up such urban divisions. We hope the States will do this voluntarily and we base this hope on the fact that more and more State highway departments are apparently recognizing the needs of urban areas and are increasingly directing their attention to the demands of these areas. We are convinced that the kind of continuing coordination and cooperation we are all working for can best be achieved in an atmosphere of mutual concern for one another's problems and mutual efforts to do an overall effective job of making the best possible use of the resources available. We of the American Municipal Association feel that the current Federal highway programs must move ahead unimpeded, and we are convinced that local officials can and will make their desires known to State highway departments and to the Federal Government. We further believe that, by and large, local officials and State officials will see to it that Federal primary and urban systems will, as they develop, conform to local plans and will be designed in the best interests of the entire community. Let me say I am sure the millions of people who reside in urban areas are not for a stretch-out program. We think 16, or 18, or 20 years is just too long. We think the people in cities who pay a large part of the costs of the program are ready and willing to pay increased taxes if necessary to build these roads and carry out this program in 10 years instead of 20 years, and we in city governments will help you to sell any such program. We were very pleased, and want to compliment Congress and Mr. Fallon and Mr. Gore, on promoting an increased tax upon which to place our program on a pay-as-you-go basis, particularly in the light of the year they did it in. We think it took courage. I am sure, and I think you are sure, that the people who are willing to pay up to 30 cents on a gallon of gasoline, or its equivalent, to ride on a toll road which is no better than the roads we propose to build as free roads, are willing to pay the few extra cents it takes to build a safe and efficient highway system for the Nation. Mr. SCHERER. My mail, Mr. Richards, does not indicate that my constituents are anxious to pay any more taxes for anything. I do not know how the mail of the rest of you gentlemen is, but that is the fact with me. Mr. RICHARDS. Congressman, may I state I receive a pile of letters every day from people who are against things. Very seldom do I get letters from people who are for things. But I think through the years I have found people who are for things are in the majority, and not the people who are against progress. Mr. SCHERER. Mr. Richards, you are the Commissioner of Public Works for Detroit. Is that right? Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, sir. Mr. SCHERER. And you represent the American Municipal Association? Mr. RICHARDS. Yes, sir. Mr. SCHERER. I might say at the beginning that I represent an industrial area too, the city of Cincinnati. Before you began your prepared statement-and correct me if I am wrong-I believe you said that the development of secondary roads, the primary and secondary roads, was even more important to municipalities than the development of the Interstate System. Mr. RICHARDS. Not quite. I said in some instances-in some cities. Mr. SCHERER. That would be true with small cities. Mr. RICHARDS. Yes. That is right. But I would like to point out if I may, Congressman, that feeder roads or secondary roads as access roads to our Interstate System are very, very important to your city and my city, because without these feeder roads our expressways bypassing our cities are not going through the areas where people want to get to and will become less efficient. Mr. SCHERER. I understand that the Interstate System is not generally bypassing cities, is it? Mr. RICHARDS. Not large cities. Mr. SCHERER. Are they not going right through the big cities? Mr. RICHARDS. We bypass them vertically-over or under them, usually. Mr. SCHERER. I understand, of course, that all of the road systemsthe Interstate System, the primary, secondary, and farm-to-market roads can stand improvement. I further understand that the first call on these trust funds goes to the primary and secondary systems. I was a little disturbed as I sat here for the last few days, however, at the emphasis from witnesses on the priority in their thinking of the secondary system over the Interstate System. I am worried about that because as General Prentiss points out in his statement the Interstate System, which comprises only 41,000 miles and is only about 1 percent of the total road mileage in this country, is the system that is today carrying 20 percent of the traffic on it. That is the system we are going to rebuild, we hope, in 13 years, or maybe in 16 years. That is the system that is today carrying 20 percent of the traffic; and, I am worried if it is not that system which needs the priority if any system does. The traffic density on this outmoded Interstate System which we are building is 14 times as great as on the rest of the road systems combined. Some say it is 16 times, but let us say it is 14 times as much. So, I just do not like the thinking to develop that these secondary systems must have a priority over the building of this Interstate System which was the reason for the Clay report. Mr. RICHARDS. Congressman, I am sure you are right and I am sure General Prentiss would concur, that we have no less interest in the Interstate System just because we happen to be talking about the ABC today. When we start talking about the Interstate System we will be more enthusiastic than we are about the primary. But we must recognize that there has been an indication that there might be a curtailment of this awfully important secondary program and we concur in the statement, as Mr. Fallon says, that there should not be any curtailment and it should go along evenly. Mr. SCHERER. I would hesitate to see any curtailment in any road program. What I am trying to say is, if we only have so much money to spend it should be spent where the greatest need exists. There are volumes of testimony before this committee over the years which indicate to me where the primary need is and where our first effort must be, namely, on the Interstate System. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. RICHARDS. I agree with you wholeheartedly. We could not be in more agreement than we are on that particular score. Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman. Mr. FALLON. Mr. Mack. Mr. MACK. There has been considerable discussion today as to whether these appropriations for the primary, secondary, and urban roads should be increased by $25 million a year. I would like to make the observation that when this committee enacted the Fallon bill in 1956 and when the Congress passed that bill, in my opinion it made an implied contract with the taxpayers of the United States that, provided they would pay certain additional taxes on gasoline, tires, and camelback, that the Congress would place that money in a trust fund and expend it according to a certain formula. That formula provided $900 million a year should be provided for the primary, secondary, and urban systems and that that amount should be increased $25 million a year, and then all of the money left over should go into the Interstate System. The testimony of the public witnesses before this committee has been to the effect that the taxes are coming in in the anticipated amounts. It seems to me that this committee and the Congress should not change that implied contract