URBAN EXPRESSWAYS FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS SHOULD BE FINANCED IN THE STATES Coming back again to Los Angeles, the wonderful expressways there that we read about and some of us have seen, were financed by the State of California. These expressways primarily benefit the citizens of Los Angeles and environs for purposes of ingress and egress. The suburbanite who works in the city is a heavy user. People in the city who want to get into the country are heavy users. According to local authorities, these projects can be self-liquidating. Said Mr. Lloyd Aldrich, city engineer, Los Angeles County, recently, "Our studies have shown that a well-located freeway will repay its first cost within 10 years in actual savings to the motorist, owing to the elimination of cross traffic and the delays of surface street travel." The citizens of California, according to the statement of Mr. Aldrich, could very properly afford to pay for their own expressways, and this goes for many other States that have great problems of urban congestion. So if these very expensive expressways, expensive to build but cheap to use, can be taken care of by the people who will use them, who will appreciate them and try to see that they get their money's worth and by those who receive other benefits from them, then they do not need to become a tremendous subject of Federal finance.

Previously I mentioned that private enterprise could play a part in this development. This could be done in certain sections of the Interstate System, sections where, because of the volume of traffic, there could be a return on invested capital. In such sections, toll roads could be built with 2 stipulations: One, that the bonds issued by the toll-road authority will not be backed by the credit of any political division, and two, that the bonds will be paid off as rapidly as revenues will permit, and that when they are paid off, there will be no additions or extensions and the toll road will become a free road.

Let me explain. That is probably not exactly clear. I am sorry Senator Martin isn't here. The turnpike in Pennsylvania, the original section was 160 miles. I think it was to become a free road at the end of 25 years from the time it was built, which was about 1939. Now, they have added the extensions to it, to the Ohio line and to Philadelphia, and now to the Jersey-Delaware River shore, and they are talking about one to Scranton, but the whole thing is now tied together and the original section apparently will not become a free road when it was originally scheduled.

Such developments could take place on either the rural or the urban sections of the Interstate System wherever bankers could see a real return on invested capital.

The three moves advocated immediately preceding-relinquishment of Federal automotive excise taxes, State and local financing for urban ingress and egress expressways, and aid from private enterprise for sections of the Interstate System-can provide substantial additions to the expenditures already planned by the States.

There is one more point on which we would like to express an opinion. In bill S. 1160, section 203 (a):

The standards to be used for the Interstate System shall be those approved by the Secretary after consultation with the Department of Defense, the Federal Civil Defense Administration, and the State highway departments. The Secre tary is authorized to make the final determination of the standards to be used, except as provided in section 102D.

The standards that the United States Government has set up are restrictive in truck operation in most parts of the country. For a number of years the Federal Government has advocated and I quote:

And since the necessities of efficient design and administration of the highway system require fixation of axleloading, the conclusion is strongly supported that 18,000 pounds should be adopted as the maximum axleload permissible under the

laws of all States, that this limit without future increase should be rigidly enforced, and that highways built in the future should be designed for the normal support of axleloads of that magnitude in the frequency of their probable

occurrence.

That is from Highway Needs of the National Defense, House Document 249, page 110.

Senator CASE. What is that being quoted from?

Mr. GORMAN. House Document 249, Highway Needs of the National Defense, page 110.

Senator GORE. You say that is the Federal Government. Has the Bureau of Roads taken that kind of a position?

Mr. GORMAN. Yes, sir.

Notice that the wording directs the continuation of the restriction right on into the future and advocates that it should be in the laws of all States. This is a peculiar kind of specification. Usually if money is being furnished by one agency for use by another, the usual type of requirement would be that the party building the work, whatever it should be, would build it at least to a certain minimum. It advocates this even in States which permit axleloads materially in excess of the Government's advocated 18,000-pound limit.

The trouble with this kind of specification which is based on a test made way back in 1922 is that it allows no utilization of the advancing technology of the automotive design engineer. This engineer can design axles to carry much heavier loads safety, and it is very important that these advantages be utilized.

Private enterprise recognizes these technological advances.

Senator GORE. You say there that engineers can design axles that will carry heavier loads safely. What we are considering here, though, is the highways, not what the axles will carry.

