Page images
PDF
EPUB

avenue of ingress and egress from northern California east along what is known as Highway 40, a part of the Federal Interstate System earmarked, I take it, for eventual construction into a four-lane throughway in line with whatever allocation of moneys the Federal Government would participate in.

While Mr. McCoy is here I would like to have him state to the committee very briefly the fact surrounding the legislation adopted by the State government in California appropriating, I think, $20 million for an increased allocation by the State to the construction of such a four-lane highway east from San Francisco through Sacramento and on to Reno Nev.

Would you just describe that briefly for the committee, Mr. McCoy!

Mr. McCoy. The legislatiure authorized the expenditure of an additional $20 million of State highway funds on the road between San Francisco and Reno, which goes over the Sierra Nevada Mountains. That money would be available immediately as soon and if the Federal Government would authorize or appropriate an equal amount of Federal funds in addition to regular Federal aid.

Senator KUCHEL. Because that might present a situation which the committee would like to consider in adopting any highway legislation this year, and because further there might be instances where other States would be interested similarly, I previously spoke to the chairman of this subcommittee, Mr. Gore, who agreed that he would support a motion which I now desire to make: that the staff study the legislation adopted by the government of California with a view to reporting to this committee whether or not legislation might be authorized in the road legislation before us to cover that situation and to take advantage of those funds.

I make that motion, Mr. Chairman, only so that the members of the committee might be particularly and impartially advised by the staff on the matter.

Senator NETBERGER. You have heard the motion from the Senator from Californa. Is there any discussion of it?

. Senator MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Senator from California : Would it be feasible to make a toll road out of what you have just referred to? I have gone over it in the United States and I feel we can press the toll roads from the east probably through Missouri and then starting over on the Pacific slope maybe we could Lo to Reno with a toll road, and then still probably get some Federal aid and some State aid to connect it up. Would that be feasible financially? Understand that I am not objecting to this motion at all. This committee needs a lot of information. We have an enormous job before us.

Mr. McCoy. We have never made a toll road feasibility study of this particular section. I do know that the people of California are rather adverse to the idea of toll roads. That would have to be the last extreme before they would even consider it.

Senator KUCHEL. Question.

Senator NEUBERGER. All those in favor of the motion of the Senator from California, assent by saying “Aye.”

Opposed ?
It is so ordered.
(The motion was carried.)

[ocr errors]

a

Senator MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any further questions 10 ask. I asked the questions that I was interested in while the witness was going through his prepared statement. I think we are receiving wonderful information but I would like, Mr. Chairman, to have the understanding as we pursue this work that some of you men might come back to answer some questions after we have gone further into this.

Mr. McCoy. That is a fair request, sir.
Senator KUCHEL. Mr. Chairman, may I ask another question?
Senator NEUBERGER. Certainly.

Senator KUCHEL. Senator Gore is the author of S. 1048. With respect to its provisions other than the Interstate System, does the association look with favor on the general theory of Senator Gore's legislation?

Mr. McCoy. The association feels that the appropriations other than the Interstate System are adequate and proper.

Senator KUCHEL. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. McCoy.
Senator Thurmond?

Senator THURMOND. In the construction of the road system, regardless of how the funds are provided, is it your opinion that it would be better to just start and build a brandnew road system or to try to take the basic system and broaden it with the funds provided, in which event of course the filling stations all along the highway and houses would have to be removed and paid for and expensive rightsof-way would have to be incurred, and there would be a tremendous upheaval of business, so to speak.

In other words, which is more practical?
Mr. McCoy. I do not think you can make a categorical statement

that you should relocate or should not. You will have to treat each section of that road by itself and determine that which is the most feasible thing. In our own operation in some places we improved our highways and we are building freeways, 4, 6, and 8 lanes. In some places we build them on the existing route; in some places, in order not to destroy property, we relocate.