of the taxpayers and should continue to carry out that contract as it was originally written, namely, that those ABC roads should be increased by $25 million a year. The cost of the ABC roads is going up just as much as the cost of the Interstate System. Conditions have not changed and I do not think we should change the formula, and I am glad to see that the public witnesses, both yesterday and today, take that position. Mr. RICHARDS. I am sure the cities of the United States concur with you that it was the intent of Congress when they passed the bill, because I am sure you can read that into the bill and even the statements made by the various Congressmen, that the intent was that there would be an increased program on the ABC roads to conform with the program of the Interstate System. Mr. SCUDDER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. MACK. Yes. Mr. SCUDDER. I wish to concur with my colleague, Mr. Mack. In California a good part of the Interstate Highway has been brought up to a standard acceptable to the Federal Government. It was our understanding that now we would have sufficient money to put into our ABC system to bring them up to a safe standard. Previously we had been expending a large proportion of our Federal matching money on the highways now in the Interstate System. In the last few years California has spent about 50 percent of its Federal funds on the highways that are now in the Interstate System. I would not like to see money diverted from the ABC system, because I have often referred to the fact that I do not have one foot of Interstate Highway in my district, but I have felt that this program would accelerate the development of the ABC roads, so I have supported it to the very utmost, but I do not believe we should be reducing the ABC system for the benefit of the interstate program. I do not think either one of us would want to do that. Mr. SCHERER. I would not want you to place that interpretation on my remarks, but I think we are missing one facet of this problem. We were all for this 1956 program because the overwhelming testimony before this committee was to the effect that because of defense aspects and the density of traffic, we needed to build the Interstate System as fast as we could. We have to keep our minds on one thing. As Congressman Mack said, the money is coming in as contemplated, but the costs of this highway system have gone up tremendously, and since the ABC system has the first call on the funds for the full amount, the system that needs it worst, as developed by this testimony; namely, the Interstate System, is going to suffer. Mr. SCUDDER. I was not referring to your statement, but to the general statements made during this entire hearing. Mr. FALLON. I think we can proceed. We can discuss among ourselves these différences. Will you proceed, Mr. Richards. Mr. SCHERER. But I want these gentlemen to think about this, too. Mr. RICHARDS. We regret that as a result of increased highway costs the amounts stipulated in this bill, H. R. 9821, will not permit construction at a level commensurate with the needed increase in construction over and above previous years. It is apparent that the apportionment formula devised in 1944 does not take into account the present day fact of the urbanization of America and should be revised in the light of actual relative highway needs. Finally, we believe that annual increases in appropriations will be necessary until such time as we can make positive inroads into the backlog of highway needs that now seem to be beyond our resources to meet. Let me again congratulate you gentlemen on the 1956 act. It took courage and it is going to take continued courage to provide the funds to meet this program in a reasonable period-and that is not 20 years. Mr. FALLON. Mr. Richards, let me, on behalf of the committee, thank you for your coming here today and the fine presentation you have made on behalf of the municipalities. I might also say that I had the pleasure of visiting your very fine city just about a month ago. I observed the very fine job you are doing out there on your roadbuilding. I might say since my visit, prior to the visit in December, it took me many more minutes to get to the airport than it does today. You got me there much quicker, so I had longer to wait for my plane. We do, on behalf of the committee, thank you again, Mr. Richards. Gentlemen, the committee will stand adjourned until next Tuesday at 10 a. m., at which time we will have a representative of the Bureau of Public Roads of the Department of Commerce, a representative of the Department of Agriculture to testify on forest highways and forest access roads, and a representative of the Department of the Interior on national park roads. (Whereupon, at 11:45 a. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m., Tuesday, February 4, 1958.) (The following was received for insertion :) CHICAGO, ILL., January 30. Hon. GEORGE FALLON, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.: General Prentiss will present ARBA official testimony your bill today. Just wanted to send my personal assurance of the unanimous and enthusiastic support of the Fallon bill by action taken at our full membership meeting in Washington last week. Good luck. Sorry I can't be there today. Regards. JULIEN STEELMAN. FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1958 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1958 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:15 a. m., in room 1302, New House Office Building, Hon. George H. Fallon presiding. Mr. FALLON. Ladies and gentlemen, the Public Works Committee of the House of Representatives is continuing hearings on H. R. 9821. When the committee adjourned on Thursday, we had completed hearing all the people that had made requests to be heard, that are interested in the road program. However, some of the members were not clear in their minds just exactly how the formula in the administration of parkways, of park roads, worked. There seemed to be confusion, to some extent, between parkways, park roads, and also timber-access roads. Therefore, to clear up the doubts that some members have, or some lack of information that some of them have, we have invited Mr. Tallamy and Mr. Turner here today, and perhaps through questioning from the members we can clear up some of these cloudy points. Mr. Tallamy, would you come up, please. STATEMENT OF B. D. TALLAMY, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR; ACCOMPANIED BY FRANK C. TURNER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS—Resumed Mr. FALLON. Mr. Tallamy, after the meeting was over, several members asked me a number of questions in regard to the manner in which the park roads are constructed and financed. They also asked me what was the formula as far as payment was concerned: Was it 100 percent; was it 90 percent; or was it 50 percent? It was also suggested by some of the members that if the money to construct and maintain these roads-if the expenses were paid out of the trust fund, why should they not be put in the same category with other primary and secondary roads in the respective States? Those are the questions that were asked of me. I thought maybe it might be better if we could put those questions to you and you give us your expert advice and answers on them. Now, the first question, Mr. Tallamy, that was asked of me was: What formula do you use in regard to the amount of money that you contribute to the construction? Mr. TALLAMY. Mr. Chairman, are you speaking of the forest highways first? 107 |