vancing the work in each step during the calendar years 1952, 1953, and 1954. The funds authorized for the fiscal year 1956 were apportioned and made available to the States July 1, 1954. When these charts were first started a base of $600 million was thought to be sufficient to cover the work for the calendar year 1954. However, the State highway departments committed and the Bureau approved programs to the extent of $777 million. That included $183 million of the new funds that were made available on July 1. A second step is the submission on the part of the State highway department of plans for individual projects and their approval by the Bureau engineers in the field. In the past calendar year $685 million of Federal-aid funds were alloted to projects approved in this manner. The previous year 1953 that amount was only $548 million, and in 1952, $521 million. The next step is the awarding by the State highway department of contracts for the construction of these approved projects. For the calendar year 1954 contracts were awarded to the extent of $658 million. In the 2 preceding years the amounts were $545 million and $528 million. The contractors started work on approximately all of the projects for which contract awards were made, $657 million. These figures that I am giving are the Federal-aid figures alone. You have to apparently double them to get the value of the program as a whole. Work was accomplished, actual work put in place on Federal-aid projects, of $600 million during 1954. Senator GORE. Since this is informal and you do not have a prepared statement, I hope you will not mind if members ask you any questions from time to time Mr. CURTISS. Not at all. Senator GORE. What has been the result, from your experience, in the changing of the matching formula from a 50-50 basis on interstate roads to a 60-40 basis? Mr. CURTISS. I think it has enabled the States to match those projects with funds that they have available more rapidly, perhaps, than they would have been able to on the 50-50 basis. Senator GORE. Has there been a tendency on the part of States to take advantage of that more favorable matching formula? Mr. CURTISS. Yes; they have taken advantage of it, but not to the detriment of the other programs where the matching is still 50-50. Senator GORE. That is the point that I want to get at. Do you think if we raise this to a 2-to-1 matching basis that it will tend to discriminate against the secondary, primary, and urban developments? Mr. CURTISS. No, sir; because the lesser matching rate would leave more State funds available to match the funds available for the other programs. Senator GORE. Are you inclined to think that the two-thirds to onethird matching basis would be a better matching basis than the 60-40? Or would you rather leave that to the Congress? Mr. CURTISS. I would rather leave that to the Congress. I might say that the State hghway departments have been recommending for several years 75-25. However, they are going to testify later. Senator GORE. I can understand that from their point of view. Mr. CURTISS. Unquestionably the Federal Government has a greater interest in the Interstate System, that is from a national standpoint, than in the other systems. Senator GORE. The Bureau of Roads then would not recommend against raising the matching formula on the Interstate to a 2 to 1 basis? Mr. CURTISS. I do not think so. In reports that we have made in the past, at the direction of Congress, we have suggested that consideration be given to a higher Federal contribution on the Interstate System. Senator GORE. I hope other members will break in any time. This is an informal procedure. Will you continue, please? Mr. CURTISS. Payments to States amounted to $562 million during 1952. That is the last step in completing the Federal-aid projects. when we finally pay the States for the Federal pro rata share of the cost. Federal funds do not participate in maintenance. That is at the entire expense of the State highway department. Senator GORE. That raises a question, Mr. Commissioner, that has disturbed me. As we increase the Interstate System in which you say, I believe properly, that the Federal interest is maximized, as we increase the mileage, as we increase the width of the road, the cost of the maintenance, is not the Federal Government eventually to share in the maintenance of these Interstate roads? Mr. CURTISS. Unquestionably there will be an increase in the cost of maintenance. There will also be a very large increase in traffic and gasoline consumption which will bring in added revenue through the State motor fuel taxes which will, I would think, provide funds to carry on the maintenance. Senator GORE. Have you made a study, or is that a part of the study to be submitted, showing the relative increase of motor fuel tax income on the respective categories of highways? Mr. CURTISS. It will not be broken down by categories of highways. There will be estimates of