The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I wish you would, Mr. Curtiss and Mr. MacDonald. Mr. MOTT. I would like Mr. Curtiss to supplement that with a break-down of the extent of the diversion by the Federal Government. Mr. WHITTINGTON. I think that would be helpful, because we want to be sure we get it all back in the highways, and we will come pretty near doing it in this $3,000,000,000. We will get even with the Federal Government. Mr. MOTT. We will in time. The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mr. Jones. The next witness will be Mr. Shapiro, from New York. STATEMENT OF SIDNEY M. SHAPIRO, DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, LONG ISLAND STATE PARK COMMISSION Mr. SHAPIRO. Mr. Chairman, I just have a short letter from Commissioner Robert Moses, addressed to you, and it represents his recommendations. Mr. WHITTINGTON. Who is the commissioner of highways in New York, Mr. Moses? Mr. SHAPIRO. He is the commissioner of parks and parkways. Mr. SHAPIRO. I believe Mr. Schermerhorn will be here later in the day. Mr. WOLCOTT. Who is the highway commissioner? Mr. SHAPIRO. Mr. Schermerhorn. Mr. MOTT. What is Mr. Moses' connection with the highway department now? Mr. SHAPIRO. He represents the city of New York in the construction of expressways and highways, as differentiated from the city boulevard and street system. Mr. MOTT. Is he employed by the State or city of New York? Mr. SHAPIRO. Both. He is both State commissioner and city commissioner. The CHAIRMAN. All right; you may read Mr. Moses' letter. Mr. SHAPIRO. It reads: Congressman J. WILL ROBINSON, NEW YORK, February 29, 1944. Chairman, House Roads Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. ROBINSON: For almost a year there has been a great deal of discussion on the provisions of H. R. 2426 and it is time for the final decision and the enactment of a law. It can at least be said of this bill that every conceivable argument for and against it has been made over and over again, that all conceivable kinds of arithmetical combinations have been suggested for the Federal-aid formula and for the Federal-State sharing basis, and finally that the bill has provoked earnest and constructive thought on acceleration of road construction in the post-war period. There is therefore no need to repeat all the points already made by others on Federal highway aid, nor to emphasize the fact that in the post-war period we shall inevitably face the problems of deteriorated and inadequate highways, neglect of metropolitan traffic need, increase in the number of cars, and unemployment. As to unemployment, we are headed straight for made-work and a hand-out unless we have ready a sizable program of public works, headed by a large road program. My own belief is that, although the time is short, we can still prepare public works contract plans for about $15,000,000,000 worth of work over a period of between 2 and 3 years, and that the combined Federal-State highway program should represent between $4,000,000,000 and $5,000,000,000 of this total. At the peak of such a public-works program some 5,000,000 persons can be employed on the site, together with a larger number back of the jobs who mine, manufacture, ship, and otherwise supply materials and equipment. The keystone of the arch is the highway program. Without it there can be no sensible extension into other fields of public works. So far the Federal Government has committed itself only to the design of Federal-aid highways on a basis of matching money with the several States. Now $60,000,000 has been made available for this purpose, most of which, incidentally, is still idle. A major reason for the lack of initiative on the part of many of the States in taking advantage of the design program is the confusion over the proposed change in formula, the sharing basis and the amount of funds to be made available for construction. Passage of H. R. 2426 in its final form will clear the air and get the highway program on its way. My recommendation to the committee as to the main provisions of the bill is as follows: 1. That the present formula be changed to one-half population, one-fourth area, one-fourth mileage. This is no scientific mathematical formula but represents a practical step toward a more equitable distribution to the more densely populated States at the same time not overlooking the problem of the more rural areas which need help. 2. That the sharing basis be 60 percent Federal, 40 percent State. This again is arbitrary and is suggested as a practical compromise to bring together the conflicting proposals. 3. That the Federal appropriation be not less than $1,000,000,000 per year, or $3,000,000,000 for 3 years. On a 60-40 basis this would make available a total fund of $5,000,000,000 for the 3-year period. This letter represents the best advice I can give as a city and State park and parkway official, as a member of the New York City Planning Commission, as head of several authorities, including the Triborough Bridge Authority, and in other public capacities. Sincerely, ROBERT MOSES. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much; we are glad to have had Mr. Moses' ideas about this very important matter. Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Shapiro, are you going to be here for some little time? Mr. SHAPIRO. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. We regard Mr. Moses as one of the most constructive thinkers Mr. WHITTINGTON. On public works in the United States. He thinks; and we need folks who think in this program. Mr. MOTT. Mr. Shapiro, in that letter from Mr. Moses it was recommended that the formula be changed from one-third to 50-25-25. Mr. SHAPIRO. Yes; I can read that one sentence. The CHAIRMAN. It is in the letter. Mr. SHAPIRO. It says: That the present formula be changed to one-half population, one-quarter area, and one-quarter mileage. This is no scientific mathematical formula, but represents a practical step toward a more equitable distribution to the more densely populated States, at the same time not overlooking the problem of the more rural areas which need help. Mr. MOTT. Now, on the change in the allocation from that specified in the bill. What is the reason for that? Mr. SHAPIRO. That is the sharing basis. That the sharing basis be 60 percent Federal, 40 percent State. This again is arbitrary and is suggested as a practical compromise to bring together the conflicting proposals. Mr. MOTT. I see now the reason he wants the formula changed is because he is interested in getting more money for the States of large population, particularly for States having great cities like New York. Mr. SHAPIRO. That is generally the intention. Mr. MOTT. And he is particularly interested in getting these through thoroughfares in the city of New York. Mr. SHAPIRO. That is correct. Mr. MOTT. You say that he is employed in his present capacity by the State of New York and the city of New York together? Mr. SHAPIRO. Yes; I think you were out of the room when I read that last sentence. Mr. MOTT. Yes. Mr. SHAPIRO. It says [reading]: This letter represents the best advice I can give as a city and State park and parkway official, as a member of the New York City Planning Commission, as head of several authorities, including the Triborough Bridge Authority and in other public capacities. Mr. MOTT. So his connection with the State Highway Department of New York is only incidental to his real work, which is doing these parkways, and so forth, for the city of New York? Mr. SHAPIRO. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Healy, of New Mexico. STATEMENT OF F. G. HEALY, ACTING STATE HIGHWAY ENGINEER, STATE OF NEW MEXICO Mr. HEALY. On behalf of New Mexico I appreciate the honor and the privilege of presenting her views as regards H. R. 2426, which is a bill to authorize the appropriation of funds for highway construction during the first 3 years of the post-war period. The principle of Federal aid for road construction being apportioned among the States, and such work being done by contract construction under the direct supervision of the States, with the Public Roads Administration acting in a coordinating capacity, has proved so satisfactory that it hardly seems necessary to justify the continuation of the policy. This policy has resulted in a comparatively uniform improvement in all of the States of a national system of highways, which could not have been accomplished by any other method. It has also resulted in the establishment of well-staffed and competent State organizations as well as an excellent, experienced Federal agency, and it would be a calamity to fail to equitably apportion Federal aid among the States, to again attempt to construct roads by force account or day-labor methods, or for some Federal bureau or agency to alone attempt to directly supervise or perform road construction. There are only three States in the Union which have a less population per square mile than New Mexico. One of the reasons for this low density is the fact that 42 percent of the land is owned by the Federal Government. The large area and low density scattered population results in a high average miles of road required per capita. Many miles of these roads are important to the Nation as a whole for use as transcontinental highways, as more than one-third of the traffic on New Mexico highways is by vehicles owned and registered in other States. Therefore, it is important to all the other States that these roads in New Mexico be improved. The regular Federal-aid formula for the apportionment of the various fund authorizations has proved satisfactory and equitable from the beginning of Federal aid for roads to the present. It is recognized that more stress must be placed on the solution of urban street problems in the future than has been placed in the past, and that relief of unemployment in the post-war period is one of the objectives to be obtained by road construction, so that New Mexico has agreed to the additional weight proposed to be given to the population factor in the apportionment formula in the bill now under consideration. We believe that the factor of area must be included with at least one-quarter weight to it, to provide equitable distribution to the States with a low density of population. Ownership by the Federal Government of a high percentage of the land in many States is another reason why this factor must be included, as there are many miles of important roads over these lands which must be built to serve the Nation as a whole. The Congress has provided that an adjustment be inade in the State matching percentage for those States having a large area of publicly owned land, as these States are less able to match the funds because the existence of such lands affects State revenues and population. If the factor of one-quarter weight to area is eliminated and the factor of one-quarter weight to gasoline consumption is added, the reduction in Federal-aid funds would be so great to the public-land States as to practically prevent the completion of any transcontinental highway to modern standards within the next decade. On a percentage basis, Montana and New Mexico would be affected more than any of the other States. The decrease from the amount which would normally be received under the regular Federal-aid formula would be 72 percent for Montana and 70 percent for New Mexico. We, therefore, honestly believe that the formula based on one-half weight to population, one-quarter weight to miles of post roads, and one-quarter weight to area, is entirely just and equitable for the apportionment of Federal-aid road funds to the States in the first 3 post war years. While public works construction is vitally needed to assist in the transition from wartime economy to peacetime economy and road construction should be an important item in the total program, roads should not be built simply to provide employment. The main consideration should be improvement of the many deficiencies and inadequate conditions that now exist in our roads. As the Federal Government has received far more revenue from road users in the last several years than has been returned to the States for road purposes, and as such revenues at present rates of taxation can be expected to approach $1,000,000,000 per year in the near future, the amount proposed for expenditure in the bill appears reasonable from this viewpoint. As of January 1, 1943, there was a total of 63,076 miles of roads and streets in the State of New Mexico. The Federal-aid and Federal-aid secondary systems are based on a percentage of 47,607 miles, which are the miles of road in the State which were certified to be in existence on November 9, 1921, in accordance with the Federal-Aid Act of 1921. The Federal-aid system may now consist of 8 percent of the 47.607 miles, of which 3.808 miles plus the miles on Federal reservations which are not included in the mileage limitation. The system as it now exists has 3,537 miles off the Federal reservations and 384 miles on Federal reservations, a total of 3,921 miles. Of the 3,537 miles off the Federal reservations, 121 miles are within municipalities. The Federal-aid secondary system consists of 1,874 miles, of which 58 miles are not on the State highway system. This system could at present consist of 4,760 miles and it is the intention to approach in the very near future this mileage. The system of roads which we call the State highway system consists of 9,358 miles. The actual figures on types and miles of roads and streets in New Mexico are as follows: It is to be noted that only 14.5 percent of the roads and streets in the State can be considered as being "out of the mud." The following tabulations show in detail the many deficiencies and inadequate conditions which exist on the State highway system, and show estimated costs of improvement required: Interregional highway system (rural) Total___ $27, 648, 300 59,743, 300 22, 269, 900 20, 911, 600 130, 573, 100 Right-of-way costs are not included in the above estimate. The above estimate for the interregional system was prepared prior to the release of the recent committee report relative to that system and, in many cases, does not contemplate improvement to the standards required. We are heartily in accord with the standards proposed for this system, but in complying with some of these the cost of construction will be increased over that previously estimated. Considering these increases in cost, and including the right-of-way acquisitions, the following estimate covers all road and street construction and reconstruction required in the State: New Mexico's share of the authorization proposed in H. R. 2426 and S. 971 on the basis of the recommended formula for distribution to the States will result in a total construction program in the State of approximately $50,000,000 in the first 3 post-war years. New Mexico has never failed to match with State funds any Federalaid road authorization. We intend to stretch ourselves to the limit to provide post-war road construction and will be able to match New Mexico's share of the authorization at the percentage of matching as proposed in the bills as introduced. |