Mr. GORMAN. The reason I bring that up is the fact that when you get heavier loads and get on steeper grades brakes may not be efficient. I mean the question could be what is the limitation within the truck itself? Can you carry heavier loads on axles and still operate safely on the highways insofar as the load itself is concerned? It can be done.

Senator GORE. Not without damage to the highways.

Mr. GORMAN. I would like to get into that just a little bit later, if you will permit me.

Senator GORE. All right.

Mr. GORMAN. As an example, the New Jersey Turnpike which was built without the aid of Federal funds, was designed for 36,000-pound axles, and as a matter of fact, according to some of the engineers who designed it, will carry any loads that roll on pneumatic tires.

Now, the load-carrying capacity of trucks is of great importance to the people. Trucks handle between 9 and 10 billion tons of cargo per year in this country, and I estimate that the public is paying for truck service about $35 billion a year, including merchandise markups. It is easily within the realm of automotive engineering to design trucks that would reduce the hauling cost by 20 percent or more by utilizing heavier axleloads. Such an improvement could reduce the ultimate charges to the public by 6 or 7 billion dollars per year. Certainly it behooves the Federal Government, particularly at the eve of such a vast expenditure as that discussed, to raise its sights as to standards so that the people of this country can obtain the benefit of

the latest technological improvements of its design engineers, especially when these can mean billions of dollars of savings per year to the public.

The Federal Government should cease advocating an 18,000-pound axle limit. Regulation of the sizes and weights of trucks should be the function of the States, rather than the Federal Government, though the latter properly may and should urge the States to estab lish uniform minimum standards designed to permit the flow of property over the highways and between the States unhampered by unnecessary or unreasonable restrictions.

Senator GORE. You would recommend the establishment of minimum standards but no maximum standards?

Mr. GORMAN. The States themselves will set the maximum standards. They always do. If the Federal Government would urge that there should be if they want to say an 18,000-pound minimum I don't think there would be any objection to that. That would permit the States to go as high as they want to.

Senator GORE. You mean nobody would operate a truck at less than 18,000 pounds?

Mr. GORMAN. That no State would build roads to carry less than 18,000 pound axles.

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman?

Senator GORE. Senator Case.

Senator CASE. If we were to accept this approach, that the purpose of the highways is to provide a road for the heaviest load axle that the engineers can design, I would be inclined to think that my wife has the idea, and that is that we should build 1 road for the trucks and 1 road for the passenger cars. The average motorist is perplexed when he gets out on the highway and sees these trucks getting bigger and bigger and longer and longer and traveling at the speeds that they do. Maybe we ought to do that. Maybe we ought to build a truck route so that you could have the maximum truck capacity and then another route for the motorcars.

Mr. GORMAN. Senator, I know the public is quite conscious of size but I don't think it is conscious of weight. I didn't say a word here about making them any longer. I am merely talking about greater carrying capacity of an axle.

Senator CASE. The public is conscious when you build very good highways and then you have the trucks increasing in numbers, and they think of size, too.

Mr. GORMAN. They do think of size. They are very conscious of size. That is the thing they are really very conscious of. I don't know that they are conscious of weight.

Senator CASE. They are conscious of size. When you get a big string of trucks ahead of you and you wonder how to get around them and down the road, you are conscious of it.

Mr. GORMAN. That is quite true. There is a tremendous public payment every year for the handling of commodities by truck. I personally estimated $35 billion a year. It is a very heavy sum of money. There are savings to be made to be passed on to the consumer, and I think this should be considered.

If there are no more questions on S. 1160 I will pass on to S. 1048. The Private Truck Council of America thinks that bill S. 1048 is pretty much in line with most of its predecessors on this subject. We

are reluctant to see, however, the amount of the Federal aid so high that it would invite certain States to excessive expenditures unwarranted by their financial capacity in striving to furnish matching funds so that they could avail themselves of the contribution by the Federal Government. Perhaps a figure of $900 million instead of $1,600 million set forth in the bill would make the situation easier on some of the States.

The bill provides that the matching ratio for Federal-State expenditures on the Interstate System shall be: Federal, 66% percent; State 3313 percent. The Private Truck Council believes that the Federal Government should not go beyond the traditional 50-50 matching basis by which most of the Federal aid contributions to the States have been made.

Senator CASE. You are aware, of course, Mr. Gorman, the reason why the Interstate System has been opposed on a more liberal Federal share than on the others, are you not?

