Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Issues - Transportation
Box: P32
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
Hon. Taul Beck.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
1120 N STREET, SACRAMENTO file 95814
GORDON C. LUCE
Secretary
JAMES C. SCHMIDT
Assistant Secretary
December 1, 1967
Mr. Wm. Thorson, Editorial Writer
Los Angeles Times
Times Mirror Square
Los Angeles, California 90053
Dear Bill:
Both Governor Reagan and I feel local government should be
given the financial tools to solve its transportation
problems.
Our statement of Wednesday, November 29, concerning legis-
lation next year proposes that local residents be permitted
to vote on alternative sources of revenue to support
transportation needs.
We were not making a judgment as to whether a tax on gasoline
for transit was the most equitable or the only tax to be
considered but, whatever the tax, we feel the voters in a
local area must be given an opportunity to weigh these
questions and decide before any tax is levied.
The important point is: It is the voter's money and there-
fore he should be the judge after weighing all pros and
cons of what tax sources should support transportation.
Best regards, Luce
GORDON C. LUCE, Secretary of
Business and Transportation
Transp
REPORT TO
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
NATIONAL GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE
FROM
RONALD REAGAN, CHAIRMAN
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
As Chairman of the Committee on Transportation of the
National Governors' Conference, I would like to submit, through
my Secretary of Business and Transportation, Gordon C. Luce, for
your attention at your meetings in Washington, D.C., the following
areas for discussion and recommendations.
Our most urgent problems seem to fall in the following
classifications:
I. Interstate Highway Fund Cutbacks and Future Preventive
Legislation.
II. Mass Transportation Planning, with Priority in Urban Areas.
III. Highway Safety.
IV. Return to States of Major Transportation Funding.
V. Environmental Planning with Incentives rather than
Penalties.
VI. Airport Planning and Funding.
VII. Encouragement of Future Modes of Transportation.
VIII. Accident Insurance.
We in California know that our future economic well-being
demands that a superior and efficient balanced transportation
system be created. Both nationwide and in California our present
forms of transportation planning are inadequate to contend with
our future needs and requirements. Rapid population growth
in our State, together with the continued trend of population
to concentrate in urbanized centers, means we must act now. Proper
land usage, modern technical advances in both our present and
future modes of transportation, safety, and balance of individual
modes must all be considered in our planning.
I. Interstate Highway Fund Cutbacks and Future Preventive
Legislation.
The National Highway Trust Fund should be treated as just
that -- a fund whereby the citizens of all states placed certain
moneys in trust for completion of an Interstate highway system.
It seems evident, however, the administration has recently seen
fit to use highway trust funds for partisan political purposes.
Justifications such as the curbing of inflationary trends have not
proved satisfactory, and the resulting slowdown in planning and
construction has cost the states inestimable millions of dollars.
In California the construction cost index decreased 6.5% in
1967 over 1966. Prices now are going up, however, and we recommend
an accelerated program to beat inflation rather than disruption
and slowdown, as these cutbacks are forcing the states to do.
Cutbacks in the release of federal funds have damaged orderly
planning, scheduling and programming of highway construction; are
inconsistent with the intent of Congress to complete the Interstate
system at the earliest possible date; and have adversely affected
the safety program on the nation's highways.
Recommendations:
Ask Congress to:
1. Investigate the present use of national highway trust
funds.
2. Study the legality of present cutbacks by the administration.
3. Call for legislation to prevent future cutbacks.
II. Mass Transportation Planning, with Priority in Urban Areas.
Mass transportation affects jobs, welfare, racial problems,
business, recreation and senior citizen needs.
A total and concentrated effort must be made in the field of
mass transportation, with a priority given to the burdening needs
of urban areas. All efforts should be directed to a coordination
of urban and rural transportation. Research funds should be
dedicated to improving over-all systems and subsystems, as well
as the updating of present systems.
Since transportation needs are often unique because of the
historical differences between the nation's cities, the primary
planning and funding for transportation should be directed from
the local or regional entities most affected. The role of the
federal and state governments should be one of coordination,
research and integrated planning.
A locality should determine the forms of transportation that
suit its needs and the methods by which it wishes to pay for
these forms of transportation. States should aid by providing
additional sources of funds for transit and utilizing tax credits
and exemptions for improvement of transit needs. Once a locality
has, by voter preference, decided upon its best means of funding
and the desired system of transportation, it should be able to
receive help from the state in over-all integrated planning. The
state in turn should be able to call upon the Federal Government
for similar assistance.
A much greater effort should be made to utilize present high-
way systems for mass transit, such as one-way express lanes; rapid
bus transit; coordination with rail systems; and airport require-
ments. Parking and storage facilities must be given stronger
emphasis in any future transportation planning.
Urban mass transportation programming would probably be aided
by combining the Department of Housing and Urban Development with
the Department of Transportation. Cities and states must work
together in coordinated transportation planning for the good of
all sectors of a state before federal participation.
Recommendations:
1. States should coordinate transportation needs and allow
localities to determine needs and financing methods.
2. Further study and research in fields of rapid transit
and storage, and coordination with all forms of trans-
portation.
3. Urban mass transit programs should be transferred from
the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the
Department of Transportation.
III. Highway Safetv.
In the field of traffic safety the basic concern is the number
of lives lost in preventable traffic accidents, the incapacitating
injuries, and the $11 billion in costs (nationwide) directly
attributable to automobile accidents. In California the loss is
$1 billion to the economy.
We are concerned about the Highway Safety Act of 1966 and the
10% highway construction penalty. Safety cannot be promoted
through reduction in highway construction.
I propose we look upon the federal standards as exactly what
they are supposed to be: minimum bases. I believe each state
ought to try to exceed these minimums.
In California, our Committee on Traffic Safety is deeply
interlocked with the California Traffic Safety Foundation, a non-
profit corporation that in turn acts as a secretariat to 12 staffed
area councils of the National Safety Council. These private
resources are helping my staff people and departments of state
government in planning and executing legislative and public
education programs.
I honestly believe that because of the joint efforts these
programs are earmarked for success. This joint venture, with its
lifesaving partnership, is not only in the finest American
tradition, it is also the most effective approach to the problem
-- the one best calculated to find the effective solutions. I
urge my fellow Governors to adopt the recommendations made in this
report and to transmit them to both President Lyndon B. Johnson
and the appropriate congressional committees.
In the area of vehicle inspection, California is now experi-
menting with a random mandatory inspection program. Over a period
of a year these inspections covered approximately 10% of all
passenger automobiles. We are embarked on a program to develop
the most efficient and inexpensive inspection system in the nation.
The system will embrace the latest techniques in analytical
equipment, electronic and computer sciences. We feel this inspec-
tion program can save lives, prevent accidents, avoid property
loss, and at the same time cost the taxpaying citizen less. If
the random system can prove almost equal in safety with less cost
to the taxpayer, then any federal plan should be disrupted in
favor of states' programs.
Recommendations:
1. The alcoholic driver. Much attention has been given to
safer automobiles, highways and fixtures -- not enough
attention has been given to the driver, and more
specifically the driver whose ability is impaired by
alcohol. The states should take the lead on this problem
and should not wait for the Federal Government to impose
more restrictions and arbitrary guidelines. We in
California recently implemented an implied consent law
and are striving to put a presumptive limits law into
effect.
2. Request that the President give individual states broader
representation on his National Highway Safety Advisory
Committee. California with over 10 million vehicles and
11 million drivers has but one representative.
3. Request that the Congress allow greater flexibility to
the Secretary of the Department of Transportation in
submitting the various reports required by the Highway
Safety Act of 1966. Data for these reports must be
submitted by the several states, and the states should be
allowed sufficient time to prepare the data.
4. Request that clear-cut guidelines of what programs qualify
for Section 402 funding and what programs qualify for
Section 403 funding be published. The lack of precise
instructions which define funding criteria under Sections
402 and 403 has caused problems and delays in California.
IV. Return to States of Major Transportation Funding.
The National System of Interstate and Defense Highways is
now nearing completion, with a current progress report indicating
this date to be 1974-75. By law, after completion, federal highway
revenues will revert to approximately 40% of the present level of
$4.5 billion a year. California, one of the large states, at the
present time only receives 82% of the highway revenues generated
in that state. California motorists will have paid $1 billion
more into the Federal Highway Trust Fund than California will have
received when the Interstate program is completed.
Federal-aid programs limit flexibility by states and add
tremendous administrative costs to highway programs.
In California last year a bill was passed to remove the red
tape involved and return 1.76¢ of the tax on each gallon of gasoline,
amounting to approximately $139 million statewide, directly to
the cities and counties. Now only a post-audit is done on these
funds, and administrative costs have been reduced by both the
State and the recipients. Such a program should be studied by
the Federal Government.
Recommendations:
1. After completion of the Interstate System, reduce federal
participation and accompanying controls.
2. Return a higher percentage of revenue to the states.
3. Provide greater freedom of in-state expenditures to solve
urban and rural problems. Future financing should be
prorated on the basis of needs of different states,
should be flexible to permit changes as requirements
change, and moneys should be dedicated several years in
advance to permit proper planning.
4.. Federal highway trust funds should not be diverted to
other forms of transportation after completion of the
Interstate program. Localities in states should be
allowed to determine the forms of transportation best
suited to their needs, and any such programs of mass
transportation should be directed and developed in the
states rather than by the Federal Government.
5. Study ways to reduce federal administrative costs in
Interstate programs.
V. Environmental Planning with Incentives rather than Penalties.
All transportation planning should consider environmental
effects and proper land usage. Cities and counties as well as
states must concern themselves with outdoor advertising, the
enhancement of scenic areas, and improved roadside rests and
landscaping.
However, the present policy of the Federal Government to
impose penalties rather than incentives in beautification should
be changed.
California has enacted a bill to regulate the erection and
maintenance of outdoor advertising, as well as the removal of
junkyards along Interstate and primary systems. Under these
programs the State will put up 25% of the total cost.
Requirements of the federal statute will hurt portions of the
outdoor advertising industry. Naturally, state taxpayers will be
affected by this change.
Continual expansion of the federal government's device to
withhold federal funds could eventually give the Federal Government
control over almost every segment of state government operations.
The federal policy should provide greater incentive to provide
better environmental planning instead of using penalties to coerce
state and local governments into certain policies. It must always
be kept in mind also that environmental and beautification pro-
gram benefits must be weighed against transportation requirements,
and expenditures then be made accordingly.
Recommendations:
1. Federal Government could increase its share in transporta-
tion projects when proper planning is accomplished rather
than threaten to penalize governments as has been the
case in the past.
2. States should be encouraged to further scenic highway
programs, improve landscaping, and add to the enjoyment
of highway users. A basic highway design should be
offered to localities and they in turn should be allowed
to decide the best environmental approach in their area
and participate in the funding of special amenities
essential to the improvement of their area.
3. Principal responsibility for beautification programs
should be with states and local governments.
VI. Airport Planning and Funding.
With the great increase in air travel, both commercial and
general aviation, there is an imperative need for proper airport
planning and funding.
In California, airplane fuel is taxed, and the Division of
Aeronautics puts approximately 20 per gallon, which approximates
$1.5 million per year, into an Airport Assistance Fund for local
airports to use on a matching basis.
Airport requirements for the State will no doubt increase, as
well as nationally. We have embarked on two major programs:
(1) a two-year study in master plan development of future airports
for the entire State; and (2) a West Coast Air Corridor Study
involving nine western states to define and solve short-haul air
travel problems.
Recommendations:
1. Other forms of future taxation may be necessary, yet we
oppose a Federal
Airport Users Tax Fund, since
federal overhead and inflexibilities tend to reduce the
effectiveness of such an approach.
2. States should be allowed to keep and utilize any such
users tax free of federal controls on such a program.
3. Possibly, matching funds or tax incentives should be
available from the Federal Government to encourage proper
future airport planning.
4. Studies should be made before a final recommendation is
made on such funding.
VII. Encouragement of Future Modes of Transportation.
There is a compelling need for study and research as well as
encouragement for future modes of transportation.
In the field of water transportation, recent developments in
aerodynamics and a variety of new power sources have introduced a
new breed of water vehicle. Recent developments such as the
hydrofoil and various types of hovercraft merge the dynamics of
vehicles in flight and vehicles on water.
With the increase in population along seaboards and inland
waterways, it may become expedient to find means of moving goods
and people by water. Studies in depth would no doubt produce some
startling new possibilities for the efficient movement of people
and cargo by water.
Containerization permits a combination between trucks, rails,
air and ships. Further research in this area may bring to the
fore an excellent example of coordinated, integrated and balanced
transportation through this means.
Certainly in the field of rail transportation there are many
new forms that should be studied.
Very little has been done in the field of maximizing the
productivities of mass rapid transit for cargo rather than just
for people. Both the BART system in San Francisco and the newly
planned rapid transit system for Los Angeles do not include studies
in depth on the economic necessity of planning a system for both
people and goods.
In the field of mass highway transportation, there is still
further study needed on bus rapid transit involving new physical
carriers, exclusive lanes, and other features to entice the public
to use this transportation means.
Recommendations:
1. Research and development funds should be dedicated to
improving over-all systems and subsystems. Need also
exists to update the present systems.
2. Alternative means of financing should be studied for
development of public transit systems.
10
VIII. Accident Insurance.
Public dissatisfaction with the automotive accident situation
and insurance has been increasing in recent years. There are
special study commissions now in New York and California. Senator
Hart's committee will probably soon begin an investigation. Costs
of paying insurance claims are continually increasing with a
resulting increase in insurance premiums. The increase in losses
is causing insurance companies to be more selective in accepting
new policyholders and in renewing existing policies.
California is in a good position because of its highway
safety and prevention program. Many studies indicate that more
stringent enforcement in controlling drivers license issuance,
revocation, etc., would cause a reduction in accidents. Chronic
violation and accident-prone drivers should be placed under greater
control, and more emphasis should be placed on driver development
and education.
The California court situation is comparatively very good,
since California has kept court staffing in line with increased
case loads. In addition, judicial personnel are of high over-all
caliber. Quick justice in the courts is important, as long trial
delays such as in Chicago (five years) cause problems -- acceptance
of lower settlement because of inability to wait -- others get
higher settlements because they can stall the situation out.
California's premium rating law has kept insurance rate-making
out of politics. Companies can have different rates. In California,
insurance companies can increase premiums for more undesirable
insurance risks (policyholders) rather than simply refusing them
insurance altogether.
In California we have a financial responsibility law wherein
drivers are not required to have insurance, but if they do not
they must have financial responsibility. Some people attack this
approach on grounds it discriminates against the poor people. It
is believed that the financial responsibility approach is better
than compulsory insurance, which several states have. These states
have many mechanical problems in compulsory insurance, yet only
have approximately the same percentage of autos insured as does
California.
There probably is a need for auto insurance policies to be
standardized nationally, since companies have different policies
now.
The American Bar Association has on study a proposal to
abolish damage suits in auto accidents and substitute a system
whereby your own auto is insured against crashes regardless of
fault. This type of coverage might limit the personal damage
possibilities in auto accidents and thereby reduce insurance
premiums. This can be done on state level.
Some people argue that the fault system results in erratic
settlements. The contention is that some insurance companies
overpay small "nuisance" claims because it costs more to fight
them than it does to settle. At the same time, people with large,
legitimate claims are often unable to wait for a case to come to
trial and are forced to settle for whatever the insurance company
offers.
The insurance industry must be helped to cut its own costs.
With tighter drivers licensing controls, this can be done. The
Stanford Research Institute states that if 20% of all drivers
lost their licenses, the accident rate would go down 80%.
California is probably better off than most states -- its
claims and underwriting practices are better than in most states.
In all aspects, the fact that the situation is relatively good
should not forestall attempts to secure further improvements, as
the entire field is one which increasingly is coming under critical
public security.
Recommendations:
1. The Federal Government should not be in the automobile
insurance business.
2. Automobile insurance policies and coverage should be
standardized nationally (by agreement among the states)
.
3. Thoroughly study merit of changing damage concept from
present fault basis.
February 29, 1968
POSSIBLE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
ON MASS TRANSIT
WHAT ARE THE MERITS OF SALES TAX ON GASOLINE?
(a) It provides the necessary large revenue source (4% =
$108 million statewide). No general fund money is
available - tidelands money committed.
(b) It spreads tax base by including our many tourists who
would buy gas in the Los Angeles and Bay Area districts.
They increase congestion which is one reason mass
public transportation is needed. Therefore, they
should help pay for possible cures.
(c) It cannot be avoided as easily as an increased
vehicle in lieu tax. It is doubtful that you would
drive too far to pay a 1.2¢ less per gallon for gas.
WHAT AMOUNTS OF REVENUE COULD BE RAISED BY
SALES TAX AND IN LIEU INCREASE?
(a) Sales tax - statewide - $108 million (4%).
(1) SCRTD - $40 million (4%) (1.2¢ per gallon)
(2) BARTD -- $13 million (4%)
(b) In lieu - statewide - $91 million (1%)
(1) SCRTD - $35 million (1%) ($10 per thousand)
(2) BARTD - $12 million (1%)
WHY NOT INCREASE "IN LIEU" TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLES
RATHER THAN USE SALES TAX ON GASOLINE?
(a) This has been suggested and I will issue an urgency
letter permitting it to get early hearing next session
along with the sales tax approach. However, I feel
even this approach should be triggered only by a local
vote and should not be imposed at the state level.
