STATEMENT OF R. H. BALDOCK, STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER, STATE OF OREGON Mr. BALDOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have been on the Oregon Highway Commission for 20 years, and for the past 12 as chief engineer. Oregon was one of the first States to embark on a large-scale paving of rural roads. The first highway commission was organized in 1913, and some paving work was done in 1914 and 1915. By 1917 new highway construction was under way actively and by 1923 the 4,800mile primary State highway system was 50 percent improved. The highways then constructed were good ones according to the then prevailing standards and nearly all of them are still in service. During the 20 years that have since elapsed, however, the needs of highway transportation have changed, and those once adequate highways are now largely obsolete. They, and many miles of highways built subsequently, are now very much in need of reconstruction and replace ment. Recent appraisement of these highways, and of other highways which now comprise the Federal-aid and State highway systems, develops the fact that no less than $200,000,000 will be required to bring these systems to a state of improvement which will enable them to render satisfactorily the services expected of them and to create the benefits requisite to expand the economy of the State. The division of this amount as between different classes of highway is as follows: Federal-aid highways_. Secondary and feeder roads_ $110, 000, 000 40, 000, 000 50, 000, 000 Oregon has a 5-cent gasoline tax, a $5 plate tax, and levies motor transportation fees on commercial vehicles. The counties receive 15.7 percent and the cities 5 percent of the State road-user taxes. The net amount available for the State highway fund under normal conditions is about $14,000,000 which leaves about $5,000,000 for the matching of Federal-aid funds. However, revenues have been reduced by about 20 percent and present indications are that revenues for this year will suffer a reduction of from 20 to 25 percent due to further gasoline restrictions. At the present time current revenues barely meet current obligations. During the first 3 post-war years, Oregon's revenues from gasoline tax and other motor transportation fees should yield for State highway purposes an average of about $12,000,000 per year. Of that, about $9,000,000 will be required for highway maintenance, operating expense, bond expense, and so forth. The remaining $3,000,000 will be available each year for construction. That amount, by itself, is not sufficient to make replacements in kind as existing roadways and structures reach the point of failure. It provides nothing with which to modernize our highways and to make the betterments that are required to keep pace with traffic development. It is apparent, therefore, that Federal participation in road construction is necessary in Oregon, if the next few years are to see any advancement in a greatly needed highway improvement program. Under H. R. 2426 Oregon will receive about $14,700,000 per year for 3 years. Oregon will accumulate a surplus of about $6,000,000 by the end of the war. Current revenue and surplus will permit it to match Federal aid if the ratio is kept at 75 percent Federal and 25 percent State. Oregon will have approximately $15,000,000 for the matching of Federal aid which will give the State a total of about $19,000,000 of highway construction for each of the 3 post-war years. This will make an appreciable start on the needed improvement program, but when it is considered that a program such as the one now contemplated will have to be continued for 10 years in order to complete the new improvements now needed, it is evident that the new legislation is most conservative. During this decade further growth and expansion will bring about new needs requiring still greater expenditures. ap Since the introduction of this bill, 1 year ago, a great deal has been said and written about the method of apportionment. Many people believe that the old formula in section 21 should be retained for the portionment in accordance with the practice of the past 20 years. Others believe that susbtantial sums should be made available to remove the bottlenecks of traffic in the cities. It would seem that the road pattern falls naturally into three categories: 1. The Federal-aid system of main traffic arterials. 2. The secondary or feeder road system. 3. The principal urban arterials. Funds for the construction of the first two systems of road have. been made available by Federal legislation for some time. This bill represents the first real attempt to give consideration to the third system, that of urban arterials. In this connection, I wish to state that Oregon is satisfied with the formula apportionment of H. R. 2426. It is evident, however, that Congress must give careful consideration to the requirements of all of the States, and that legislation is of necessity a compromise. In consequence, if the Congress feels that it must give greater weight to the urban problem, permit me to suggest that the apportionment for the first two categories be based upon section 21 of the Federal Highway Act, namely, one-third on population, one-third on area, and one-third on post-road mileage as in the past. And that the apportionment of the funds for the urban arterials, a new problem, be based upon a new formula involving the ratio of the population of the municipalities of 10,000 or more in each State, to the population of the municipalities of 10,000 or more in all the States. It is my opinion that the urban allotment should not exceed 30 percent of the total funds provided. Oregon has already made considerable progress in the planning of needed improvements. Surveys and plans for 500 miles of construction, estimated to cost $40,000,000, are now 80 percent complete. Surveys and plans for an additional 250 miles, estimated to cost $14,000,000, are definitely programed and scheduled for completion before the end of this year. Thus, by the end of 1944 Oregon will have plans completed for 90 percent of the 3-year program contemplated by this new legislation. Should the war end now, Oregon can immediately let contracts for $30,000,000 of road-construction projects. Planning for years in the future can most effectively be done as a post-war activity, thus adding more man-hours to post-war employment. Highway contractor organizations in Oregon are believed to be entirely adequate and competent to carry on the contemplated construction program both expeditiously