It is realized and recognized, in every State in the Union, that there is a substantial difference in the economy with respect to the amount of money that should be paid by the truck as compared to the passenger car in that every State charges a higher registration fee for trucks, and they are graded in accordance with the size of the truck or the load it is permitted to carry.

Senator CASE. But in spite of that you told us that whenever you have a toll road that the tolls for the truck are heavier than that for the passenger car?

Mr. REINDOLLAR. That is true, sir. The State charges gasoline taxes plus a higher registration fee for the truck.

The toll road is a self-liquidating project.

Senator CASE. Even after they have done that the truck still is willing to go onto the toll road and pay a higher toll than the passenger car pays.

Mr. REINDOLLAR. The revenue derived from gasoline taxes and registration fees has nothing to do whatsoever with the financing of the ordinary toll highway. The ordinary toll highway is financed entirely from the tolls collected for the use of that particular facility. The truckers therefore would naturally have to pay more.

Senator CASE. Why do the trucks go onto the highway? Are they required to travel on the turnpikes?

Mr. REINDOLLAR. The truck go onto the highway because as a matter of actual dollars and cents it is cheaper for them to pay that toll than it is to operate with the time losses and the additional operating costs involved on a free highway.

Senator CASE. It is good business for them to pay the higher toll in order to have the better road?

Mr. REINDOLLAR. That is correct, sir.

Senator CASE. I think that that same logic would lead them to support a program whereby they could get better roads and save money by paying a license fee or something or other that would be devoted to producing those specific roads.

Mr. REINDOLLAR. The point that you make there is that if a facility were constructed not as a toll road but as a free facility the truckers should be willing to pay an additional cost by virtue of the fact that having this highway available they will be able to effect the same economies that they are doing on the toll roads where they have been constructed.

Senator CASE. Yes. And it would reflect the higher standards that have been built into the roads to support the heavy trucks.

Mr. REINDOLLAR. It seems logical, sir.

Senator CASE. Thank you very much.

Senator GORE. From your experience with the Maryland road tests. did you reach any conclusion as to the relative value of dual axles on the heavy loads?

Mr. REINDOLLAR. Senator, the results of the Maryland road tests. have been published and they are available.

Senator GORE. I would like to see those. Would the Bureau of Roads have it?

Mr. REINDOLLAR. We will endeavor to obtain a copy for you right away, sir.

The test indicated very definitely that there was a more rapid deterioration of the highway under repeated loads of a 22,400-pound single

axle load as compared to the 18,000 single-axle load. And it showed that when we got the dual 20,000 pound as compared to the dual 16,000 pound, I think the ratio was 8 times as quick with the 22,000 as with the single 18,000 and about 40 times as quick that the road deteriorated under the dual 22,400- or 20,000-pound axle load as compared to the dual 16.

I do not want to be held to those figures because I am quoting from memory. But they are available and they are definite.

The Maryland Road was a road designed some 12 or 14 years ago and is not comparable to the highway that is being designed today. In other words, it was not built as heavy as the roads that are being constructed at the present time. So it did give a condition of breaking up a highway designed some years back and would not be exactly comparable to what would happen on a highway of more modern design. Those tests are being conducted at the present time.

Senator GORE. Would it not be in order if we have an immense highway construction program now, designed to carry present weights, and 15 years from now, through operation of various State legislatures, the load is increased 50 percent again, we would have a comparable

situation?

Mr. REINDOLLAR. You would have a comparable situation; yes, sir. Senator GORE. You speak of the other tests now being held. Can you identify those tests, as to locality!

Mr. REINDOLLAR. There is one being conducted I think in Idaho, and another in Illinois. That information would be available through the Bureau of Public Roads. They are participating in both of them.

Senator GORE. Mr. Reindollar, the committee thanks you very much. Your testimony has been very enlightening and very helpful. The committee is also pleased to have at the table Mr. Burton F. Miller, an executive of the American Road Builders' Association. Mr. Miller, do you have anything that you wish to say to the committee?

Mr. MILLER. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been a privilege to participate in these hearings.

Senator GORE. Senator Case?

Senator CASE. I would like, for the purpose of the record, to note that we have had the pleasure of having with us today Congressman Harry McGregor who was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Roads in the House Committee on Public Works during the 83d Congress. Congressman McGregor has in both his business experience and his work in the Congress of the United States been intensely interested in construction and in the building of roads.