With full freeway controlled access and with proper approaches to the bypassed area they are not seriously damaged. We have made studies of the business conditions and we have accesses, as Senator Kuchel knows, to the records of the board of control who collect taxes, income taxes, so that we know exactly what the business did before the road was built. Then we wait a year after it is built and make another study and find out again. So we know pretty well what happens. I would say it depends on the circumstances for each road.

Senator THURMOND. Considering the congestion with the large number of automobiles and the projected number that will go on the highways later; considering the needs of national defense of having an adequate arterial system throughout the Nation; and considering the increased demands from commerce, is it your feeling that we could well use an Interstate System in addition to the present system?

Mr. McCoy. In addition to the present system? I could not answer that question. A brandnew Interstate System? Is that what you mean?

Senator THURMOND. That is right.
Mr. McCoy. I could not answer that question.

and say

Senator THURMOND. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. McCoy.

Mr. McCoy. Thank you gentlemen, very much, for your courtesy in listening to me.

Senator NEUNBERGER. We have one additional witness today, gentlemen, Mr. R. H. Baldock, the State highway engineer of my State.

Mr. Baldock has served with distinction for a quarter of a century in Oregon. We are very proud of the road system that he has helped to build. In our State we have over 3 percent of the area of the country but only 1 percent of the people. Despite that, Oregon has a most outstanding highway network.

Our State was the first State to levy a gasoline tax, the first State to levy a weight-distance tax for road use, and some people say we were the first State to have the white line on the highway to keep you from sliding off at night.

We are glad to have you with us.

STATEMENT OF R. H. BALDOCK, STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER OF OREGON AND MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY OFFICIALS

Mr. BALDOCK. Senator Neuberger, gentlemen, I am R. H. Baldock. I am the State highway engineer of Oregon, presently a member of the executive committee of the American Association of State Highway Officials, and a past president of this association.

With your permission, I will comment briefly on some of the features of two highway bills that have been introduced this session; namely, S. 1048 and S. 1160.

With reference to S. 1048, no mention was made about forest highways, and no funds are provided. For some time, the authorization has been $221, million per year.

We feel that this is just an oversight, and that authorizations for forest highways will be included in this year's highway legislation.

We suggest that 25 percent of the amount apportioned to each State for the respective systems may be transferred from one system to another, rather than only 10 percent as specified.

Since we believe that the amount apportioned to the Interstate System is quite inadequate, we suggest that this item be deleted, and that the Interstate System be cared for in the manner outlined in S. 1160, or some other appropriate plan.

In contrast, S. 1048 does provide more adequate amounts for primary, urban, and secondary systems than is proposed in the President's message to the Congress, and this association believes that the increased amounts will be necessary to assist the States in the building of these important roads in a reasonable time.

The association likewise believes that a 5-year bill, as provided in S. 1048, is needed to permit the States to carry on advanced planning with assurance that funds for the projects will be available.

A 2-year bill does not do this.
S. 1160 is a much more controversial piece of legislation.

It is challenging and dynamic. Perhaps the most controversial subject will be the plan for deficit financing.

It appears, upon careful analysis, that it is virtually impossible to increase taxes to the amounts required to do the job of building the Interstate System and its urban connections, costing $27 billion, in 10 years on a pay-as-you-go basis.

The additional funds required would equal the equivalent of about a 4-cent gas tax, nationwide.

Senator MARTIN. Is that 4 cents or is that 4 cents additional ?
Mr. BALDOCK. That is 4 cents additional.
Senator MARTIN. Additional to what we now pay?.
Mr. BALDOCK. Yes, sir.
Senator MARTIN. Thank you.

Mr. BALDOCK. Since the plan is to build access-controlled facilities to standards needed by traffic 20 years hence, a type of road which would give many years of service life, it would appear only proper that the users during this period of time should pay for it.

It has been estimated that the savings in transportation on the Interstate System, as indicated on the charts shown this morning, would be about $2 billion per year.

Therefore, 512 years of such savings will pay for the total interest charge required in S. 1160.

Looking at the financial situation from another viewpoint, it is observed that S. 1048 proposes a total authorization of $1.6 billion for each of the next 5 years.