and economically. Approximately two-thirds of all highway construction moneys spent in Oregon, as well as other Western States, go to local labor both direct and indirect. The remaining one-third of the money spent in the industrial Middle West and East for the purchase of equipment, materials, and supplies. It would be of material advantage to Oregon, as well as many of the other States, if the Congress would amend the road bill and make 10 percent of the funds provided for each of the post-war years immediately available, in advance, for the purchase of rights-of-way. This action would materially expedite the post-war program. Oregon resources are agriculture, lumbering, fishing, and mining. Oregon has the greatest body of standing timber of any State in the United States. Much of this timber is in the United States national forests. The Federal Government should build the State and county highways through their vast holdings, and in addition should build forest-development roads in order to market timber, much of which is now ripe. The two types of construction add more than their cost to the capital value of the Federal forest investment. The sale of timber will bring in revenue to the Federal Government which will pay, over the period of years, the cost of such roads. It is suggested that any road bill adopted should take cognizance of such conditions in conformance with past practice, and that $50,000,000 be made available for forest highways for each of the 3 post-war years. And that $25,000,000 be made available for forest-development roads and trails for each of the 3 post-war years. Since this is purely a Federal obligation, it would appear that this authorization should not be made from the $1,000,000,000 provided for other classes of roads. In summary, then, let me say : First, that Oregon has need for all and more of the expenditure contemplated. Second, that Oregon will be able to provide the match money needed. Third, that Oregon has the construction organization necessary to carry on the work. Fourth, that Oregon will have its planning completed and will be ready to begin construction the moment the need for post-war activity arrives. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Baldock, for your very interesting paper. There are one or two questions I desire to ask. First, I want to express to you the regret of the committee that your Representative, Mr. Mott, who is one of the most active members of this committee, is not present. He is at the present time, I think, in his home State attending the funeral of Senator McNary. Mr. BALDOCK. I am very sorry Mr. Mott is not here, because he is very familiar with our road program. The CHAIRMAN. I am sure he will be here with us in our deliberations. However, I want you to know that the committee understands, and is sorry for the circumstance causing Mr. Mott's absence. I am interested in this 70-30 percent division you advocate. Have you worked that out to show what each State would get? • Mr. BALDOCK. I have, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Have you that so that it can be submitted for the record? Mr. BALDOCK. Yes, sir. This would contemplate $450,000,000 on the Federal-aid system, and $250,000,000 on the secondard roads distributed on the section 21 formula, and $300,000,000 on the urban system, distributed on the basis of the ratio of the people in municipalities of 10,000 or more. The CHAIRMAN. I wish you would submit that for the record so we can have it before us. Mr. BALDOCK. I also have another table that gives a comparison of that method in relation to the apportionment under the present bill. The CHAIRMAN. We would appreciate it if you would file that also. (The tables referred to are as follows:) Alabama.. Arizona Arkansas. California. Colorado. Connecticut. Delaware. Florida.. Sample apportionment of $1,000,000,000 [45 percent, regular Federal aid: 25 percent, secondary; 30 percent, urban] Georgia.. Idaho. Illinois. 18, 170, 000 10, 090, 000 Indiana. 11, 090, 000 6, 160, 000 Iowa 11, 450, 000 6, 360, 000 Kansas. 11, 620, 000 6, 460, 000 Kentucky. 8, 620, 000 4, 790,000 Louisiana 6, 890, 000 Maine. Maryland Massachusetts. 4, 000, 000 5,850,000 9, 380, 000 21, 810, 000 Minnesota. Mississippi. 12, 420, 000 8, 290, 000 Missouri 13, 670, 000 6, 900, 000 5, 180, 000 9, 010, 000 5, 790,000 4,250,000 10, 480,000 1,250,000 3, 470, 000 4,020,000 5, 430,000 16, 240, 000 2,890, 000 1,250,000 4,690, 000 4,040, 000 2, 820,000 6, 170, 000 3, 190, 000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,270,000 19, 320, 000 5, 110, 000 24, 430, 000 29, 160, 000 15, 150, 000 16, 190, 000 9, 260,000 1, 130, 000 13, 350, 000 4, 630, 000 22, 490, 000 12, 020, 000 84, 500, 000 20, 820,000 11, 100, 000 18, 700, 000 43, 920, 000 3, 030, 000 19, 240, 000 1,920, 000 13, 820, 000 25, 100, 000 54, 440, 000 2, 970, 000 6, 470, 000 11, 100, 000 11, 750, 000 19, 100, 000 55, 800, 000 Comparison of apportionment of $1,000,000,000 as provided by H. R. 2426 with apportionment of $1,000,000,000 based on 45 percent Federal-aid, 25 percent secondary, and 30 percent urban area The CHAIRMAN. I don't understand your 30-percent division. I don't understand exactly how you divide that 30 percent on population. Will you make that a little clearer? Mr. BALDOCK. Well, each State has so many cities of more than 10,000 population. You take the population of municipalities of 10,000 or more in each State, and add them. Then you add them up for all the States and distribute on the ratio of population. The CHAIRMAN. So it is based entirely on city population, and by cities over 10,000? Mr. BALDOCK. Yes, sir. Area and value would appear to have no bearing on that problem, which is a new one. The CHAIRMAN. I think that is clear. Now, as to your 10-percent suggestion, your idea is that 10 percent of a State's apportionment should be made immediately available for the purchase of rights-ofway? Mr. BALDOCK. Yes, sir. If the Federal Government plans, under this bill if it passes, to pay its pro rata share of the cost of rights-ofway, it would be good business for both the Federal Government and the States to purchase them now. I am fearful if the purchase is delayed until after the war is over, there will be considerable delay in putting the program under contract. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, your idea is that the 10 percent should not be a post-war program, but should be an immediate program? Mr. BALDOCK. Just for the purchase of rights-of-way to carry on the post-war program in an orderly fashion. When you negotiate |