Page images

1. Senator Bush. Mr. Chairman.

Senator GORE. Yes, Senator Bush.

Senator Busu. Supposing on page 14, line 20, where Mr. Kaltenbach read, without attempting to find the language, it said the Secretary is authorized to cooperate; and after agreement with the State highway departments, to designate as promptly as reasonable possible routes.

In other words, he must come to an agreement with a State before he has the power to designate. Would that relieve the situation!

Mr. KALTENBACH. They might never be able to agree.
Senator Busu. Then they do not get any place.
Mr. KALTENBACH. That is the reason we put it in this way.

Senator GORE. Is that not the situation between Colorado and Utah now?

Mr. KALTENBACH. I am not familiar with that situation now.

Senator GORE. What about that, Mr. Curtiss? We had testimony asking why a route between Salt Lake City and Denver had not been designated, and we were informed yesterday that Utah and Colorado were unable to agree, and therefore, no routes could be designated.

Mr. Curtiss. There was never any joint action on the part of the 2 States in requesting it, and we have not yet received any formal request from the 2 States.

We are on notice, however, from the legislatures and from letters that they do want this addition. We have a request from Colorado for a 17-mile addition to the system in the vicinity of Denver, but there is nothing definite from the two States, showing where they would meet at the boundary line between the States.

Senator GORE. Under present law, you would be powerless to do anything about it; would you not?

Mr. CURTISS. We could ask the States to designate one, if we thought it was necessary, but we have never felt that it was.

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, to a certain extent you are talking about two different things. The same thing to which Senator Bush addresses himself is repeated in my bill, S. 1573, that is, as to designation of the route, but the selection of right-of-way is something else; and it is the selection of right-of-way which I sought to preserve a voice for the States.

They do not put up the money for it against the selection of the right-of-way, but the selection of route between control centers is another matter, and I think we ought to keep it clear.

Senator GORE. There is an added phase to this. Suppose that between city A and city B, there is a presently designated highway.

Senator Case. In two different States. Senator GORE. Let us make it in two different States. Then it is proposed by the two States, let us say in this case, a more direct route. If it were within the powers of the State to say that this would be the intersate highway, then the Federal Government under S. 1160 would provide 90 percent of the cost of that new road; is that not correct?

Mr. CURTISS. But it would be substituted for the old route.

Senator GORE. Would it be substituted by action of the States or by action of the Bureau of Roads?

Mr. CURTISS. The Bureau would take final action, but it would be initiated by the States.

Senator GORE. Now, let us take an instance, such as Senator Bush. Suppose you have a State line bisecting small segments of this State [indicating on paper). This would be in one State; this would be in the other. There is a right sizable city on the old route. Here are the two principal termini.

It might be greatly in the interest of the Interstate Highway System to designate your new route direct, but which would bypass a sizable community here that had political power. Therefore, this State highway department, which, according to this diagram, has only about one-fifth of the mileage of the newly desired route, would refuse to agree.

Then the Bureau of Roads and this neighboring State would be powerless to change and relocate the interstate highway to a more direct and efficient connection; would they not?

Mr. Curtiss. I think in a situation like that, certainly under the provisions in S. 1160, we would have authority to change the designation in the State that refused. We have an actual case not crossing State lines, but the State of Florida has asked us to consider changing the presently designated route that runs from north to south in the State, and we have that under consideration.

Senator GORE. Do they want it changed to an existing route, or to the construction of an entirely new road?

Mr. Curtiss. It would follow certain existing roads now, I think, but the exact location of it would not be determined that is within small limitations.

Senator CASE. What is it? Route 1?

Mr. Curtiss. Yes, a proposal for a toll road on Route 1 now, and the State wants to move the Interstate System over to the central part of the State,

Senator GORE. In what condition is the route?

Mr. Curtiss. It is a proposal to rebuild the old or build a route and that would be the same as the Interstate System, as a toll facility.

Senator Gore. Somewhat like you had in mind up in Connecticut, is it not?

