The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Disney, have you any comment you wish to make? Mr. DISNEY. Mr. H. E. Bailey, the engineer of the State highway department is here and can answer questions, if you have any questions you wish to ask him. It will only take a minute. Reference was made to raising revenue. Of course the Ways and Means Committee will be glad to have every vote of every member of the Roads Committee on every tax bill we bring in. I would like to see the day come when the Congress could accompany a bill for an extra sum of money with a revenue-raising bill, specifically designed to raise, take in this case, the particular $3,000,000,000. I think it would be more businesslike to do it if it could be worked out that way and find out when you arrange to spend the money just exactly where it will come from. Mr. GAVIN. Does the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma have any suggestion? Mr. DISNEY. Yes, sir; accompany this bill with a revenue bill, a bill designed to raise the money. Mr. GAVIN. What type of taxation would you suggest to raise this $3,000,000,000? Mr. DISNEY. We are scratching the bottom of the barrel now. Mr. DISNEY. We have to add to taxes already existing in order to furnish the money unless we go to a sales tax, which cannot be done under present conditions. The CHAIRMAN. I did not want you gentlemen to get into a tax discussion. Mr. DISNEY. If you accompany an extraordinary expenditure with a bill to raise the money to meet that expenditure, it would be wiser business. Mr. GAVIN. I think eventually we will have to come back to what the gentleman from Oklahoma is saying. The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate the ideas of the gentleman from Oklahoma on tax matters; he is pretty sound on those. Thank you Mr. Childers. The next State is Ohio. The next witness will be Mr. H. G. Sours, director of highways of the State of Ohio. He needs no introduction. I am sure Ohio is very well represented. FURTHER STATEMENT OF H. G. SOURS, DIRECTOR OF HIGHWAYS, STATE OF OHIO Mr. SOURS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, a week ago I had the pleasure of presenting testimony on behalf of the State Highway Officials' Association and today I appear here to present the case of Ohio. I have prepared a statement somewhat in detail. I will attempt to brief it in my remarks and point out the principal items which I think I should call to your attention. Mr. WHITTINGTON. Thank you. That will help us. Will you give us just a general picture of what Ohio looks like and your problems, then submit to any questions? Mr. SOURS. Yes, sir; Ohio has a variety of road problems. It is both an industrial and an agricultural State. Industrially, Ohio ranks as the fifth State in the value of manufactured products. Industrial employment has recently reached third place among the States. Its greatest industry is iron and steel, ranking second among all States in this industry. Its second industry is rubber tires and related products, ranking first in the Nation in this field, and producing over one-half of the entire United States output. It ranks first in the Nation in steel products, such as forgings, bolts, stamped and pressed-metal products, and is second in foundry, machine shop, and machine tool products. It ranks first in the manufacture of clay products. It ranks first in the manufacture of construction machinery. Other great industries in Ohio are motor vehicles and automotive parts, chemical, glass, printing, paper, electrical apparatus, clothing, cement, petroleum products, stone, sand and gravel, flour, dairy products, and many others. During this war, vast munitions and armaments plants have sprung up. It is also one of the leading States in the manufacture of military airplanes. Ohio is truly a great industrial State. The need for modern and adequate highways to feed these vast and widespread industrial areas and for the transportation of employees is quite obvious. Ohio ranks tenth in the United States in the value of mineral resources. Coal, clay, cement, coke, lime, natural gas, petroleum, and sand and gravel are the principal mineral products. While Ohio may not be generally known as one of the great agricultural States, it ranks fifth among all States in total agricultural income; it ranks third in the, production of soybeans and in clover seeds; it ranks fourth in poultry; it ranks fifth in corn, wheat, and hogs; and it ranks sixth in dairying. Most of the farm products produced in Ohio are consumed in its industrial and urban areas. Hence it can be readily seen that motor transportation from farm to market calls for improved local and feeder road on an extensive scale. Fifty-seven and one-tenth percent of Ohio's population reside in municipalities of 10,000 and over, according to the 1940 Federal census. The municipalities fall in the following population brackets: 59 municipalities of over 10,000 population. 26 municipalities of over 25,000 population. 12 municipalities of over 50,000 population. 8 municipalities of over 100,000 population. In the lower bracket, there are 127 municipalities between 2,500 and 10,000 population. The municipalities in Ohio are reasonably well distributed over the State, although there is some concentration in certain areas. Consequently, for many years, Ohio has had a network of heavily traveled roads connecting the centers of population. Necessity caused many of the connecting roads to be built early, which, in many respects, has created a problem today because the roads which were built early naturally were not designed to meet present-day requirements. Ohio is so located geographically that its roads carry a large volume of trans-State traffic. Lake Erie on the north screens off the traffic which might normally flow westward from the Northern States so that there is a very heavy concentration crossing northern Ohio. In many respects it might be said that Ohio is located at the transportation crossroads between the Nation's great industrial centers. Normal traffic plus the heavy wartime movement of material, and Ohio is one of the top States in war production, has imposed a severe burden on our arterial highways. While, for some years, much progress has been made in developing highway improvements on the trunk-line systems, the deferment of needed improvements during the war period, combined with the destructive effects of heavy hauling during this period, has brought on the need for reconstruction and modernizing many of the trunk-line routes. This is one of our greatest problems. I would like to emphasize that that is one of the greatest problems which we have, the development of our principal State highway extensions and the cost of arterial roads into and through the cities. The need for urban development, the continuing of our main highways through municipalities, the location and construction of express highways in the large cities, together with the principal feeders, is obviously great in a State like Ohio with so many urban communities, referred to in the first part of this report. While the State has done considerable work in municipalities, there is no legal requirement that any State highway funds be expended within municipalities. Consequently there has been an accumulating need growing over a number of years. Traffic surveys in Ohio, like in most States, show that a very high percentage of the traffic approaching the larger municipalities is destined to enter the city rather than to bypass it. The urban developments have not kept pace with the rural system; consequently, we have arrived at a point where some adjustment and more careful balancing of programs is needed. The agricultural importance of the State and the local markets, as referred to earlier in this report, indicate a need for further development and betterment of its local road systems. Now, here is a brief tabulation of the mileages of the highway systems in Ohio: While the greater part of the State system has been improved, much of it is now obsolete and inadequate, particularly in the urban areas. The county and township systems are partially improved, mostly with low types. The State levies, collects, and distributes a 3-cent gasoline tax for roads and streets, and 1 cent for the general fund. It also levies and collects license fees on all motor vehicles, which go to road and street funds. The distribution is as follows: To modernize completely the entire State highway system, both rural and urban, it is estimated would cost $680,000,000. To modernize the system and to extend the arterial routes through the cities, using a modern design, limiting the work to projects justifiable in the immediate near future, it is estimated would cost $450,000,000. A minimum of $200,000,000 should be invested in the most urgent of these needed improvements. I am speaking now of municipal as well as all others. These estimates do not cover the cost of improvements on the county system and municipal streets not on the State system, except grade-crossing elimination work on the municipal streets. The following is a complete tabulation of the work included in the $450,000,000 estimate: Now, this looks like a huge sum of money, but just last week the city of Cleveland drew a plan for the metropolitan Cleveland area alone which would cost, according to the estimate, $150,000,000. We realize that is not going to be built now or in the immediate future, but it does show that there is a definite need for perhaps larger expenditures, larger investments, than we have thought of for some time. How much we will be able to do naturally remains to be seen. Anticipating such a program of urgently needed highway projects, we have started to prepare detailed plans on many of these projects, and at the present time we have detailed plans completed for 125 projects, estimated to cost approximately $22,000,000. We also have substantially completed detailed plans for additional projects that would cost approximately $10,000,000. We expect to increase this total to approximately $60,000,000 by January 1, 1945. Naturally the manpower situation has handicapped us as well as it has other agencies. In addition to our plan preparation, we are also carrying on an advanced engineering program, affecting principally important projects on the strategic network and interregional highway system, which when completed will enable us to proceed with the plan preparation for a large volume of work highly urban in character. The major portion of this work will be opening up traffic arteries into and through large centers of population where traffic bottlenecks now exist. Summarizing, our highway problems in order of importance can be properly placed under three general classifications: First. Construction of expressways necessary to carry large volumes of traffic between and through densely populated areas. Second. Correcting deficiencies on our primary highway system. Third. Improving the secondary and rural highway system to standards that will permit rural traffic ready access to the main highways. That is a rather brief and hurried statement. The CHAIRMAN. I have just one or two questions. Have you given any special thought to the allocations made by the gentleman from Oregon in his plan? Mr. SOURS. I was not here when his testimony was given, but I think I know what you refer to. That was that a part of the total be allocated on an urban formula and a part of it under section 21 formula. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. SOURS. Yes; that would fit our situation in Ohio more nearly than anything we have discussed as yet. Although some of these formulas which were originally discussed here, as Mr. Ross and some others have said, might give us more money, we realize that also there are 47 other States to be considered; and we realize further we have some industries in Ohio which furnish material and equipment when projects are discussed in other States. We do have a very bad condition in many of our large cities. We also have bad situations in many of our smaller municipalities. But due to the fact that we have a highly urban population, so many municipalities spread over the State, we feel that that is one of the problems we must get into more than ever and we feel it is only equitable and fair that there be some special consideration given because the two problems are so widely different. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Whittington, do you have any questions? Mr. WHITTINGTON. You have a 4-cent gasoline tax in your State? Mr. SOURS. Three-cent gasoline tax and 1-cent termed "liquid fuel," which includes gasoline and oil used off the highway-nonhighway use. |