Suppose the Interstate System funds are deleted and the amount for the remaining systems reduced to about $1 billion per year, the remainder, or $0.6 billion, which represents just about the yield from the Federal (1-сent gas tax and Federal 3-cent lubrication oil tax, will adequately support the financing of the Interstate System in accordance with the terms of S. 1160.

Expressed in another way, the equivalent of the amount proposed for S. 1048 should finance in a satisfactory manner both the interstate and the other Federal-aid systems, provided periodic increases are made comparable to increases in revenue with increases in traffic.

This is just by way of illustration.

I would not recommend extending the debt period longer than provided in S. 1160 and under the plan I just read you would have to extend the debt period.

However, as near as I could determine $134 billion per year, plus annual increases in revenue by reason of increased traffic, should do the job.

Presently the States have available about $2 billion for expenditure on the State system. If the Federal Government would make available $1 billion on the Federal-aid system other than the interstate, and $212 billion for the Interstate System, as near as I can determine you can complete the Interstate System in 10 years and complete a little better than 80 percent of the other systems in that period of time.

If you continue on the other systems for a 15-year period you can complete not only the requirements in 10 years but also the additional depreciation in the remaining 5, keeping in mind that the estimate of the Interstate System was based upon the requirements 20 years hence, not the requirements 10 years hence.

In case any enlarged highway program is authorized that would be administered by a corporate body, such as outlined in S. 1160, the association strongly recommends that such body not be authorized to act as an appeals board for matters of dispute or differences of opinion with relation to type of pavement, location of highways, the degree and application of access control, and applicable design standards.

These are essentially engineering matters, and should be resolved by engineers, in our opinion. The States have always been able to handle such matters satisfactorily with the Bureau of Public Roads.

Tolls are only a method of financing highways. They are probably the most expensive method, costing as they do at mileage rate which is the equivalent of about 22 cents for a gallon, gasoline tax.

The activity in this field was caused by the need for improved roads, and in the area where revenue bonds are feasible, action is being taken.

Toll activity, however, is not new, and is usually manifest in cycles at times where needs and desires are far in excess of available funds for road building.

This association has never adopted a definite policy on toll roads, but it is evident that if modern roads can be financed without tolls. the general public would approve such action.

The amount of road needs that can be met by the construction of revenue bond type toll turnpikes is quite limited and will not go very far in solving the highway problem.

Senator Bush. To what extent do you have toll roads in the State of Oregon?

Mr. BALDOCK. We have no toll roads. Senator Bush. None at all! Mr. BALDOCK. No, sir. Senator NEUBERGER. Are there any toll roads anywhere in the Western States?

Mr. BALDOCK. The only toll roads anywhere in the Western States, from the Rocky Mountain area to the Pacific coast, is the short section called the Boulder Turnpike between Boulder, Colo., and Denver, Colo.

Senator NEUBERGER. How long is that?
Mr. BALDOCK. About 30 miles.
Senator NEUBERGER. That is all there is anywhere?
Mr. BALDOCK. Yes, sir.
Senator MARTIN. And that as I understand it is a subsidized road.
The State of Colorado put up 30 percent of the cost.

Mr. BALDOCK. I cannot tell you the exact terms. I know the State maintains it.

Senator Martin. They paid a subsidy of 30 percent. There is a toll road in Oklahoma.

Mr. BALDOCK. Yes, sir, there is one between Tulsa and Oklahoma City.

I have driven over both of them.

Senator NEUBERGER. For our purposes, Mr. Baldock, when you refer to the Western States you generally refer to the 11 States from the Rocky Mountains westward?

Mr. BALDOCK. Yes, sir.
Senator Martin. Anything west of the Mississippi we call west.
Senator NEUBERGER. It is all relative.
Will you continue, Mr. Baldock?

Mr. BALDOCK. Many States may object to the payment for old toll roads, as provided in S. 1160, while still more may oppose the Federal encouragement of the building of new toll roads.

а

« PreviousContinue »