(b) Evasion problem. -- Large fleet owners could re-register
vehicles in adjacent counties which didn't increase in
lieu tax, thereby reducing revenue and penalizing a
local government which imposes the increase.
(c) Narrow tax base The "in lieu" approach does not
allow tourists to contribute toward congestion problem
they help create.
WHAT ABOUT OTHER POSSIBLE TAXES, SUCH AS
GENERAL SALES TAX INCREASE OR UTILITY TAX?
These have been suggested and looked at. Would give urgency
letters for such approaches. However, they also should be
triggered by a local vote and not imposed by State.
(a) We increased general sales tax once already this
year. Sales tax arguably hits lower income groups
harder and should be used only as a last resort.
(L.A. County 1% sales tax = $132 million annually,
BARTD counties = $48 million annually.)
(b) Utility tax (paid by consumer in monthly utility bill)
is a possibility, but it seems to hit property owner
and wouldn't allow tourists to contribute.
WHAT AMOUNT REVENUE DO SCRTD (Southern California
Rapid Transit District) and BARTD (Bay Area Rapid Transit
District) NEED?
According to recent testimony before legislative committees:
(a) SCRTD needs sufficient revenue to support $1.5 billion
bond issue which is estimated cost of their 62-mile
core rail system and feeder buslines.
(b) BARTD needs sufficient revenue to support $60 - $170
million deficit which is estimate of amount needed to
complete 75-mile system. (Range due to variables,
such as elimination frills and availability Fed. money.)
WHEN IS MONEY NEEDED?
(a) SCRTD will go to voters November 1968. They need to
know what revenue sources are available prior to that
time.
(b) BARTD indicates they will run out of money in July 1968.
WON'T REQUIRING VOTE BEFORE IMPOSING TAX DELAY THESE PROJECTS?
(a) SCRTD - No, since they have to go to voters in Nov. anyway.
(b) BARTD - No delay if enabling legislation is acted upon
early in 1968. That's why I will issue urgency letters so
proposals can be heard quickly.
-2-
WHY HAVE VOTE OF COUNTY OR DISTRICT RESIDENTS
BEFORE TAX IS IMPOSED?
(a) It gives local residents chance to solve own problems
and determine how badly they want a project. They will
be paying for.
(b) It answers claim that use of sales tax on gasoline or
motor vehicle in lieu tax for rapid transit is an
improper diversion of needed highway money. If voters
determine this tax source should be used for rapid
transit, who can say it is improper - local people will
have determined the priority in their area.
HASN'T BAY AREA ALREADY VOTED WHEN THEY APPROVED $792 MILLION
BOND ISSUE IN 1962 - WHY MAKE THEM VOTE AGAIN?
Apparently the project is $60 - $170 million short. Voters
should have opportunity to be heard again. It would clear
air.
ARE YOU ADVOCATING THAT BARTD BE SCRAPPED AND A $792 MILLION
INVESTMENT BE WASTED?
(a) Not at all - in fact this would be effective argument
to local voters for passage of a tax measure. I'm
only saying that local voters should be heard from
before a large additional tax is imposed.
OTHER TAXES AREN'T APPROVED BY VOTERS, WHY THIS TYPE OF TAX?
(a) Taxes are reaching a point where maybe a vote is needed
under circumstances where the money isn't devoted to
absolutely essential services.
(b) These are large local projects and highway user should
have a chance to say whether he wants potential highway tax money
to be used for transit purposes. (This is main fight over
use of gas sales tax.)
DO YOU FAVOR RAIL RAPID TRANSIT BY ADVOCATING THIS
ENABLING LEGISLATION?
No, not advocating any particular project or mode of
transportation. However, feel that local government should
have financial tools available to solve such problems as
-3-
congestion, public transportation for the carless, and
development of smog free transportation. Without financial
alternatives, a project doesn't have a real chance to be
decided on the merits.
WHY NOT IMPOSE TAX ON STATEWIDE BASIS?
(a) Under local option, tax is imposed only by counties
where a tax is urgently needed.
(b) With local option, taxes will be paid by those most
likely to receive the benefits.
WHY NOT RAISE STATE GAS TAX TO FINANCE RAPID TRANSIT?
Under California Constitution (Art. 26) the 7¢ gasoline
tax revenue can be used only for highway purposes; and a
highway financing need exists.
WHAT IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXISTING 7¢ STATE GASOLINE TAX
AND PROPOSED SALES TAX ON GASOLINE?
(a) The 7¢ gas tax is a wholesale distribution tax
(which is of course passed on to retail customers).
(b) The suggested sales tax would be a tax on the final
retail sales transaction similar to other existing
sales taxes (gasoline now exempt by statute).
WILL THIS AFFECT STATE HIGHWAY FINANCING?
(a) It shouldn't, since gas tax increase source is still
available - and no existing funds are being diverted
to non-highway use.
(b) By economies in Transportation Agency, we have saved
($99 million) which is equivalent to over 1¢ in gas
tax increase. So, by economies we have avoided a 1¢
increase in gas tax, and made this money available for
highway construction. A good example of new approach -
don't look for increases until Administrative economies
have been exhausted.
add at back
WHAT ABOUT DIFFERENT TAXES FOR LOS ANGELES, AND SAN FRANCISCO?
This could be done legislatively. For example, you could have
in lieu in San Francisco area and sales tax on gasoline in
Los Angeles. Trend throughout country is to allow variation
to meet local problems. The taxes should be tailored to par-
ticular needs of district.
WHAT SIZE VOTE ARE YOU ADVOCATING, TWO-THIRDS OR 50%?
(a) This would be up to Legislature.
(b) For example, for the BARTD and SCRTD general obligation
bonds Legislature lowered vote requirement from 2/3 to
60%.
WHAT IS A MOTOR VEHICLE IN LIEU TAX?
(a) It is a personal property tax of 2% on the value of a
motor vehicle collected by State and returned to cities
and counties for their general fund use (i.e., not ear-
marked for road use). (Approximately $205 million
statewide.)
(b) State also collects annual registration fee on vehicles
which is used to support DMV and CHP.
BT11-67-14
har
-5-
Nanaportation
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
1120 N STREET, SACRAMENTO 95814
RB-Dyi
GORDON C. LUCE
Secretary
JAMES C. SCHMIDT
May 22, 1968
Assistant Secretary
The Honorable Don Mulford
State Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California
Dear Don:
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RE AB 255
Pursuant to our meeting of Wednesday, May 22, the following
matters were considered and agreed upon:
1. Issuance of emergency letter by Lieutenant Governor is not
considered to be an endorsement of AB 255.
2. Amendments should be worked out to AB 255 which do the
following:
a. Limit the use of the local in lieu money to an amount
which meets the current BART deficit for the basic
system only. (It was recognized that $144 million
deficit figure included a substantial amount which may
be reduced by monies returned or granted to BART.)
b. Permit the in lieu revenue to be used as a backup source
of financing for rolling stock only (no direct cash flow
of in lieu money toward purchase of rolling stock.
C. Provide that all surplus money from whatever source be
returned to the State Highway Fund upon completion of
the basic system. This return to include monies now
listed as interim financing needs and set forth in the
BART statement to the Legislature of December 13, 1967,
as $36 million.
3. The following assurances were made by BART and which should
be confirmed in writing:
a. Upon receipt of federal grants, now estimated at $26
million, equivalent funds shall be. returned to the State
Highway Fund or reduction made in the amount of local in
lieu funds to be utilized.
Hon. Don Mulford
-2-
May 22, 1968
b. BART is agreeable to opening all their books and records
to an in depth financial audit by the State Executive
Branch (Finance, Transportation Agency) in cooperation
with the Legislative Analyst.
C. BART to furnish immediate and complete answers to
Gordon Luce's letter of May 17.
4. Additional issues not resolved yet:
a. We feel very strongly that the tax should be imposed by
vote of the local elective officials (county supervisors)
and not by the BART Board. This has been the Adminis-
tration's position all along on BART, regardless of the
method of financing. We will have to discuss this matter
in further detail and can make no commitment other than
that this provision must be in any BART bill. We do
understand that you feel otherwise and we are willing to
meet with you to discuss it further.
b. Should the local in lieu tax be utilized for specific
system additions such as securities surveilance devices
estimated at $2+ million and complete installation of
provisions for handicapped persons now estimated at $7
million? (BART has testified that facilities are designed
for inclusion of these items but that they will not be put
in as a part of the initial system.)
C. Audit controls -- timing of issuance of bonds?
5. It is also our understanding that the Division of Highways
will present complete facts to all legislative committees
and legislators on the impact of AB 255 on the State Highway
Program in these three counties and elsewhere.
6. As any other problems develop, author and Agency will meet
and attempt to resolve them.
Sincerely,
GORDON C. LUCE, Secretary of
Business and Transportation
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
1120 N STREET, SACRAMENTO 95814
CONFIDENTIAL
GORDON C. LUCE
Secretary
JAMES C. SCHMIDT
November 1, 1968
Assistant Secretary
The Honorable Ronald Reagan
Governor of California
State Capitol
Sacramento, California
Dear Governor:
In spring 1967 I suggested to you and the Cabinet that we
appoint a Governor's Task Force on Transportation to define
existing problems, with special emphasis on comprehensive
planning and the need for coordinated growth, and to recommend
the State's role and organizational structure which could
effectively plan for the future transportation needs of the
State. You appointed 23 of California's top transportation
executives (see attached) and these men, supported by some 100
research people with transportation-oriented backgrounds, spent
thousands of man-hours in writing a report to be officially
presented to you by the entire committee on November 19.
The assignment was an extremely large undertaking. It has had
mixed success. Since the Task Force was not funded, both staff
and private sector time was donated although some of the print-
ing costs and staff help have come from the Department of
Public Works. Task Force members paid their own transportation
costs, lunches, etc., and it was difficult for experts from
competing modes of transportation to overcome their special
interests. However, they did progress through the series of
many meetings, compromised in some cases, and coordinated their
thoughts with the attached result.
The report is a first step, and a giant step at that, in
formulating some future transportation thinking by a state
administration. We found in this year's legislative session
the most controversial bill was in regard to BART. It is
obvious that the State must have the tools to adequately
Hon. Ronald Reagan
-2-
November 1, 1968
assess future transportation proposals and reports and this
Task Force suggests some methods by which this could be
accomplished.
The State is presently unable to provide the cohesive function
which is its responsibility in the field of coordinated and
integrated overall transportation planning. Elements of our
transportation system are now provided by local or regional
agencies and/or the private sector. The federal government
is involved in varying degrees (i.e., airport interstate
regulation); the State has accepted the primary responsibility
for highways and bridges; the State PUC plays a strong role in
intrastate transportation regulation. These efforts need
coordination which could come from adoption of a statewide
transportation policy and the implementation of some of the
Task Force's recommendations.
Some of the report's key suggestions would probably not find
implementation with the make-up of the present Legislature;
many transportation leaders will not agree with the report's
findings; and I find some of the report not compatible with
my Agency's present transportation philosophy. Therefore,
I recommend we spotlight the good points of the report, stress
the fact that it is a first step contributed by a non-funded
committee, and is a triggering device to bring closer attention
and hopefully solutions to the transportation problems of this
State.
It should also be made clear that while the Task Force has
been at work, various recommendations have already been put
into action and our Agency as well as the Administration and
the Legislature have continued to involve themselves in various
forms of transportation planning such as the following:
1. Support of AB 101 (Lanterman) (Governor's program) which
provided model for financing urban transit systems by
allowing voters to decide; this is consistent with Task
Force recommendation that funding and details should be
responsibility of local government (pages 4,29).
2. Support of SB 202 (Mills-Hayes) (Governor's program)
which gave tax relief to improve mass transit service
(bus) consistent with recommendation (page 27).
Hon. Ronald Reagan
-3-
November 1, 1968
3. Agency support of SCR 67 (Collier) to study exclusive
bus lanes on California freeways (principal funding of
$250,000 by federal government). Co-authors of SCR 67
were Unruh and Hayes (page 20).
4. Multiple use of freeway corridors (page 23) is continuing
program of Public Works: e.g., (1) Industrial and San
Bernardino Freeways in Los Angeles examples of Highways,
rapid transit, and railroads working together in single
transportation corridor; (2) Coordination with BART in
both planning joint use of rights of way and financing
tube crossing; (3) Use of air space both below and above
freeways for parking, commercial ventures, etc.
5. Development of statewide airport master plan which the
Task Force called essential (page 33) now under way in
Aeronautics Department which is about to let consulting
contract.
6. Testing new navigation system which if successful will
be important advance in safe air-sea movement as well as
greatly increasing transportation capabilities (page 35).
7. To improve port development (page 43) Administration
has supported AB 190 (Burton) to transfer Port of San
Francisco to City to encourage its development.
A summary of the most interesting suggestions in the Transpor-
tation Task Force report follows:
1. State's role is seen as one of encouragement and cooper-
ation and does not advocate a State take-over. Report
recognized the need to insure private sector's continued
participation in transportation by their appointment to
an advisory board or a transportation commission. The
State is encouraged to provide support and assistance
as required by the public and private sector through
the collection and analysis of research data.
2. Task Force goal is to develop a means whereby the State
can effectively encourage and cooperate in the orderly
development of California transportation. They suggest
various structures to accomplish.
Hon. Ronald Reagan
-4-
November 1, 1968
3. Task Force members did not want a sensational type
report with Walt Disney futuristic transportation modes
featured and wouldn't "take the easy route of giving
quick answers". Instead they identified "most serious
deficiency
as
inability to identify, define,
and evaluate adequately current and future transportation
requirements and problems". In essence, they say we need
a great deal of more work before we can plan the future.
4. In order for State to adequately define problems and
coordinate planning, they have suggested Administration
immediately create an Office of State Transportation
Planning:
a. To collect, analyze, and disseminate data and
statistics relating to transportation and transpor-
tation services of all forms operating in the State,
describing thereby the operations and service
supplied by the total statewide transportation system.
b. To recommend to the Secretary of Business and Trans-
portation legislation, regulations, or administrative
policies relative to transportation which will reduce
costs or increase efficiency, safety, service, or
other benefits to the people of the State.
C. To maintain liaison with federal, city and county
governments, special districts, and private businesses
so that State transportation programs may be
coordinated with plans and programs of other agencies
for the general welfare of the public.
d. To encourage research and development in new methods,
components, or forms of transportation which will
reduce costs and increase benefits of transportation
systems to the people of the State.
e. Might cost $225,000 per year for staffing and expenses
to be funded from Highway Fund, Aeronautics Fund, and
State General Fund.
f. Could be a grouping of personnel now involved in such
work in Finance Department, Highways and Public
Utilities Commission.
Hon. Ronald Reagan
-5-
November 1, 1968
5. The report implies that the authority now vested in the
California Highway Commission, California Toll Bridge
Authority, and the Aeronautics Board should at some
time in the near future be vested in a California
Transportation Board. A corollary implication that
funds derived for transportation from any and all
sources will be pooled and distributed to all modes in
accordance with priorities established by the Board
(would mean amendment of State constitution).
6. As an interim measure, a State Transportation Advisory
Board could be created to assist the Secretary of
Business and Transportation Agency in the formulation
of State transportation planning. It is suggested the
Board be no more than seven members appointed by the
Governor and have as ex-officio members the Chairmen
of the Senate and Assembly Transportation Committees.
7. A series of regional transportation districts are
suggested to be authorized by the Legislature to include
every part of the State in a regional transportation
district (possibly the word regional could also mean
local).
8. State should develop a comprehensive long-range policy
regarding transportation and establish a State trans-
portation master plan. They recommend this policy
should include the following key points:
a. Encourage the Development of Urban Mass Transpor-
tation.
b. Continue Development of the Statewide System of
Highways, Roads, and Streets.
C. Define the Role of the State in Air Transportation.
d. Encourage the Development of Ports, Harbors, and
Waterways.
e. Encourage Transportation Research and Development.
f. Reassess State Transportation Regulatory Policies.
Hon. Ronald Reagan
-6-
November 1, 1968
It is my understanding the Speaker and others in the Assembly
next session are going to make transportation a major target.
We should develop from these Task Force recommendations our
policy in this field and encourage the adoption of those
suggestions that conform to our philosophy.
I suggest we adopt and present to the Legislature a transpor-
tation bill incorporating the following suggestions:
1. State Transportation Planning Office.
2. Advisory Board (seven members).
3. Development of State transportation policy and master
plan.
It should be noted that a rumor insists Unruh will make a
strong pitch on transportation in 1969. It could be said
the State has fallen behind in this field and I would suggest
we use the Task Force report as a vehicle for the Administra-
tion to make some major statement on this field.
Sulm GORDON C. LUCE, Secretary of
Business and Transportation
Attachments
CC: Hon. William Clark
Hon. Winfred Adams
GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE ON TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Floyd Andrews, President
Pacific Southwest Airlines
3100 Goddard Way
San Diego, California
Tel: (714) 297-4781
Mr. Albert W. Bayer, President
A. W. Bayer and Associates
43 Malaga Cove Plaza
Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274
Tel: (213) 378-4285
Dr. Arnold O. Beckman, President
California State Chamber of Commerce
X
Beckman Instruments, Inc.
