February 22, 1973
Page 5162
MASS TRANSIT NEEDS
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, as you know, Federal aid highway legislation died in the waning hours of the 92d Congress, thus requiring the 93d Congress to take early action on this important matter.
As the leader of last year's Senate effort to tap the highway trust fund for the purchase or construction of bus or rail mass transit, I was concerned with similar efforts in the House of Representatives. While the Senate approved the so-called Cooper-Muskie amendment to permit the use of trust fund moneys for mass transit purposes, the House of Representatives rejected a similar proposal, offered by Congressman GLENN ANDERSON, by a narrow 32-vote margin.
The Senate Roads Subcommittee, as a result of the demise of last year's legislation, has recently concluded hearings on Federal aid highway legislation. Much of the testimony presented at the hearings centered around the issue of public mass transportation financed out of the trust fund.
Many matters affect this issue: We have an energy crisis and we are told there will be a gasoline shortage next summer. We know that motor vehicles are demanding rapidly increasing amounts of gasoline – 40 percent of all the gasoline used in this country. Yet, some witnesses have testified that more highways – $600 billion worth – and more automobiles are absolute necessities to the American way of life.
We know that automobiles are a major threat to public health because of the lack of safety in their operation and the air pollution they create. Yet, some organizations which appeared at the hearings took the position that there should be more roads and more cars.
We know that many people are poorly served by the automobile and that we have too many automobiles in some urban areas. Yet, some witnesses stated that more highways and more cars are the only way to relieve these problems, and that highway funds must be preserved for road-building even if – as we see in this city, in Boston, and elsewhere – new roads only aggravate existing problems.
These propositions should be closely examined, because they make some very basic assumptions about the role of the automobile in the future of America.
I do not accept the proposition that the highway trust fund must remain sacrosanct. Our present transportation system is not the best one we can create – not when it demands $600 billion of our Nation's wealth, kills outright 56,000 Americans a year, ruins the health of hundreds of thousands more, causes billions of dollars in damage, consumes vast quantities of our dwindling energy reserves and turns millions of tons of irreplaceable raw materials into piles of junk.
More of the same is not the answer. The time has come for change – the health and well-being of our Nation demand that change.
Knowing Congressman ANDERSON's interest, expertise, and leadership in the use of trust fund moneys for mass transit, I was interested in his statement before the Senate Roads Subcommittee on this issue.
I am confident that my colleagues in the Senate will find his testimony interesting. For that reason, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have Congressman ANDERSON'S statement printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN GLENN M. ANDERSON OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this distinguished committee and to present my views on pending highway legislation.
I would like to commend the members for the action taken last year by the Senate in the adoption of the Cooper-Muskie Amendment, which I believe to be one of the most far-sighted and progressive proposals considered by the Congress to meet our transportation requirements.
Unfortunately, by the slim margin of 200 to 168, the majority of the House of Representatives did not agree with my appraisal of that proposal. However, this year, I feel that we will be successful in permitting a portion of the Trust Fund to be used for mass transit purposes.
For eight years, I served as Lieutenant Governor of our great state of California. During that period, I traveled all over the state-from Tulelake on the Oregon border to Calexico in the South, from Pismo Beach on the Pacific Ocean to Needles on the Arizona border. As a result, I know the importance of highways in our state.
I know that this is often the only link between the residents of a community and the hospital miles away. This is the only means that the farmer has to get his produce to market. This is the only way that the consumer in the rural areas can get the products that are manufactured many miles away.
However, as a life-long resident of Los Angeles, I know the problems associated with the automobile and the highways.
We have seen the strips of concrete rip our homes, and separate entire communities like the Great Wall of China.
We have witnessed the deterioration of our air – caused primarily by the pollution-belching automobiles chugging along on our freeways which have more of a semblance to parking lots during rush hour.
We have seen the impending energy crisis, which faces our country due in large part to the inefficient practices we have allowed to occur.
Due to this experience – both on a rural and urban level – I am not here to argue that all highway construction should be stopped. Nor am I here to argue that mass transit is the sole answer to our transportation problems.