Senator Bush. Yes.

Senator Gore. That brings up still an additional problem. Suppose that in the years as we go forward with this program an interstate route has been constructed under the 60-40 or 6623-3313, 75–25, or 90-10.

Then the State decides that that road having been constructed with maximum contribution of the Federal Government, they want to change the designation of interstate designation, and build an additional route, or rebuild another route with maximum contribution on the part of the Federal Government.

What would you do in that case under the new proposal or the present law?

Mr. KALTENBACH. The mileage limitation would probably prevent it.

Senator GORE. It might not.

Mr. KALTENBACH. You see by that time all the routes would have been designated, substantially all.

Mr. Curtiss. We would have to have a lot more information than just the hypothetical question you propose in order to answer that, but I would say

Senator GORE. I understand that. What I am trying to get at is when we increase, as I think the committee may want to do, the Federal share of the interstate roads, we then may find it necessary to vest with the Bureau of Roads certain authority, which it has not previously had, to protect the Federal interest in this matter, else the Bureau of Roads will be the victim of the desires of the cities and the States to build routes on which the Federal Government will pay the major share.

Mr. Curtiss. I think the answer to your questions is that we would withhold approval to the addition of a route. It would have to be very compelling reasons, which in most cases would probably not exist, for an addition such as you describe.

Senator GORE. Do you think, Mr. Counsel, that the provisions which you have suggested in S. 1160 are sufficient in this regard?

Mr. KALTENBACH. I think they are for all practical purposes, because I think the mileage limitation would take care of the last situation which you presented. There is not anything in it specifically.

Senator McNAMARA. It sounds very weak to me because it says "authorized in cooperation with the State highway departments. It seems like a joint authority again.

Senator Bush. It is. You cannot get away from that.

Senator MCNAMARA. But if we are going to pay 90 percent of it in extreme cases, it seems logical that the local agency should have less to say about it. I think it is a real good point.

Senator Bush. But, Mr. Chairman, is it not the intention of the act that this business of agreement should proceed in the same way that it has over the years in cooperation between the Federal and State authorities? They have got to come to an agreement.

After the agreement is reached, then the Secretary can designate. It seems to me that is the only way you can do it. You cannot have the Federal Government going into a State and imposing a route through a given State. You would not stand for that in Tennessee: would you?

Senator GORE. No, I would not want to, but on the other hand, I do not want the Federal Government to be imposed upon.

Senator Busu. No, but I do not think that it would; as long as the Secretary has the power to designate how can it be imposed upon?

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, I honestly think as a practical matter, this is not too serious, because the limitation of mileage plus the limitation of funds will dictate that before they get any new designation or redesignation, because the uncompleted highways on the Interstate System could use up the money before you get around to rebuilding routes.

Senator Gore. Mr. du Pont, from your experience, do you have a comment for us on that?

Mr. Du Pont. Maybe I can be helpful. This cooperative arrangement has worked in many cases.

I have worked it on both sides of the street. For many years I hid behind the Bureau of Public Roads. recognizing the political pressure, and yet from the other viewpoints, I would hide behind the skirts of the Bureau of Public Roads.

I still have done the same sort of thing in the last several years. Frequently the Senators and Members of Congress are disturbed about that sort of thing, but I have discovered they have not been able to

discover who their constituents are so frequently they are on both sides of the question, and it becomes the Bureau's responsibility in cooperation with the highway departments of the States to work it out. Depending on the importance of the bypassing to a community, it beconies an increasing problem for the State highway department to withhold against the Bureau pressure, and they say, well, we cannot, unfortunately, go down the main street, the Bureau will not give us the money.

Of course, we are Russians in that respect. We insist on the veto power, and we can refuse at all times to go along with the States; but, generally speaking, I know of very few instances where they cannot get together and compromise the issue and get a pretty satisfactory job.

Senator Gore. There have been some cases, however, in which they have not.

Mr. Du Pont. Eventually they do. We get some newspaper articles and a lot of correspondence, but I know of no project which has ever heen held up for that reason.