2500 Harbor Boulevard
Fullerton, California
Tel: (714) 871-4848
Hon. Ernani Bernardi, Councilman
City of Los Angeles
X
City Hall
Los Angeles, California 90012
Tel: (213) 624-5211
Mr. B. F. Biaggini, President.
Southern Pacific Company
65 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Tel: (415) 362-1212
Mr. Richard R. Brown
Brown Tool Engineering
544 Vernon Way
El Cajon, California
Tel: (714) 442-3335
Mr. Asa V. Call, Honorary Chairman
Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company
523 West 6th Street
Los Angeles, California 90054
Tel: (213) 625-1211
Prof. Harmer E. Davis, Director
Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering
University of California
1301 So. 46th Street
Richmond, California 94804
Tel: (415) 235-6000, Ext. 255
Governor
Dr. Richard D. DeLauer
Vice President and General Manager
X
TRW Systems
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, California 90278
Tel: (213) 679-8711
Mr. Nils Eklund, Vice President
Kaiser Industries
Kaiser Center
300 Lakeside Drive
Oakland, California 94604
Tel: (415) 271-2211
Mr. A. J. Eyraud, Director
Southern California Rapid Transit District
1060 So. Broadway
Los Angeles, California 90015
Tel: (213) 234-9261
Mr. Adrien J. Falk
S. F. Bay Area Rapid Transit District
814 Mission Street
San Francisco, California 94103
Tel: (415) 986-1818
Mr. Francis T. Fox, General Manager
Los Angeles Department of Airports
Los Angeles International Airport
No. 1 World Way
Los Angeles, California 90009
Tel: (213) 776-0219
646-6250
Mr. John P. Fraim, Jr., President
Mutual Broadcasting Corporation
1901 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, California 90067
Tel: (213) 777-7575
Mr. Herbert Hoover, Jr.
900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1230
Los Angeles, California 90017
Tel: (213) 624-4014
Mr. John McDonnell
President, Board of Directors
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
508 - 16th Street
Oakland, California 94612
Tel: (415) 652-1785
Mr. Edwin S. Moore, Executive Vice President
California State Automobile Association
150 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California 94101
Tel: (415) 626-3000
Mr. William L. Pereira
William L. Pereira & Associates
5657 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90036
Tel: (213) 933-8341
Mr. Neil Petree
Chairman, Executive Committee
Barker Bros.
818 West 7th Street
Los Angeles, California 90017
Tel: (213) 624-3355
Mr. Henry Roloff, Executive Vice President
Pacific Coast Association of Port Authorities
239 World Trade Center
San Francisco, California 94111
Tel: (415) 986-5312
Mr. Wade Sherrard, Managing Director
California Trucking Association
1240 Bayshore Highway
Burlingame, California 94010
Tel: (415) 347-3651
Mr. Shermer L. Sibley, President
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
X
245 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94106
Tel: (415) 781-4211, Ext. 2425
Mr. James M. Udall
James M. Udall, Inc.
1307 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90024
Tel: (213) 272-5403
Mr. John Vaughn, President
X
Dartell Laboratories Inc.
1226 So. Flower Street
Los Angeles, California 90015
Tel: (213) 749-7701
- 3 -
Transportation
(Rapid Transit)
HUMAN RELATIONS AGENCY
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Department of Industrial Relations
San Francisco, California
Contact: Peter Weinberger
July 3, 1969
Recommendations for resolving a Southern California Rapid Transit
District (SCRTD) dispute were announced today by a special fact
finding commission named by Governor Reagan May 31 (pursuant to
the provisions of the Public Utilities Code).
The commission mailed the recommendations to representatives of
the United Transportation Union and the management of SCRTD.
Both sides have returned to the bargaining table under the guid-
ance of the State Conciliation Service, the commission reported.
The seven recommendations were:
1. Operators Wage-Rates be brought nearer parity with other major
cities transit employees by increases effective June 1, 1969
of thirty (30) cents per hour to $3.75 per hour; on June 1,
1970 of twenty-five (25) cents per hour to Four ($4.00) Dollars
per hour; and on June 1, 1971 of twenty-five (25) cents per
hour to $4.25 per hour in a three year contract.
2. A cost of living clause be added effective December 1, 1970
providing for semi-annual adjustments based on changes in the
Los Angeles Consumers Price Index-B.L.S. (1957-59 = 100).
3. Improvements be made in the Pension Plan and increased contri-
butions be made to the Health and Welfare Plan.
4. An improvement in the vacation plan be made.
5. A Finding be made that disputes under the sick leave plan be
subject to arbitration.
6. A three day paid leave of absence to attend the funeral of
relatives (limited) be granted.
7. Other Union demands be denied.
MORE
Members of the fact finding commission were: Albert C. Beeson,
former Director of Industrial Relations, Chairman; Arnold O.
Anderson, Orinda, California, Personnel Officer for the Alameda
Naval Air Station; and Leo Kortin, Los Angeles Arbitrator and
Consultant.
Governor Reagan named the commission a few hours before the con-
tract between the district and the union was to expire. Appoint-
ment of the commission automatically prevents a strike during a
60-day period.
The first meeting of the parties with the Conciliation Service
on the full scope of the dispute, since the adjournment of
commission hearing, is set for Monday, July 7, 1969.
###
Transportation
Highlights:
1-U.S. world aviation leadership is threatened by unfounded attacks
on its supersonic transport program.
2-The program. looked like it was going down the drain until, a few
months ago, a new man was put in charge.
3-The new man has turned the ball game around-or is in process of
doing SO. He has converted a host of critics and, backed by an industry
team of hundreds of companies, is hopeful that the program will
continue and avert a $22-billion loss by the U.S. in international trade.
USA
Upon successful development of this airplane depends continued U.S. world leadership in commercial aviation. This is the
supersonic transport.
C
ONTINUED U.S. WORLD LEAD-
would cause no harm to human, animal
"The SST engines (produced by General
ERSHIP in aviation, imperiled by
or marine life, nor would it pose a
Electric) will be smoke-free, and power-
massive attack by ill-informed conserva-
threat of damage to property.
ful enough to take the airplane to
tionists and politically swayed economic
These same studies, he told the Sierra
altitude quickly to reduce the sound
prophets of doom, is right now at stake
Club and other critical conservationist
over the community.
as the Senate prepares to vote on a $290
organizations, show that the SST will
"Overall," he continued, "the air-
million appropriation that would keep
not, as charged, "pollute the upper
plane is one of the most land-conserva-
alive the development of the supersonic
atmosphere in such a way as may result
tive forms of transportation. Airports
transport airliner.
in terrible alterations of global
consume far less real estate than is
The stuttering history of the U.S.
weather."
required for highways or railways. New
SST, which began 11 years ago, and to
To the Friends of the Earth, Magru-
airports will undoubtedly be designed to
which "finis" appeared imminent five
der said there is absolutely no scientific
contain most of the objectionable noise
months ago, suddenly gained new life
justification for their statement that the
of aircraft operations within their
on April 1, 1970, with appointment of
SST "will be far more dangerous than
boundaries." Magruder added:
William M. Magruder as director of SST
present aircraft because of severe prob-
"Those of us who believe in the SST
development in the Department of
lems of metal fatigue, landing speed,
program also live on this earth and share
Transportation.
visibility and maneuverability." The
the environment and we have asked
In that short interim the 47-year-old
fact is that the SST will be built of
many of the same questions certain
Air Force veteran, engineer and aircraft
titanium which is stronger than steel. Its
ecologists are asking today. Only we
industry executive appears to have
landing speed will be similar to many of
asked them several years ago, and the
turned the tide until today there is a
the present air carrier jets, it will be
program has moved forward with as-
chance that development will continue
instrument controlled all the way, and it
surances from the best scientific counsel
on the aircraft.
will be the beneficiary of a greatly
available to the Government that any
Magruder, whose engaging grin does
improved air traffic control system now
adverse effects to the weather or from
not mask his dedication to the SST, has
being automated and expanded to meet
radiation are very unlikely."
already converted many of the critics
the continuing growth in air traffic.
But since some uncertainty does
simply by applying logic to the prob-
To other environmental critics,
exist, Magruder has created an expanded
lem. To labor leaders he talked in terms
Magruder pointed out that the SST is
environmental and noise research pro-
of jobs the SST program would provide
the only aircraft development program
gram representing about $27 million in
(150,000). To the conservationists he
ever undertaken with noise limitations
ongoing or new research activities by
presented the results of studies demon-
written into the contract. In interviews
various Government agencies, plus for-
strating that the SST's sonic boom
with Government Executive, he said:
mation of two committees-the SST
Environmental Advisory Council and
means that fares will probably be about
Twelve U.S. and 14 non-U.S. airlines
the Community Noise Council-to ex-
the same as on subsonic aircraft."
have deposited $22 million to assure
plore further. Both of these councils are
To economic critics, including some
112 delivery positions.
chaired by highly competent people-
Congressmen who complain that the
The Government will collect a roy-
Dr. Myron Tribus, Assistant Secretary
raison d'etre for the SST is "just so that
alty on all U.S. SST sales to recover all
of Commerce for Science and Tech-
we can say to Britain, France and Russia
of its costs plus interest by delivery of
nology, who heads the Environmental
that we can fly faster than you can,"
the 300th airplane. Further, the Govern-
Council, and Dr. Leo Beranek, general
Magruder has presented these statistics:
ment will get additional return on sales
manager and chief scientist of Bolt,
"With no U.S. SST program, American
beyond 300. Delivery of 500 airplanes,
Beranek and Newman Inc., the eminent
airlines will be forced, in order to meet
predicted by 1990, would give the
New York psychoacoustics firm. Each
their competition, to import $12 billion
Government a $1.1 billion return on its
chairman has available 12 highly re-
worth of Concorde SSTs (built jointly
investment.
garded experts in the areas of atmos-
by Great Britain and France). With a
Facing media opposition, doubtless
pheric phenomena, radiation, weather
U.S. SST program we will fill our own
inspired by SST opponents while the
and noise.
needs, plus export of $10 billion worth
program leadership before his accession
Relevant to the noise issue, Magruder
of airplanes."
was less than dynamic, Magruder has
says: "The SST Boeing is proposing to
A point on which Magruder feels
been heartened by developments. He
build will be about half as annoying as
very strongly is the criticism of Govern-
says: "I would guess the press is now
ment "subsidization" of the SST. He
about 50-50. And that's 50 percent
says: "We must remember that nearly
better than it was two months ago." He
The Tale of the (U.S. SST) Tape
every American commercial transport
didn't say that this might be so because
Maximum takeoff weight
airplane has grown out of design and
he has had several off-the-record ses-
(pounds)
750,000
production for the military. Thus the
sions with editors and reporters.
Length (feet)
298
manufacturer has paid for him, by the
Magruder came to Washington from
Wing span (feet)
143
Government, the research and develop-
the post of Deputy Director of Com-
Height (feet)
52
ment costs of the airframe, the engine
mercial Engineering for Lockheed
Cruise speed (miles
and other components. Now, for the
(where he doubtless made considerably
per hour)
1,786
first time, a commercial transport is
more money than the new job pays). In
Passengers
298
being developed without benefit of mili-
Washington he found (to his honest
tary research. The industry simply can-
surprise) two Santa Monica, Calif., high
Powerplant-General Electric GE-4J
not bear the entire cost. The Govern-
school classmates-John D. Ehrlichman
turbojet (four of 67,000 lbs. thrust
ment should help."
and H.R. Haldeman-both very top-level
each)
present day 707s or DC-8s-the interna-
tional-range subsonic jets. The high-
pitched whine of the fanjets of today
will be eliminated from the SST because
of the unique supersonic engine inlet
and the rapid climb-out capability of
the SST on takeoff will take the air-
plane to about twice the altitude to-
day's jets achieve at the three-and-a-half
mile point from brake release. In effect,
the SST will take the community noise
of today's jets and confine it to the
airport, where it belongs."
The two prototype aircraft, to be
built within the next two years, for
which the $290-million appropriation is
sought from the Senate (the House has
already given its approval) must demon-
strate, among other requirements, that
Four of these General Electric 67,000-lb. thrust GE-4J turbojets will power the
the airplane will meet the stringent
Boeing-built U.S. SST.
environmental standards prescribed for
The facts on Government "subsidy"
aides to President Nixon. This acquaint-
it.
are these:
anceship probably has not impeded his
To "Jet Set" syndrome critics,
The SST program is being carried out
access to the White House. (The SST
Magruder points out: "The SST enables
as a partnership between Government,
program was taken out of the Federal
us to calculate distances in time, not
the manufacturers and the airlines, with
Aviation Administration (FAA) and
miles. Because of the SST's great speed
each sharing the risks as well as the
placed directly under Department of
(1,800 mph) compared, for example, to
rewards.
Transportation Secretary John Volpe.
the 747's 625 miles an hour, one air-
The cost of the prototype develop-
What this appears to add up to is that
plane can carry more passengers on
ment phase is estimated at $1.3 billion.
Magruder reports to Volpe and through
more trips in a given period of time. The
The prime contractors, Boeing (air-
him directly to the White House.)
SST, therefore, is more productive and
frame) and General Electric (power-
Magruder has another, unique handle
potentially more profitable, which
plant) will invest about $300 million.
on the situation. He is a Fellow in and
SEPTEMBER 1970
65
past president of the international
Society of Experimental Test Pilots.
The Boeing Story
The French chief test pilot of the
Concorde, and his British counterpart,
are also "members of the lodge." Magru-
power is at full strength, with 2,582
der talks to them via trans-Atlantic
people in the engineering depart-
telephone almost weekly. The trio com-
ment."
pares progress. Thus Magruder knows
Withington emphasized the impor-
almost as much about the Concorde as
tance of overseas sales of the SST:
the other two. Reportedly, he will fly
"We need them to make the program
the Concorde himself sometime in the
an economic success. Right now, com-
future.
mercial transports are one of the very
Magruder's approach to the job went,
few kinds of manufactured products in
in his own words, thusly: "Before ac-
which the U.S. still has a marked edge
cepting Secretary Volpe's invitation to
in the world market."
direct the SST program, I spent several
In re the environmental critics,
months satisfying myself that the de-
Withington said: "It's popular these
velopment of a supersonic transport was
days to attack a great many things on
a wise, productive, and altogether fruit-
environmental grounds, and a lot of
ful venture for the two participants, the
these things should be attacked be-
Government and the aviation industry.
cause we've got to stop the deteriora-
"I made a complete review of the
tion of our environment. In the case of
SST configuration with NASA. I talked
the SST, though, the critics simply
with every major U.S. airline president,
Bob Withington is "the SST man
have the wrong whipping boy."
most of the international airline presi-
from Boeing." He is very high on its
Regarding charges that the SST
dents, and members of their staffs. I
chances for success.
would magnify the already-dangerous
reviewed the major Air Force program
H.W. (Bob) Withington has been an
congestion on the airways and air-
contracts and project control pro-
engineering executive at Boeing since
ports, Withington said: "I guess you
cedures at Wright-Patterson AFB, for
he joined the company in 1941. He is
could call it that. But if anyone is
lessons learned on programs like the
a company vice president and became
suggesting that the SST will compound
F-111 and C-5, the F-15 and B-1. I went
General Manager of the company's
the congestion, he is still talking about
over the SST program with other air-
Supersonic Transport Division on
the wrong whipping boy. This airplane
frame manufacturers to ascertain their
March 9, 1967. In a recent interview
will fly at 60,000 feet and above. This
moral and technical support. Finally, I
with Government Executive, he sum-
is a complete new chunk of airspace,
reviewed the British-French Concorde
med up progress:
so we actually will be helping to
program with their government-industry
"I think one of the most significant
alleviate the airways congestion pro-
leaders to assess the viability of that
things is the technical stability our
blem.
program and get a better sense of its
design has maintained over the last
"As far as airports are concerned,
timing.
year and a half. We have been working
obviously we'll have to go into the
"I found our configuration is a good
more than a dozen years on the SST,
same traffic pattern as other aircraft.
one, with a 21 to 27 percent economic
and during most of that time almost
But the SST's short time of flight will
advantage to the airlines over the Con-
every configuration we had gradually
give us an opportunity for wholly
corde. Airline support for our program
seemed to get worse the more we
different schedules in terms of depar-
is 100 percent. The report that the
worked on it. This one has stayed
ture and arrival times.
airlines wish the SST would go away
good all the way and in some places
"You know," Withington con-
just plain isn't true. An in-service date
has even improved. We know where we
cluded, "there were equaly unrealistic
of 1978 is considered by the airlines to
are technically and we are really ready
criticisms from some Congressmen
be good timing. The SST will meet
to go with the prototypes."
when we were introducing the B-17
airline needs for increased productivity
Withington said the full-scale mock-
Flying Fortress in World War II. Some
in that time frame, and still allow the
up, with tolerances of plus or minus
Congressmen opposed anything bigger
airlines to recover from their heavy
one thirty-secondth of an inch, has
than two-engine planes because 'there
investments in prior aircraft purchases.
made possible testing of systems that
would be too many eggs in one bas-
"These findings comprise the founda-
will go into the prototypes. "So," he
ket.' Then when we were going from
tion on which I agreed to pick up and
explained, "when we're ready to build
piston engines to jets for commercial
carry forward the direction of the pro-
the prototypes we can simply take the
travel, there were scare stories about
totype program. At present we are
systems out of the mockup and move
what would happen if we tried to
about midway in the prototype develop-
them into the airplanes. This will save
break the so-called sonic barrier. All
ment phase which will be completed in
at least a year-and money."
those criticisms faded away promptly
calendar year 1973."