I think it is something of a compliment to the chairman of this committee and the hearings which you have been conducting that Congressman McGregor should come over here today.

I thought for the record that I should note that he has been present. Senator GORE. Thank you. This is the third time he has been present. He is a man of many distinctions, one of which is that he has one of the most beautiful wives in Congress.

Mr. McGREGOR. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to tell you that I appreciate the opportunity of being here. I thoroughly enjoy it. I know the discussions have been on a very high plane and, Mr.

Chairman, I congratuate you as a presiding officer very much. I am glad to be here.

Senator GORE. Thank you. Please come back.

The committee is adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10. (Additional statements received are as follows:)

Senator ALBERT GORE,

THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS,

Chairman, Subcomittee on Roads,

Washington 6, D. C., March 31, 1955.

Senate Committee on Public Works,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: With reference to the pending highway legislation, I enclose a report of the highway program committee of the United States Conference of Mayors and would ask that you insert it in the record of the present hearings. I wish to make it clear that this report has not been passed upon by the full membership of this organization. However, the committee was composed of officials representing a good cross section of our membership.

Entirely aside from the general highway program, your attention is specifically called to paragraph 8, which makes a very concrete recommendation with regard to the highway program and civil defense. Thanking you kindly, I am,

Very truly yours,

ELMER E. ROBINSON,

Mayor of San Francisco, President.

MEMORANDUM ON PENDING HIGHWAY LEGISLATION FROM: HIGHWAY PROGRAM COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS

1. Many studies and surveys made by the United States Bureau of Public Roads, in cooperation with the 48 State highway agencies, indicate in detail existing highway deficiencies throughout the United States. Approximately one-half of these deficiencies is urban in character.

2. It is generally recognized that there must be an immediate acceleration of highway construction if the requirements of today and the foreseeable future are to be met.

3. This committee is in accord with the conclusions reached by the Clay Committee that a construction program for the Interstate System, including urban arterial and connecting routes, should be authorized by the Congress and that such a program should be carried out within a 10-year period.

4. In view of primary Federal responsibility for development of the Interstate System, the financing of construction on the Interstate System must be assumed by the National Government as is contemplated in the provisions of S. 1160.

5. This committee is aware of the controversy over the precise methods for financing a greatly expanded Interstate System program. The bond proposal in S. 1160 is considered by many city officials to be sound and feasible. On the other hand, the proposal has received widespread criticism and its legal validity has even been questioned by the Comptroller General of the United States. Should the committee vote adversely on this suggestion of the Clay Committee, our committee points out that the Federal gasoline tax could be increased in such amount as to yield enough funds to offset the additional expenditures proposed in the Clay report for the Interstate System. Further, as provided in the Case bill, S. 1573, a variation of the Clay Committee bond recommendation could be carried out through imposition of tolls on certain major bridges and tunnels on the Interstate System which would be suitable for tolls.

6. The chief weakness of the Clay Committee report and S. 1160 is that it does not provide for a balanced construction program as between the Interstate System and the primary, secondary, and urban systems. It is recommended that the minimum appropriations to be allotted to the primary, secondary, and urban systems should be the amounts proposed in the Gore bill (S. 1048). This is particularly important with regard to requirements on the urban system by reason of the fact that many key urban arterial routes are not now included in the Interstate System.

7. It is specifically recommended that those sections of S. 1160 giving fiscal credit to States for previous State expenditures on the Interstate System be

eliminated. Such a device, providing for retroactive treatment, is unsound in principle and presents insurmountable problems of administration.

8. In view of the recognized necessity of providing escape routes from cities in case of atomic attack, present law should be amended to include a fifth category of highways in the Federal system. This would be known as the Civil Defense System. Since such evacuation routes in many cases would not be identical with the existing Interstate, primary, secondary, and urban system networks, it is urgent that this new classification be authorized. The amount of funds to be expended for these routes should be based on surveys by the Public Roads Administration and the Federal Civil Defense Administration in cooperation with State and city governments.

Hon. ALBERT GORE,

PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

Chicago, Ill., March 24, 1955.

MY DEAR SENATOR GORE: We have received word from secretary of the Public Works Committee, Mr. T. W. Sneed, that the subcommittee of which you are chairman would like to receive information on the ability of the cement industry to provide for the requirements of a much needed and greatly expanded highway program.

Our work does not include the development of this type of information.

