full cooperation in helping execute any program developed and enacted by the Congress. Senator NEUBERGER (presiding). Thank you, Mr. McCoy. Are there any questions? Senator Bush? Senator BUSH. On page 3, Mr. McCoy, the middle of that page, it is stated that this program should be substantially at Federal cost and administered by the Bureau of Public Roads, and constructed by the highway departments, and so forth. Let me see if I understand what is meant by administered by the Bureau of Public Roads. How much territory does that take in? Are they supposed to select the routes? Are they supposed to have veto power on that? What does that contemplate? Mr. McCoy. The contact of States with the Federal Government, in the Federal aid to highway programs, has been through the United States Bureau of Public Roads, and it was the feeling of the States that that should continue in the same manner that it has heretofore. Senator BUSH. There is no change contemplated in the relationships between the Bureau and the State highway departments? Mr. McCoy. That is correct. Senator BUSH. Does that mean, in practice, that it has been the custom for the States to select the routes and which routes should be widened and so forth and so on, or does that have to be agreed to by the Bureau? Mr. McCoy. If you are going to use Federal funds on it, it has to receive the approval of the Bureau. Senator BUSH. But the initiative comes from the State? Mr. McCoy. That is correct. Senator BUSH. You will say this is what we want to do and you agree? Mr. McCoy. Yes, sir. Senator BUSH. The Federal Government does not impose its directions to the State? Mr. McCoy. No; they do not. Senator BUSH. But it receives the State's recommendations and then approves or disapproves? Mr. McCoy. That is correct. Senator BUSH. And you contemplate no change in that? Mr. McCoy. That is what was contemplated in this statement. Senator KUCHEL. I have two general questions that I would like to develop, particularly with respect to your own position as a governmental official in California. First of all I think the members of the committee would be interested in the present legislation in California respecting immediate acquisition of rights-of-way. That was developed, Mr. Chairman, somewhat this morning by the able official of the State of Missouri, in which he suggested that the committee give consideration to the problem of immediate acquisition of rightsof-way in the interests of economy. Could you describe briefly what the State of California has done with respect to that problem? Mr. McCoy. The legislature of the State of California created a $30 million advance right-of-way revolving fund which is to be used for the purpose of acquiring right-of-way which is largely undeveloped, or developed to a low degree, in advance of the time of actual construction of the project so that some big factory or some large subdivision cannot be built on it and cost us 10 or 15 or a 100 times more money. We have acquired $20 million worth of such kind of property and our economics department figures that we have saved close to $200 million in the 2 or 3 years we have been operating on that basis. Most of that was done in the Los Angeles metropolitan area and in the San Francisco Bay metropolitan area. Senator KUCHEL. Secondly, Mr. McCoy, if the members of the committee will recall the map which was used this morning by the State official from Missouri, they will recall that there is only one |