"We are," he continued, "ahead of
as soon as the airplanes had a chance
Discussing passenger comfort, Magru-
schedule and under budget. All the
to prove themselves. I expect the same
der said: "The prime comfort feature is,
major subcontractors are on board and
thing will happen to the criticisms of
of course, the sharply reduced transit
drawings for the first two planes have
the SST once we've got it in the air
time. Studies have shown that the
gone to the shop. Our technical man-
and demonstrated what it can do."
human body begins to show distress
when sitting duration time exceeds four
hours. With the SST, the five to thirteen
plicit in single-source purchasing. The
TRADE BALANCE EFFECT
European aviation 'cartel' could become
such a source. With the, Concorde on
the blue-ribbon international routes, a
US SST
NO US SST
twin-engine 250-passenger low-cost air-
bus for high density domestic routes,
PROGRAM
PROGRAM
and the Mercure for the DC-9 and 727
market, the French/British industry
would be in good position to challenge
$10 BILLION
the U.S. aviation industry. Considering
EXPORTS
that the civil aircraft market represents
a 100 billion dollar business (in the next
20 years) it's not surprising that other
nations would be willing to compete
aggressively for a larger piece of the
action."
270
An airplane of the U.S. SST's capa-
US SST'S
bilities, Magruder said, is not only eco-
EXPORTED
nomically practical "but virtually es-
sential in a growing world with a large
consumer appetite for air transporta-
$22 BILLION SWING
tion." Continuing: "The SST's great
redeeming value is its greater produc-
tivity. While the U.S. 2707 has about
two-thirds the passenger capacity of the
60
CONCORDES
747, it will be nearly twice as produc-
IMPORTED
tive. Its ability to earn revenue will be
about double the work capacity of the
380
747. The improvements in productivity
that come with succeeding generations
CONCORDES
of aircraft are what enable airlines to
(I & II)
accomodate travel growth requirements,
IMPORTED
maintain favorable departure and arrival
schedules and, most important, stabilize
fares in the face of rapidly rising costs.
"By 1985 the international traffic
levels-the traffic SSTs can carry with-
out violating overland supersonic flight
restrictions-will equal the total free
$12 BILLION
world traffic today. If productivity
hadn't kept pace with demand, we
IMPORTS
would need nearly 300,000 DC-3s in the
early 1980."
hour transoceanic flights of today will
tives make their purchases only after
The SST, said Magruder, is clearly
be cut drastically; many major city pairs
careful examination of the manufac-
designed to meet future needs of trav-
will be four hours apart, or less, by
turer's 'family' of aircraft.
elers, airlines and the nation. To con-
SST.
"There are logics of economy im-
tinue the current prototype develop-
"The films, stereo recordings and
lounges provided on today's jets," he
continued, "are features designed to
TRANSPORTATION
distract the passenger from the fact that
AUTO
SYSTEM ARISON
travel is a necessary but not a very
fulfilling use of one's time. The SST
affords the traveler the most attractive
of all comfort factors-short duration
exposure to the confinement of flight."
Returning to the économic issue,
ENGINE
Magruder said: "The assumption is that
POUNDS
AIRCRA
because the free world airlines buy
20
about 84 percent of their jets from the
DIESEI
U.S., this large share of the aluminum
TRAIN
subsonic civil aircraft market would
SSI
continue to be American-dominated.
This isn't necessarily so. I have done
65,SE
2000
500
300
some marketing of commercial aircraft
SEATS
and I can assure you that airline execu-
SEPTEMBER 1970
69
AIR RAVEL FORECAST
ment program, with the environmental
safeguards implicit in it, he declared, "is
also the best assurance we can give to
WORLD FORECAST
outselves and to the peoples of the
world that supersonic air transportation
will not distress the quality of life or
0.00
further blemish what astronaut Frank
REVENUE ASSENGER
(BILLIONS)
Borman so aptly described as 'the good
FORECAST
earth, an oasis in space.'
500
TED
The 2707 will be bigger, faster, and
PERATIONS)
will carry more fare-paying passengers in
greater comfort, and with commercial
aircraft safety, than the Concorde, Ma-
965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
gruder said, adding: "Without a U.S.
SST, however, the Concorde and the
Russian TU-144 would be the fastest
FRANSPORTATION
planes in the commercial skies. Airlines
300
PRODUCT VITY
will buy them and people will fly on
them."
As far as "sharing the wealth" goes,
the 2707 will. Boeing ultimately will
subcontract at least 90 percent of the
CONCORDE
fabrication work. As of mid-year more
than $150 million in subcontracts had
too
already been let by the Seattle-based
company to companies in 36 states, plus
two in Canada.
1940
950
1960
970
980
990
To the dispassionate guy on the
NIRODUCTION
sidelines a few truths become self-
evident:
o There are very few, if any, land areas
over which the SST would fly at super-
sonic speed. Further, once an SST
MAINE
WASHINGTON
NEW HANS200,000 000
MONTANA
NORTH DAKOTA
$1,300,000
MINNESOTA
VERMONT
NEW
OREGON
$14,000,000
VESTINIA
YORK
MASSACHUSETTS
WISCONSIN
IDAHO
SOUTH DAKOTA
$51,000,000
WYOMING
$9,200,000
RHODE ISLAND $80,000
$3,400,000
MICHIGAN
$62,500,000
PENNSYLVANES
IOWA
CALIFORNIA
$13,700,000
NEW JERSEY CONNECTICUT
NEVADA
NEBRASKA
$2,600,000
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
OHIO
UTAH
$25,000
$91,000,000
DELAWARE
COLORADO
MISSOURI
$20,000,000
VIRGINIA
MARYLAND
$85,000
21,000,000
KANSAS
XENTUCKY
$2,500,000
$140,000
$1,300,000
$23,000,000
$3,800,000
NORTH CAROLINA
TENNESSEE
$300,000
$178,000,000
ARIZONA
NEW MEXICO
OKLAHOMA
ARKANSAS
$7,000,000
TEXAS
SOUTH INA
$560,000
$10,000
$150,000
$24,000,000
$125,000
$100,000
$795,000
LOUISIANA
GEORGIA
MISSISSIPPI
ALABAMA
FLORIDA
$27,300,000
$3,000,000
Dollar figures in each state represent qualified SST suppliers
depending on final source selection by Boeing and General
and subcontractors for the prototype program. This is the
Electric, Major subcontractors are included in the totals but
potential dollar distribution and will change in several states,
prime contractors Boeing and GE are excluded.
72
GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE
U.S. SST Technological Benefits
Technical advancements resulting
nents for internal combustible engines
resulting in the high thermodynamic
from the SST program will bring about
on tomorrow's automobiles, such as
efficiency of the SST's GE-4 engine
improvements in products used by
afterburners in the exhaust systems to
will make possible more efficient,
consumers and industry in the future
reduce the level of pollutants; im-
smokeless powerplants.
just as investments in research and
provements in home and industrial
The development of automated
development made in previous years
heating equipment; and marine appli-
flight control systems will make auto-
have paid off in the products in use
cations.
mated control systems possible for
today.
Man's progress has been paced by
automobile and truck traffic of tomor-
The widespread use of aluminum as
the development, control and efficient
row's cities.
a common material in automobiles,
use of energy. The progress from
The total scope of the advance-
building materials and consumer pro-
animal power, to steam power, to the
ments of technology resulting from
ducts was made possible through the
internal combustion engine and finally
the SST program is only beginning to
development of this material for air-
to the high performance aircraft en-
be realized. The effect of the benefits
craft structure in the 1930s and 1940s.
gines in use on today's jet aircraft has
of these improvements in technology
The SST will make possible similar
made possible man's achievement in
will soon be felt in the U.S. economy.
exploitations of titanium where high-
many other areas. The use of light-
The long term benefits are impos-
strength, light weight, high-tempera-
weight high-energy producing equip-
sible to predict at this time. However,
ture materials are required. Industrial
ment has brought about the develop-
past experience has shown that the
uses will include high temperature
ment of man's present transportation
ingenuity of American industry in the
processing equipment in food, petro-
systems.
application of technological improve-
leum and chemical industries; compo-
The improved burner technology
ment is virtually unlimited.
The Family Tree
the SSTs will fly, because both the
Concorde and the Soviet TU-144 will
Even the official Department of
cruise at the same altitude.
Transportation biography doesn't tell
The threefold increase in flight speed
what the middle initial "M." stands for
will provide opportunity for interna-
in William M. Magruder. He was asked
tional commuting. As an example, a
if there is any reason for this "sec-
passenger could leave the U.S. at 8 a.m.,
recy." He replied: "None at all. It
fly to Europe, spend eight hours there,
stands for Marshall, and thereon hangs
and return to the U.S. at 10 p.m. the
a tale often told in our family.
same evening.
"My grandmother was brought up
So this is the plane that Bill Magru-
in Marshall Hall, Va., which is named
der, whom a few engineers in industry
for John Marshall, Chief Justice of the
looked upon as the "the upstart test
United States. My grandfather was
pilot who went and got an aeronautical
brought up a short distance away at
engineering degree," is trying to get
Mt. Vernon by a foster parent, Bush-
built. For the record, he joined Douglas
rod Washington, a descendant of
Aircraft when he left the Air Force in
George Washington who, incidentally,
1956. In '60 he was named Chief
was also a Supreme Court justice."
Engineering Test Pilot. In that job he
Other limbs of the family tree:
was responsible for reducing the landing
Magruder's father, Maj. Gen. Bruce
Edwards AFB (Calif.). As both pilot
field length requirements for the DC-8F
Magruder, served under Pershing in
and engineer, he supervised the engi-
by 1,000 feet. He was Director of
World War I, and later formed and
neering and evaluated the performance
Market Development for Advanced
commanded the first armored division
of many aircraft, including the B-57,
Systems and Research Programs when
to exist in the U.S. Army.
XB-52, C-124, F-86, C-133 and H-19.
he left in 1963 to join Lockheed, where
Magruder's brother, Bruce, is a
From 1954 until 1956, he was B-52
he was assigned as Chief Research and
Colonel in the Marine Corps.
Test Task Force Commander at Ed-
Test Engineer and Project Pilot for the
Magruder himself started down the
wards. He held the rank of Captain
SST. In 1967 he was SST Assistant
military road, flying B-17s and B-29s
when he left USAF to join Douglas
General Manager when the Government
in World War II. From 1949 to 1954
Aircraft.
contract for development of an SST
he served at the U.S. Air Force Flight
His intimates believe that Magruder
prototype was awarded to Boeing.
Test Division at Wright-Patterson AFB
felt there was not enough of a further
Magruder has logged more than
(Ohio) and at the Flight Test Center,
challenge in a military career.
6,000 flying hours-4,000 of them in
jets. He has piloted 144 different kinds
of aircraft, including 62 transports and
reached supersonic speed it would be at
tary aircraft with which the public is
10 helicopters. He is an Associate Fel-
such a high altitude that the sonic boom
familiar.
low of the American Institute of Aero-
which would be transmitted to land or
Abandonment of the U.S. SST pro-
nautics and Astronautics, won the Iven
water surfaces would be greatly reduced
gram would not prevent supersonic
C. Kincheloe Award for his
from the sonic booms created by mili-
flights at the 60,000-foot altitude where
work on the DC-8,
SEPTEMBER 1970
73
Transp.
January 21, 1970
POSITION - Gas tax for rapid transit.
1.
That local governments -- by means of a vote of the
people - be given the ability to increase the general
sales tax for such purposes as this.
2.
That local governments by means of voteof the
people - (and Constitutional Amendment) ------ be
able to increase the gas tax or put a sales tax on gas.
3.
That local governments -- subject to vote of the
people use a portion of their allotment of
highway funds for such purposes as Rapid Transit.
Constitutional Amendment
Transportation
RESOLUTION TO HONORABLE JOHN A. VOLPE
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
We, the governors of Oregon, Washington, and California,
have met and considered your November 30, 1970, "Preliminary
Report on the Basic Rail System." Based thereon, we resolve
that:
The public interest of the citizens of Washington,
Oregon, and California requires continuation of
north-south railroad passenger service.
North-south rail passenger service is essential
to the balance of the transportation system in
Washington, Oregon, and California.
Viability of the national rail passenger system
requires the rail patronage generated by the
north-south West Coast route.
The cities located on the north-south West Coast
route must remain linked together. Many have
standard metropolitan statistical areas of one
million or more and share a great community of
interest.
-2-
Service on this route provides a vital link
between the northern, central, and southern
east-west routes; thus giving to the national
system the vital factor of flexibility.
Therefore, we petition you as Secretary of the Department of
Transportation to use every resource at your command to
insure that the major cities of Washington, Oregon, and
California remain linked together by a West Coast north-
south rail passenger route.