The activities of the Portland Cement Association, a national organization, are limited to scientific research, the development of new or improved products and methods, technical service, promotion and educational effort (including safety work in member company plants), and are primarily designed to improve and extend the uses of portland cement and concrete.

Our association has nothing whatever to do with the production, distribution, pricing, or selling of portland cement. It does not collect, distribute, nor publish statistics on productive capacity, production, costs, or prices for portland cement. It does not speak for the cement industry on commercial matters, and it has nothing to do with trade practices.

The Bureau of Mines, United States Department of the Interior, has just published the results of a recent survey made by it of cement industry capacity, present and future. The survey results appear in the November 1954 Mineral Industry Surveys-Bureau of Mines, Monthly Cement Report No. CP 402.

The monthly cement report includes estimates of capacity for continental United States as of the end of 1954, capacity as of the end of 1956 based on current expansion plans, and as of the end of 1959 assuming that an expanded highway program is enacted by Congress. The document was prepared by Oliver S. North, of the Bureau. May I suggest that this would be a valuable source of information on your question. Mr. North would no doubt be glad to furnish the committee with more detailed information on the capacity outlook. Please accept my personal respect and best wishes.

Yours very truly,

PORTLAND CEMENT

G. DONALD KENNEDY.

The supply of cement is one of the major areas investigated. Cement production is limited by two major factors: One is clinker production and grinding capacity, and the other is storage. Many plants located in the northern part of the country have a far greater clinker production and grinding capacity than can be effectively utilized under the seasonal demand existing in those areas. Ordinarily, only small amounts of cement are sold in those areas during the winter months. During this period, grinding capacity is limited by the amount of cement that can be sold plus the amount that can be carried in storage at the beginning of the construction season. It is not economic or practical to construct sufficient storage for a 12-month capacity operation of the burning and grinding facilities. Another factor that limits annual production in the northcentral area of the country is the seasonal characteristics of lake transport. In this area clinker is often transported long distances by water and, therefore, grinding capacity during the period of transport shutdown is also limited by clinker storage capacity when transport closes for the season.

It is estimated that the present capacity of existing plants operating under the conditions outlined above is about 280 million barrels per year. This is 15

million barrels more than the current production rate of 265 million barrels per year.

Highway construction at its present level uses about 50 million barrels of cement a year on the job site. It also uses many other products, particularly concrete culvert pipe, that require cement in their production. Based on current production rates, it is estimated that approximately 215 million barrels of cement are used for all construction other than highway construction, for all types of maintenance including highway maintenance, and for the production of concrete products including those used in highways.

The expanded highway program will require an additional 112 million barrels of cement. At the peak of the program, during the 4th through 10th years, approximately 161 million barrels of cement will be used each year. This amounts to over half the current production and, as shown on the following table, exceeds the current production in some areas.

1. New York and New England.

Region

2. Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and District of Columbia.

9. Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona. 10. Oregon and Washington

11. California....

Total

It will be noted that in the New York-New England area and in the Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Wisconsin area the requirements of cement for an $11 billion highway program would take the entire current cement production capacity and leave no supply for other users.

As stated previously, approximately 15 million barrels of additional cement production could be obtained from present installations. In addition, new installations capable of producing at least 20 million barrels per year are now planned. It is probable, therefore, that if the demand for maintenance and other construction does not change materially, at least 35 million barrels of cement will be available for the expanded highway program. However, it is known that a material expansion in the production of concrete pipe will also be necessary, and it is estimated that the production of the additional pipe will require at least 4 million barrels of cement. This use will reduce the amount of cement available for on-the-job work such as pavement and bridges to 31 million barrels. This is only sufficient for a $2 billion expansion of the highway program. It will be necessary, therefore, for the cement industry to expand its production by approximately 80 million barrels if other demands remain at the current level.

It is reported that at the present time the cement producers are contemplating the installation of additional facilities and that the installation of these facilities will raise the cement production capacity to 338 million barrels per year by 1956 and to 407 million barrels by 1959. Since the total estimated requirements amount to only 380 million barrels, this increase in capacity should provide the cement needed for the expanded highway program.

PORTLAND CEMENT PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND STOCKS FOR NOVEMBER 1954 Survey of estimated future cement capacity.-The Bureau of Mines in October 1954 made a special survey of future cement producing capacity as a service to the President's Advisory Committee on a National Highway Program. Pro