Captain Curtiss mentioned the Florida situation. In Florida there is a route that will parallel the present main highway down the east coast, which is U. S. 1, I believe, and that was originally selected after a good deal of discussion as to whether to go down the center of the State versus the edge from a military point of view, due to invasion, or that sort of thing.

However, because there were not many cities, they were not as popular, the eastern route was selected as the interstate. Now that is being paralleled by a toll road, the first section from Miami to Fort Pierce.

Obviously, regardless of what the statute says and what is provided, if that is completed to Jacksonville, it would be absurd to have a third interstate route designated down that coast, and Florida has asked us about that situation.

They want to put the interstate down the center, terminating at Miami, and starting at Jacksonville too, which would be sort of a loop along the Seaboard Airline Railway route.

Under this language in S. 1160, we feel we could eliminate the presently designated route, because adequate facilities are being provided and go down the center of the State. I do not frankly believe it is a serious matter.

Senator Gore. Thank you very much. If there are no further questions at this time, we will come back to where we were some bit ago on page 9 of your statement, Mr. Curtiss, distributing routes within cities.

Mr. CURTISS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read at this time a statement from the report of the Secretary of Defense on highways for the national defense, which was submitted to the Commissioner of Public Roads, March 11, 1949. [Reading :)

The national Military Establishment considers that urban arterial highways should be given equal consideration in their development to the highest practical standards with the national system of interstate highways and other strategic highways.

Methods of modern warfare require the rapid movement of military forces through or around urban areas, and may require movement of much of its civilian population and industry.

Air attacks directing missiles of extreme reaction can render highways in areas with concentrations of tall buildings and structures of little use.

Circumferential routes in large cities are potentially of greatest value to national defense from the standpoint of the movement of cargo and personnel by highway transportation when located in the outer development adjacent to smaller buildings and serving as many as possible of the transportation terminals and industrial areas.

Radial highways so constructed as to serve efficiently the local civilian economy and with appropriate connections to circumferential highways will, it is believed, serve effectively the national defense.

Senator GORE. What is that that you were reading? Is that the report from the President? That is not the law you are reading.

Mr. CURTiss. No; I was trying to support the statement that I made that it was not essential, in complying with the law setting up the Interstate System, to have a preponderance of interstate traffic on all the routes, particularly in urban areas, because in addition to serving interstate traffic, they are to serve the national defense. [Continues reading :)

3. Location on undeveloped land: To the extent consistent with other require ments, undeveloped land offers the best possible locations for routes entering a city.

4. Circumferential and distributing routes : Routes which avoid the business centers of cities are needed to serve traffic bound to or from points other than the center of the city. Such routes may be so located as to serve both as arteries for through traffic around the city between various approach highways and as distribution routes for the movement of traffic with local origins and destinations to and from the various quarters of the city.

The pattern of such routes depends upon the topography and plan of each particular city. At many of the relatively large cities the need is for routes completely encircling the city. In some of the larger cities a belt route near the central business district may be needed in addition to an outer circumferential route.

Senator Bush. Is there any illustration of that in your mind at the moment: “Belt route near the central business district”?

Mr. Curtiss. Mr. Holmes, can you cite such an example?



Mr. HOLMES. The plans that have been discussed for Washington, D. C., could be just about that, Senator Bush, with a so-called inner loop, which circles the business district, and then under the plans that are expected between the States, with a circumferential route that would avoid the District for through traffic.

I think there are cities in Michigan of that same nature. I believe Detroit, Senator McNamara, has a similar plan for routes that would bypass the built-up part of the city, and also would terminate the routes that lead into a city in a loop that runs around the downtown area rather than going through it.

Senator McNAMARA. Yes; it has a loop effect.

Mr. HOLMEs. It is accepted as at least a desirable plan for most of the cities.

Senator Bush. But you do not have an illustration of one in being right now; do you?

Senator Case. You have something of that type in Chicago, do you not, in your loop?

« PreviousContinue »