DANIEL J. EVANS
Governor of Washington
TOM McCALL
Governor of Oregon
RONALD REAGAN
Governor of California
Dated
/ 1970
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- 29d9b1b75eae7f91
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 118564882
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "118564882",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564882",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Issues - Transportation",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564882",
"identifierLocal": "840",
"collections": [
"Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
"Issue Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P32-008-2017.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P32-008-2017.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P32-008-2017.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "118564882",
"label": "Issues - Transportation",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564882"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "118564882",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564882",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Issues - Transportation",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564882",
"identifierLocal": "840",
"collections": [
"Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
"Issue Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P32-008-2017.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P32-008-2017.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P32-008-2017.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564882",
"naId": 118564882,
"coverageEndDate": {
"logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
"year": 1975
},
"coverageStartDate": {
"logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
"year": 1967
},
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P32-008-2017.pdf",
"mediaId": "29d9b1b75eae7f91",
"ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Issues - Transportation\nBox: P32\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nHon. Taul Beck.\nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA\nRONALD REAGAN, Governor\nBUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY\n1120 N STREET, SACRAMENTO file 95814\nGORDON C. LUCE\nSecretary\nJAMES C. SCHMIDT\nAssistant Secretary\nDecember 1, 1967\nMr. Wm. Thorson, Editorial Writer\nLos Angeles Times\nTimes Mirror Square\nLos Angeles, California 90053\nDear Bill:\nBoth Governor Reagan and I feel local government should be\ngiven the financial tools to solve its transportation\nproblems.\nOur statement of Wednesday, November 29, concerning legis-\nlation next year proposes that local residents be permitted\nto vote on alternative sources of revenue to support\ntransportation needs.\nWe were not making a judgment as to whether a tax on gasoline\nfor transit was the most equitable or the only tax to be\nconsidered but, whatever the tax, we feel the voters in a\nlocal area must be given an opportunity to weigh these\nquestions and decide before any tax is levied.\nThe important point is: It is the voter's money and there-\nfore he should be the judge after weighing all pros and\ncons of what tax sources should support transportation.\nBest regards, Luce\nGORDON C. LUCE, Secretary of\nBusiness and Transportation\nTransp\nREPORT TO\nCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION\nNATIONAL GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE\nFROM\nRONALD REAGAN, CHAIRMAN\nGOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA\nAs Chairman of the Committee on Transportation of the\nNational Governors' Conference, I would like to submit, through\nmy Secretary of Business and Transportation, Gordon C. Luce, for\nyour attention at your meetings in Washington, D.C., the following\nareas for discussion and recommendations.\nOur most urgent problems seem to fall in the following\nclassifications:\nI. Interstate Highway Fund Cutbacks and Future Preventive\nLegislation.\nII. Mass Transportation Planning, with Priority in Urban Areas.\nIII. Highway Safety.\nIV. Return to States of Major Transportation Funding.\nV. Environmental Planning with Incentives rather than\nPenalties.\nVI. Airport Planning and Funding.\nVII. Encouragement of Future Modes of Transportation.\nVIII. Accident Insurance.\nWe in California know that our future economic well-being\ndemands that a superior and efficient balanced transportation\nsystem be created. Both nationwide and in California our present\nforms of transportation planning are inadequate to contend with\nour future needs and requirements. Rapid population growth\nin our State, together with the continued trend of population\nto concentrate in urbanized centers, means we must act now. Proper\nland usage, modern technical advances in both our present and\nfuture modes of transportation, safety, and balance of individual\nmodes must all be considered in our planning.\nI. Interstate Highway Fund Cutbacks and Future Preventive\nLegislation.\nThe National Highway Trust Fund should be treated as just\nthat -- a fund whereby the citizens of all states placed certain\nmoneys in trust for completion of an Interstate highway system.\nIt seems evident, however, the administration has recently seen\nfit to use highway trust funds for partisan political purposes.\nJustifications such as the curbing of inflationary trends have not\nproved satisfactory, and the resulting slowdown in planning and\nconstruction has cost the states inestimable millions of dollars.\nIn California the construction cost index decreased 6.5% in\n1967 over 1966. Prices now are going up, however, and we recommend\nan accelerated program to beat inflation rather than disruption\nand slowdown, as these cutbacks are forcing the states to do.\nCutbacks in the release of federal funds have damaged orderly\nplanning, scheduling and programming of highway construction; are\ninconsistent with the intent of Congress to complete the Interstate\nsystem at the earliest possible date; and have adversely affected\nthe safety program on the nation's highways.\nRecommendations:\nAsk Congress to:\n1. Investigate the present use of national highway trust\nfunds.\n2. Study the legality of present cutbacks by the administration.\n3. Call for legislation to prevent future cutbacks.\nII. Mass Transportation Planning, with Priority in Urban Areas.\nMass transportation affects jobs, welfare, racial problems,\nbusiness, recreation and senior citizen needs.\nA total and concentrated effort must be made in the field of\nmass transportation, with a priority given to the burdening needs\nof urban areas. All efforts should be directed to a coordination\nof urban and rural transportation. Research funds should be\ndedicated to improving over-all systems and subsystems, as well\nas the updating of present systems.\nSince transportation needs are often unique because of the\nhistorical differences between the nation's cities, the primary\nplanning and funding for transportation should be directed from\nthe local or regional entities most affected. The role of the\nfederal and state governments should be one of coordination,\nresearch and integrated planning.\nA locality should determine the forms of transportation that\nsuit its needs and the methods by which it wishes to pay for\nthese forms of transportation. States should aid by providing\nadditional sources of funds for transit and utilizing tax credits\nand exemptions for improvement of transit needs. Once a locality\nhas, by voter preference, decided upon its best means of funding\nand the desired system of transportation, it should be able to\nreceive help from the state in over-all integrated planning. The\nstate in turn should be able to call upon the Federal Government\nfor similar assistance.\nA much greater effort should be made to utilize present high-\nway systems for mass transit, such as one-way express lanes; rapid\nbus transit; coordination with rail systems; and airport require-\nments. Parking and storage facilities must be given stronger\nemphasis in any future transportation planning.\nUrban mass transportation programming would probably be aided\nby combining the Department of Housing and Urban Development with\nthe Department of Transportation. Cities and states must work\ntogether in coordinated transportation planning for the good of\nall sectors of a state before federal participation.\nRecommendations:\n1. States should coordinate transportation needs and allow\nlocalities to determine needs and financing methods.\n2. Further study and research in fields of rapid transit\nand storage, and coordination with all forms of trans-\nportation.\n3. Urban mass transit programs should be transferred from\nthe Department of Housing and Urban Development to the\nDepartment of Transportation.\nIII. Highway Safetv.\nIn the field of traffic safety the basic concern is the number\nof lives lost in preventable traffic accidents, the incapacitating\ninjuries, and the $11 billion in costs (nationwide) directly\nattributable to automobile accidents. In California the loss is\n$1 billion to the economy.\nWe are concerned about the Highway Safety Act of 1966 and the\n10% highway construction penalty. Safety cannot be promoted\nthrough reduction in highway construction.\nI propose we look upon the federal standards as exactly what\nthey are supposed to be: minimum bases. I believe each state\nought to try to exceed these minimums.\nIn California, our Committee on Traffic Safety is deeply\ninterlocked with the California Traffic Safety Foundation, a non-\nprofit corporation that in turn acts as a secretariat to 12 staffed\narea councils of the National Safety Council. These private\nresources are helping my staff people and departments of state\ngovernment in planning and executing legislative and public\neducation programs.\nI honestly believe that because of the joint efforts these\nprograms are earmarked for success. This joint venture, with its\nlifesaving partnership, is not only in the finest American\ntradition, it is also the most effective approach to the problem\n-- the one best calculated to find the effective solutions. I\nurge my fellow Governors to adopt the recommendations made in this\nreport and to transmit them to both President Lyndon B. Johnson\nand the appropriate congressional committees.\nIn the area of vehicle inspection, California is now experi-\nmenting with a random mandatory inspection program. Over a period\nof a year these inspections covered approximately 10% of all\npassenger automobiles. We are embarked on a program to develop\nthe most efficient and inexpensive inspection system in the nation.\nThe system will embrace the latest techniques in analytical\nequipment, electronic and computer sciences. We feel this inspec-\ntion program can save lives, prevent accidents, avoid property\nloss, and at the same time cost the taxpaying citizen less. If\nthe random system can prove almost equal in safety with less cost\nto the taxpayer, then any federal plan should be disrupted in\nfavor of states' programs.\nRecommendations:\n1. The alcoholic driver. Much attention has been given to\nsafer automobiles, highways and fixtures -- not enough\nattention has been given to the driver, and more\nspecifically the driver whose ability is impaired by\nalcohol. The states should take the lead on this problem\nand should not wait for the Federal Government to impose\nmore restrictions and arbitrary guidelines. We in\nCalifornia recently implemented an implied consent law\nand are striving to put a presumptive limits law into\neffect.\n2. Request that the President give individual states broader\nrepresentation on his National Highway Safety Advisory\nCommittee. California with over 10 million vehicles and\n11 million drivers has but one representative.\n3. Request that the Congress allow greater flexibility to\nthe Secretary of the Department of Transportation in\nsubmitting the various reports required by the Highway\nSafety Act of 1966. Data for these reports must be\nsubmitted by the several states, and the states should be\nallowed sufficient time to prepare the data.\n4. Request that clear-cut guidelines of what programs qualify\nfor Section 402 funding and what programs qualify for\nSection 403 funding be published. The lack of precise\ninstructions which define funding criteria under Sections\n402 and 403 has caused problems and delays in California.\nIV. Return to States of Major Transportation Funding.\nThe National System of Interstate and Defense Highways is\nnow nearing completion, with a current progress report indicating\nthis date to be 1974-75. By law, after completion, federal highway\nrevenues will revert to approximately 40% of the present level of\n$4.5 billion a year. California, one of the large states, at the\npresent time only receives 82% of the highway revenues generated\nin that state. California motorists will have paid $1 billion\nmore into the Federal Highway Trust Fund than California will have\nreceived when the Interstate program is completed.\nFederal-aid programs limit flexibility by states and add\ntremendous administrative costs to highway programs.\nIn California last year a bill was passed to remove the red\ntape involved and return 1.76¢ of the tax on each gallon of gasoline,\namounting to approximately $139 million statewide, directly to\nthe cities and counties. Now only a post-audit is done on these\nfunds, and administrative costs have been reduced by both the\nState and the recipients. Such a program should be studied by\nthe Federal Government.\nRecommendations:\n1. After completion of the Interstate System, reduce federal\nparticipation and accompanying controls.\n2. Return a higher percentage of revenue to the states.\n3. Provide greater freedom of in-state expenditures to solve\nurban and rural problems. Future financing should be\nprorated on the basis of needs of different states,\nshould be flexible to permit changes as requirements\nchange, and moneys should be dedicated several years in\nadvance to permit proper planning.\n4.. Federal highway trust funds should not be diverted to\nother forms of transportation after completion of the\nInterstate program. Localities in states should be\nallowed to determine the forms of transportation best\nsuited to their needs, and any such programs of mass\ntransportation should be directed and developed in the\nstates rather than by the Federal Government.\n5. Study ways to reduce federal administrative costs in\nInterstate programs.\nV. Environmental Planning with Incentives rather than Penalties.\nAll transportation planning should consider environmental\neffects and proper land usage. Cities and counties as well as\nstates must concern themselves with outdoor advertising, the\nenhancement of scenic areas, and improved roadside rests and\nlandscaping.\nHowever, the present policy of the Federal Government to\nimpose penalties rather than incentives in beautification should\nbe changed.\nCalifornia has enacted a bill to regulate the erection and\nmaintenance of outdoor advertising, as well as the removal of\njunkyards along Interstate and primary systems. Under these\nprograms the State will put up 25% of the total cost.\nRequirements of the federal statute will hurt portions of the\noutdoor advertising industry. Naturally, state taxpayers will be\naffected by this change.\nContinual expansion of the federal government's device to\nwithhold federal funds could eventually give the Federal Government\ncontrol over almost every segment of state government operations.\nThe federal policy should provide greater incentive to provide\nbetter environmental planning instead of using penalties to coerce\nstate and local governments into certain policies. It must always\nbe kept in mind also that environmental and beautification pro-\ngram benefits must be weighed against transportation requirements,\nand expenditures then be made accordingly.\nRecommendations:\n1. Federal Government could increase its share in transporta-\ntion projects when proper planning is accomplished rather\nthan threaten to penalize governments as has been the\ncase in the past.\n2. States should be encouraged to further scenic highway\nprograms, improve landscaping, and add to the enjoyment\nof highway users. A basic highway design should be\noffered to localities and they in turn should be allowed\nto decide the best environmental approach in their area\nand participate in the funding of special amenities\nessential to the improvement of their area.\n3. Principal responsibility for beautification programs\nshould be with states and local governments.\nVI. Airport Planning and Funding.\nWith the great increase in air travel, both commercial and\ngeneral aviation, there is an imperative need for proper airport\nplanning and funding.\nIn California, airplane fuel is taxed, and the Division of\nAeronautics puts approximately 20 per gallon, which approximates\n$1.5 million per year, into an Airport Assistance Fund for local\nairports to use on a matching basis.\nAirport requirements for the State will no doubt increase, as\nwell as nationally. We have embarked on two major programs:\n(1) a two-year study in master plan development of future airports\nfor the entire State; and (2) a West Coast Air Corridor Study\ninvolving nine western states to define and solve short-haul air\ntravel problems.\nRecommendations:\n1. Other forms of future taxation may be necessary, yet we\noppose a Federal\nAirport Users Tax Fund, since\nfederal overhead and inflexibilities tend to reduce the\neffectiveness of such an approach.\n2. States should be allowed to keep and utilize any such\nusers tax free of federal controls on such a program.\n3. Possibly, matching funds or tax incentives should be\navailable from the Federal Government to encourage proper\nfuture airport planning.\n4. Studies should be made before a final recommendation is\nmade on such funding.\nVII. Encouragement of Future Modes of Transportation.\nThere is a compelling need for study and research as well as\nencouragement for future modes of transportation.\nIn the field of water transportation, recent developments in\naerodynamics and a variety of new power sources have introduced a\nnew breed of water vehicle. Recent developments such as the\nhydrofoil and various types of hovercraft merge the dynamics of\nvehicles in flight and vehicles on water.\nWith the increase in population along seaboards and inland\nwaterways, it may become expedient to find means of moving goods\nand people by water. Studies in depth would no doubt produce some\nstartling new possibilities for the efficient movement of people\nand cargo by water.\nContainerization permits a combination between trucks, rails,\nair and ships. Further research in this area may bring to the\nfore an excellent example of coordinated, integrated and balanced\ntransportation through this means.\nCertainly in the field of rail transportation there are many\nnew forms that should be studied.\nVery little has been done in the field of maximizing the\nproductivities of mass rapid transit for cargo rather than just\nfor people. Both the BART system in San Francisco and the newly\nplanned rapid transit system for Los Angeles do not include studies\nin depth on the economic necessity of planning a system for both\npeople and goods.\nIn the field of mass highway transportation, there is still\nfurther study needed on bus rapid transit involving new physical\ncarriers, exclusive lanes, and other features to entice the public\nto use this transportation means.\nRecommendations:\n1. Research and development funds should be dedicated to\nimproving over-all systems and subsystems. Need also\nexists to update the present systems.\n2. Alternative means of financing should be studied for\ndevelopment of public transit systems.\n10\nVIII. Accident Insurance.\nPublic dissatisfaction with the automotive accident situation\nand insurance has been increasing in recent years. There are\nspecial study commissions now in New York and California. Senator\nHart's committee will probably soon begin an investigation. Costs\nof paying insurance claims are continually increasing with a\nresulting increase in insurance premiums. The increase in losses\nis causing insurance companies to be more selective in accepting\nnew policyholders and in renewing existing policies.