But, rather, I am here to urge this committee to permit flexibility in the use of Highway Trust Funds. I am here to present my views on the need for a balanced transportation policy.
We don't want to require someone to build a mass transit system – nor do we want to demand that a state construct a highway, if the elected officials do not want it.
The point is – state and local officials should be permitted to select the modes of transportation that they feel are best suited to their particular situation, taking in the consideration of the needs of the people, the environmental considerations, and the demands for energy.
Presently, our laws – the Federal Aid Highway Act and the Highway Revenue Act – permit the use of Highway Trust Fund revenue for a variety of purposes:
The construction of the Interstate Highway system;
The construction of primary and secondary roads;
The construction of urban roads and traffic operations;
The construction of forest and public lands highways; and a myriad of other projects, most of which involve the pouring of concrete to accommodate more and more cars.
However, the laws do not permit the use of Trust Fund revenue for the purchase or construction of a mass transit system.
How would mass transit benefit the people?
CONGESTION
Our urban highways and freeways are so clogged and backlogged with commuters and marginal users that no one really benefits from the road. Due to highway congestion – especially during rush hours – travel costs are higher, operating efficiency is low, and nerves are frayed.
If the old adage that "time is money" is true, then we are throwing away billions of dollars in wasted time sitting in traffic.
According to a study conducted in 1971, in Los Angeles with the cooperation of the Federal Highway Administration, mobility in the L.A. area has not improved since 1965.
And we have as good – if not better – a freeway system as is found in the world.
In fact, during the morning rush hour, the average speed on the San Bernardino Freeway (Interstate Route 10) is 17 miles an hour; on Interstate Route 5 – the Pomona Freeway – traffic averages 18 miles an hour.
Leaving the city, during the evening rush hour, the commuter traveling the Pomona Freeway again must face the stop-and-go traffic and average 18 miles an hour.
And this congestion cannot be relieved by more and more freeways. Studies have shown that new urban freeways merely encourage additional traffic.
The Hollywood Freeway, in Los Angeles, was designed to reach a capacity of 100,000 vehicles per day within 10 years. However, within only one year, the Freeway was carrying an average of 168,000 vehicles per day.
This congestion costs each and every one of us money. It costs us in our time wasted; it costs us because of the added time taken to deliver goods and services; it costs us in wasted gasoline used in stop-and-go driving.
As a result, Mr. Chairman, we have learned that more and more freeways will not alleviate our transportation problems. Instead, more freeways and a greater reliance on the automobile would only compound our problem – especially with the environment.
AIR POLLUTION
I'm sure that you all are aware of the Environmental Protection Agency announcement of January 15, regarding the proposed transportation controls for the Los Angeles basin to meet Clean Air Standards.
Those controls include gasoline rationing, vehicle inspection programs, retrofit devices for automobiles, conversion of fleet vehicles to other fuels, and additional controls on stationary sources.
As one who fought for the tough standards written in the Clean Air Act of 1970, I support measures which will lower air pollution levels in the Los Angeles area, and I believe that the people in Los Angeles are willing to make adjustments in their style of living to curb air pollution.
And we know that auto emissions account for the great majority of pollutants in our air.
But, we cannot require a 82 percent cutback of automobile usage without providing an efficient and economical alternative.
People must still go to work.
People must still shop to put a meal on the table.
People must have a method of going to the many recreational spots in the area.
In short, people must travel – by one means or another – to live in this society.
Thus, to meet the stringent Clean Air Standards, public transportation must be provided in Los Angeles in order to allow people the freedom on which this country is based.
LAND USAGE
Another factor that enters into the problems of highway construction and the environment is the best usage of our land.
Today, we have almost 4 million miles of roads in the United States which cover approximately 35,000 square miles – an area roughly equal to the size of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island combined.
In addition, highways make it necessary to devote large amounts of land to interchanges, parking facilities, and the like. In the central area of many of our big cities, land devoted to streets and parking approaches 50 percent.