the increase in motor fuel taxes. Senator GORE. Are you prepared to advise the committee as to the relative increase in traffic on the respective categories of highways on the secondary, urban, primary, and Interstate? Mr. CURTISS. We can provide I do not have them here-figures which we get from the State highway departments of that character. Senator GORE. Would you submit that for the record at this point? Mr. CURTISS. Yes, sir. (The information requested is as follows:) TRAFFIC INCREASES BY ROAD SYSTEMS Highway traffic has increased at an average rate of 6.7 percent per year since 1936. For rural roads the average annual increase has been 8 percent, with about the same percentage increase on main rural roads and local rural roads. On city streets the increase has been at the rate of 5.5 percent annually. Traffic on the interstate system has increased at the rate of 8.2 percent annually since 1948. On rural sections the increase has been 7.9 percent annually, and on urban sections 8.8 percent annually. Large traffic increases have been noted in many cases where new modern highways have replaced inadequate facilities on main routes. Total traffic between Houston and Galveston, Tex., increased 52 percent, from 10,900 to 16,000 vehicles per day, following construction of the Gulf Freeway. In New England, the average daily traffic in 1947 was 6,400 vehicles on U. S. 1 midway between Portsmouth, N. H., and Portland, Maine. In 1948 the Maine Turnpike was constructed adjacent and parallel to U. S. 1 between the two cities. By 1954 the average daily traffic on the 2 roads had increased at this point to 11,850 vehicles, an increase of 85 percent compared to the average increase of 42.5 percent on all Maine roads during the same period. In Cook County, Ill., construction of the Edens Expressway from Chicago northward to the Lake County line resulted in an increase in average daily traffic, from 1950 before the expressway was opened to 1954 after it was open, of 62 percent on parallel routes at the north city limits of Chicago. In other cases, lack of additional capacity has prevented traffic increases. The Shirley Highway, a four-lane controlled access facility leading south from Washington, was opened during World War II. Traffic on it built up rapidly until it reached its full capacity of about 45,000 vehicles per day in 1952 and has since remained at that level. The twin 14th Street bridges across the Potomac at Washington, D. C., have been carrying an average of about 100,000 vehicles per day since 1952. Similarly, congestion on many city streets has resulted in smaller annual increases in urban traffic than would be the case if adequate urban highway facilities were available. Senator GORE. Now will you give us generally what the picture is, with the privilege of correcting your remarks later? Mr. CURTISS. There has been, I think, without exception, since World War II ended, there has been an increase in traffic in both urban and rural areas in every month. What I am saying is that in December 1954 the traffic was higher than the vehicle mile travel in December 1953. I think that has been true without exception since World War II. Senator GORE. That is on all categories of roads? Mr. CURTISS. Yes. Senator GORE. Has the increase been more Mr. CURTISS. For the United States as a whole. In some States there have been, in some months I think, a few minuses, or there wasn't any material increase, but for the country as a whole there has been an increase every month over the corresponding month of the previous year. Senator GORE. S. 1048, the terms of this bill, follows the traditional formula as to allocations between secondary, urban, and primary. Do you think that that formula of allocation should remain? I think you said earlier that you thought it is basically sound? Mr. CURTISS. Yes; I think it is sound and that it should remain. Senator GORE. That provides a considerable increase for secondary roads. Do you think that is needed? Mr. CURTISS. Mr. Chairman, the need is so great in all of the States for all categories of highways that I don't think I could say that any increase of any amount was not needed. Someone has to decide how much we can afford. Senator GORE. That is the question this committee has got to decide. I want to thank you for your helpful information and testimony. Mr. CURTISS. I have a few other exhibits for the record. Senator GORE. I will desist questioning. I think I have been monopolizing your time and I want to give the other members of the committee an opportunity to question you. Mr. CURTISS. AS I stated previously, the $875 million authorized for the fiscal year 1956 was made available to the States on July 1, 1954. I have a set of tables here showing the balances that are now available for programing and planning. Senator GORE. Will you submit that for the record? Mr. CURTISS. Yes, sir. I also have a pamphlet on construction costs that I will leave for the committee. |