\nCalifornia is in a good position because of its highway\nsafety and prevention program. Many studies indicate that more\nstringent enforcement in controlling drivers license issuance,\nrevocation, etc., would cause a reduction in accidents. Chronic\nviolation and accident-prone drivers should be placed under greater\ncontrol, and more emphasis should be placed on driver development\nand education.\nThe California court situation is comparatively very good,\nsince California has kept court staffing in line with increased\ncase loads. In addition, judicial personnel are of high over-all\ncaliber. Quick justice in the courts is important, as long trial\ndelays such as in Chicago (five years) cause problems -- acceptance\nof lower settlement because of inability to wait -- others get\nhigher settlements because they can stall the situation out.\nCalifornia's premium rating law has kept insurance rate-making\nout of politics. Companies can have different rates. In California,\ninsurance companies can increase premiums for more undesirable\ninsurance risks (policyholders) rather than simply refusing them\ninsurance altogether.\nIn California we have a financial responsibility law wherein\ndrivers are not required to have insurance, but if they do not\nthey must have financial responsibility. Some people attack this\napproach on grounds it discriminates against the poor people. It\nis believed that the financial responsibility approach is better\nthan compulsory insurance, which several states have. These states\nhave many mechanical problems in compulsory insurance, yet only\nhave approximately the same percentage of autos insured as does\nCalifornia.\nThere probably is a need for auto insurance policies to be\nstandardized nationally, since companies have different policies\nnow.\nThe American Bar Association has on study a proposal to\nabolish damage suits in auto accidents and substitute a system\nwhereby your own auto is insured against crashes regardless of\nfault. This type of coverage might limit the personal damage\npossibilities in auto accidents and thereby reduce insurance\npremiums. This can be done on state level.\nSome people argue that the fault system results in erratic\nsettlements. The contention is that some insurance companies\noverpay small \"nuisance\" claims because it costs more to fight\nthem than it does to settle. At the same time, people with large,\nlegitimate claims are often unable to wait for a case to come to\ntrial and are forced to settle for whatever the insurance company\noffers.\nThe insurance industry must be helped to cut its own costs.\nWith tighter drivers licensing controls, this can be done. The\nStanford Research Institute states that if 20% of all drivers\nlost their licenses, the accident rate would go down 80%.\nCalifornia is probably better off than most states -- its\nclaims and underwriting practices are better than in most states.\nIn all aspects, the fact that the situation is relatively good\nshould not forestall attempts to secure further improvements, as\nthe entire field is one which increasingly is coming under critical\npublic security.\nRecommendations:\n1. The Federal Government should not be in the automobile\ninsurance business.\n2. Automobile insurance policies and coverage should be\nstandardized nationally (by agreement among the states)\n.\n3. Thoroughly study merit of changing damage concept from\npresent fault basis.\nFebruary 29, 1968\nPOSSIBLE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS\nON MASS TRANSIT\nWHAT ARE THE MERITS OF SALES TAX ON GASOLINE?\n(a) It provides the necessary large revenue source (4% =\n$108 million statewide). No general fund money is\navailable - tidelands money committed.\n(b) It spreads tax base by including our many tourists who\nwould buy gas in the Los Angeles and Bay Area districts.\nThey increase congestion which is one reason mass\npublic transportation is needed. Therefore, they\nshould help pay for possible cures.\n(c) It cannot be avoided as easily as an increased\nvehicle in lieu tax. It is doubtful that you would\ndrive too far to pay a 1.2¢ less per gallon for gas.\nWHAT AMOUNTS OF REVENUE COULD BE RAISED BY\nSALES TAX AND IN LIEU INCREASE?\n(a) Sales tax - statewide - $108 million (4%).\n(1) SCRTD - $40 million (4%) (1.2¢ per gallon)\n(2) BARTD -- $13 million (4%)\n(b) In lieu - statewide - $91 million (1%)\n(1) SCRTD - $35 million (1%) ($10 per thousand)\n(2) BARTD - $12 million (1%)\nWHY NOT INCREASE \"IN LIEU\" TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLES\nRATHER THAN USE SALES TAX ON GASOLINE?\n(a) This has been suggested and I will issue an urgency\nletter permitting it to get early hearing next session\nalong with the sales tax approach. However, I feel\neven this approach should be triggered only by a local\nvote and should not be imposed at the state level.\n(b) Evasion problem. -- Large fleet owners could re-register\nvehicles in adjacent counties which didn't increase in\nlieu tax, thereby reducing revenue and penalizing a\nlocal government which imposes the increase.\n(c) Narrow tax base The \"in lieu\" approach does not\nallow tourists to contribute toward congestion problem\nthey help create.\nWHAT ABOUT OTHER POSSIBLE TAXES, SUCH AS\nGENERAL SALES TAX INCREASE OR UTILITY TAX?\nThese have been suggested and looked at. Would give urgency\nletters for such approaches. However, they also should be\ntriggered by a local vote and not imposed by State.\n(a) We increased general sales tax once already this\nyear. Sales tax arguably hits lower income groups\nharder and should be used only as a last resort.\n(L.A. County 1% sales tax = $132 million annually,\nBARTD counties = $48 million annually.)\n(b) Utility tax (paid by consumer in monthly utility bill)\nis a possibility, but it seems to hit property owner\nand wouldn't allow tourists to contribute.\nWHAT AMOUNT REVENUE DO SCRTD (Southern California\nRapid Transit District) and BARTD (Bay Area Rapid Transit\nDistrict) NEED?\nAccording to recent testimony before legislative committees:\n(a) SCRTD needs sufficient revenue to support $1.5 billion\nbond issue which is estimated cost of their 62-mile\ncore rail system and feeder buslines.\n(b) BARTD needs sufficient revenue to support $60 - $170\nmillion deficit which is estimate of amount needed to\ncomplete 75-mile system. (Range due to variables,\nsuch as elimination frills and availability Fed. money.)\nWHEN IS MONEY NEEDED?\n(a) SCRTD will go to voters November 1968. They need to\nknow what revenue sources are available prior to that\ntime.\n(b) BARTD indicates they will run out of money in July 1968.\nWON'T REQUIRING VOTE BEFORE IMPOSING TAX DELAY THESE PROJECTS?\n(a) SCRTD - No, since they have to go to voters in Nov. anyway.\n(b) BARTD - No delay if enabling legislation is acted upon\nearly in 1968. That's why I will issue urgency letters so\nproposals can be heard quickly.\n-2-\nWHY HAVE VOTE OF COUNTY OR DISTRICT RESIDENTS\nBEFORE TAX IS IMPOSED?\n(a) It gives local residents chance to solve own problems\nand determine how badly they want a project. They will\nbe paying for.\n(b) It answers claim that use of sales tax on gasoline or\nmotor vehicle in lieu tax for rapid transit is an\nimproper diversion of needed highway money. If voters\ndetermine this tax source should be used for rapid\ntransit, who can say it is improper - local people will\nhave determined the priority in their area.\nHASN'T BAY AREA ALREADY VOTED WHEN THEY APPROVED $792 MILLION\nBOND ISSUE IN 1962 - WHY MAKE THEM VOTE AGAIN?\nApparently the project is $60 - $170 million short. Voters\nshould have opportunity to be heard again. It would clear\nair.\nARE YOU ADVOCATING THAT BARTD BE SCRAPPED AND A $792 MILLION\nINVESTMENT BE WASTED?\n(a) Not at all - in fact this would be effective argument\nto local voters for passage of a tax measure. I'm\nonly saying that local voters should be heard from\nbefore a large additional tax is imposed.\nOTHER TAXES AREN'T APPROVED BY VOTERS, WHY THIS TYPE OF TAX?\n(a) Taxes are reaching a point where maybe a vote is needed\nunder circumstances where the money isn't devoted to\nabsolutely essential services.\n(b) These are large local projects and highway user should\nhave a chance to say whether he wants potential highway tax money\nto be used for transit purposes. (This is main fight over\nuse of gas sales tax.)\nDO YOU FAVOR RAIL RAPID TRANSIT BY ADVOCATING THIS\nENABLING LEGISLATION?\nNo, not advocating any particular project or mode of\ntransportation. However, feel that local government should\nhave financial tools available to solve such problems as\n-3-\ncongestion, public transportation for the carless, and\ndevelopment of smog free transportation. Without financial\nalternatives, a project doesn't have a real chance to be\ndecided on the merits.\nWHY NOT IMPOSE TAX ON STATEWIDE BASIS?\n(a) Under local option, tax is imposed only by counties\nwhere a tax is urgently needed.\n(b) With local option, taxes will be paid by those most\nlikely to receive the benefits.\nWHY NOT RAISE STATE GAS TAX TO FINANCE RAPID TRANSIT?\nUnder California Constitution (Art. 26) the 7¢ gasoline\ntax revenue can be used only for highway purposes; and a\nhighway financing need exists.\nWHAT IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXISTING 7¢ STATE GASOLINE TAX\nAND PROPOSED SALES TAX ON GASOLINE?\n(a) The 7¢ gas tax is a wholesale distribution tax\n(which is of course passed on to retail customers).\n(b) The suggested sales tax would be a tax on the final\nretail sales transaction similar to other existing\nsales taxes (gasoline now exempt by statute).\nWILL THIS AFFECT STATE HIGHWAY FINANCING?\n(a) It shouldn't, since gas tax increase source is still\navailable - and no existing funds are being diverted\nto non-highway use.\n(b) By economies in Transportation Agency, we have saved\n($99 million) which is equivalent to over 1¢ in gas\ntax increase. So, by economies we have avoided a 1¢\nincrease in gas tax, and made this money available for\nhighway construction. A good example of new approach -\ndon't look for increases until Administrative economies\nhave been exhausted.\nadd at back\nWHAT ABOUT DIFFERENT TAXES FOR LOS ANGELES, AND SAN FRANCISCO?\nThis could be done legislatively. For example, you could have\nin lieu in San Francisco area and sales tax on gasoline in\nLos Angeles. Trend throughout country is to allow variation\nto meet local problems. The taxes should be tailored to par-\nticular needs of district.\nWHAT SIZE VOTE ARE YOU ADVOCATING, TWO-THIRDS OR 50%?\n(a) This would be up to Legislature.\n(b) For example, for the BARTD and SCRTD general obligation\nbonds Legislature lowered vote requirement from 2/3 to\n60%.\nWHAT IS A MOTOR VEHICLE IN LIEU TAX?\n(a) It is a personal property tax of 2% on the value of a\nmotor vehicle collected by State and returned to cities\nand counties for their general fund use (i.e., not ear-\nmarked for road use). (Approximately $205 million\nstatewide.)\n(b) State also collects annual registration fee on vehicles\nwhich is used to support DMV and CHP.\nBT11-67-14\nhar\n-5-\nNanaportation\nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA\nRONALD REAGAN, Governor\nBUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY\n1120 N STREET, SACRAMENTO 95814\nRB-Dyi\nGORDON C. LUCE\nSecretary\nJAMES C. SCHMIDT\nMay 22, 1968\nAssistant Secretary\nThe Honorable Don Mulford\nState Assembly\nState Capitol\nSacramento, California\nDear Don:\nMEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RE AB 255\nPursuant to our meeting of Wednesday, May 22, the following\nmatters were considered and agreed upon:\n1. Issuance of emergency letter by Lieutenant Governor is not\nconsidered to be an endorsement of AB 255.\n2. Amendments should be worked out to AB 255 which do the\nfollowing:\na. Limit the use of the local in lieu money to an amount\nwhich meets the current BART deficit for the basic\nsystem only. (It was recognized that $144 million\ndeficit figure included a substantial amount which may\nbe reduced by monies returned or granted to BART.)\nb. Permit the in lieu revenue to be used as a backup source\nof financing for rolling stock only (no direct cash flow\nof in lieu money toward purchase of rolling stock.\nC. Provide that all surplus money from whatever source be\nreturned to the State Highway Fund upon completion of\nthe basic system. This return to include monies now\nlisted as interim financing needs and set forth in the\nBART statement to the Legislature of December 13, 1967,\nas $36 million.\n3. The following assurances were made by BART and which should\nbe confirmed in writing:\na. Upon receipt of federal grants, now estimated at $26\nmillion, equivalent funds shall be. returned to the State\nHighway Fund or reduction made in the amount of local in\nlieu funds to be utilized.\nHon. Don Mulford\n-2-\nMay 22, 1968\nb. BART is agreeable to opening all their books and records\nto an in depth financial audit by the State Executive\nBranch (Finance, Transportation Agency) in cooperation\nwith the Legislative Analyst.\nC. BART to furnish immediate and complete answers to\nGordon Luce's letter of May 17.\n4. Additional issues not resolved yet:\na. We feel very strongly that the tax should be imposed by\nvote of the local elective officials (county supervisors)\nand not by the BART Board. This has been the Adminis-\ntration's position all along on BART, regardless of the\nmethod of financing. We will have to discuss this matter\nin further detail and can make no commitment other than\nthat this provision must be in any BART bill. We do\nunderstand that you feel otherwise and we are willing to\nmeet with you to discuss it further.\nb. Should the local in lieu tax be utilized for specific\nsystem additions such as securities surveilance devices\nestimated at $2+ million and complete installation of\nprovisions for handicapped persons now estimated at $7\nmillion? (BART has testified that facilities are designed\nfor inclusion of these items but that they will not be put\nin as a part of the initial system.)\nC. Audit controls -- timing of issuance of bonds?\n5. It is also our understanding that the Division of Highways\nwill present complete facts to all legislative committees\nand legislators on the impact of AB 255 on the State Highway\nProgram in these three counties and elsewhere.\n6. As any other problems develop, author and Agency will meet\nand attempt to resolve them.\nSincerely,\nGORDON C. LUCE, Secretary of\nBusiness and Transportation\nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA\nRONALD REAGAN, Governor\nBUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY\n1120 N STREET, SACRAMENTO 95814\nCONFIDENTIAL\nGORDON C. LUCE\nSecretary\nJAMES C. SCHMIDT\nNovember 1, 1968\nAssistant Secretary\nThe Honorable Ronald Reagan\nGovernor of California\nState Capitol\nSacramento, California\nDear Governor:\nIn spring 1967 I suggested to you and the Cabinet that we\nappoint a Governor's Task Force on Transportation to define\nexisting problems, with special emphasis on comprehensive\nplanning and the need for coordinated growth, and to recommend\nthe State's role and organizational structure which could\neffectively plan for the future transportation needs of the\nState. You appointed 23 of California's top transportation\nexecutives (see attached) and these men, supported by some 100\nresearch people with transportation-oriented backgrounds, spent\nthousands of man-hours in writing a report to be officially\npresented to you by the entire committee on November 19.\nThe assignment was an extremely large undertaking. It has had\nmixed success. Since the Task Force was not funded, both staff\nand private sector time was donated although some of the print-\ning costs and staff help have come from the Department of\nPublic Works. Task Force members paid their own transportation\ncosts, lunches, etc., and it was difficult for experts from\ncompeting modes of transportation to overcome their special\ninterests. However, they did progress through the series of\nmany meetings, compromised in some cases, and coordinated their\nthoughts with the attached result.\nThe report is a first step, and a giant step at that, in\nformulating some future transportation thinking by a state\nadministration. We found in this year's legislative session\nthe most controversial bill was in regard to BART. It is\nobvious that the State must have the tools to adequately\nHon. Ronald Reagan\n-2-\nNovember 1, 1968\nassess future transportation proposals and reports and this\nTask Force suggests some methods by which this could be\naccomplished.\nThe State is presently unable to provide the cohesive function\nwhich is its responsibility in the field of coordinated and\nintegrated overall transportation planning. Elements of our\ntransportation system are now provided by local or regional\nagencies and/or the private sector. The federal government\nis involved in varying degrees (i.e., airport interstate\nregulation); the State has accepted the primary responsibility\nfor highways and bridges; the State PUC plays a strong role in\nintrastate transportation regulation. These efforts need\ncoordination which could come from adoption of a statewide\ntransportation policy and the implementation of some of the\nTask Force's recommendations.\nSome of the report's key suggestions would probably not find\nimplementation with the make-up of the present Legislature;\nmany transportation leaders will not agree with the report's\nfindings; and I find some of the report not compatible with\nmy Agency's present transportation philosophy. Therefore,\nI recommend we spotlight the good points of the report, stress\nthe fact that it is a first step contributed by a non-funded\ncommittee, and is a triggering device to bring closer attention\nand hopefully solutions to the transportation problems of this\nState.\nIt should also be made clear that while the Task Force has\nbeen at work, various recommendations have already been put\ninto action and our Agency as well as the Administration and\nthe Legislature have continued to involve themselves in various\nforms of transportation planning such as the following:\n1. Support of AB 101 (Lanterman) (Governor's program) which\nprovided model for financing urban transit systems by\nallowing voters to decide; this is consistent with Task\nForce recommendation that funding and details should be\nresponsibility of local government (pages 4,29).\n2. Support of SB 202 (Mills-Hayes) (Governor's program)\nwhich gave tax relief to improve mass transit service\n(bus) consistent with recommendation (page 27).\nHon. Ronald Reagan\n-3-\nNovember 1, 1968\n3. Agency support of SCR 67 (Collier) to study exclusive\nbus lanes on California freeways (principal funding of\n$250,000 by federal government). Co-authors of SCR 67\nwere Unruh and Hayes (page 20).\n4. Multiple use of freeway corridors (page 23) is continuing\nprogram of Public Works: e.g., (1) Industrial and San\nBernardino Freeways in Los Angeles examples of Highways,\nrapid transit, and railroads working together in single\ntransportation corridor; (2) Coordination with BART in\nboth planning joint use of rights of way and financing\ntube crossing; (3) Use of air space both below and above\nfreeways for parking, commercial ventures, etc.\n5. Development of statewide airport master plan which the\nTask Force called essential (page 33) now under way in\nAeronautics Department which is about to let consulting\ncontract.\n6. Testing new navigation system which if successful will\nbe important advance in safe air-sea movement as well as\ngreatly increasing transportation capabilities (page 35).\n7. To improve port development (page 43) Administration\nhas supported AB 190 (Burton) to transfer Port of San\nFrancisco to City to encourage its development.