Mr. GORMAN. I am not sure.

Senator CASE. In the 1954 act it was made 60-40, and it was because the Interstate System is being built to higher specifications, and in practical application it found the States reluctant to put up the additional money for building to the higher specifications of the Interstate when there was so much clamor for developing other highways.

The purpose of the larger share in matching is to encourage and attract the State highway commissions in proposing projects on the Interstate System.

Mr. GORMAN. But that 60-40 is restricted to the Interstate System. Senator CASE. The 60-40 is restricted to the Interstate System in the 1954 act and I think in S. 1048 the 66% to 33% is restricted to the Interstate.

Mr. GORMAN. Well, sir, this is the act of our board and it says 50-50, so that is what I will have to pronounce here.

Now, as to S. 1573: The Private Truck Council believes that it is unnecessary to create a Federal corporation in order to keep the highway system of our country adequate for our needs. Our council believes that the States with normal Federal aid, anticipated toll roads, private enterprise, and relinquishment by the Federal Government of automotive excise taxes can do the job. To the extent that any of the features of S. 1160 to which we have expressed objection appear also in this bill, we would like to reiterate those objections.

In addition, the bill states that Federal funds for the Interstate System would be matched on a 90-10 Federal-State ratio. For other Federal aid to the primary, secondary, and urban systems, the bill provides funds on the usual 50-50 matching basis. The Private Truck Council believes that the Federal Government should not go beyond the traditional 50-50 matching basis by which most of the Federal-aid contributions to the States have been made.

Section 301 of the bill provides:

No motor vehicle having a gross weight of 20,000 pounds or more shall be operated on or after April 1, 1956, on any highway in the Interstate System unless there has been issued for, and is displayed in a conspicuous place on, such vehicle, in accordance with the provisions of this title, a current permit license.

These licenses range from $300 to $1,200 per year. Such a levy would simply increase the cost of commodities to the public. Trucks are already paying about 35 percent of all highway use taxes and any

increase raises the cost of transportation and reaches the public through normal trade channels.

The Private Truck Council is firmly of the opinion that the levying of motortruck use taxes should be reserved to the States. They should not be levied by the Federal Government nor by any political subdivision of a State.

In summing up, we think it is clear that if the Federal Government wants the States to be able to look after themselves in the matter of building adequate highways, it should get out of the Federal automotive excise tax field. There is danger that too many people are tempted to overlook the role played by the States in the development of our highway system and to forget the importance of safeguarding the legitimate activities of the States in this and other connections. We feel there should be a maximum of State and local initiative and control and, at the same time, the means of exercising such initiative and control should be left in their hands.

Specifically, we recommend, (1) The Federal Government should remove itself from the field of automotive excise taxation. The field of automotive fuel taxes should be a State matter exclusively.

(2) Urban multilane ingress and egress highways. The decision to build these should rest with the citizens of the States and their willingness to tax themselves to pay for them.

(3) The building of toll roads, not supported by the credit of any political subdivision, but where a return is indicated on the investment of private capital, can be useful in developing the Interstate System and should be utilized. Federal aid funds should not be used for the construction or maintenance of toll roads. Legislation authorizing toll roads should stipulate that bonds issued by any turnpike authority are not to be backed by any governmental credit and that every toll road should be converted to a free road at the earliest practicable date.

(4) Diversion of State highway tax revenue to other than highway purposes should cease.

(5) Federal specifications for highway construction which have the effect of unduly limiting the carrying capacity of trucks should be modified. The Federal Government should cease advocating an 18,000-pound axle limit. Regulation of sizes and weights of trucks should be the function of the States rather than of the Federal Government.

(6) The formation of a Federal corporation to expedite the construction of highways should not be undertaken nor should Federal debt be created for that purpose. Highways should be constructed, improved, and maintained from normal revenue sources to the fullest possible extent.

(7) The Federal Government should not exceed the traditional 5050 basis for matching funds for highways.

You had a question, sir, about breaking up highways?

Senator GORE. Yes."

Mr. GORMAN. I have some pictures here that I would like to show you, if you will permit me.

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, I have one question.

Mr. Gorman, I notice that you have put in a table. It is very interesting. You have a total of $2,165,944,000 as the total Federal automotive excise tax collection. You have made the point that there are