Rather than take more and more of our land off the tax rolls by building more highways, we should use existing rights of way for mass transportation, and, thus, use our land more effectively and more efficiently.
THE ENERGY CRISIS
Another important consideration involved in this legislation is the energy crisis which faces our nation.
Today, we import about 25 percent of our oil. By 1985, according to the American Petroleum Council, we will be importing approximately 58 percent of our oil, and will be even more dependent on the oil-rich, but politically volatile, Middle East to run our factories, heat our homes, and fuel our cars.
Certainly, one answer to this crisis would be a more rational use of oil. According to a study conducted by the Chase Manhattan Bank, passenger cars account for nearly 4.3 million barrels of oil daily or 30 percent of our daily consumption. By 1985, it is estimated that automobiles will consume 7.4 million barrels of oil daily.
As Senator Muskie points out, automobiles effectively utilize only 5 percent of the potential energy from the fuel they burn – the rest is wasted.
Rather than continue this waste of energy, we should offer commuters and other marginal users an efficient, safe, and economical alternative to the automobile.
Not only would a diversion of traffic off of the highways and onto a public transportation system reduce auto pollution, it would also conserve our precious resources of oil. A 25 percent diversion of auto traffic from private passenger cars to mass transit could reduce petroleum demands by almost one-half million barrels daily.
THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND
Finally, let's look at the Highway Trust Fund.
In fiscal year 1974, 50 percent of the receipts of the Trust Fund were derived from taxes which were on the books long before the Trust Fund was created in 1956, and prior to that time, were used for general revenue purposes.
Specifically, the gasoline tax, which will account for 69 percent of the Trust Fund revenues for FY 1973, was enacted in 1932. The tire and tube tax, and the lubricating oil tax, which together account for 15 percent of the receipts, were enacted in 1919 and 1932 respectively.
Those funds – up until the Trust Fund began functioning – were used for a host of non-highway purposes.
In addition, the Trust Fund, presently, has been so changed to meet other needs that it is difficult to argue that mass transit is not highway related.
In 1962, Congress allowed Trust Fund moneys to be used to help relocate families who were forced to move by highway construction.
In 1970, Congress permitted the use of Trust Fund moneys to construct ferry boats on the same basis as in the construction of highways.
Two-thirds of the cost of the highway safety program is paid out of the Highway Trust Fund.
The 1970 act also permits Trust Fund revenues to be used for exclusive busways, passenger loading facilities, and fringe parking to serve any type of public mass transportation.
Mr. Chairman, under existing law, we can use the gasoline tax to construct a ferry boat, but not to purchase or construct a bus or rail transit system.
In addition, the highway user, especially in the urban areas, does not derive the full benefit of the tax he pays into the Trust Fund. Over 40 percent of the miles traveled in the U.S. are in urban areas – 50,000 or more population. As a result, well over 40 percent of the revenue collected is from urban areas. Yet, when it comes to spending that money, only 25 percent is spent in those urban areas.
In short, the Highway Trust Fund was created to meet our transportation needs by taxing the people of the United States. I contend that spending a portion of that money for mass transit would certainly help that need by eliminating a part of the highway congestion, by reducing auto pollution, and by helping to alleviate our energy crisis.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Chairman, I recommend the enactment of a bill which would permit flexibility in developing different modes of transportation. Specifically, I endorse the proposal which would allow state and local governments to use urban highway funds – $1.1 billion for FY 1974 – for rail or bus mass transportation, as well as for highway construction.
Secondly, I recommend the inclusion in the committee-reported bill of a provision which would recognize the special needs of some of our cities that face serious air pollution problems. This would be accomplished by permitting the Secretary of Transportation to allocate up to 10 percent of the annual Trust Fund revenues for emergency mass transit programs in areas which are forced to curtail automobile usage in order to meet Federal Air Quality Standards.
In summary, we should strike a balance in our transportation program by permitting state and local officials the flexibility needed to meet the special requirements of the particular area.