\nA summary of the most interesting suggestions in the Transpor-\ntation Task Force report follows:\n1. State's role is seen as one of encouragement and cooper-\nation and does not advocate a State take-over. Report\nrecognized the need to insure private sector's continued\nparticipation in transportation by their appointment to\nan advisory board or a transportation commission. The\nState is encouraged to provide support and assistance\nas required by the public and private sector through\nthe collection and analysis of research data.\n2. Task Force goal is to develop a means whereby the State\ncan effectively encourage and cooperate in the orderly\ndevelopment of California transportation. They suggest\nvarious structures to accomplish.\nHon. Ronald Reagan\n-4-\nNovember 1, 1968\n3. Task Force members did not want a sensational type\nreport with Walt Disney futuristic transportation modes\nfeatured and wouldn't \"take the easy route of giving\nquick answers\". Instead they identified \"most serious\ndeficiency\nas\ninability to identify, define,\nand evaluate adequately current and future transportation\nrequirements and problems\". In essence, they say we need\na great deal of more work before we can plan the future.\n4. In order for State to adequately define problems and\ncoordinate planning, they have suggested Administration\nimmediately create an Office of State Transportation\nPlanning:\na. To collect, analyze, and disseminate data and\nstatistics relating to transportation and transpor-\ntation services of all forms operating in the State,\ndescribing thereby the operations and service\nsupplied by the total statewide transportation system.\nb. To recommend to the Secretary of Business and Trans-\nportation legislation, regulations, or administrative\npolicies relative to transportation which will reduce\ncosts or increase efficiency, safety, service, or\nother benefits to the people of the State.\nC. To maintain liaison with federal, city and county\ngovernments, special districts, and private businesses\nso that State transportation programs may be\ncoordinated with plans and programs of other agencies\nfor the general welfare of the public.\nd. To encourage research and development in new methods,\ncomponents, or forms of transportation which will\nreduce costs and increase benefits of transportation\nsystems to the people of the State.\ne. Might cost $225,000 per year for staffing and expenses\nto be funded from Highway Fund, Aeronautics Fund, and\nState General Fund.\nf. Could be a grouping of personnel now involved in such\nwork in Finance Department, Highways and Public\nUtilities Commission.\nHon. Ronald Reagan\n-5-\nNovember 1, 1968\n5. The report implies that the authority now vested in the\nCalifornia Highway Commission, California Toll Bridge\nAuthority, and the Aeronautics Board should at some\ntime in the near future be vested in a California\nTransportation Board. A corollary implication that\nfunds derived for transportation from any and all\nsources will be pooled and distributed to all modes in\naccordance with priorities established by the Board\n(would mean amendment of State constitution).\n6. As an interim measure, a State Transportation Advisory\nBoard could be created to assist the Secretary of\nBusiness and Transportation Agency in the formulation\nof State transportation planning. It is suggested the\nBoard be no more than seven members appointed by the\nGovernor and have as ex-officio members the Chairmen\nof the Senate and Assembly Transportation Committees.\n7. A series of regional transportation districts are\nsuggested to be authorized by the Legislature to include\nevery part of the State in a regional transportation\ndistrict (possibly the word regional could also mean\nlocal).\n8. State should develop a comprehensive long-range policy\nregarding transportation and establish a State trans-\nportation master plan. They recommend this policy\nshould include the following key points:\na. Encourage the Development of Urban Mass Transpor-\ntation.\nb. Continue Development of the Statewide System of\nHighways, Roads, and Streets.\nC. Define the Role of the State in Air Transportation.\nd. Encourage the Development of Ports, Harbors, and\nWaterways.\ne. Encourage Transportation Research and Development.\nf. Reassess State Transportation Regulatory Policies.\nHon. Ronald Reagan\n-6-\nNovember 1, 1968\nIt is my understanding the Speaker and others in the Assembly\nnext session are going to make transportation a major target.\nWe should develop from these Task Force recommendations our\npolicy in this field and encourage the adoption of those\nsuggestions that conform to our philosophy.\nI suggest we adopt and present to the Legislature a transpor-\ntation bill incorporating the following suggestions:\n1. State Transportation Planning Office.\n2. Advisory Board (seven members).\n3. Development of State transportation policy and master\nplan.\nIt should be noted that a rumor insists Unruh will make a\nstrong pitch on transportation in 1969. It could be said\nthe State has fallen behind in this field and I would suggest\nwe use the Task Force report as a vehicle for the Administra-\ntion to make some major statement on this field.\nSulm GORDON C. LUCE, Secretary of\nBusiness and Transportation\nAttachments\nCC: Hon. William Clark\nHon. Winfred Adams\nGOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE ON TRANSPORTATION\nMr. Floyd Andrews, President\nPacific Southwest Airlines\n3100 Goddard Way\nSan Diego, California\nTel: (714) 297-4781\nMr. Albert W. Bayer, President\nA. W. Bayer and Associates\n43 Malaga Cove Plaza\nPalos Verdes Estates, California 90274\nTel: (213) 378-4285\nDr. Arnold O. Beckman, President\nCalifornia State Chamber of Commerce\nX\nBeckman Instruments, Inc.\n2500 Harbor Boulevard\nFullerton, California\nTel: (714) 871-4848\nHon. Ernani Bernardi, Councilman\nCity of Los Angeles\nX\nCity Hall\nLos Angeles, California 90012\nTel: (213) 624-5211\nMr. B. F. Biaggini, President.\nSouthern Pacific Company\n65 Market Street\nSan Francisco, California 94105\nTel: (415) 362-1212\nMr. Richard R. Brown\nBrown Tool Engineering\n544 Vernon Way\nEl Cajon, California\nTel: (714) 442-3335\nMr. Asa V. Call, Honorary Chairman\nPacific Mutual Life Insurance Company\n523 West 6th Street\nLos Angeles, California 90054\nTel: (213) 625-1211\nProf. Harmer E. Davis, Director\nInstitute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering\nUniversity of California\n1301 So. 46th Street\nRichmond, California 94804\nTel: (415) 235-6000, Ext. 255\nGovernor\nDr. Richard D. DeLauer\nVice President and General Manager\nX\nTRW Systems\nOne Space Park\nRedondo Beach, California 90278\nTel: (213) 679-8711\nMr. Nils Eklund, Vice President\nKaiser Industries\nKaiser Center\n300 Lakeside Drive\nOakland, California 94604\nTel: (415) 271-2211\nMr. A. J. Eyraud, Director\nSouthern California Rapid Transit District\n1060 So. Broadway\nLos Angeles, California 90015\nTel: (213) 234-9261\nMr. Adrien J. Falk\nS. F. Bay Area Rapid Transit District\n814 Mission Street\nSan Francisco, California 94103\nTel: (415) 986-1818\nMr. Francis T. Fox, General Manager\nLos Angeles Department of Airports\nLos Angeles International Airport\nNo. 1 World Way\nLos Angeles, California 90009\nTel: (213) 776-0219\n646-6250\nMr. John P. Fraim, Jr., President\nMutual Broadcasting Corporation\n1901 Avenue of the Stars\nLos Angeles, California 90067\nTel: (213) 777-7575\nMr. Herbert Hoover, Jr.\n900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1230\nLos Angeles, California 90017\nTel: (213) 624-4014\nMr. John McDonnell\nPresident, Board of Directors\nAlameda-Contra Costa Transit District\n508 - 16th Street\nOakland, California 94612\nTel: (415) 652-1785\nMr. Edwin S. Moore, Executive Vice President\nCalifornia State Automobile Association\n150 Van Ness Avenue\nSan Francisco, California 94101\nTel: (415) 626-3000\nMr. William L. Pereira\nWilliam L. Pereira & Associates\n5657 Wilshire Boulevard\nLos Angeles, California 90036\nTel: (213) 933-8341\nMr. Neil Petree\nChairman, Executive Committee\nBarker Bros.\n818 West 7th Street\nLos Angeles, California 90017\nTel: (213) 624-3355\nMr. Henry Roloff, Executive Vice President\nPacific Coast Association of Port Authorities\n239 World Trade Center\nSan Francisco, California 94111\nTel: (415) 986-5312\nMr. Wade Sherrard, Managing Director\nCalifornia Trucking Association\n1240 Bayshore Highway\nBurlingame, California 94010\nTel: (415) 347-3651\nMr. Shermer L. Sibley, President\nPacific Gas and Electric Company\nX\n245 Market Street\nSan Francisco, California 94106\nTel: (415) 781-4211, Ext. 2425\nMr. James M. Udall\nJames M. Udall, Inc.\n1307 Westwood Boulevard\nLos Angeles, California 90024\nTel: (213) 272-5403\nMr. John Vaughn, President\nX\nDartell Laboratories Inc.\n1226 So. Flower Street\nLos Angeles, California 90015\nTel: (213) 749-7701\n- 3 -\nTransportation\n(Rapid Transit)\nHUMAN RELATIONS AGENCY\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nDepartment of Industrial Relations\nSan Francisco, California\nContact: Peter Weinberger\nJuly 3, 1969\nRecommendations for resolving a Southern California Rapid Transit\nDistrict (SCRTD) dispute were announced today by a special fact\nfinding commission named by Governor Reagan May 31 (pursuant to\nthe provisions of the Public Utilities Code).\nThe commission mailed the recommendations to representatives of\nthe United Transportation Union and the management of SCRTD.\nBoth sides have returned to the bargaining table under the guid-\nance of the State Conciliation Service, the commission reported.\nThe seven recommendations were:\n1. Operators Wage-Rates be brought nearer parity with other major\ncities transit employees by increases effective June 1, 1969\nof thirty (30) cents per hour to $3.75 per hour; on June 1,\n1970 of twenty-five (25) cents per hour to Four ($4.00) Dollars\nper hour; and on June 1, 1971 of twenty-five (25) cents per\nhour to $4.25 per hour in a three year contract.\n2. A cost of living clause be added effective December 1, 1970\nproviding for semi-annual adjustments based on changes in the\nLos Angeles Consumers Price Index-B.L.S. (1957-59 = 100).\n3. Improvements be made in the Pension Plan and increased contri-\nbutions be made to the Health and Welfare Plan.\n4. An improvement in the vacation plan be made.\n5. A Finding be made that disputes under the sick leave plan be\nsubject to arbitration.\n6. A three day paid leave of absence to attend the funeral of\nrelatives (limited) be granted.\n7. Other Union demands be denied.\nMORE\nMembers of the fact finding commission were: Albert C. Beeson,\nformer Director of Industrial Relations, Chairman; Arnold O.\nAnderson, Orinda, California, Personnel Officer for the Alameda\nNaval Air Station; and Leo Kortin, Los Angeles Arbitrator and\nConsultant.\nGovernor Reagan named the commission a few hours before the con-\ntract between the district and the union was to expire. Appoint-\nment of the commission automatically prevents a strike during a\n60-day period.\nThe first meeting of the parties with the Conciliation Service\non the full scope of the dispute, since the adjournment of\ncommission hearing, is set for Monday, July 7, 1969.\n###\nTransportation\nHighlights:\n1-U.S. world aviation leadership is threatened by unfounded attacks\non its supersonic transport program.\n2-The program. looked like it was going down the drain until, a few\nmonths ago, a new man was put in charge.\n3-The new man has turned the ball game around-or is in process of\ndoing SO. He has converted a host of critics and, backed by an industry\nteam of hundreds of companies, is hopeful that the program will\ncontinue and avert a $22-billion loss by the U.S. in international trade.\nUSA\nUpon successful development of this airplane depends continued U.S. world leadership in commercial aviation. This is the\nsupersonic transport.\nC\nONTINUED U.S. WORLD LEAD-\nwould cause no harm to human, animal\n\"The SST engines (produced by General\nERSHIP in aviation, imperiled by\nor marine life, nor would it pose a\nElectric) will be smoke-free, and power-\nmassive attack by ill-informed conserva-\nthreat of damage to property.\nful enough to take the airplane to\ntionists and politically swayed economic\nThese same studies, he told the Sierra\naltitude quickly to reduce the sound\nprophets of doom, is right now at stake\nClub and other critical conservationist\nover the community.\nas the Senate prepares to vote on a $290\norganizations, show that the SST will\n\"Overall,\" he continued, \"the air-\nmillion appropriation that would keep\nnot, as charged, \"pollute the upper\nplane is one of the most land-conserva-\nalive the development of the supersonic\natmosphere in such a way as may result\ntive forms of transportation. Airports\ntransport airliner.\nin terrible alterations of global\nconsume far less real estate than is\nThe stuttering history of the U.S.\nweather.\"\nrequired for highways or railways. New\nSST, which began 11 years ago, and to\nTo the Friends of the Earth, Magru-\nairports will undoubtedly be designed to\nwhich \"finis\" appeared imminent five\nder said there is absolutely no scientific\ncontain most of the objectionable noise\nmonths ago, suddenly gained new life\njustification for their statement that the\nof aircraft operations within their\non April 1, 1970, with appointment of\nSST \"will be far more dangerous than\nboundaries.\" Magruder added:\nWilliam M. Magruder as director of SST\npresent aircraft because of severe prob-\n\"Those of us who believe in the SST\ndevelopment in the Department of\nlems of metal fatigue, landing speed,\nprogram also live on this earth and share\nTransportation.\nvisibility and maneuverability.\" The\nthe environment and we have asked\nIn that short interim the 47-year-old\nfact is that the SST will be built of\nmany of the same questions certain\nAir Force veteran, engineer and aircraft\ntitanium which is stronger than steel. Its\necologists are asking today. Only we\nindustry executive appears to have\nlanding speed will be similar to many of\nasked them several years ago, and the\nturned the tide until today there is a\nthe present air carrier jets, it will be\nprogram has moved forward with as-\nchance that development will continue\ninstrument controlled all the way, and it\nsurances from the best scientific counsel\non the aircraft.\nwill be the beneficiary of a greatly\navailable to the Government that any\nMagruder, whose engaging grin does\nimproved air traffic control system now\nadverse effects to the weather or from\nnot mask his dedication to the SST, has\nbeing automated and expanded to meet\nradiation are very unlikely.\"\nalready converted many of the critics\nthe continuing growth in air traffic.\nBut since some uncertainty does\nsimply by applying logic to the prob-\nTo other environmental critics,\nexist, Magruder has created an expanded\nlem. To labor leaders he talked in terms\nMagruder pointed out that the SST is\nenvironmental and noise research pro-\nof jobs the SST program would provide\nthe only aircraft development program\ngram representing about $27 million in\n(150,000). To the conservationists he\never undertaken with noise limitations\nongoing or new research activities by\npresented the results of studies demon-\nwritten into the contract. In interviews\nvarious Government agencies, plus for-\nstrating that the SST's sonic boom\nwith Government Executive, he said:\nmation of two committees-the SST\nEnvironmental Advisory Council and\nmeans that fares will probably be about\nTwelve U.S. and 14 non-U.S. airlines\nthe Community Noise Council-to ex-\nthe same as on subsonic aircraft.\"\nhave deposited $22 million to assure\nplore further. Both of these councils are\nTo economic critics, including some\n112 delivery positions.\nchaired by highly competent people-\nCongressmen who complain that the\nThe Government will collect a roy-\nDr. Myron Tribus, Assistant Secretary\nraison d'etre for the SST is \"just so that\nalty on all U.S. SST sales to recover all\nof Commerce for Science and Tech-\nwe can say to Britain, France and Russia\nof its costs plus interest by delivery of\nnology, who heads the Environmental\nthat we can fly faster than you can,\"\nthe 300th airplane. Further, the Govern-\nCouncil, and Dr. Leo Beranek, general\nMagruder has presented these statistics:\nment will get additional return on sales\nmanager and chief scientist of Bolt,\n\"With no U.S. SST program, American\nbeyond 300. Delivery of 500 airplanes,\nBeranek and Newman Inc., the eminent\nairlines will be forced, in order to meet\npredicted by 1990, would give the\nNew York psychoacoustics firm. Each\ntheir competition, to import $12 billion\nGovernment a $1.1 billion return on its\nchairman has available 12 highly re-\nworth of Concorde SSTs (built jointly\ninvestment.\ngarded experts in the areas of atmos-\nby Great Britain and France). With a\nFacing media opposition, doubtless\npheric phenomena, radiation, weather\nU.S. SST program we will fill our own\ninspired by SST opponents while the\nand noise.\nneeds, plus export of $10 billion worth\nprogram leadership before his accession\nRelevant to the noise issue, Magruder\nof airplanes.\"\nwas less than dynamic, Magruder has\nsays: \"The SST Boeing is proposing to\nA point on which Magruder feels\nbeen heartened by developments. He\nbuild will be about half as annoying as\nvery strongly is the criticism of Govern-\nsays: \"I would guess the press is now\nment \"subsidization\" of the SST. He\nabout 50-50. And that's 50 percent\nsays: \"We must remember that nearly\nbetter than it was two months ago.\" He\nThe Tale of the (U.S. SST) Tape\nevery American commercial transport\ndidn't say that this might be so because\nMaximum takeoff weight\nairplane has grown out of design and\nhe has had several off-the-record ses-\n(pounds)\n750,000\nproduction for the military. Thus the\nsions with editors and reporters.\nLength (feet)\n298\nmanufacturer has paid for him, by the\nMagruder came to Washington from\nWing span (feet)\n143\nGovernment, the research and develop-\nthe post of Deputy Director of Com-\nHeight (feet)\n52\nment costs of the airframe, the engine\nmercial Engineering for Lockheed\nCruise speed (miles\nand other components. Now, for the\n(where he doubtless made considerably\nper hour)\n1,786\nfirst time, a commercial transport is\nmore money than the new job pays). In\nPassengers\n298\nbeing developed without benefit of mili-\nWashington he found (to his honest\ntary research. The industry simply can-\nsurprise) two Santa Monica, Calif., high\nPowerplant-General Electric GE-4J\nnot bear the entire cost. The Govern-\nschool classmates-John D. Ehrlichman\nturbojet (four of 67,000 lbs. thrust\nment should help.\"\nand H.R. Haldeman-both very top-level\neach)\npresent day 707s or DC-8s-the interna-\ntional-range subsonic jets. The high-\npitched whine of the fanjets of today\nwill be eliminated from the SST because\nof the unique supersonic engine inlet\nand the rapid climb-out capability of\nthe SST on takeoff will take the air-\nplane to about twice the altitude to-\nday's jets achieve at the three-and-a-half\nmile point from brake release. In effect,\nthe SST will take the community noise\nof today's jets and confine it to the\nairport, where it belongs.\"\nThe two prototype aircraft, to be\nbuilt within the next two years, for\nwhich the $290-million appropriation is\nsought from the Senate (the House has\nalready given its approval) must demon-\nstrate, among other requirements, that\nFour of these General Electric 67,000-lb. thrust GE-4J turbojets will power the\nthe airplane will meet the stringent\nBoeing-built U.S. SST.\nenvironmental standards prescribed for\nThe facts on Government \"subsidy\"\naides to President Nixon. This acquaint-\nit.\nare these:\nanceship probably has not impeded his\nTo \"Jet Set\" syndrome critics,\nThe SST program is being carried out\naccess to the White House. (The SST\nMagruder points out: \"The SST enables\nas a partnership between Government,\nprogram was taken out of the Federal\nus to calculate distances in time, not\nthe manufacturers and the airlines, with\nAviation Administration (FAA) and\nmiles. Because of the SST's great speed\neach sharing the risks as well as the\nplaced directly under Department of\n(1,800 mph) compared, for example, to\nrewards.\nTransportation Secretary John Volpe.\nthe 747's 625 miles an hour, one air-\nThe cost of the prototype develop-\nWhat this appears to add up to is that\nplane can carry more passengers on\nment phase is estimated at $1.3 billion.\nMagruder reports to Volpe and through\nmore trips in a given period of time. The\nThe prime contractors, Boeing (air-\nhim directly to the White House.)\nSST, therefore, is more productive and\nframe) and General Electric (power-\nMagruder has another, unique handle\npotentially more profitable, which\nplant) will invest about $300 million.\non the situation. He is a Fellow in and\nSEPTEMBER 1970\n65\npast president of the international\nSociety of Experimental Test Pilots.\nThe Boeing Story\nThe French chief test pilot of the\nConcorde, and his British counterpart,\nare also \"members of the lodge.\" Magru-\npower is at full strength, with 2,582\nder talks to them via trans-Atlantic\npeople in the engineering depart-\ntelephone almost weekly. The trio com-\nment.\"\npares progress. Thus Magruder knows\nWithington emphasized the impor-\nalmost as much about the Concorde as\ntance of overseas sales of the SST:\nthe other two. Reportedly, he will fly\n\"We need them to make the program\nthe Concorde himself sometime in the\nan economic success. Right now, com-\nfuture.\nmercial transports are one of the very\nMagruder's approach to the job went,\nfew kinds of manufactured products in\nin his own words, thusly: \"Before ac-\nwhich the U.S. still has a marked edge\ncepting Secretary Volpe's invitation to\nin the world market.\"\ndirect the SST program, I spent several\nIn re the environmental critics,\nmonths satisfying myself that the de-\nWithington said: \"It's popular these\nvelopment of a supersonic transport was\ndays to attack a great many things on\na wise, productive, and altogether fruit-\nenvironmental grounds, and a lot of\nful venture for the two participants, the\nthese things should be attacked be-\nGovernment and the aviation industry.\ncause we've got to stop the deteriora-\n\"I made a complete review of the\ntion of our environment. In the case of\nSST configuration with NASA. I talked\nthe SST, though, the critics simply\nwith every major U.S. airline president,\nBob Withington is \"the SST man\nhave the wrong whipping boy.\"\nmost of the international airline presi-\nfrom Boeing.\" He is very high on its\nRegarding charges that the SST\ndents, and members of their staffs. I\nchances for success.\nwould magnify the already-dangerous\nreviewed the major Air Force program\nH.W. (Bob) Withington has been an\ncongestion on the airways and air-\ncontracts and project control pro-\nengineering executive at Boeing since\nports, Withington said: \"I guess you\ncedures at Wright-Patterson AFB, for\nhe joined the company in 1941. He is\ncould call it that. But if anyone is\nlessons learned on programs like the\na company vice president and became\nsuggesting that the SST will compound\nF-111 and C-5, the F-15 and B-1. I went\nGeneral Manager of the company's\nthe congestion, he is still talking about\nover the SST program with other air-\nSupersonic Transport Division on\nthe wrong whipping boy. This airplane\nframe manufacturers to ascertain their\nMarch 9, 1967. In a recent interview\nwill fly at 60,000 feet and above. This\nmoral and technical support. Finally, I\nwith Government Executive, he sum-\nis a complete new chunk of airspace,\nreviewed the British-French Concorde\nmed up progress:\nso we actually will be helping to\nprogram with their government-industry\n\"I think one of the most significant\nalleviate the airways congestion pro-\nleaders to assess the viability of that\nthings is the technical stability our\nblem.\nprogram and get a better sense of its\ndesign has maintained over the last\n\"As far as airports are concerned,\ntiming.\nyear and a half. We have been working\nobviously we'll have to go into the\n\"I found our configuration is a good\nmore than a dozen years on the SST,\nsame traffic pattern as other aircraft.\none, with a 21 to 27 percent economic\nand during most of that time almost\nBut the SST's short time of flight will\nadvantage to the airlines over the Con-\nevery configuration we had gradually\ngive us an opportunity for wholly\ncorde. Airline support for our program\nseemed to get worse the more we\ndifferent schedules in terms of depar-\nis 100 percent. The report that the\nworked on it. This one has stayed\nture and arrival times.\nairlines wish the SST would go away\ngood all the way and in some places\n\"You know,\" Withington con-\njust plain isn't true. An in-service date\nhas even improved. We know where we\ncluded, \"there were equaly unrealistic\nof 1978 is considered by the airlines to\nare technically and we are really ready\ncriticisms from some Congressmen\nbe good timing. The SST will meet\nto go with the prototypes.\"\nwhen we were introducing the B-17\nairline needs for increased productivity\nWithington said the full-scale mock-\nFlying Fortress in World War II. Some\nin that time frame, and still allow the\nup, with tolerances of plus or minus\nCongressmen opposed anything bigger\nairlines to recover from their heavy\none thirty-secondth of an inch, has\nthan two-engine planes because 'there\ninvestments in prior aircraft purchases.\nmade possible testing of systems that\nwould be too many eggs in one bas-\n\"These findings comprise the founda-\nwill go into the prototypes. \"So,\" he\nket.' Then when we were going from\ntion on which I agreed to pick up and\nexplained, \"when we're ready to build\npiston engines to jets for commercial\ncarry forward the direction of the pro-\nthe prototypes we can simply take the\ntravel, there were scare stories about\ntotype program. At present we are\nsystems out of the mockup and move\nwhat would happen if we tried to\nabout midway in the prototype develop-\nthem into the airplanes. This will save\nbreak the so-called sonic barrier. All\nment phase which will be completed in\nat least a year-and money.\"\nthose criticisms faded away promptly\ncalendar year 1973.\"\n\"We are,\" he continued, \"ahead of\nas soon as the airplanes had a chance\nDiscussing passenger comfort, Magru-\nschedule and under budget. All the\nto prove themselves. I expect the same\nder said: \"The prime comfort feature is,\nmajor subcontractors are on board and\nthing will happen to the criticisms of\nof course, the sharply reduced transit\ndrawings for the first two planes have\nthe SST once we've got it in the air\ntime. Studies have shown that the\ngone to the shop. Our technical man-\nand demonstrated what it can do.\"\nhuman body begins to show distress\nwhen sitting duration time exceeds four\nhours. With the SST, the five to thirteen\nplicit in single-source purchasing. The\nTRADE BALANCE EFFECT\nEuropean aviation 'cartel' could become\nsuch a source. With the, Concorde on\nthe blue-ribbon international routes, a\nUS SST\nNO US SST\ntwin-engine 250-passenger low-cost air-\nbus for high density domestic routes,\nPROGRAM\nPROGRAM\nand the Mercure for the DC-9 and 727\nmarket, the French/British industry\nwould be in good position to challenge\n$10 BILLION\nthe U.S. aviation industry. Considering\nEXPORTS\nthat the civil aircraft market represents\na 100 billion dollar business (in the next\n20 years) it's not surprising that other\nnations would be willing to compete\naggressively for a larger piece of the\naction.\"\n270\nAn airplane of the U.S. SST's capa-\nUS SST'S\nbilities, Magruder said, is not only eco-\nEXPORTED\nnomically practical \"but virtually es-\nsential in a growing world with a large\nconsumer appetite for air transporta-\n$22 BILLION SWING\ntion.\" Continuing: \"The SST's great\nredeeming value is its greater produc-\ntivity. While the U.S. 2707 has about\ntwo-thirds the passenger capacity of the\n60\nCONCORDES\n747, it will be nearly twice as produc-\nIMPORTED\ntive. Its ability to earn revenue will be\nabout double the work capacity of the\n380\n747. The improvements in productivity\nthat come with succeeding generations\nCONCORDES\nof aircraft are what enable airlines to\n(I & II)\naccomodate travel growth requirements,\nIMPORTED\nmaintain favorable departure and arrival\nschedules and, most important, stabilize\nfares in the face of rapidly rising costs.\n\"By 1985 the international traffic\nlevels-the traffic SSTs can carry with-\nout violating overland supersonic flight\nrestrictions-will equal the total free\n$12 BILLION\nworld traffic today. If productivity\nhadn't kept pace with demand, we\nIMPORTS\nwould need nearly 300,000 DC-3s in the\nearly 1980.\"\nhour transoceanic flights of today will\ntives make their purchases only after\nThe SST, said Magruder, is clearly\nbe cut drastically; many major city pairs\ncareful examination of the manufac-\ndesigned to meet future needs of trav-\nwill be four hours apart, or less, by\nturer's 'family' of aircraft.\nelers, airlines and the nation. To con-\nSST.\n\"There are logics of economy im-\ntinue the current prototype develop-\n\"The films, stereo recordings and\nlounges provided on today's jets,\" he\ncontinued, \"are features designed to\nTRANSPORTATION\ndistract the passenger from the fact that\nAUTO\nSYSTEM ARISON\ntravel is a necessary but not a very\nfulfilling use of one's time. The SST\naffords the traveler the most attractive\nof all comfort factors-short duration\nexposure to the confinement of flight.\"\nReturning to the économic issue,\nENGINE\nMagruder said: \"The assumption is that\nPOUNDS\nAIRCRA\nbecause the free world airlines buy\n20\nabout 84 percent of their jets from the\nDIESEI\nU.S., this large share of the aluminum\nTRAIN\nsubsonic civil aircraft market would\nSSI\ncontinue to be American-dominated.\nThis isn't necessarily so. I have done\n65,SE\n2000\n500\n300\nsome marketing of commercial aircraft\nSEATS\nand I can assure you that airline execu-\nSEPTEMBER 1970\n69\nAIR RAVEL FORECAST\nment program, with the environmental\nsafeguards implicit in it, he declared, \"is\nalso the best assurance we can give to\nWORLD FORECAST\noutselves and to the peoples of the\nworld that supersonic air transportation\nwill not distress the quality of life or\n0.00\nfurther blemish what astronaut Frank\nREVENUE ASSENGER\n(BILLIONS)\nBorman so aptly described as 'the good\nFORECAST\nearth, an oasis in space.'\n500\nTED\nThe 2707 will be bigger, faster, and\nPERATIONS)\nwill carry more fare-paying passengers in\ngreater comfort, and with commercial\naircraft safety, than the Concorde, Ma-\n965\n1970\n1975\n1980\n1985\n1990\ngruder said, adding: \"Without a U.S.\nSST, however, the Concorde and the\nRussian TU-144 would be the fastest\nFRANSPORTATION\nplanes in the commercial skies. Airlines\n300\nPRODUCT VITY\nwill buy them and people will fly on\nthem.\"\nAs far as \"sharing the wealth\" goes,\nthe 2707 will. Boeing ultimately will\nsubcontract at least 90 percent of the\nCONCORDE\nfabrication work. As of mid-year more\nthan $150 million in subcontracts had\ntoo\nalready been let by the Seattle-based\ncompany to companies in 36 states, plus\ntwo in Canada.\n1940\n950\n1960\n970\n980\n990\nTo the dispassionate guy on the\nNIRODUCTION\nsidelines a few truths become self-\nevident:\no There are very few, if any, land areas\nover which the SST would fly at super-\nsonic speed. Further, once an SST\nMAINE\nWASHINGTON\nNEW HANS200,000 000\nMONTANA\nNORTH DAKOTA\n$1,300,000\nMINNESOTA\nVERMONT\nNEW\nOREGON\n$14,000,000\nVESTINIA\nYORK\nMASSACHUSETTS\nWISCONSIN\nIDAHO\nSOUTH DAKOTA\n$51,000,000\nWYOMING\n$9,200,000\nRHODE ISLAND $80,000\n$3,400,000\nMICHIGAN\n$62,500,000\nPENNSYLVANES\nIOWA\nCALIFORNIA\n$13,700,000\nNEW JERSEY CONNECTICUT\nNEVADA\nNEBRASKA\n$2,600,000\nILLINOIS\nINDIANA\nOHIO\nUTAH\n$25,000\n$91,000,000\nDELAWARE\nCOLORADO\nMISSOURI\n$20,000,000\nVIRGINIA\nMARYLAND\n$85,000\n21,000,000\nKANSAS\nXENTUCKY\n$2,500,000\n$140,000\n$1,300,000\n$23,000,000\n$3,800,000\nNORTH CAROLINA\nTENNESSEE\n$300,000\n$178,000,000\nARIZONA\nNEW MEXICO\nOKLAHOMA\nARKANSAS\n$7,000,000\nTEXAS\nSOUTH INA\n$560,000\n$10,000\n$150,000\n$24,000,000\n$125,000\n$100,000\n$795,000\nLOUISIANA\nGEORGIA\nMISSISSIPPI\nALABAMA\nFLORIDA\n$27,300,000\n$3,000,000\nDollar figures in each state represent qualified SST suppliers\ndepending on final source selection by Boeing and General\nand subcontractors for the prototype program. This is the\nElectric, Major subcontractors are included in the totals but\npotential dollar distribution and will change in several states,\nprime contractors Boeing and GE are excluded.\n72\nGOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE\nU.S. SST Technological Benefits\nTechnical advancements resulting\nnents for internal combustible engines\nresulting in the high thermodynamic\nfrom the SST program will bring about\non tomorrow's automobiles, such as\nefficiency of the SST's GE-4 engine\nimprovements in products used by\nafterburners in the exhaust systems to\nwill make possible more efficient,\nconsumers and industry in the future\nreduce the level of pollutants; im-\nsmokeless powerplants.\njust as investments in research and\nprovements in home and industrial\nThe development of automated\ndevelopment made in previous years\nheating equipment; and marine appli-\nflight control systems will make auto-\nhave paid off in the products in use\ncations.\nmated control systems possible for\ntoday.\nMan's progress has been paced by\nautomobile and truck traffic of tomor-\nThe widespread use of aluminum as\nthe development, control and efficient\nrow's cities.\na common material in automobiles,\nuse of energy. The progress from\nThe total scope of the advance-\nbuilding materials and consumer pro-\nanimal power, to steam power, to the\nments of technology resulting from\nducts was made possible through the\ninternal combustion engine and finally\nthe SST program is only beginning to\ndevelopment of this material for air-\nto the high performance aircraft en-\nbe realized. The effect of the benefits\ncraft structure in the 1930s and 1940s.\ngines in use on today's jet aircraft has\nof these improvements in technology\nThe SST will make possible similar\nmade possible man's achievement in\nwill soon be felt in the U.S. economy.\nexploitations of titanium where high-\nmany other areas. The use of light-\nThe long term benefits are impos-\nstrength, light weight, high-tempera-\nweight high-energy producing equip-\nsible to predict at this time. However,\nture materials are required. Industrial\nment has brought about the develop-\npast experience has shown that the\nuses will include high temperature\nment of man's present transportation\ningenuity of American industry in the\nprocessing equipment in food, petro-\nsystems.\napplication of technological improve-\nleum and chemical industries; compo-\nThe improved burner technology\nment is virtually unlimited.\nThe Family Tree\nthe SSTs will fly, because both the\nConcorde and the Soviet TU-144 will\nEven the official Department of\ncruise at the same altitude.\nTransportation biography doesn't tell\nThe threefold increase in flight speed\nwhat the middle initial \"M.\" stands for\nwill provide opportunity for interna-\nin William M. Magruder. He was asked\ntional commuting. As an example, a\nif there is any reason for this \"sec-\npassenger could leave the U.S. at 8 a.m.,\nrecy.\" He replied: \"None at all. It\nfly to Europe, spend eight hours there,\nstands for Marshall, and thereon hangs\nand return to the U.S. at 10 p.m. the\na tale often told in our family.\nsame evening.\n\"My grandmother was brought up\nSo this is the plane that Bill Magru-\nin Marshall Hall, Va., which is named\nder, whom a few engineers in industry\nfor John Marshall, Chief Justice of the\nlooked upon as the \"the upstart test\nUnited States. My grandfather was\npilot who went and got an aeronautical\nbrought up a short distance away at\nengineering degree,\" is trying to get\nMt. Vernon by a foster parent, Bush-\nbuilt. For the record, he joined Douglas\nrod Washington, a descendant of\nAircraft when he left the Air Force in\nGeorge Washington who, incidentally,\n1956. In '60 he was named Chief\nwas also a Supreme Court justice.\"\nEngineering Test Pilot. In that job he\nOther limbs of the family tree:\nwas responsible for reducing the landing\nMagruder's father, Maj. Gen. Bruce\nEdwards AFB (Calif.). As both pilot\nfield length requirements for the DC-8F\nMagruder, served under Pershing in\nand engineer, he supervised the engi-\nby 1,000 feet. He was Director of\nWorld War I, and later formed and\nneering and evaluated the performance\nMarket Development for Advanced\ncommanded the first armored division\nof many aircraft, including the B-57,\nSystems and Research Programs when\nto exist in the U.S. Army.\nXB-52, C-124, F-86, C-133 and H-19.\nhe left in 1963 to join Lockheed, where\nMagruder's brother, Bruce, is a\nFrom 1954 until 1956, he was B-52\nhe was assigned as Chief Research and\nColonel in the Marine Corps.\nTest Task Force Commander at Ed-\nTest Engineer and Project Pilot for the\nMagruder himself started down the\nwards. He held the rank of Captain\nSST. In 1967 he was SST Assistant\nmilitary road, flying B-17s and B-29s\nwhen he left USAF to join Douglas\nGeneral Manager when the Government\nin World War II. From 1949 to 1954\nAircraft.\ncontract for development of an SST\nhe served at the U.S. Air Force Flight\nHis intimates believe that Magruder\nprototype was awarded to Boeing.\nTest Division at Wright-Patterson AFB\nfelt there was not enough of a further\nMagruder has logged more than\n(Ohio) and at the Flight Test Center,\nchallenge in a military career.\n6,000 flying hours-4,000 of them in\njets. He has piloted 144 different kinds\nof aircraft, including 62 transports and\nreached supersonic speed it would be at\ntary aircraft with which the public is\n10 helicopters. He is an Associate Fel-\nsuch a high altitude that the sonic boom\nfamiliar.\nlow of the American Institute of Aero-\nwhich would be transmitted to land or\nAbandonment of the U.S. SST pro-\nnautics and Astronautics, won the Iven\nwater surfaces would be greatly reduced\ngram would not prevent supersonic\nC. Kincheloe Award for his\nfrom the sonic booms created by mili-\nflights at the 60,000-foot altitude where\nwork on the DC-8,\nSEPTEMBER 1970\n73\nTransp.\nJanuary 21, 1970\nPOSITION - Gas tax for rapid transit.\n1.\nThat local governments -- by means of a vote of the\npeople - be given the ability to increase the general\nsales tax for such purposes as this.\n2.\nThat local governments by means of voteof the\npeople - (and Constitutional Amendment) ------ be\nable to increase the gas tax or put a sales tax on gas.\n3.\nThat local governments -- subject to vote of the\npeople use a portion of their allotment of\nhighway funds for such purposes as Rapid Transit.\nConstitutional Amendment\nTransportation\nRESOLUTION TO HONORABLE JOHN A. VOLPE\nSECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION\nWe, the governors of Oregon, Washington, and California,\nhave met and considered your November 30, 1970, \"Preliminary\nReport on the Basic Rail System.\" Based thereon, we resolve\nthat:\nThe public interest of the citizens of Washington,\nOregon, and California requires continuation of\nnorth-south railroad passenger service.\nNorth-south rail passenger service is essential\nto the balance of the transportation system in\nWashington, Oregon, and California.\nViability of the national rail passenger system\nrequires the rail patronage generated by the\nnorth-south West Coast route.\nThe cities located on the north-south West Coast\nroute must remain linked together. Many have\nstandard metropolitan statistical areas of one\nmillion or more and share a great community of\ninterest.\n-2-\nService on this route provides a vital link\nbetween the northern, central, and southern\neast-west routes; thus giving to the national\nsystem the vital factor of flexibility.\nTherefore, we petition you as Secretary of the Department of\nTransportation to use every resource at your command to\ninsure that the major cities of Washington, Oregon, and\nCalifornia remain linked together by a West Coast north-\nsouth rail passenger route.\nDANIEL J. EVANS\nGovernor of Washington\nTOM McCALL\nGovernor of Oregon\nRONALD REAGAN\nGovernor of California\nDated\n/ 1970"
}