Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Mr. WOLCOTT. And where is that?

Mr. Cox. I don't know. I think it is above $4,000,000,000.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Where do you think it is above the $4,000,000,000? I am trying to get a justification for this $3,000,000,000 the Government is going to invest here.

Mr. Cox. Well, I know the road needs of Connecticut fairly well. I know the accident conditions that result from our having inadequate road capacities, and while I can't put this down in a nice little mathematical chart and draw an exact balanced line and say "We. are justified in building 250 millions of roads, and we would not be justified in building $251,000,000 worth of roads," I know that we can, in my State, spend a great many millions of dollars with sufficient advantage to the facilitation of traffic, and consequently, to industry in our State, to warrant the expenditure of a lot of money, and from studying the needs of other States, I am convinced, and of course I may be mistaken, but I am convinced that the real road needs exceed $4,000,000,000.

Mr. WOLCOTT. You authorize $3,000,000,000 on a 50-50 basis; that would be a total of $6,000,000,000.

Mr. Cox. Yes, sir. I stated my own belief that we might probably be on sounder ground if we held to the $4,000,000,000 total which is envisaged in H. R. 2426, and adjusted downward on the Federal appropriation as we adjust upward on the State appropriation.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Don't you think that Connecticut, if it pays $2 into the Federal Treasury for every dollar that it gets back, would be in a better position to pay 75 percent of this cost, and let the Federal Government contribute 25 percent, then under the present conditions? Mr. Cox. I think you are doubtless correct there. My personal view would be to have the Federal Government relinquish the Federal taxes and then hold to the Federal-aid program such as we have. had in the past, allowing the States to extend their State appropriations.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Would Connecticut's construction program be just as extensive if the formula, or if the distribution, were just the reverse of what it is in 2426, if the Federal Government contributed 25 percent and Connecticut 75 percent?

Mr. Cox. I can't answer that question on a factual basis, because that would entail action on the part of our legislature. I am inclined to think, though, that it would. I have been working for years for the creation of a commission in Connecticut to study the road needs of the State. And the last legislature created such a commission to report to the next legislature.

Mr. WOLCOTT. In that connection, Mr. Cox, I note from table 4, that Connecticut has 3.45 of the alleged road needs of the country. Isn't that rather a large percentage for so small a State?

Mr. Cox. Well, it certainly is away out of proportion to our area. I think if we had set up the standards of what we ought to have on the basis of certain other States, we would have arrived at even a larger total. I have some figures here somewhere, on the volume of traffic on our highway system. May I say this: It should be realized. that the need of road improvement, the need of road replacement, does not arise simply from the wearing out of roads. As a matter

98217-44-vol. 1——16

of fact, you can, by increasing the amount of your maintenance, keep a worn-out road in use for year, after year, after year, after you have first recognized it is worn out. We are having to do that, and that is not a wartime proposition. We have been keeping some little used roads, that theoretically ought to be rebuilt, in use for a long time, because we figure that the increase in maintenance cost. over what we would have to spend on a reconstructed road, is less serious than diverting from our more urgent needs the amount of money required to reconstruct that little-used road. We can keep a road in use after it is worn out by extra maintenance, but when the capacity of the road is exceeded, when you have more people wanting to get on that road and travel on that road than the road will take, you are just in a bad situation. We have rather suddenly gotten into that situation. I can't tell you exactly why it is, but all of a sudden, due to the growth in traffic in a brief period of years, there has developed a situation in Connecticut, in which hundreds of miles of our roads in 1941 were called on to carry more traffic than they are capable of handling safely.

May I read you two or three figures? Connecticut has 640 miles of rural 2-lane State highway, which in 1939 was carrying a traffic in excess of 2,000 vehicles a day. I mention that figure first, because I know there are States that set that as the level at which they should move from 2-lane to 4-lane construction.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cox, I was in hopes that we could finish by 12. Is there anyone who has any questions? I was very much in hopes we could finish by noon with Mr. Cox, but Congress has now convened. I wish you would be as brief as possible, Mr. Cox, and get through as quickly as you can.

Mr. Cox. All right, I will skip the 3,000 vehicles a day. We had in 1939 226 miles of 2-lane road that carried 4,000 vehicles a day. We had 44 miles of 2-lane road that carried 6,000 vehicles a day. I don't think there is any State, certainly there are not many, that do not think when a road is carrying 4,000 vehicles a day, it is time to rebuild that road.

Under the program of reconstruction of 2- to 4-lane roads we have scheduled, if we could start immediately when the war is over, by the time they were finished all roads reconstructed to 4 lanes would be carrying substantially more than 4,000 vehicles a day. This constitutes the major part of our rural road need and includes over 400 miles of very expensive construction. And these are rural roads. This does not enter into our city problem at all. That, the rural reconstruction, is going to cost somewhere around $300,000 or $400,000 a mile, running up to somewhere around $160,000,000 dollars.

Beside that we have some of the worst urban problems that exist any place. Our cities are small, they are old, they are very congested, and I would estimate that within the confines of cities we would need to expend somewhere around $50,000,000. Those are our two major loads, conversion of 2-lane roads into 4-lane roads, and improvement of access into and through our cities, and those two things together run into $200,000,000. Then, in addition to those things, we have all the conditions of inadequacy of pavements, foundation, line, grade, and drainage that compel most of the States not having heavy traffic problems to reconstruct their roads. So that we have about a quarter

of a billion dollars of road work that has got to be done, and four-fifths of that to make possible the flow of traffic using our roads. We are small, but we are extremely compact. And so we have a volume of traffic flow that is entirely out of keeping with the capacity of our road system to handle. That is why, with so small an area, we have such a large volume of road needs.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I would like to ask a question. That was brought on by the war industry in your territory, was it not?

Mr. Cox. No, sir; that was developing very rapidly when the war started.

Mr. FISHER. Do you have a table in your testimony, Mr. Cox, showing the amount of revenue to the Federal Government from your State, and from each State from gasoline taxes?

Mr. Cox. We haven't it quite in that form, but we have a table that shows the percentage of the total that is contributed by each State. The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions?

Mr. WHITTINGTON. That includes gasoline and motor vehicle?
Mr. Cox. That is right.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Excise taxes?

Mr. Cox. That is right; and we have another table that shows the gallonage of gasoline used, and your gasoline taxes can be drawn from that table.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. May I ask just this one question? In addition to your view that the Federal contribution might well be 50 percent, as heretofore, what would you say, generally, about the Federal interest in feeder, secondary, or rural roads, as compared with your main thoroughfares? Is it as much or less?

Mr. Cox. It appears to me to be very much less.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions?

Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I have one question I would like to ask. It is not quite clear to me what you mean by demobilization of these workers. I gathered from an inquiry as to the demobilization of the armed forces that you referred to the men who would be let out of the armed forces at the close of the present war. But as to the demobilization of the civilian workers, do you mean those who will be thrown out of employment at the end of the present emergency?

Mr. Cox. Yes, sir.

Mr. FISHER. And not all of the civilian workers?

Mr. Cox. No, sir; just those that it is anticipated will be thrown out of employment. That figure is built up by comparing the number of persons employed in 1943 with those in 1940. The surplus over 1940 has been assumed to represent those that will be out of a job.

The CHAIRMAN. You may revise your remarks, Mr. Cox, and you have the privilege of inserting the various tables you mentioned in the record.

Mr. Cox. I want to sincerely thank the committee for its patience in listening to such a long statement.

The CHAIRMAN. It has been very interesting and informative. We will recess until tomorrow at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:04 p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m., Wednesday, March 8, 1944.)

FEDERAL AID FOR POST-WAR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 1944

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON ROADS,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., the Honorable J. W. Robinson (chairman), presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. At this time we will make a little adjustment in the program. I think there are some here who would like, if they can, to testify today and get away. We will first hear from Mr. Mack, of Delaware.

STATEMENT OF W. W. MACK, CHIEF ENGINEER, DELAWARE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, the State Highway Department of Delaware is fully in accord with and endorses H. R. 2426. There is only one point I wish to mention, and that is section 4, on the division of these funds into certain classes of Federal roads, secondary roads, and so forth.

The difference in the various States, I think, makes it impossible to have such a rigid allocation of funds. In the State of Delaware, for instance, I think it would be doubtful if we could use in a reasonable way the appropriation for secondary roads. In other words, the division of primary and secondary roads is entirely different, and the individual States have arrived at greatly differing stages of development on their secondary roads.

That is the only question I wanted to raise, and the Department feels that it would be desirable to have this section amended so that it would have elasticity and permit funds to be transferred through proper procedures from one classification to another within the State. I am submitting with this statement a brief summary of the needs of the Delaware highway system. The most important is the restoration of the highways to pre-war condition. The schedule I am presenting was prepared in 1940, and it was anticipated at that time we could begin immediately on this program. It has been delayed 4 years, and the heavy usage of the roads in the meantime has made it even more important.

I am not going to burden you with statistical information which you undoubtedly have available, but wish to mention a few points which are, I believe, important to the State of Delaware.

Delaware is the second smallest State in area and the third smallest in population. It is also the seventh smallest in urban population, being preeminently an agricultural State.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »