Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "4525545",
    "label": "Ford Press Releases - Highways, 1966",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525545"
}

{
    "id": "4525545",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525545",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Ford Press Releases - Highways, 1966",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525545",
    "collections": [
        "Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
        "Press Releases Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Legislation",
        "Motor vehicles",
        "Roads",
        "Safety",
        "Transportation"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642076/4525545.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642076/4525545.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642076/4525545.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525545",
    "naId": 4525545,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1966-12-31",
        "month": 12,
        "year": 1966
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1966-04-01",
        "month": 4,
        "year": 1966
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642076/4525545.pdf",
    "mediaId": "28901c4370b3dbce",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box D8, folder \"Ford Press Releases - Highways,\n1966\" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R.\nFord Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box D8 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nCONGRESSMAN\nNEWS\nGERALD R. FORD\nHOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER\nRELEASE\nFOR WEDNESDAY P.M. RELEASE\nAPRIL 6, 1966\nSTATEMENT BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.\nI feel certain the House will pass highway safety and tire safety\nbills in some form this year. I personally feel there should be action\nin this area. But it might be useful at this point, when the Senate\nhearings on highway safety are in progress and House hearings are to\nstart late this month, to try to put auto safety in proper perspective.\nThere is danger in the sensationalism of the Senate hearings. It\ntends to distort the auto safety problem, throw it out of proportion.\nDramatic testimony has been presented to the effect that 1965 Chevrolets\nand 1964 and 1965 Chevelles equipped with Powerglide Transmission present\na potential hazard--the possibility that the accelerator will stick when\nkept at the same level for some time under certain winter driving conditions.\nTestimony making GM out to be a villain is obscuring the fact that\nGM knows of only five incidents resulting from this potential hazard.\nAlso drowned out in the tumult and the shouting is the fact that no\ninjuries occurred in any of the five incidents. GM is calling all of\nthese cars back--as, of course, it should--and is installing a splash\nguard at a total cost of $3 million to protect against any further incidents.\nI am not trying to minimize the seriousness of a development of this\nkind.\nBut I do believe there is a temptation under the circumstances to try\nto pin most automobile accidents on the manufacturer, saying he simply\nisn't engineering enough safety into his product. Of course, we want\nsafety built into our cars, but we must not lose sight of the fact that\nauto accidents are caused by a variety of factors--and it is highly unusual\nto find the kind of potential hazard in new automobiles which GM is now\ntaking steps to eliminate in 1.5 million of its cars.\nThere is also much to be learned from a four-year on-the-spot study\nof fatal auto accidents in the Ann Arbor, Michigan, area just completed\nby University of Michigan scientists Donald F. Huelke and Paul W. Gikas.\n(MORE)\n-2-\nAUTO SAFETY STATEMENT\nTheir study, believed to be the most extensive of its kind ever made,\nindicated that 71 of the 177 persons killed in the Ann Arbor area auto\naccidents would have lived had they been wearing seat belts that's\nnearly two out of three of those who died.\nThe study also showed that an additional 35 of the victims would have\nsurvived had they been wearing shoulder harnesses as well as seat belts.\nThe additional 35 brings to 106 the number of persons among the 177\nvictims who would have lived had both seat belts and shoulder harnesses\nbeen used.\nIt is difficult, of course, to get people to wear shoulder harnesses.\nThey are extremely uncomfortable. And you and I also know that many\npeople driving cars equipped with seat belts use them maybe half the time.\nIt's easy to point the finger at the auto manufacturers. It's about\ntime we also pointed a finger at ourselves.\nThere should be a three-pronged attack on the highway safety problem--\nby government, by industry, and by the driver.\n# # #\nCONGRESSMAN\nNEWS\nGERALD R. FORD\nHOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER\nRELEASE\nFOR RELEASE IN TUESDAY P.M.'s, MAY 3, 1966\nSTATEMENT BY HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN\nIt is very disturbing to me that mid-April automobile sales were 10 per cent\nbelow the 1965 level and that this was the second consecutive 10-day period in\nwhich car sales ran under the year-ago pace.\nThis slump in car sales is an unhealthy sign, and it is not reassuring to me\nto hear continuing forecasts that car sales this year will be close to last year's\ntotal. I think the forecasts need updating, and the late-March and early-April\nsales figures are cause for alarm.\nThe annual rate of retail auto sales slipped from 9 million in March to less\nthan 8 million in April. Dealers' unsold stocks totalled 1.6 million on May 1.\nThis was a record high and equal to more than a 53-day supply at the recent rate\nof sales. Stocks had been averaging a 40-day supply.\nIn my view, there definitely has been a slump in car sales, and this is a\ndanger signal.\nThe auto industry is the bellwether of the entire American economy. Millions\nof jobs depend on it.\nIf this decline in car sales continues, it could be the forerunner of a\nrecession which would overtake us in late 1966 or early 1967.\nCertainly the sensational nature of the auto safety hearings in the U.S.\nSenate has not helped car sales.\nThis and the high price of credit appear to be having an adverse effect on\nthe economy.\nIt seems clear to me that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration waited until\ntoo late to cool off an economy that became overheated as a result of excessive\ngovernment spending. The President now has applied the brakes too hard, and this\nmay throw the economy into a tailspin.\nNobody can flatly predict that a recession will result, but the threat is\nthere. I think the drop in car sales is an indicator of potential trouble.\n###\nAdopted by\nFor Release\nThe Republican Coordinating Committee\nTHURSDAY AM'S\nJune 27, 1966\nJune 30, 1966\nPresented by\nThe Task Force on the Functions of\nFederal, State and Local Governments\n.N\nIndouX\n1\non\nbroy MATED\ndoll\nTRANSPORTATION IN MODERN AMERICA\n,Andol\n02238\nto\nPrepared under the direction of:\nRepublican National Committee\n1625 Eye Street, N. W.\nWashington, D. C. 20006\nST\nFORD\nBERNED LIBRARY\nREPUBLICAN COORDINATING COMMITTEE\nPresiding Officer: Chairman, Republican National Committee\nFormer President\nDwight D. Eisenhower\nFormer Presidential Nominees\nBarry Goldwater (1964)\nThomas E. Dewey (1944 & 1948)\nRichard M. Nixon (1960)\nAlf M. Landon (1936)\nSenate Leadership\nEverett M. Dirksen\nLeverett Saltonstall, Chairman\nMinority Leader\nRepublican Conference\nThomas H. Kuchel\nThruston B. Morton, Chairman\nMinority Whip\nNational Republican Senatorial\nCommittee\nBourke B. Hickenlooper, Chairman,\nRepublican Policy Committee\nHouse Leadership\nGerald R. Ford\nH. Allen Smith, Ranking Member\nMinority Leader\nof Rules Committee\nLeslie C. Arends\nBob Wilson, Chairman National\nMinority Whip\nNational Republican Congressional\nCommittee\nMelvin R. Laird, Chairman\nRepublican Conference\nCharles E. Goodell, Chairman\nPlanning and Research\nJohn J. Rhodes, Chairman\nCommittee\nRepublican Policy Committee\nRepresentatives of Republican Governors Association\nJohn A. Love, Governor\nNelson A. Rockefeller, Governor\nof the State of Colorado\nof the State of New York\nRobert E. Smylie, Governor\nWilliam W. Scranton, Governor\nof the State of Idaho\nof the State of Pennsylvania\nGeorge W. Romney, Governor\nof the State of Michigan\nRepublican National Committee\nRay C. Bliss, Chairman\nDonald R. Ross, Vice Chairman\nMrs. C. Wayland Brooks, Assistant Chairman\nMrs. J. Willard Marriott, Vice\nChairman\nMrs. Collis P. Moore, Vice Chairman\nJ. Drake Edens, Jr., Vice Chairman\nRepublican State Legislators Association\nF. F. (Monte) Montgomery, President\nRobert L. L. McCormick, Staff Coordinator\nTRANSPORTATION IN MODERN AMERICA\nTransportation is the life blood of America's economy. Together with\nits sister industry, communications, transportation is the great common\ndenominator of American commerce and industry. It is a factor indispensable\nto all economic activities. A physically sound, modern, and efficiently\noperated transportation system is an indispensable component of our national\nsecurity and defense.\nSound growth in production and national wealth can take place only if\nour transport network is strong and healthy. Our transportation system can\ndemonstrate to the world that American private enterprise works, and works\neffectively. To this end, our transportation industries must keep pace with\nthe rest of the national economy so that progress is stimulated, not restricted.\nTransportation is the largest service function in our economy\ntoday. Total transport expenditures by American citizens during 1965 totaled\nan estimated $135 billions, including expenditures for both private and\nfor-hire transport. Today, approximately one-fifth of America's gross national\nproduct -- the sum total of expenditures for all goods and services -- repre-\nsents direct or indirect outlays for transportation.\nThe following examples typify the vital role of transportation to the\nAmerican economy:\n-- Transportation is a major consumer of industrial products and\nminerals: 71 percent of rubber; 52 percent of petroleum;\n53 percent of lead; 29 percent of steel; 22 percent of aluminum;\n28 percent of cement; 19 percent of copper.\nMembers of the Republican Coordinating Committee's Task Force on\nthe Functions of Federal, State and Local Governments\nRobert Taft, Jr., Chairman\nMember of Congress from Ohio, 1963-65\nKarl Mundt, Vice Chairman\nUnited States Senator from South Dakota\nMrs. Consuelo Northrop Bailey\nSecretary of the Republican National Committee\nHenry Bellmon\nGovernor of the State of Oklahoma\nGeorge C. S. Benson\nPresident, Claremont Men's College\nNeal Blaisdell\nMayor of the City of Honolulu\nJoseph L. Budd\nRepublican National Committeeman for Wyoming\nHoward H. Callaway\nMember of Congress from Georgia\nFrank Carlson\nUnited States Senator from Kansas\nRoger Cloud\nAuditor of the State of Ohio\nWilliam Cowger\nMayor of the City of Louisville, 1962-65\nWalter DeVries\nExecutive Assistant to the Governor of the State of Michigan\nDaniel J. Evans\nGovernor of the State of Washington\nDenison Kitchel\nAttorney, Phoenix, Arizona\nWarren P. Knowles\nGovernor of the State of Wisconsin\nMrs. Jewel S. LaFontant\nAttorney, Chicago, Illinois\nEdwin L. Mechem\nUnited States Senator from New Mexico, 1962-65\nEdwin G. Michaelian\nCounty Executive, Westchester County, New York\nWinthrop Rockefeller\nRepublican National Committeeman for Arkansas\nCraig Truax\nChairman of the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania\nCharles E. Wittenmeyer\nRepublican National Committeeman for Iowa\nRobert J. Huckshorn, Secretary to the Task Force\n*****\nTask Group on Transportation\nKarl Ruppenthal, Chiarman\nDirector, Transportation Management Program, Stanford University\nRoger Cloud\nAuditor of the State of Ohio\nCharles Dearing\nWilbur Smith Associates, San Francisco\nEdwin G. Michaelian\nCounty Executive, Westchester County, New York\nRobert E. Redding\nVice President & General Counsel, Transportation Association of America\nCharles S. Mack, Secretary to the Task Group\n-2-\n-- Transportation generates some 18 percent of all taxes\ncollected by the Federal Government.\n-- Transportation provides 13 percent of the Nation's civilian\nemployment, some 9.1 million jobs.\n-- Transportation's net investment in privately owned and\noperated plant equipment and facilities totals $140 billions\n-- nearly ten percent of the Nation's wealth in terms of\nprivately owned tangible assets.\nTransportation is vital to every business enterprise, to every housewife\n-- indeed to every citizen. Transportation is intimately related to the\nNation's ability to produce. It represents an important factor in the cost\nof living.\nThe Republican Party's record in promoting the development of American\ntransportation is a proud one.\nRepublicans aided in the opening of the West in the 1860's by land grant\nincentives for rail construction, and then helped draw the country closer\ntogether by the Interstate Highway System of 1956.\nRepublicans promoted international transportation by opening the Panama\nCanal in 1905, and the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959.\nFrom the transcontinental railroad of 1869 to the world's first nuclear-\npowered merchant vessel in 1959, the Republican Party has stood for progress\nand innovation in transportation.\nFrom that record and experience, three precepts have evolved and underlie\nthe proposals we present in this paper.\n-3-\nFirst, we believe that our system of transportation can best serve\nthe Nation if it is alert to the Nation's needs, eager to meet\nthem, and able to do SO. That end can best be achieved if our\ntransportation systems are privately owned and intelligently\noperated. Only in those areas in which private enterprise cannot,\nor will not, supply the transportation services which our citizens\nneed should those services be provided by government.\nSecond, we believe that government's role should be one of favor-\ning private enterprise, encouraging competition, and ensuring that\nthe consumer has available an excellent transportation system that\nprovides him with efficient, frequent, and reliable transportation\nat a fair price.\nThird, we believe that those who use the Nation's transportation\nfacilities should pay their fair share of the costs of providing\nsuch facilities.\nBased upon that philosophy, we offer here Republican proposals concerned\nwith the transportation problems of today and tomorrow.\n-4-\nI. THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN TRANSPORTATION\nFEDERAL PROMOTION\nGovernments at all levels have long recognized the vital role of trans-\nportation in national, regional, and local economies. That recognition has\nmanifested itself in many ways.\nRailroads have been encouraged through land grants, loan guarantees, tax\nand other incentives. All of the air lines have received public assistance.\nSometimes this has come in the form of a direct subsidy; sometimes in the form\nof an air mail contract; and sometimes in a more indirect way. Today, the air\nlines use many facilities that are provided by the Federal Government and by\nlocal governmental units.\nBarge transportation is promoted by the construction of an extensive\nsystem of canals, navigation channels, locks, and public wharves. Ocean ship-\nping is promoted by a system of subsidies for the construction of ships and\nfor their operation. Highway transportation is made possible by a system of\npublic roads, Federally financed in part and constructed and maintained by\nState and local governments. The economic health of some pipe lines has been\nenhanced by various incentives and the use of eminent domain.\nThe Federal Government recognized the interdependence of transportation\nand interstate commerce in the days of the Erie Canal and the Boston Post Road.\nToday the government recognizes that a sound transportation system is necessary\nnot only that commerce may flourish, but that a proper defense posture may be\nmaintained.\nWe believe that all modes of transportation are important to the economy.\nWe hold, therefore, that the government's promotional efforts should be non-\ndiscriminatory. One mode of transportation should not be advanced at the\n-5-\nexpense of another mode, nor should the promotional effort of government\nact to smother initiative and enterprise.\nRepublicans believe that we must take care to ensure that a Federal\nsystem designed for the promotion of transportation does not degenerate into\na system of subsidies that stifle initiative, inhibit competition, and\nenshrine mediocrity.\nGovernment subsidies should be designed to develop better transportation\nsystems that will benefit the economy as a whole. They should be temporary\nin nature and should never become a permanent crutch. Before any subsidy\nprogram is undertaken by the Federal Government, it should be clearly shown\nthat the benefits of the proposed program will outweigh the costs and that\nthe proposed system can, within a reasonable length of time, be self-supporting\nwithout the necessity for continued subsidy.\nREGULATION OF TRANSPORTATION\nVolumes have been written on the appropriate role of government and our\nnation's transportation system. But in spite of that fact, we do not have a\nclearly enunciated government transportation policy that takes into account\nthe realities of today.\nFew people would seriously argue that the transportation industry should\nbe completely unregulated. Transportation is far too basic to the economy to\nbe left completely to the law of the jungle. On the other hand, it is perfectly\nclear that too much regulation acts as an opiate. It reduces effective compe-\ntition and rewards the inefficient at the expense of the efficient.\nWe believe that some regulation of transportation is necessary but we\nalso believe that over-regulation is not in the public interest. There should\nbe no government regulation unless there is a clearly demonstrated need.\n-6-\nGOVERNMENT COMPETITION\nToday the Federal Government is engaged in a wide variety of transportation\nenterprises. It is a very great challenge to the private enterprise system\nwhen the Federal Government is already the largest electrical power producer,\nthe largest insurer, the largest lender, the largest borrower, the largest\nlandlord, the largest shipowner, the largest truck operator, the largest\nshipper, and even runs railroads and air lines.\nSome of these operations are necessary to the national defense. But\ntoo often they compete with private enterprise through making it more difficult\nfor taxpaying businesses to survive. We believe that in the absence of\nnational defense considerations, the Federal Government should not transport\npersons or property which privately owned carriers are fit, willing, and able\nto carry.\nEncouraging Innovation\nAs the art of transport technology continues to advance, a greater\ncoordination of governmental action must occur, especially when new modes\ndo not fall neatly within the purview of existing regulatory agencies, as\nfor example, the Hovercraft currently in experimental operation in the San\nFrancisco area. There must also be available streamlined governmental\nhandling of new and expanding domestic-international traffic which combine\nthe best advantages of the present surface and air carriers.\nAll of the government's promotional efforts should be designed to\nencourage innovation, to explore new developments, and to improve technology.\nOur goal should be a more efficient transportation system that will benefit the\neconomy as a whole. While we have seen important developments in many areas\nof transportation, no mode of transportation has achieved perfection.\n-7-\nManagerial and technological improvements are possible in every mode that\nwill enable more goods and more people to be transported more safely, in greater\ncomfort, at higher speeds, and at lower cost.. The role of the government should\nbe one of encouragement. That encouragement can come through the sponsorship\nof research, through daring experimentation, and through appropriate tax in-\ncentives.\nExperimental programs should be undertaken to determine how the benefits\nof automation can be made more widely available in the transportation industry\nwithout inflicting harm on the employees that might thus be displaced. The\ndevelopment of advanced systems of transport should be encouraged, and the\nfruits of those developments should be shared equitably among the transporta-\ntion companies, their employees, and the public as a whole.\nThe Need for a National Transportation Policy\nThere is today an insufficient coordination among the transport agencies\nto mesh their programs and policies and to evaluate the net results of all the\nvarious Federal transportation undertakings. This lack of coordination has pro-\nduced an outright waste of public funds and a loss of opportunity to achieve\nfull benefits from public expenditures.\nMoreover, the lack of a unified government approach to transportation\nencouraged the various government agencies responsible for transport activities\nto work at cross purposes. Thus, the Interstate Commerce Commission appears to\nbe concerned with the overall health of the transport system, while the Post\nOffice Department, the General Services Administration, and the Department of\nDefense appear to consider their purpose to be the purchase of transportation\nat the lowest possible cost regardless of the effect on the transportation com-\npanies involved. The Civil Aeronautics Board and ICC often favor a particular\n-8-\nmerger in the belief that it will give greater strength to the transport system,\nwhile the Department of Justice may look upon that very proposal with a most\nsuspicious eye. The Corps of Engineers has opposed waterway user changes where-\nas the Department of Commerce has favored them.\nThe development and implementation of a coherent national transportation\npolicy is long overdue. Congress, usually in response to the urging of users\nand providers of transport, has over the years established the general guide-\nlines for the development, promotion, and regulation of transport. This has\nbeen accompanied by the creation of agencies to implement its broad policy in\ndetail on a mode by mode basis. Congress has retained control over such agencies\nby the power to approve their members and their budgets, and by reserving the\nright to revise the ground rules periodically. The President can, and of\ncourse does, recommend policy changes and appoints the agency members. Re-\nsponsibility for transportation policy, therefore, rests with both the Congress\nand the Executive. To date, both the Executive and the Legislative branches\nhave failed to set forth an overall government-wide policy to be implemented\nby the agencies concerned.\nSpecial attention should be directed by Congress to its own obsolete\nmechanism for dealing with major issues of national transportation policy.\nAt least 17 of its standing committees have some jurisdiction in this field,\nwith practically no internal coordination of study or policy formulation. To\ncorrect this situation, we propose the establishment of a Joint Congressional\nCommittee on Transportation to undertake continuing studies of transportation\npolicy, problems, and issues, and to submit recommendations to appropriate\nstanding committees. The professional staff of this joint committee, which\nwould not have authority to report on pending legislation, would be available\nfor consultation with committees having jurisdiction over specific areas of sub-\nstantive transport policy.\n-9-\nA FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nDespite the importance of transportation to the national economy, and\nthe breadth of governmental activities in this field, the interest and re-\nsponsibility of the Federal Government in transportation is fragmented among\nnumerous agencies. The expenditure of tremendous sums on transportation by\nthe government and the efforts of thousands of government employees still have\nnot produced an overall, coherent transportation policy for the United States.\nThe Office of Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation was created\nin 1950 for the purpose of coordinating within one department the government's\nmajor transportation functions. That goal has not been attained. Furthermore,\nadditional agencies with transportation responsibilities have been created\nsince 1950, outside the structure of the Commerce Department. The latest of\nthese is the new Department of Housing and Urban Development which has major\njurisdiction in the fields of metropolitan highway planning and financing the\nmass transportation in metropolitan areas. The Under Secretary of Commerce\nfor Transportation has been unable to achieve the goals for which his office\nwas created because he does not presently have the stature of a Cabinet member\nand because he does not have jurisdiction over many of the Federal Government's\ntransportation activities.\nProposals to coordinate the vast amount of bureaucracy which uses, promotes,\nregulates, and operates transportation have been put forth for many years. In\nhis final Budget Message to Congress, President Eisenhower said that \"a Depart-\nment of Transportation should be established so as to bring together at Cabinet\nlevel the presently fragmented Federal functions regarding transportation\nactivities.\" Now, some five years after the Eisenhower message, the present\nAdministration has endorsed this proposal.\n-10-\nLegislation now being considered by Congress would create a new Department\nof Transportation that would have responsibility for all the programs now\nadministered by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation, including the\nBureau of Public Roads, the Maritime Administration, and other transportation\nactivities of the Department of Commerce. In addition, the Coast Guard, the\nFederal Aviation Agency, and Alaska Railroad would be transferred to the new\ndepartment, as would certain non-regulatory functions of the Civil Aeronautics\nBoard, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the Corps of Engineers.\nCertainly, the regulatory functions of the independent agencies should\nbe maintained separately. The needs of the Nation can best be served if these\nregulatory functions are performed by independent Federal agencies, well staffed\nby experts in their fields.\nAt the same time, in establishing a new Department, all major non-regulatory\ntransportation activities should be brought under it. The legislation which\ncreates the department should emphasize that a high priority function of the\nDepartment of Transportation should be the prompt development of a government-\nwide transportation policy for Congressional enactment.\nAs technology changes and our transportation systems continue to develop,\nundoubtedly new problems will arise. The Department of Transportation should\nbe charged specifically with making policy recommendations to Congress that\nwill take into account these changing conditions.\nTHE PAPER BARRIER\nForming an almost invisible barrier to trade, excessive requirements for\nforms, documents, and other papers consume tremendous amounts of time and serve\n-11-\nto frustrate international trade. For any shipment exported by sea 43\nseparate forms are required, while 80 separate forms are required of incoming\nshipments -- 78 of them by the government. There is an incredible amount of\nduplication. Whole mountains of paper are irrelevant, superfluous, and costly.\nUnnecessary paper work serves to inhibit some foreign trade and to make all of\nit more expensive.\nOn the domestic scene excessive paper work and antiquated methods of\nhandling are extremely costly. Paper work costs most shippers close to five\ndollars per shipment. This burden falls heavily on small shippers and small\ntransportation companies.\nCooperative efforts are required to reduce the staggering cost of paper\nwork in domestic transportation and to take advantage of more efficient and\nless expensive methods. This is an area where substantial economies are\npossible. They should be made available to the shipping public and to the\nconsumers as rapidly as possible.\nIncreased effort is needed to rationalize the paper work for foreign\ncommerce and to reduce it to an absolute -- and sensible -- minimum.\nTHE FEDERAL HIGHWAY PROGRAM\nFew areas of governmental activity in recent years have demonstrated the\npotentialities of Federal-State partnership as has the Federal highway program.\nUnder the principles through which the program has operated, the Federal Govern-\nment has established nationwide standards and coordinated planning, and has\nfinanced a major share of the cost of America's highways. While there has\nbeen desirable standardization and coordination, this has not resulted in\nweakening the structure of State government. We believe that this approach is\nsound and can be applied to other fields of governmental endeavor.\n-12-\nThe legislation creating the Interstate and Defense Highway program\nrequires the completion of the 41,000-mile system in 1972. It seems clear,\nhowever, that some States will be unable to meet this deadline. In some\nareas hasty decisions are now being made under a Sword of Damocles scheduled\nto fall in six years.\nUnlike the Interstate System, the older ABC System has no overall fixed\nmileage and no endpoint in time. So long as States and localities can demon-\nstrate a need for Federal-aid roads, and the funds are available, the Federal\nGovernment will bear half the cost of construction.\nWe believe that the Interstate System likewise should be recontructed with\nno overall fixed mileage and no endpoint in time.\nMetropolitan Highway Needs\nCurrently, the bulk of the mileage under both the Interstate and the ABC\nprograms lies in rural areas. Urban areas benefit from both programs to the\nextent that Interstate, primary, and secondary highways are within the boundaries\nof urban localities, but the very nature of the programs and their apportionment\nformulae inevitably tend to discriminate against metropolitan areas.\nFurthermore, no systematic Federal-aid program exists to support major\nurban and suburban arteries which are not part of the Interstate or ABC Systems\neven though many of these routes carry enormous traffic volumes.\n-13-\nWe therefore propose that the present limited program of aid for urban and\nsuburban Federal routes be expanded into a new category of Federal-aid highways\nto be known as the Metropolitan System. Under this program, Federal funds\nwould be allocated to the States according to criteria which Congress would\ndevelop. The funds would be used to support construction of highways and\nstreets in our cities and their suburbs.\nUnder this system, the Federal Government would formulate minimum\nstandards for design, planning, construction, traffic control, etc., which\nwould be enforced by appropriate State agencies. To be eligible for funds,\ncommunities in metropolitan areas would have to show that new construction\nwas in conformity with metropolitan area-wide transportation planning.\nINTERGOVERNMENTAL PROBLEMS\nVirtually every level of government has some responsibilities for trans-\nportation. The national interest is obvious since transportation is the life-\nblood of interstate commerce. But the responsibilities for transportation do\nnot devolve upon the Federal Government alone. Each of the States and every\nlocal community has its interest in transportation. Under our Federal system,\nit is important that local responsibilities be shouldered by local governments;\nthat State responsibilities be assumed by State governments; and that Federal\nresponsibilities be assumed by the Federal Government. Although numerous\ntransportation problems are nationwide in nature, many are not. There are\nmany things that can best be done at home.\nWe believe that Federal grants should be used to encourage State and local\ngovernments to assume their rightful responsibilities. The tendency of the\nFederal Government to deal directly with municipalities, bypassing State\n-14-\ngovernments altogether, is fraught with many dangers. If the Federal system\nis to survive, it is important the State governments be encouraged to\nshoulder those responsibilities than can best be handled on a State level.\nIn many instances problems affect two or more adjoining States. In\nsuch cases these problems often can best be handled by a compact arranged\namong the States concerned. The States are well acquainted with their own\nlocal problems; they should be encouraged and permitted to deal with them.\nFrequently, such arrangements will result in a better resolution to the\nproblem than a Federal program would provide.\nThe development of automobile inspection codes to prevent one State from\nbeing a dumping ground for unsafe vehicles from nearby States is an example\nof a problem which could be resolved via compact or uniform State codes.\nGreater coordination among the States in the transportation field is\nhighly desirable. We commend the example of States which have created trans-\nportation agencies within their governmental structures, similar to the pro-\nposed Department of Transportation in the Federal Government. Such State\ntransportation agencies can be the points of contact between Federal agencies\nand State government. They could serve a dual function by being the coordinating\narms of the States in the implementation of interstate compacts affecting\ntransportation.\nToday there are many public authorities engaged in some phase of transpor-\ntation activities. Sometimes two or more cities join together to operate an\nairport. Sometimes two or more States join together to operate port facilities,\nairports, toll bridges, or other transportation facilities. These organizations\ncan serve a useful purpose, and they can make possible a substantial degree of\nlocal control.\nThe Republican Coordinating Committee's position in interstate compacts is\npresented in Toward A Stronger Federal System, prepared by this Task Force,\nand published December, 1965.\n-15-\nOf course the mere existence of such a public authority does not\nautomatically guarantee sound operation. Appropriate safeguards should be\nestablished to ensure that the operation is business-like and that it serves\nthe public in the best possible manner. While public authorities should have\nall the powers that are necessary to fulfill the purposes for which they were\ncreated, there should be adequate methods by which the public can make its\nwishes felt. It goes without saying that when private enterprise competes\nwith publicly-owned transportation authorities, the rules of the game should\nbe the same for both.\nTHE MERCHANT MARINE\nWe express our profound concern about the dangerous deterioration of\nAmerica's merchant marine. We face today a crisis of major proportions,\nnot only from the standpoint of our lack of preparedness but also because\nof its impact on our entire national economy.\nConsider these telling facts:\n(1) Of the ten leading maritime nations in the world, only the\nUnited States has suffered a loss in total deadweight tonnage of\nits merchant shipping in the last 10 years.\n(2) The United States has dropped to 12th place among the world's\nmajor shipbuilding nations.\n(3) By contrast, Russia has risen to 7th place as a maritime nation\nand has outdistanced the United States in the expansion of trade\nwith the new and under-developed nations overseas.\n(4) While our shipbuilding effort is lagging and our World War II\nreserve fleet is growing more dilapidated and obsolete, the\nexpanding war in Vietnam is putting our merchant fleet under\ntremendous pressure.\n-16-\n(5) Last year the American merchant marine carried 26.8 million\ntons of waterborne cargo, only 8.5 percent of this Nation's\nforeign trade. Of this total, 17.2 million tons was government-\nsponsored and reserved by law for American ships. Thus only\n9.6 million tons -- barely 3 percent of all waterborne cargo --\ninvolved commercial American shipments.\nThe decline of the American fleet, and the rapid strengthening of that of\nthe U.S.S.R., demands immediate action by the Congress, the Administration, and\nthe people of the United States. Although the President's 1965 State of the\nUnion Message promised \"a new policy for our merchant marine,\" nothing has\nmaterialized and the bickering and confusion among government, labor, and\nmanagement maritime interests continue.\nMany of the problems of depressed transportation result from over-regulation\nand improvident subsidy policies.\nWe believe that an experimental approach aimed at restoring the economic\nself-sufficienty of the merchant marine is worthy of consideration.\nSuch an experimental program could be undertaken with due consideration for the\nAmerican shipbuilding industry, steamship operators and the various maritime\nunions. If the program proved to be successful, it could redound to the benefit\nof all concerned and make it possible for the United States again to have a\nhealthy self-sufficient merchant marine.\n-17-\nII. PROMOTING EFFICIENCY AND SAFETY OF TRANSPORTATION\nRESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT\nCertainly no nation in the world has greater capabilities for research\nthan the United States. Our scientists and scholars are at the forefront in\nmany areas. The United States today has a greater research capacity than any\nother civilization the world has ever known. We are able to solve complex\nproblems in electronics, in rocketry, and in medicine. We have a vast store-\nhouse of information that can be tapped to solve complex problems. But the\nsad fact is that in many areas of transportation, too little use has been\nmade of our potential.\nIt is ironic that an astronaut can travel thousands of miles per hour\nthrough outer space, but it still takes a resident of New York City as long to\ncross Manhatten Island by car during rush hour as it did his grandfather a hun-\ndred years ago in a horse and buggy. Some suburbanites and commuters must spend\none-fifth of their waking hours making their tortuous way to and from work.\nWhile air line passengers are able to fly at 600 miles per hour -- from airport\nto airport -- the time saved by all of this speed is frequently wasted getting\nto and from the airport. Ground transportation is annoyingly slow. Every day\nmillions of potentially productive hours are wasted in traffic strangulation.\nThe fact of the matter is that our tremendous capability in research has\nnot been focused on these important problems. The United States will not be\nwell served if we spend millions of dollars developing a supersonic air liner\nwhile all the time apparently saved is wasted in a gigantic traffic snarl on the\nground. Instead of directing our efforts only at increasing the speed of air-\ncraft, we should be concerned with making it easier for the passenger to get all\nthe way from his origin to his destination -- not just from airport to airport.\n-18-\nWhile the public may be less aware of the importance of the traffic snarl\nin freight transportation, the fact is that the consumer pays the bill. He pays\nit in many ways: He pays more than he should because the average box car makes\nbut twelve round trips a year. He pays more than he should because trucks,\nships and cargo planes are idle too much of the time. Sometimes half of the\ncost of sending a shipment is consumed by the paperwork that is thus entailed.\nThe cost of freight transportation directly affects the cost of living --\nhence the pocket book of every one. Transportation represents as much as one-\nhalf the cost of some items on the grocers' shelf. This means that savings in\ntransportation can benefit everyone.\nWe need more research in transportation to make possible a more efficient\njob. We need greater efficiency in the railroads, the truck lines, the steam-\nships, and the air lines. We need more coordination so that when a product\nmoves from a producer to a consumer it can utilize the optimum combination of\ncarriers that will make for the lowest delivered price. Greater efficiency\nin transportation can come about through research on the use of containers\nand the possibility of standardization; research on fuel cells, atomic power\nand other means of propulsion; research looking toward faster, more accurate,\nand less expensive means of data transmission; and research in many areas of\nautomation.\nFederal Assistance for Research\nObviously the Federal government cannot and should not do all that can\nbe done by way of research. But it can provide \"seed money\" which will\nstimulate additional research and spread its benefits throughout the country.\nWhile much basic research should be underwritten by the Federal government, in-\n-19-\ndustry should be encouraged to seek its own applications. It is far more pru-\ndent for the Federal government to underwrite the costs of research that will\nlead to a more efficient transportation system than to spend the same amount\nof money subsidizing antiquated and ailing systems.\nFederal funds should be allocated in a prudent manner so that the bene-\nfits of these efforts will flow to the maximum number of people. The taxpayers\nthemselves should be the recipients of the benefits -- not just a few favored\ncontractors nor a few ailing companies.\nResearch in transportation should begin with a comprehensive assessment\nof the Nation's capabilities, its potential, and its needs. The program should\nexplore the benefits -- and the costs -- of such developments as high-speed\nground transportation, giant cargo submarines, nuclear powered ships, and air\ncushion vehicles. It should explore the potential of large supersonic planes\nas well as that of much smaller, slower vehicles that can take off and land in\nsmall spaces so that many more people may be served.\nTransportation is of vital importance to every one in this land. Using\nour tremendous capacity for research, it should be possible to develop a pru-\ndent program that will provide many benefits to the economy as a whole.\nAUTOMOTIVE SAFETY\nSafety is important to everyone who travels, whether he goes by rail, ship,\nplane, or private automobile. When a passenger buys a ticket on a plane, he\nhas a right to know that the plane has been manufactured to exacting specifi-\ncations, that it has been properly maintained, and that every reasonable effort\nhas been made to assure the safety of his flight.\nWhen a person steps into his private automobile, he should be assured\nthat the car has been properly designed, that it was well constructed, and that\nit has been properly maintained. As he travels down the road, he should be\n-20-\nassured that the highways are adequate, well designed, and properly constructed.\nAnd he should be assured that the drivers he meets along the way will not be\nlicensed despite records of incompetence.\nVehicle safety consists of many ingredients: good design, skillful construc-\ntion, proper maintenance, adequate training, and prudent operation. The best\ndesigned vehicle in the world may be unsafe in the hands of an incompetent\ndriver. On the other hand, even the best driver may be unsafe if the\nvehicle under his control has been constructed or maintained in faulty manner.\nWe therefore recommend a broad-based attack on the causes of accidents\nthat would be designed to maximize the safety of travel.\n(1). A comprehensive program of accident investigation should be under-\ntaken -- not in the usual sense of determining who is legally to blame -- but\nto understand all the contributing factors that caused the accident. For years,\nevery air line accident has been investigated by skilled investigators from the\nCivil Aeronautics Board. Using scientific devices and modern techniques, these\nmen are able to determine with a high degree of efficiency precisely what it\nwas that brought about the accident. Their focus is not to find the culprit,\nbut to ensure that a needless repetition will not occur. A similar program\nto investigate automobile accidents will teach us much that we do not yet\nknow about mechanical and human failures.\n(2) High standards should be established for the licensing of drivers.\nGood driver training courses should be made available in all the Nation's high\nschools and in other suitable institutions. These courses should teach the pro-\nspective driver how to handle his vehicle under normal conditions as well as on\nroads that are rough, wet, or icy. They should include practice in mechanical\nsimulators designed to improve driver competence in unusual and emergency sit-\nuations.\n-21-\nWe believe that the States should be encouraged to adopt a uniform law\nto standardize, on a nationwide basis, drivers' licenses and requirements.\n(3) Federal, State and local governments must do far more than most are\nnow doing to make sure that unsafe vehicles are not driven at risk to the\nlives and safety of our citizens. We believe that Federal safety standards\nfor automobiles are a necessity. But we also believe that State and local\ngovernments should participate actively in the establishment of standards. The\nStates have a vast wealth of experience in the field of traffic safety which\nshould be utilized.\nWe also recommend that our States adopt uniform systems of motor vehicle\ninspection in facilities equipped with modern testing devices. Local police\nshould remove from the streets vehicles which cannot pass such inspections.\nInspection should be a requirement for automobile registration.\nSTREAMLINING THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS\nScarcely an item moves from producer to consumer without making use of\nat least two distinct modes of transportation. Virtually every item makes\npart of the journey by truck, moving part of the distance by rail, air, or\nwater. Today, coordination between the various modes of transportation offers\ngreater possibilities than ever before. But much of this potential economy is\nlost if excessive costs are involved in shifting commodities from one mode of\ntransportation to the other.\nBut here the container can play a part. Making possible efficient and\nhighly mechanized handling methods, standardized containers can move quickly\nfrom train to ship or from truck to plane. Standardized containers can be used\nin any mode of transportation to haul goods to any part of the world.\n-22-\nBut all of this requires a degree of standardization. Much of the potential\neconomy of coordinated transportation will be lost if every carrier develops\nhis own type of container with the result that thousands of different sizes\nexist.\nLong ago the United States learned the value of constructing all rail-\nroads on a standard guage. We also learned the values of standardized weights,\nsizes, and specifications.\nContainers show promise in all areas of transportation. They permit more\nrapid loading of planes, trains, and ships. They permit more rapid off-loading.\nThus they permit moreefficient utilization of expensive transportation and\nmake it possible for American shipping companies to compete on a more equal\nbasis in other parts of the world. A Federal Department of Transportation,\ncooperating with appropriate bodies, can lead the way to standardizing containers\nso that maximum use may be made of their potential.\n-23-\nIII. URBAN TRANSPORTATION\nBy 1980, the United States will contain a quarter of a billion Americans,\nsome three-fourths of whom will live in our great metropolitan centers.\nUnless our cities, their suburbs, and the millions of Americans who inhabit\nthem, are to strangle on their own traffic, we must plan realistically for\nthe means by which our metropolitan populations of the future can be trans-\nported efficiently and in comfort.\nThe state of mass transportation in our metropolitan areas today is a\nsorry one. It is not at all uncommon for less time to be consumed in a flight\nbetween two cities than in travel from airport to urban center.\nPatronage has declined on many urban transit systems because of discomfort,\ninconvenience, infrequent and unreliable service, and other factors. In other\nareas it has not kept pace even with the increase in population. Often the\nproblem has been attacked by the construction of freeways that enable large\nnumbers of cars to pour into our cities every day. The result has been\ndecreasing use of urban transit facilities followed by a deterioration of\nservice and by still more cars crowding the freeways as more commuters take to\ntheir automobiles. Thus, the cycle of deteriorating service and increasing\nautomobile congestion has become self-reinforcing.\nThe transportation requirements of metropolitan America cannot be met\nby private automobiles alone. But, paradoxically in most cities, commuter\ncommon carrier service has deteriorated and in many communities has entirely\ndisappeared. Taking large amounts of valuable urban land for roadways and\nparking facilities has frequently caused local hardship. The cost of building\nhighways, roads and parking facilities increases almost daily. (The costs of\nhighway construction increased almost six percent from the first quarter of\n-24-\n1965 to the first quarter of 1966.) Widespread public dissatisfaction has\nbeen caused by the shoddy and inadequate state of most metropolitan trans-\nportation systems.\nThe problems are urgent. Urban transportation has been a vital factor\nin the growth and development of urban areas for over a century. The very\nexistence of our cities as viable economic centers depends to a very great\nextent upon sound metropolitan transit. Considerable imagination and drive\nwill be required to grapple with these important problems. Solutions are\nneeded now.\nFederal urban transit programs should not foist preconceptions from\nWashington on local communities. Rather, Federal efforts should encourage\na development of a balanced transportation network used by private and public\ncarriers for every community. This balance should be developed locally because\na transit system that may be ideal in one community may be utterly unsuited\nto another.\nINCENTIVES FOR COMMUTERS\nSolutions to the difficulties of urban transportation must go to the\nheart of the problem if they are to be successful. The greatest single problem\nof metropolitan transportation is how best to transport hundreds of thousands\nof people into the core city within a few hours in the morning, then transport\nthem back to their homes again in a similarly brief evening period, and repeat\nthe process five days a week.\nCommuters are people. They have human needs and desires. Among these is\na distaste for crowded, uncomfortable vehicles which assault the senses in the\nprocess of providing relatively swift transportation of uncertain dependability.\n-25-\nToday the only advantage of most transit systems over private transportation\nis that they cost less, but in some areas they are pricing themselves out of\nthe market.\nIn an era of economic prosperity, low fares -- where they still exist\n-- have not proven sufficient to attract commuters. Many carriers operate at\nor below their financial breakeven point even while streets and freeways are\njammed with commuters who find it more pleasant -- or at least less unpleasant\n-- to drive their automobiles to and from work and are willing to pay the\nadded cost involved.\nWays must be found to win commuters back to transit systems and to convince\nthem that they are better off with their cars left at home or at suburban\nstations. At the very least, transit systems can make themselves vastly more\nattractive than they now are so that commuter travel becomes a pleasure and\nnot an unpleasant daily experience. Added attention to the convenience, speed,\nfrequency of schedules, reliability, physical comfort of passengers and the\naesthetic appearance of vehicles could well work wonders in this area.\nFederal and State governments should also consider ways to provide financial\nincentives to metropolitan residents to persuade them to use urban transit systems.\nIn addition to reasonably priced fares, we believe that a plan whereby the users\nof transit systems are given income tax benefits (perhaps through receipts which\ncould be filed with tax returns) merits serious study.\nUnless we are prepared to see our cities sacrifice valuable land for freeways\nand the parking facilities which they require, some means must be found to\nattract commuters back to transit systems. There is an increased need for\nadditional research in this and related aspects of transportation. Insufficient\nefforts have been made in this direction. The transportation industry and Federal,\nState, and local governments should devote even more attention to these problems\nthan they have to date.\n-26-\nFEDERAL MASS TRANSIT PROGRAMS\nThe Federal Government's experimental program of demonstration grants\nshould be continued and evaluated. The Federal program which provides long-\nterm low interest loans for urban transportation facilities should be expanded.\nAny new legislation intended to supplement the Urban Mass Transit Act of 1964\nshould encourage increased State and local governmental initiative in resolving\nlocal transit problems. In this connection, we believe that the administration\nof Federal urban transit programs should be transferred from the Department of\nHousing and Urban Development to the new Department of Transportation. We\noppose any Federal subsidy for operating expenses since this would only prolong,\nnot solve, the problem of locally operating local services.\nTHE NEED FOR COORDINATED LOCAL PLANNING\nThe role of local government is a vital one. Local governments need to\ncooperate in their planning efforts so that transportation planning is made\nfor the metropolitan area as a whole. Transportation planning in the core\ncity which runs counter to planning in the suburbs can produce only chaos.\nThe experience of freeway planning in and around the Nation's Capital should\nprovide an object lesson for the rest of the Nation. There, area-wide planning\nis virtually non-existent. Instead of cooperating, planners feud with each other\nwith the result that transportation planning has been gravely hampered through-\nout the entire metropolitan area. It should be obvious that transportation\nplanning in our metropolitan areas must consider all available forms of trans-\nportation: commuter railroads, busses, and the private automobile.\nSTATE AND LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY\nIn order to have effective transportation systems in our metropolitan areas,\nwe must have cooperation between State and local governments and the operators\nThis point is more fully discussed in another paper of the Republican Coordi-\nnating Committee prepared by this Task Force: The Challenge of the Modern\nMetropolis: The Republican Response, published in June 1966.\n-27-\nof privately owned transportation systems. The establishment of public\nmetropolitan authorities which encompass the entire metropolitan area and\nwhich have full authority to manage area wide transportation facilities and\nservices (including selling bonds and setting rates and schedules) often is\nan important first step for large metropolitan areas. The States can also\nprovide technical and financial assistance to urban areas for mass transpor-\ntation. At the present time the realities of contemporary urban transit\nsystems require a more realistic tax and depreciation policy for private\nmetropolitan passenger carriers. Local and State governments should consider\nsubsidies for transportation services which are needed by the public but which\ncannot now operate at a profit. Serious consideration should be given to the\ncreation of tax incentives at all levels of government. Every reasonable\neffort should be made to encourage the development of privately operated\ncarriers that can become economically self sufficient while adequately serving\nthe public's need.\nTHE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF FREEWAYS\nWhile adequate highways are necessary to enable the movement of people\nand goods from one point to another, we should not overlook the fact that they\nhave an important impact on land use, on the location of industry, on the tax\nbase, and upon the character of the communities through which they pass.\nThe impact of a freeway on a highly urbanized community may be profound.\nUnless the freeway is planned with due regard for the full consequences, that\nimpact may be harmful. This fact is evidenced by the conflicts that now rage\nin California, the District of Columbia, and elsewhere over the location\nof proposed freeways.\n-28-\nIt is clear that well-planned freeways can provide substantial benefits\nto the Nation. But before a particular freeway is built, careful consideration\nshould be given to its liabilities and to its costs. Careful attention should\nbe given to the impact on families, neighborhoods, business enterprises and\nwhole communities. Appropriate care should be taken to preserve places of\nhistorical and cultural interest and areas of scenic beauty.\nWe need to give more careful attention to planning our freeways and other\ntransportation facilities. Sometimes the air rights above a freeway cut can\nbe used for the erection of apartments and office buildings. Sometimes a\nproposed freeway can be re-routed to avoid the destruction of a redwood grove,\na mountain lake or a happy neighborhood. These considerations are important\nand they should be fully taken into account before any highway is constructed.\nCONCLUSION\nThis paper is one in a series on intergovernmental relations. It has been\nprepared because the Nation's transportation system is important to everyone\nin the land -- so important that we sometimes take it for granted. We seldom\nstop to consider the fact that millions of Americans are utterly dependent upon\na functioning transportation system. Should it suddenly break down, millions of\npeople living in our cities would starve in a matter of days.\nIn a very real sense our transportation network ties us together as a\nNation. It makes it possible for each section of the country to produce those\nitems which it is best able to produce and for each of us to enjoy a more\nabundant life.\nWe have a good transportation system today but like all good things, it\ncan still be improved. It can be improved through the institution of private\nenterprise, the intelligent actions of government, and the inventiveness of\nAmerica.\n*\n*\n*\nREpublican NATiONAL COMMiTTEE\n1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006\nNATIONAL 8-6800\nNEWS\nFOR RELEASE\nTHURSDAY AM'S\nJune 30, 1966\nTRANSPORTATION IN MODERN AMERICA\nThe Republican Coordinating Committee has released a position paper calling\nfor financial incentives for commuters, a three-point auto safety program, and a\nFederal Department of Transportation.\nThe paper, \"Transportation in Modern America,\" was adopted Monday by the\nCoordinating Committee and released today by GOP National Chairman Ray C. Bliss.\nThe 28-page document was prepared by a Task Force headed by former Congress-\nman Robert Taft, Jr. of Ohio, through a subcommittee chaired by Dr. Karl Ruppenthal,\nDirector, Transportation Management Program, Stanford University.\n\"Ways must be found to win commuters back to transit systems,\" the paper\nsaid. \"In addition to reasonably priced fares, we believe that a plan whereby the\nusers of transit systems are giventincome tax benefits (perhaps through receipts\nwhich could be filed with tax returns) merits serious study.\"\nThe GOP auto safety program consisted of three parts:\n1. An accident investigation program to determine the causes of accidents,\nsimilar in scope to the investigations of air line accidents.\n2. Nationwide driver training and standard drivers' licenses and\nrequirements.\nBERMAD FORD\n-2-\n3. Federal safety standards for cars with State and local participation\nin establishing standards, and nationwide state systems of auto inspection.\nIn calling for a U. S. Department of Transportation, the GOP group pointed\nout that President Eisenhower had urged Congress to create such a department. A\nhigh priority function of the department \"should be the prompt development of a\ngovernment-wide transportation policy for Congressional enactment.\"\nCharging that government agencies in the transport field frequently work\nat cross-purposes, the high level GOP group said:\n\"The development and implementation of a coherent national transportation\npolicy is long overdue.\" The report also criticized Congress for \"its own\nobsolete mechanism for dealing with major issues of national transportation\npolicy\"\nThe Republican Coordinating Committee also urged the creation of a Metropol-\nitan Highway System to give Federal support for the construction of streets and\nhighways in the cities and their suburbs.\nCharging a \"dangerous deterioration of America's merchant marine,\" the GOP\ndocument criticized the lack of action despite the President's promise of a new\npolicy. The paper called for an \"experimental approach aimed at restoring the\neconomic self-sufficiency of the merchant marine.\"\nIn addition to its proposal for commuter incentives, the Republican transport\nstatement on urban transportation urged consideration of State and local government\n\"subsidies for transportation services which are needed by the public but which\ncannot now operate at a profit.\" \"Tax incentives at all levels of government\"\nwere also advocated.\nThe GOP group concluded by urging \"more careful attention to planning our\nfreeways and other transportation facilities. Sometimes the air rights above a\nfreeway cut can be used for the erection of apartments and office buildings.\n-3-\nSometimes a proposed freeway can be re-routed to avoid the destruction of a\nredwood grove, a mountain lake or a happy neighborhood. These considerations\nare important and they should be fully taken into account before any highway is\nconstructed.\"\nThe paper was prepared for Taft's Task Force on the Functions of Federal,\nState and Local Governments by a special Task Group on Transportation.\nIn addition to Professor Ruppenthal, the Task Group members were:\n--Roger Cloud, State Auditor of Ohio\n--Charles Dearing of Wilbur Smith and Associates of San Francisco\n--Edwin Michaelian, County Executive of Westchester County, New York\n--Robert Redding, Transportation Attorney, Washington, D. C.\n-30-\nRepublican NATiONAL COMMiTTEE\n1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006\nNATIONAL 8-6800\nNEWS\nFOR RELEASE\nTHURSDAY AM'S\nJune 30, 1966\nTRANSPORTATION IN MODERN AMERICA\nThe Republican Coordinating Committee has released a position paper calling\nfor financial incentives for commuters, a three-point auto safety program, and a\nFederal Department of Transportation.\nThe paper, \"Transportation in Modern America,\" was adopted Monday by the\nCoordinating Committee and released today by GOP National Chairman Ray C. Bliss.\nThe 28-page document was prepared by a Task Force headed by former Congress-\nman Robert Taft, Jr. of Ohio, through a subcommittee chaired by Dr. Karl Ruppenthal,\nDirector, Transportation Management Program, Stanford University.\n\"Ways must be found to win commuters back to transit systems,\" the paper\nsaid. \"In addition to reasonably priced fares, we believe that a plan whereby the\nusers of transit systems are given income tax benefits (perhaps through receipts\nwhich could be filed with tax returns) merits serious study.\"\nThe GOP auto safety program consisted of three parts:\n1. An accident investigation program to determine the causes of accidents,\nsimilar in scope to the investigations of air line accidents.\n2. Nationwide driver training and standard drivers' licenses and\nrequirements.\n-2-\n3. Federal safety standards for cars with State and local participation\nin establishing standards, and nationwide state systems of auto inspection.\nIn calling for a U. S. Department of Transportation, the GOP group pointed\nout that President Eisenhower had urged Congress to create such a department. A\nhigh priority function of the department \"should be the prompt development of a\ngovernment-wide transportation policy for Congressional enactment.\"\nCharging that government agencies in the transport field frequently work\nat cross-purposes, the high level GOP group said:\n\"The development and implementation of a coherent national transportation\npolicy is long overdue.\" The report also criticized Congress for \"its own\nobsolete mechanism for dealing with major issues of national transportation\npolicy\"\nThe Republican Coordinating Committee also urged the creation of a Metropol-\nitan Highway System to give Federal support for the construction of streets and\nhighways in the cities and their suburbs.\nCharging a \"dangerous deterioration of America's merchant marine,\" the GOP\ndocument criticized the lack of action despite the President's promise of a new\npolicy. The paper called for an \"experimental approach aimed at restoring the\neconomic self-sufficiency of the merchant marine.\"\nIn addition to its proposal for commuter incentives, the Republican transport\nstatement on urban transportation urged consideration of State and local government\n\"subsidies for transportation services which are needed by the public but which\ncannot now operate at a profit.\" \"Tax incentives at all levels of government\"\nwere also advocated.\nThe GOP group concluded by urging \"more careful attention to planning our\nfreeways and other transportation facilities. Sometimes the air rights above a\nfreeway cut can be used for the erection of apartments and office buildings.\n-3-\nSometimes a proposed freeway can be re-routed to avoid the destruction of a\nredwood grove, a mountain lake or a happy neighborhood. These considerations\nare important and they should be fully taken into account before any highway is\nconstructed.\"\nThe paper was prepared for Taft's Task Force on the Functions of Federal,\nState and Local Governments by a special Task Group on Transportation.\nIn addition to Professor Ruppenthal, the Task Group members were:\n--Roger Cloud, State Auditor of Ohio\n--Charles Dearing of Wilbur Smith and Associates of San Francisco\n--Edwin Michaelian, County Executive of Westchester County, New York\n--Robert Redding, Transportation Attorney, Washington, D. C.\n-30-\nHouse Republican Policy Committee\nJohn J. Rhodes, Chairman\nImmediate Release\n140 Cannon House Office Building\nPhone: 225-6168\nAugust 10, 1966\nRepublican Policy Committee Statement on Department of Transportation\nHistorically, the Republican Party has encouraged the development of American\ntransportation. In the 1860s Republicans aided the opening of the West by pro-\nviding land grant incentives for rail transportation. In the early 1900s, the\nconstruction of the Panama Canal under the leadership of President Theodore\nRoosevelt promoted our vital sea transportation. The highly successful interstate\nhighway system was inaugurated in 1956 under a Republican administration. And in\n1959 the St. Lawrence Seaway was placed in operation.\nFor many years it has been apparent that there was a need for better coordina-\ntion among the various governmental agencies that deal with transportation. As\na result, various proposals have been advanced to coordinate the vast transporta-\ntion bureaucracy which uses, promotes, regulates, and operates transportation in\nthe United States and throughout the free world. The Hoover Commission Task Force\non Transportation recommended the creation of a department in 1946. And in his\nfinal budget message to Congress, President Eisenhower stated: \"A Department of\nTransportation should be established so as to bring together at cabinet level the\npresently fragmented federal functions regarding transportation activities.\" Now,\nfive years after the Eisenhower message, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has\nendorsed this proposal. Certainly, the creation of an efficient and effective\nDepartment of Transportation has been delayed much too long.\nUnfortunately, the bill that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration proposed, and\nthat has now been reported by the Government Operations Committee, is faulty and\ninadequate in a number of important respects and should be improved. In this bill.\nimportant transportation activities have been excluded and those modes of trans-\nportation brought under the Department do not have adequate representation. The\nproposed transfer of aviation accident investigations to the new Department cannot\nbe justified. The broad powers granted the Secretary of Transportation under\nSection 7 invade the policy-making authority of Congress. And the proposed\ntransfer of the Maritime Administration to the new Department would perpetuate the\npresent trouble-ridden mismanagement of the maritime crisis.\nTherefore, while we favor and support legislation that would establish a Depart-\nment of Transportation, we believe that such legislation should contain the\nfollowing safeguards and improvements:\n1. The aviation accident investigation function of the Civil Aeronautics Board\nshould remain independent. In the event the CAB's Bureau of Safety is\ntransferred to the new Department, as contemplated by the proposed\nlegislation, this country would return to the totally unsatisfactory\n(more)\n2.\narrangement that existed prior to 1958. At that time, as a result of\ncomplaints and accusations from industry representatives, government personnel\nand outside observers, Congress enacted the Federal Aviation Act. Under this\nAct, an independent Federal Aviation Agency was established to regulate and\ncontrol the airways and the various promotional aspects of aviation. By the\nsame Act, the independent CAB was created. It was charged with the economic\nregulation of aviation and the conduct of aviation accident investigations.\nThe CAB then created a Bureau of Safety to conduet such investigations. This\nBureau has acquired an outstanding reputation for experience, thoroughness, and\nimpartiality in the investigation of aviation accidents. Since the establish-\nment of these twin but independent bodies, aviation has prospered and air\nsafety has advanced. These advances would be jeopardized if these important\nfunctions are brought together again within a new Department.\n2. To date, little has been done with respect to the problem created by aircraft\nnoise, and no one in government has assumed direct responsibility for taking\naction. This important problem should receive immediate and continuing\nattention within the new Department. Adequate research and the establishment\nof reasonable standards to reduce aircraft noise should be given a high priority.\n3. Throughout the hearings on the proposed bill, Section 7 was criticized severely.\nIt was opposed by witness after witness, including the Transportation Associa-\ntion of America whose membership represents all modes of transportation plus\nshippers and investors. Under this section, the Secretary could adopt\nnational transportation investment standards and criteria without seeking\nCongressional approval. He would have the authority to determine whether the\ninvestment of federal money should be made on behalf of one mode of transporta-\ntion or another. He could impose his standards of investment on other agencies\nof government who administer investment programs enacted by Congress. This\nsection should be stricken from the bill.\n4. The Administration bill would leave the urban mass transportation program\nwithin the newly-established Department of Housing and Urban Development.\nCertainly, urban transportation is an integral part of mass transportation.\nThe close relationship and interdependence between urban mass transportation\nand other forms of transportation dictate that the urban mass transportation\nshould be transferred from the Department of HUD to the new Department. This\nprogram only recently has been assigned to HUD. Now is the time to make this\ntransfer to the new Department.\n5. As the April 20, 1966 House Republican Policy Committee statement pointed out:\n\"America is facing a crisis of major proportions with respect to its\n(more)\n3.\nvital Merchant Marine. At the close of World War II, this\ncountry had a Merchant Marine fleet of over 3,500 vessels.\nBy 1951, there were 1,955 active U.S. flag ships. Today\nthere are only 1,000, including those reactivated for the\nViet Nam War. The U.S. has dropped to 14th place among the\nworld's major shipbuilding nations while Russia has risen\nfrom 12th to 7th place as a maritime nation\nThe Merchant\nMarine shipbuilding effort in this country must be increased.\nUnless this is done, our defense commitments throughout the\nworld will be in jeopardy. Indeed, our national survival\nmay depend upon the shipping that should be under construction\nbut which the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has scuttled.\nWe demand that steps be taken to correct this disastrous\nsituation.\nAlthough faced with this major crisis, the proposed bill does little more\nthan transfer the problem to a new Department. There is nothing in the bill that\nreflects a sense of urgency or that calls for a redirection of effort. Moreover,\nthere is no indication that the functions of the Maritime Administration will\neven be handled by one man with clear-cut authority. The present plight of the\nAmerican Merchant Marine demands action. Unfortunately, the present stepchild\nstatus would continue under the proposed bill. The proposed transfer does not\ncorrect the Johnson-Humphrey Administration's known and apparent deficiencies in\nthe maritime field. Therefore, we believe that the Maritime Administration\nshould be established as an independent agency.\nHouse Republican Policy Committee\nJohn J. Rhodes, Chairman\nImmediate Release\n140 Cannon House Office Building\nAugust 10, 1966\nPhone: 225-6168\nRepublican Policy Committee Statement on Department of Transportation\nHistorically, the Republican Party has encouraged the development of American\ntransportation. In the 1860s Republicans aided the opening of the West by pro-\nviding land grant incentives for rail transportation. In the early 1900s, the\nconstruction of the Panama Canal under the leadership of President Theodore\nRoosevelt promoted our vital sea transportation. The highly successful interstate\nhighway system was inaugurated in 1956 under a Republican Administration. And\nin 1959 the St. Lawrence Seaway was placed in operation.\nFor many years it has been apparent that there was a need for better coordi-\nnation among the various governmental agencies that deal with transportation. As\na result, various proposals have been advanced to coordinate the vast transporta-\ntion bureaucracy which uses, promotes, regulates, and operates transportation in\nthe United States and throughout the free world. The Hoover Commission Task Force\non Transportation recommended the creation of a department in 1946. And in his\nfinal budget message to Congress, President Eisenhower stated: \"A Department of\nTransportation should be established so as to bring together at cabinet level the\npresently fragmented federal functions regarding transportation activities.\"\nNow, five years after the Eisenhower message, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration\nhas endorsed this proposal. Certainly, the creation of an efficient and effective\nDepartment of Transportation has been delayed much too long.\nUnfortunately, the bill that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration proposed, and\nthat has now been reported by the Government Operations Committee, is faulty and\ninadequate in a number of important respects and should be improved. In this bill,\nimportant transportation activities have been excluded. The proposed transfer of\naviation accident investigations to the new Department cannot be justified. The\nbroad powers granted the Secretary of Transportation under Section 7 invade the\npolicy-making authority of Congress. And the proposed transfer of the Maritime\nAdministration to the new Department would perpetuate the present trouble-ridden\nmismanagement of the maritime crisis.\nTherefore, while we favor and support legislation that would establish a\nDepartment of Transportation, we believe that such legislation should contain\nthe following safeguards and improvements:\n1. The aviation accident investigation function of the Civil Aeronautics Board\nshould remain independent. In the event the CAB's Bureau of Safety is\ntransferred to the new Department, as contemplated by the proposed legislation,\nthis country would return to the totally unsatisfactory arrangement that\nexisted prior to 1958. At that time, as a result of complaints and accusations\nfrom industry representatives, government personnel and outside observers,\nCongress enacted the Federal Aviation Act. Under this Act, an independent\nFederal Aviation Agency was established to regulate and control the airways\nand the various promotional aspects of aviation. By the same Act, the\nindependent CAB was created. It was charged with the economic regulation of\naviation and the conduct of aviation accident investigations. The CAB then\ncreated a Bureau of Safety to conduct such investigations. This Bureau has\nacquired an outstanding reputation for experience, thoroughness, and\nimpartiality in the investigation of aviation accidents. Since the establish-\nment of these twin but independent bodies, aviation has prospered and air\nsafety has advanced. These advances would be jeopardized if these important\nfunctions are brought together again within a new Department.\n(over)\n2.\nment of these twin but independent bodies, aviation has prospered and air\nsafety has advanced. These advances would be jeopardized if these important\nfunctions are brought together again within a new Department.\n2. To date, little has been done with respect to the problem created by aircraft\nnoise, and no one in government has assumed direct responsibility for taking\naction. This important problem should receive immediate and continuing\nattention within the new Department. Adequate research and the establishment\nof reasonable standards to reduce aircraft noise should be given a high priority.\n3. Throughout the hearings on the proposed bill, Section 7 was criticized severely.\nIt was opposed by witness after witness, including the Transportation Associa-\ntion of America whose membership represents all modes of transportation plus\nshippers and investors. Under this section, the Secretary could adopt national\ntransportation investment standards and criteria without seeking Congressional\napproval. He would have the authority to determine whether the investment of\nfederal money should be made on behalf of one mode of transportation or another.\nHe could impose his standards of investment on other agencies of government who\nadminister investment programs enacted by Congress. This section should be\nstricken from the bill.\n4. The Administration bill would leave the urban mass transportation program within\nthe newly-established Department of Housing and Urban Development. Certainly,\nurban transportation is an integral part of mass transportation. The close\nrelationship and interdependence between urban mass transportation and other\nforms of transportation dictate that the urban mass transportation should be\ntransferred from the Department of HUD to the new Department. This program\nonly recently has been assigned to HUD. Now is the time to make this transfer\nto the new Department.\n5. As the April 20, 1966 House Republican Policy Committee statement pointed out:\n\"America is facing a crisis of major proportions with respect to its\nvital Merchant Marine. At the close of World War II, this country\nhad a Merchant Marine fleet of over 3,500 vessels. By 1951, there\nwere 1,955 active U.S. flag ships. Today there are only 1,000,\nincluding those reactivated for the Vietnam War. The U.S. has\ndropped to 14th place among the world's major shipbuilding nations\nwhile Russia has risen from 12th to 7th place as a maritime nation.\nThe Merchant Marine shipbuilding effort in this country must\nbe increased. Unless this is done, our defense commitments through-\nout the world will be in jeopardy. Indeed, our national survival may\ndepend upon the shipping that should be under construction but which\nthe Johnson-Humphrey Administration has scuttled. We demand that\nsteps be taken to correct this disastrous situation.\nAlthough faced with this major crisis, the proposed bill does little more than\ntransfer the problem to a new Department. There is nothing in the bill that\nreflects a sense of urgency or that calls for a redirection of effort.\nMoreover, there is no indication that the functions of the Maritime Adminis-\ntration will even be handled by one man with clear-cut authority. The present\nplight of the American Merchant Marine demands action. Unfortunately, the\npresent stepchild status would continue under the proposed bill. The proposed\ntransfer does not correct the Johnson-Humphrey Administration's known and\napparent deficiencies in the maritime field. Therefore, we believe that the\nMaritime Administration should be established as an independent agency.\nCONGRESSMAN\nNEWS\nGERALD R. FORD\nHOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER\nRELEASE\nTHURSDAY, DEC. 15, 1966\n--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-\nHouse Republican Leader Gerald R. Ford, Mich., today urged that Federal\nofficials meet quickly with auto industry representatives to avoid any possible\nshutdown of automobile plants due to the new auto safety law.\nFord said he was \"deeply concerned\" about a statement by Henry Ford II,\ndeclaring that some of the federal government's proposed safety standards for\n1968 model cars are absolutely impossible to meet. The Ford Motor Co. president\nsaid these standards must be changed or some Ford plants may have to be closed.\n\"There already have been cutbacks in 1967 auto production which have\nresulted in worker layoffs in Michigan and elsewhere,\" Ford said. \"I am deeply\nconcerned that there will be further cutbacks and layoffs next fall unless the\ngovernment and the auto industry can come to a meeting of the minds about 1968\nautomobile safety standards. \"\nFord said he has called the office of Dr. William Haddon, director of\nthe National Highway Safety Agency, to ask whether a meeting between Haddon and\nauto industry officials can be set up quickly to explore the Ford Motor Co.\ngrievances.\nThe automobile manufacturers have until Jan. 3 to comment on the\nproposed safety standards. The standards as adopted will be published Jan. 31\nand will take effect with the start of the 1968 model run.\nFord Motor Co. safety director Will Scott has said several of the\nproposed standards cannot be met. He specifically mentioned one that requires\nthe inside of a car to be made of energy-absorbing material.\n# # #"
}