Page images
PDF
EPUB

4. The projected future, 1961-75

As indicated in table I, page 172, almost $74 billion in Federal funds probably will be earmarked to continue the various aids to transportation between 1961 and 1975. More than 57 percent of this total, or $42 billion, is earmarked for the Federal-aid highway program. An additional 24 percent, or almost $19 billion, will be needed for the Federal aviation program. Almost $12 billion, or 16 percent of the total, will be expended in aid of navigation. The remainder, representing less than $2 billion, or about 3 percent of the total, will be expended for merchant marine subsidies.

The Federal aviation program does not include amounts needed to finance development of a supersonic commercial transport (mach 3), under a proposed program announced by the FAA in October 1960. It appears that this program will require expenditure of several hundred million dollars of Federal funds within the next 10 years to develop a new type of aircraft for civil use.

5. Problem areas

In our review of the modern period, we recognized that the Congress has the responsibility for authorizing promotional and regulatory programs and appropriating funds in aid of transportation. Separate congressional treatment of assistance rendered under one transportation program, independent of its action or inaction with respect to another or other transportation programs, has resulted in a serious policy lag between certain promotional programs as well as between promotion and regulation. Five examples cited below identify specific areas of this lag.

(a) The policy lag between the Federal-aid highway program being administered by the Bureau of Public Roads, especially in urban areas, and urban mass transportation which lacks Federal leadership. Details concerning this lag, which also involves the the broader question of transportation in relation to land use, can be found in part VII, chapter 7 of this report.

(b) The policy lag between Federal assistance to rivers and harbors improvements for domestic navigation administered by the Corps of Engineers, and the economic regulation of railroads by the ICC, part III, chapter 1 of this report, gives an example of a domestic navigation improvement sponsored by local interests to depress allegedly excessive rail rates-indeed a costly device to overcome apparent discrimination in rail rates.

(c) The policy lag between the Federal-aid highway program and economic regulation of the abandonment of service by the railroads, with special reference to the construction of highwayrailroad grade separations, in aid of transport safety, across railroad lines subject to early abandonment.22

(d) The apparent lag within air transportation and between it and other transportation programs arising from the FAA

22 For details see letter from Mr. F. C. Turner, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, to Maj. Gen. J. P. Doyle, staff director, Transportation Study Group, dated July 11, 1960.

Although this problem has not yet developed into a serious stuation nationally, there have been several instances in which railroad branch lines were abandoned within a year or two after completion of such grade separations. As indicated in pt. III. ch. 1 of this report, the Federal-ald highway program is being rapidly expanded and Innumerable highway-railroad grade separations are being planned at a time when, according to one railroad president, some 60,000 miles of railroad lines are uneconomical and should be abandoned.

proposal for development of a supersonic commercial air transport plane before 1970 in the absence of justification of public need for such aircraft. For further details see part V, chapter 5 of this report.

(e) The policy lag between the Federal-aid highway program and the rivers and harbors program for domestic navigation, with special reference to navigational clearance requirements for highway bridges. 23

These problem areas identify the lack of coordination among promotional programs and between promotion and regulation. Their effective treatment would greatly enhance governmental efforts toward having all modes of transportation serve the public interest through improving the efficiency and economy of overall program perform

ance.

The fifth problem cited, concerning navigational clearances for highway bridges, also involves the question of user charges. Under present law, even though highway users receive no benefit there from they are required to bear the entire added cost of increased horizontal and vertical clearances in fixed bridges or drawbridges solely for the benefit of navigation. Available evidence indicates that in some instances these costs have been much greater than the benefits inuring to waterway transportation. To illustrate, the navigational increment to the cost of a single bridge across the Kennebunk River, Maine, was related as $7.24 per ton-mile of waterway traffic moving on that river between 1929 and 1952.24

In recent years, substantial progress has been made toward reducing bridge costs attributable to navigational needs without unduly affecting the reasonable requirements of waterway transportation. Between 1955 and 1960, inclusive, these savings totaled $40 million. In 1960 alone, they were $22 million.

The expanded Federal-aid highway program includes more than 600 bridges across navigable waterways in the foreseeable future. The Bureau of Public Roads, Department of Commerce, has stated that more realistic navigational clearances in these bridges could lead to long-range savings of $180 million in Federal-aid highway bridge costs.25 Highway interests have said that they do not object to having the added cost of bridges based on the reasonable needs of navigation, including the requirements of federally owned defense vessels, paid from public funds collected from highway users and earmarked for highway purposes. However, they do object to having these funds used to finance extreme and uneconomic navigational clearances in bridges for the special benefit of a small segment of waterway users. This view brings into focus the question as to whether the beneficiaries of such extreme bridge clearances should be required to bear the costs involved.

Aside from the question of user charges, the executive leadership provided by a Secretary of Transportation, if limited merely to treat

23 For details see Department of Commerce 1955 report "Navigational Clearance Requirements for Highway and Railroad Bridges," app. K. That report contains examples of lack of economics and inequities of past bridge clearance decisions. To illustrate, the navigational increment to the cost of eight bridges across the Altamaha River, Ga., was related as $0.1375 per ton-mile of waterway traffic which moved on that river between 1946 and 1952. For legislative proposals on this subject, see S. 1126, H.R. 7153, and H.R. 8962, all of the 86th Cong.

24 Ibid.

25 See letter from Mr. Paul F. Royster, Assistant to Federal Highway Administrator, to Maj. Gen. J. P. Doyle, staff director, Transportation Study Group, dated Nov. 2, 1960.

71512-61-13

ment of the foregoing five policy problems under appropriate mandate from the Congress, would contribute immeasurably toward coordination of the various programs aimed at promotion and regulation of transportation. Action in even such a limited area of responsibility would reduce the cost of overall program performance by many times the cost of administering a Department of Transportation. To illustrate, the $22 million saved in 1960 Federal-aid highway bridge costs alone, resulting from reductions in navigational clearances in bridges, ranges from 7 to 10 times the annual cost of administering the Office of Secretary of any executive department.20 In part III, chapter 4 of this report, we recommend that a Department of Transportation be established and identify its proposed scope of responsibility.

TABLE I.-Summary of Federal program funds in direct aid of transportation [In millions, figures rounded]

[blocks in formation]

Based upon computed annual average payments for 5-year period from 1956 through 1960. This construction differential subsidy program started in 1936, and the reconstruction subsidy program started in 1955.

Estimates of fiscal year 1961 budgets for the Office of Secretary of several of the executive departments are in millions: Agriculture, $2.9; Commerce, $2,85; HEW, $2.1 (excluding amounts for substantive programs); Interior, $2.7; and Treasury, $3.4.

TABLE II.-Federal-aid highway authorizations—actual for 1917 through 1960, projected for 1961 through 1975

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

TABLE III.-Mileage of Federal-aid highway systems in 1960

[blocks in formation]

TABLE IV.-Motor vehicle registration in the United States at 5-year intervals,

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »