Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525545
label
Ford Press Releases - Highways, 1966
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525545
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Highways, 1966
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Legislation
Motor vehicles
Roads
Safety
Transportation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525545
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1966-12-31
month
12
year
1966
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1966-04-01
month
4
year
1966
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
28901c4370b3dbce
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D8, folder "Ford Press Releases - Highways,
1966" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R.
Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D8 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR WEDNESDAY P.M. RELEASE
APRIL 6, 1966
STATEMENT BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.
I feel certain the House will pass highway safety and tire safety
bills in some form this year. I personally feel there should be action
in this area. But it might be useful at this point, when the Senate
hearings on highway safety are in progress and House hearings are to
start late this month, to try to put auto safety in proper perspective.
There is danger in the sensationalism of the Senate hearings. It
tends to distort the auto safety problem, throw it out of proportion.
Dramatic testimony has been presented to the effect that 1965 Chevrolets
and 1964 and 1965 Chevelles equipped with Powerglide Transmission present
a potential hazard--the possibility that the accelerator will stick when
kept at the same level for some time under certain winter driving conditions.
Testimony making GM out to be a villain is obscuring the fact that
GM knows of only five incidents resulting from this potential hazard.
Also drowned out in the tumult and the shouting is the fact that no
injuries occurred in any of the five incidents. GM is calling all of
these cars back--as, of course, it should--and is installing a splash
guard at a total cost of $3 million to protect against any further incidents.
I am not trying to minimize the seriousness of a development of this
kind.
But I do believe there is a temptation under the circumstances to try
to pin most automobile accidents on the manufacturer, saying he simply
isn't engineering enough safety into his product. Of course, we want
safety built into our cars, but we must not lose sight of the fact that
auto accidents are caused by a variety of factors--and it is highly unusual
to find the kind of potential hazard in new automobiles which GM is now
taking steps to eliminate in 1.5 million of its cars.
There is also much to be learned from a four-year on-the-spot study
of fatal auto accidents in the Ann Arbor, Michigan, area just completed
by University of Michigan scientists Donald F. Huelke and Paul W. Gikas.
(MORE)
-2-
AUTO SAFETY STATEMENT
Their study, believed to be the most extensive of its kind ever made,
indicated that 71 of the 177 persons killed in the Ann Arbor area auto
accidents would have lived had they been wearing seat belts that's
nearly two out of three of those who died.
The study also showed that an additional 35 of the victims would have
survived had they been wearing shoulder harnesses as well as seat belts.
The additional 35 brings to 106 the number of persons among the 177
victims who would have lived had both seat belts and shoulder harnesses
been used.
It is difficult, of course, to get people to wear shoulder harnesses.
They are extremely uncomfortable. And you and I also know that many
people driving cars equipped with seat belts use them maybe half the time.
It's easy to point the finger at the auto manufacturers. It's about
time we also pointed a finger at ourselves.
There should be a three-pronged attack on the highway safety problem--
by government, by industry, and by the driver.
# # #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE IN TUESDAY P.M.'s, MAY 3, 1966
STATEMENT BY HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN
It is very disturbing to me that mid-April automobile sales were 10 per cent
below the 1965 level and that this was the second consecutive 10-day period in
which car sales ran under the year-ago pace.
This slump in car sales is an unhealthy sign, and it is not reassuring to me
to hear continuing forecasts that car sales this year will be close to last year's
total. I think the forecasts need updating, and the late-March and early-April
sales figures are cause for alarm.
The annual rate of retail auto sales slipped from 9 million in March to less
than 8 million in April. Dealers' unsold stocks totalled 1.6 million on May 1.
This was a record high and equal to more than a 53-day supply at the recent rate
of sales. Stocks had been averaging a 40-day supply.
In my view, there definitely has been a slump in car sales, and this is a
danger signal.
The auto industry is the bellwether of the entire American economy. Millions
of jobs depend on it.
If this decline in car sales continues, it could be the forerunner of a
recession which would overtake us in late 1966 or early 1967.
Certainly the sensational nature of the auto safety hearings in the U.S.
Senate has not helped car sales.
This and the high price of credit appear to be having an adverse effect on
the economy.
It seems clear to me that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration waited until
too late to cool off an economy that became overheated as a result of excessive
government spending. The President now has applied the brakes too hard, and this
may throw the economy into a tailspin.
Nobody can flatly predict that a recession will result, but the threat is
there. I think the drop in car sales is an indicator of potential trouble.
###
Adopted by
For Release
The Republican Coordinating Committee
THURSDAY AM'S
June 27, 1966
June 30, 1966
Presented by
The Task Force on the Functions of
Federal, State and Local Governments
.N
IndouX
1
on
broy MATED
doll
TRANSPORTATION IN MODERN AMERICA
,Andol
02238
to
Prepared under the direction of:
Republican National Committee
1625 Eye Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
ST
FORD
BERNED LIBRARY
REPUBLICAN COORDINATING COMMITTEE
Presiding Officer: Chairman, Republican National Committee
Former President
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Former Presidential Nominees
Barry Goldwater (1964)
Thomas E. Dewey (1944 & 1948)
Richard M. Nixon (1960)
Alf M. Landon (1936)
Senate Leadership
Everett M. Dirksen
Leverett Saltonstall, Chairman
Minority Leader
Republican Conference
Thomas H. Kuchel
Thruston B. Morton, Chairman
Minority Whip
National Republican Senatorial
Committee
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chairman,
Republican Policy Committee
House Leadership
Gerald R. Ford
H. Allen Smith, Ranking Member
Minority Leader
of Rules Committee
Leslie C. Arends
Bob Wilson, Chairman National
Minority Whip
National Republican Congressional
Committee
Melvin R. Laird, Chairman
Republican Conference
Charles E. Goodell, Chairman
Planning and Research
John J. Rhodes, Chairman
Committee
Republican Policy Committee
Representatives of Republican Governors Association
John A. Love, Governor
Nelson A. Rockefeller, Governor
of the State of Colorado
of the State of New York
Robert E. Smylie, Governor
William W. Scranton, Governor
of the State of Idaho
of the State of Pennsylvania
George W. Romney, Governor
of the State of Michigan
Republican National Committee
Ray C. Bliss, Chairman
Donald R. Ross, Vice Chairman
Mrs. C. Wayland Brooks, Assistant Chairman
Mrs. J. Willard Marriott, Vice
Chairman
Mrs. Collis P. Moore, Vice Chairman
J. Drake Edens, Jr., Vice Chairman
Republican State Legislators Association
F. F. (Monte) Montgomery, President
Robert L. L. McCormick, Staff Coordinator
TRANSPORTATION IN MODERN AMERICA
Transportation is the life blood of America's economy. Together with
its sister industry, communications, transportation is the great common
denominator of American commerce and industry. It is a factor indispensable
to all economic activities. A physically sound, modern, and efficiently
operated transportation system is an indispensable component of our national
security and defense.
Sound growth in production and national wealth can take place only if
our transport network is strong and healthy. Our transportation system can
demonstrate to the world that American private enterprise works, and works
effectively. To this end, our transportation industries must keep pace with
the rest of the national economy so that progress is stimulated, not restricted.
Transportation is the largest service function in our economy
today. Total transport expenditures by American citizens during 1965 totaled
an estimated $135 billions, including expenditures for both private and
for-hire transport. Today, approximately one-fifth of America's gross national
product -- the sum total of expenditures for all goods and services -- repre-
sents direct or indirect outlays for transportation.
The following examples typify the vital role of transportation to the
American economy:
-- Transportation is a major consumer of industrial products and
minerals: 71 percent of rubber; 52 percent of petroleum;
53 percent of lead; 29 percent of steel; 22 percent of aluminum;
28 percent of cement; 19 percent of copper.
Members of the Republican Coordinating Committee's Task Force on
the Functions of Federal, State and Local Governments
Robert Taft, Jr., Chairman
Member of Congress from Ohio, 1963-65
Karl Mundt, Vice Chairman
United States Senator from South Dakota
Mrs. Consuelo Northrop Bailey
Secretary of the Republican National Committee
Henry Bellmon
Governor of the State of Oklahoma
George C. S. Benson
President, Claremont Men's College
Neal Blaisdell
Mayor of the City of Honolulu
Joseph L. Budd
Republican National Committeeman for Wyoming
Howard H. Callaway
Member of Congress from Georgia
Frank Carlson
United States Senator from Kansas
Roger Cloud
Auditor of the State of Ohio
William Cowger
Mayor of the City of Louisville, 1962-65
Walter DeVries
Executive Assistant to the Governor of the State of Michigan
Daniel J. Evans
Governor of the State of Washington
Denison Kitchel
Attorney, Phoenix, Arizona
Warren P. Knowles
Governor of the State of Wisconsin
Mrs. Jewel S. LaFontant
Attorney, Chicago, Illinois
Edwin L. Mechem
United States Senator from New Mexico, 1962-65
Edwin G. Michaelian
County Executive, Westchester County, New York
Winthrop Rockefeller
Republican National Committeeman for Arkansas
Craig Truax
Chairman of the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania
Charles E. Wittenmeyer
Republican National Committeeman for Iowa
Robert J. Huckshorn, Secretary to the Task Force
*****
Task Group on Transportation
Karl Ruppenthal, Chiarman
Director, Transportation Management Program, Stanford University
Roger Cloud
Auditor of the State of Ohio
Charles Dearing
Wilbur Smith Associates, San Francisco
Edwin G. Michaelian
County Executive, Westchester County, New York
Robert E. Redding
Vice President & General Counsel, Transportation Association of America
Charles S. Mack, Secretary to the Task Group
-2-
-- Transportation generates some 18 percent of all taxes
collected by the Federal Government.
-- Transportation provides 13 percent of the Nation's civilian
employment, some 9.1 million jobs.
-- Transportation's net investment in privately owned and
operated plant equipment and facilities totals $140 billions
-- nearly ten percent of the Nation's wealth in terms of
privately owned tangible assets.
Transportation is vital to every business enterprise, to every housewife
-- indeed to every citizen. Transportation is intimately related to the
Nation's ability to produce. It represents an important factor in the cost
of living.
The Republican Party's record in promoting the development of American
transportation is a proud one.
Republicans aided in the opening of the West in the 1860's by land grant
incentives for rail construction, and then helped draw the country closer
together by the Interstate Highway System of 1956.
Republicans promoted international transportation by opening the Panama
Canal in 1905, and the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959.
From the transcontinental railroad of 1869 to the world's first nuclear-
powered merchant vessel in 1959, the Republican Party has stood for progress
and innovation in transportation.
From that record and experience, three precepts have evolved and underlie
the proposals we present in this paper.
-3-
First, we believe that our system of transportation can best serve
the Nation if it is alert to the Nation's needs, eager to meet
them, and able to do SO. That end can best be achieved if our
transportation systems are privately owned and intelligently
operated. Only in those areas in which private enterprise cannot,
or will not, supply the transportation services which our citizens
need should those services be provided by government.
Second, we believe that government's role should be one of favor-
ing private enterprise, encouraging competition, and ensuring that
the consumer has available an excellent transportation system that
provides him with efficient, frequent, and reliable transportation
at a fair price.
Third, we believe that those who use the Nation's transportation
facilities should pay their fair share of the costs of providing
such facilities.
Based upon that philosophy, we offer here Republican proposals concerned
with the transportation problems of today and tomorrow.
-4-
I. THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL PROMOTION
Governments at all levels have long recognized the vital role of trans-
portation in national, regional, and local economies. That recognition has
manifested itself in many ways.
Railroads have been encouraged through land grants, loan guarantees, tax
and other incentives. All of the air lines have received public assistance.
Sometimes this has come in the form of a direct subsidy; sometimes in the form
of an air mail contract; and sometimes in a more indirect way. Today, the air
lines use many facilities that are provided by the Federal Government and by
local governmental units.
Barge transportation is promoted by the construction of an extensive
system of canals, navigation channels, locks, and public wharves. Ocean ship-
ping is promoted by a system of subsidies for the construction of ships and
for their operation. Highway transportation is made possible by a system of
public roads, Federally financed in part and constructed and maintained by
State and local governments. The economic health of some pipe lines has been
enhanced by various incentives and the use of eminent domain.
The Federal Government recognized the interdependence of transportation
and interstate commerce in the days of the Erie Canal and the Boston Post Road.
Today the government recognizes that a sound transportation system is necessary
not only that commerce may flourish, but that a proper defense posture may be
maintained.
We believe that all modes of transportation are important to the economy.
We hold, therefore, that the government's promotional efforts should be non-
discriminatory. One mode of transportation should not be advanced at the
-5-
expense of another mode, nor should the promotional effort of government
act to smother initiative and enterprise.
Republicans believe that we must take care to ensure that a Federal
system designed for the promotion of transportation does not degenerate into
a system of subsidies that stifle initiative, inhibit competition, and
enshrine mediocrity.
Government subsidies should be designed to develop better transportation
systems that will benefit the economy as a whole. They should be temporary
in nature and should never become a permanent crutch. Before any subsidy
program is undertaken by the Federal Government, it should be clearly shown
that the benefits of the proposed program will outweigh the costs and that
the proposed system can, within a reasonable length of time, be self-supporting
without the necessity for continued subsidy.
REGULATION OF TRANSPORTATION
Volumes have been written on the appropriate role of government and our
nation's transportation system. But in spite of that fact, we do not have a
clearly enunciated government transportation policy that takes into account
the realities of today.
Few people would seriously argue that the transportation industry should
be completely unregulated. Transportation is far too basic to the economy to
be left completely to the law of the jungle. On the other hand, it is perfectly
clear that too much regulation acts as an opiate. It reduces effective compe-
tition and rewards the inefficient at the expense of the efficient.
We believe that some regulation of transportation is necessary but we
also believe that over-regulation is not in the public interest. There should
be no government regulation unless there is a clearly demonstrated need.
-6-
GOVERNMENT COMPETITION
Today the Federal Government is engaged in a wide variety of transportation
enterprises. It is a very great challenge to the private enterprise system
when the Federal Government is already the largest electrical power producer,
the largest insurer, the largest lender, the largest borrower, the largest
landlord, the largest shipowner, the largest truck operator, the largest
shipper, and even runs railroads and air lines.
Some of these operations are necessary to the national defense. But
too often they compete with private enterprise through making it more difficult
for taxpaying businesses to survive. We believe that in the absence of
national defense considerations, the Federal Government should not transport
persons or property which privately owned carriers are fit, willing, and able
to carry.
Encouraging Innovation
As the art of transport technology continues to advance, a greater
coordination of governmental action must occur, especially when new modes
do not fall neatly within the purview of existing regulatory agencies, as
for example, the Hovercraft currently in experimental operation in the San
Francisco area. There must also be available streamlined governmental
handling of new and expanding domestic-international traffic which combine
the best advantages of the present surface and air carriers.
All of the government's promotional efforts should be designed to
encourage innovation, to explore new developments, and to improve technology.
Our goal should be a more efficient transportation system that will benefit the
economy as a whole. While we have seen important developments in many areas
of transportation, no mode of transportation has achieved perfection.
-7-
Managerial and technological improvements are possible in every mode that
will enable more goods and more people to be transported more safely, in greater
comfort, at higher speeds, and at lower cost.. The role of the government should
be one of encouragement. That encouragement can come through the sponsorship
of research, through daring experimentation, and through appropriate tax in-
centives.
Experimental programs should be undertaken to determine how the benefits
of automation can be made more widely available in the transportation industry
without inflicting harm on the employees that might thus be displaced. The
development of advanced systems of transport should be encouraged, and the
fruits of those developments should be shared equitably among the transporta-
tion companies, their employees, and the public as a whole.
The Need for a National Transportation Policy
There is today an insufficient coordination among the transport agencies
to mesh their programs and policies and to evaluate the net results of all the
various Federal transportation undertakings. This lack of coordination has pro-
duced an outright waste of public funds and a loss of opportunity to achieve
full benefits from public expenditures.
Moreover, the lack of a unified government approach to transportation
encouraged the various government agencies responsible for transport activities
to work at cross purposes. Thus, the Interstate Commerce Commission appears to
be concerned with the overall health of the transport system, while the Post
Office Department, the General Services Administration, and the Department of
Defense appear to consider their purpose to be the purchase of transportation
at the lowest possible cost regardless of the effect on the transportation com-
panies involved. The Civil Aeronautics Board and ICC often favor a particular
-8-
merger in the belief that it will give greater strength to the transport system,
while the Department of Justice may look upon that very proposal with a most
suspicious eye. The Corps of Engineers has opposed waterway user changes where-
as the Department of Commerce has favored them.
The development and implementation of a coherent national transportation
policy is long overdue. Congress, usually in response to the urging of users
and providers of transport, has over the years established the general guide-
lines for the development, promotion, and regulation of transport. This has
been accompanied by the creation of agencies to implement its broad policy in
detail on a mode by mode basis. Congress has retained control over such agencies
by the power to approve their members and their budgets, and by reserving the
right to revise the ground rules periodically. The President can, and of
course does, recommend policy changes and appoints the agency members. Re-
sponsibility for transportation policy, therefore, rests with both the Congress
and the Executive. To date, both the Executive and the Legislative branches
have failed to set forth an overall government-wide policy to be implemented
by the agencies concerned.
Special attention should be directed by Congress to its own obsolete
mechanism for dealing with major issues of national transportation policy.
At least 17 of its standing committees have some jurisdiction in this field,
with practically no internal coordination of study or policy formulation. To
correct this situation, we propose the establishment of a Joint Congressional
Committee on Transportation to undertake continuing studies of transportation
policy, problems, and issues, and to submit recommendations to appropriate
standing committees. The professional staff of this joint committee, which
would not have authority to report on pending legislation, would be available
for consultation with committees having jurisdiction over specific areas of sub-
stantive transport policy.
-9-
A FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Despite the importance of transportation to the national economy, and
the breadth of governmental activities in this field, the interest and re-
sponsibility of the Federal Government in transportation is fragmented among
numerous agencies. The expenditure of tremendous sums on transportation by
the government and the efforts of thousands of government employees still have
not produced an overall, coherent transportation policy for the United States.
The Office of Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation was created
in 1950 for the purpose of coordinating within one department the government's
major transportation functions. That goal has not been attained. Furthermore,
additional agencies with transportation responsibilities have been created
since 1950, outside the structure of the Commerce Department. The latest of
these is the new Department of Housing and Urban Development which has major
jurisdiction in the fields of metropolitan highway planning and financing the
mass transportation in metropolitan areas. The Under Secretary of Commerce
for Transportation has been unable to achieve the goals for which his office
was created because he does not presently have the stature of a Cabinet member
and because he does not have jurisdiction over many of the Federal Government's
transportation activities.
Proposals to coordinate the vast amount of bureaucracy which uses, promotes,
regulates, and operates transportation have been put forth for many years. In
his final Budget Message to Congress, President Eisenhower said that "a Depart-
ment of Transportation should be established so as to bring together at Cabinet
level the presently fragmented Federal functions regarding transportation
activities." Now, some five years after the Eisenhower message, the present
Administration has endorsed this proposal.
-10-
Legislation now being considered by Congress would create a new Department
of Transportation that would have responsibility for all the programs now
administered by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation, including the
Bureau of Public Roads, the Maritime Administration, and other transportation
activities of the Department of Commerce. In addition, the Coast Guard, the
Federal Aviation Agency, and Alaska Railroad would be transferred to the new
department, as would certain non-regulatory functions of the Civil Aeronautics
Board, the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the Corps of Engineers.
Certainly, the regulatory functions of the independent agencies should
be maintained separately. The needs of the Nation can best be served if these
regulatory functions are performed by independent Federal agencies, well staffed
by experts in their fields.
At the same time, in establishing a new Department, all major non-regulatory
transportation activities should be brought under it. The legislation which
creates the department should emphasize that a high priority function of the
Department of Transportation should be the prompt development of a government-
wide transportation policy for Congressional enactment.
As technology changes and our transportation systems continue to develop,
undoubtedly new problems will arise. The Department of Transportation should
be charged specifically with making policy recommendations to Congress that
will take into account these changing conditions.
THE PAPER BARRIER
Forming an almost invisible barrier to trade, excessive requirements for
forms, documents, and other papers consume tremendous amounts of time and serve
-11-
to frustrate international trade. For any shipment exported by sea 43
separate forms are required, while 80 separate forms are required of incoming
shipments -- 78 of them by the government. There is an incredible amount of
duplication. Whole mountains of paper are irrelevant, superfluous, and costly.
Unnecessary paper work serves to inhibit some foreign trade and to make all of
it more expensive.
On the domestic scene excessive paper work and antiquated methods of
handling are extremely costly. Paper work costs most shippers close to five
dollars per shipment. This burden falls heavily on small shippers and small
transportation companies.
Cooperative efforts are required to reduce the staggering cost of paper
work in domestic transportation and to take advantage of more efficient and
less expensive methods. This is an area where substantial economies are
possible. They should be made available to the shipping public and to the
consumers as rapidly as possible.
Increased effort is needed to rationalize the paper work for foreign
commerce and to reduce it to an absolute -- and sensible -- minimum.
THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY PROGRAM
Few areas of governmental activity in recent years have demonstrated the
potentialities of Federal-State partnership as has the Federal highway program.
Under the principles through which the program has operated, the Federal Govern-
ment has established nationwide standards and coordinated planning, and has
financed a major share of the cost of America's highways. While there has
been desirable standardization and coordination, this has not resulted in
weakening the structure of State government. We believe that this approach is
sound and can be applied to other fields of governmental endeavor.
-12-
The legislation creating the Interstate and Defense Highway program
requires the completion of the 41,000-mile system in 1972. It seems clear,
however, that some States will be unable to meet this deadline. In some
areas hasty decisions are now being made under a Sword of Damocles scheduled
to fall in six years.
Unlike the Interstate System, the older ABC System has no overall fixed
mileage and no endpoint in time. So long as States and localities can demon-
strate a need for Federal-aid roads, and the funds are available, the Federal
Government will bear half the cost of construction.
We believe that the Interstate System likewise should be recontructed with
no overall fixed mileage and no endpoint in time.
Metropolitan Highway Needs
Currently, the bulk of the mileage under both the Interstate and the ABC
programs lies in rural areas. Urban areas benefit from both programs to the
extent that Interstate, primary, and secondary highways are within the boundaries
of urban localities, but the very nature of the programs and their apportionment
formulae inevitably tend to discriminate against metropolitan areas.
Furthermore, no systematic Federal-aid program exists to support major
urban and suburban arteries which are not part of the Interstate or ABC Systems
even though many of these routes carry enormous traffic volumes.
-13-
We therefore propose that the present limited program of aid for urban and
suburban Federal routes be expanded into a new category of Federal-aid highways
to be known as the Metropolitan System. Under this program, Federal funds
would be allocated to the States according to criteria which Congress would
develop. The funds would be used to support construction of highways and
streets in our cities and their suburbs.
Under this system, the Federal Government would formulate minimum
standards for design, planning, construction, traffic control, etc., which
would be enforced by appropriate State agencies. To be eligible for funds,
communities in metropolitan areas would have to show that new construction
was in conformity with metropolitan area-wide transportation planning.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROBLEMS
Virtually every level of government has some responsibilities for trans-
portation. The national interest is obvious since transportation is the life-
blood of interstate commerce. But the responsibilities for transportation do
not devolve upon the Federal Government alone. Each of the States and every
local community has its interest in transportation. Under our Federal system,
it is important that local responsibilities be shouldered by local governments;
that State responsibilities be assumed by State governments; and that Federal
responsibilities be assumed by the Federal Government. Although numerous
transportation problems are nationwide in nature, many are not. There are
many things that can best be done at home.
We believe that Federal grants should be used to encourage State and local
governments to assume their rightful responsibilities. The tendency of the
Federal Government to deal directly with municipalities, bypassing State
-14-
governments altogether, is fraught with many dangers. If the Federal system
is to survive, it is important the State governments be encouraged to
shoulder those responsibilities than can best be handled on a State level.
In many instances problems affect two or more adjoining States. In
such cases these problems often can best be handled by a compact arranged
among the States concerned. The States are well acquainted with their own
local problems; they should be encouraged and permitted to deal with them.
Frequently, such arrangements will result in a better resolution to the
problem than a Federal program would provide.
The development of automobile inspection codes to prevent one State from
being a dumping ground for unsafe vehicles from nearby States is an example
of a problem which could be resolved via compact or uniform State codes.
Greater coordination among the States in the transportation field is
highly desirable. We commend the example of States which have created trans-
portation agencies within their governmental structures, similar to the pro-
posed Department of Transportation in the Federal Government. Such State
transportation agencies can be the points of contact between Federal agencies
and State government. They could serve a dual function by being the coordinating
arms of the States in the implementation of interstate compacts affecting
transportation.
Today there are many public authorities engaged in some phase of transpor-
tation activities. Sometimes two or more cities join together to operate an
airport. Sometimes two or more States join together to operate port facilities,
airports, toll bridges, or other transportation facilities. These organizations
can serve a useful purpose, and they can make possible a substantial degree of
local control.
The Republican Coordinating Committee's position in interstate compacts is
presented in Toward A Stronger Federal System, prepared by this Task Force,
and published December, 1965.
-15-
Of course the mere existence of such a public authority does not
automatically guarantee sound operation. Appropriate safeguards should be
established to ensure that the operation is business-like and that it serves
the public in the best possible manner. While public authorities should have
all the powers that are necessary to fulfill the purposes for which they were
created, there should be adequate methods by which the public can make its
wishes felt. It goes without saying that when private enterprise competes
with publicly-owned transportation authorities, the rules of the game should
be the same for both.
THE MERCHANT MARINE
We express our profound concern about the dangerous deterioration of
America's merchant marine. We face today a crisis of major proportions,
not only from the standpoint of our lack of preparedness but also because
of its impact on our entire national economy.
Consider these telling facts:
(1) Of the ten leading maritime nations in the world, only the
United States has suffered a loss in total deadweight tonnage of
its merchant shipping in the last 10 years.
(2) The United States has dropped to 12th place among the world's
major shipbuilding nations.
(3) By contrast, Russia has risen to 7th place as a maritime nation
and has outdistanced the United States in the expansion of trade
with the new and under-developed nations overseas.
(4) While our shipbuilding effort is lagging and our World War II
reserve fleet is growing more dilapidated and obsolete, the
expanding war in Vietnam is putting our merchant fleet under
tremendous pressure.
-16-
(5) Last year the American merchant marine carried 26.8 million
tons of waterborne cargo, only 8.5 percent of this Nation's
foreign trade. Of this total, 17.2 million tons was government-
sponsored and reserved by law for American ships. Thus only
9.6 million tons -- barely 3 percent of all waterborne cargo --
involved commercial American shipments.
The decline of the American fleet, and the rapid strengthening of that of
the U.S.S.R., demands immediate action by the Congress, the Administration, and
the people of the United States. Although the President's 1965 State of the
Union Message promised "a new policy for our merchant marine," nothing has
materialized and the bickering and confusion among government, labor, and
management maritime interests continue.
Many of the problems of depressed transportation result from over-regulation
and improvident subsidy policies.
We believe that an experimental approach aimed at restoring the economic
self-sufficienty of the merchant marine is worthy of consideration.
Such an experimental program could be undertaken with due consideration for the
American shipbuilding industry, steamship operators and the various maritime
unions. If the program proved to be successful, it could redound to the benefit
of all concerned and make it possible for the United States again to have a
healthy self-sufficient merchant marine.
-17-
II. PROMOTING EFFICIENCY AND SAFETY OF TRANSPORTATION
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Certainly no nation in the world has greater capabilities for research
than the United States. Our scientists and scholars are at the forefront in
many areas. The United States today has a greater research capacity than any
other civilization the world has ever known. We are able to solve complex
problems in electronics, in rocketry, and in medicine. We have a vast store-
house of information that can be tapped to solve complex problems. But the
sad fact is that in many areas of transportation, too little use has been
made of our potential.
It is ironic that an astronaut can travel thousands of miles per hour
through outer space, but it still takes a resident of New York City as long to
cross Manhatten Island by car during rush hour as it did his grandfather a hun-
dred years ago in a horse and buggy. Some suburbanites and commuters must spend
one-fifth of their waking hours making their tortuous way to and from work.
While air line passengers are able to fly at 600 miles per hour -- from airport
to airport -- the time saved by all of this speed is frequently wasted getting
to and from the airport. Ground transportation is annoyingly slow. Every day
millions of potentially productive hours are wasted in traffic strangulation.
The fact of the matter is that our tremendous capability in research has
not been focused on these important problems. The United States will not be
well served if we spend millions of dollars developing a supersonic air liner
while all the time apparently saved is wasted in a gigantic traffic snarl on the
ground. Instead of directing our efforts only at increasing the speed of air-
craft, we should be concerned with making it easier for the passenger to get all
the way from his origin to his destination -- not just from airport to airport.
-18-
While the public may be less aware of the importance of the traffic snarl
in freight transportation, the fact is that the consumer pays the bill. He pays
it in many ways: He pays more than he should because the average box car makes
but twelve round trips a year. He pays more than he should because trucks,
ships and cargo planes are idle too much of the time. Sometimes half of the
cost of sending a shipment is consumed by the paperwork that is thus entailed.
The cost of freight transportation directly affects the cost of living --
hence the pocket book of every one. Transportation represents as much as one-
half the cost of some items on the grocers' shelf. This means that savings in
transportation can benefit everyone.
We need more research in transportation to make possible a more efficient
job. We need greater efficiency in the railroads, the truck lines, the steam-
ships, and the air lines. We need more coordination so that when a product
moves from a producer to a consumer it can utilize the optimum combination of
carriers that will make for the lowest delivered price. Greater efficiency
in transportation can come about through research on the use of containers
and the possibility of standardization; research on fuel cells, atomic power
and other means of propulsion; research looking toward faster, more accurate,
and less expensive means of data transmission; and research in many areas of
automation.
Federal Assistance for Research
Obviously the Federal government cannot and should not do all that can
be done by way of research. But it can provide "seed money" which will
stimulate additional research and spread its benefits throughout the country.
While much basic research should be underwritten by the Federal government, in-
-19-
dustry should be encouraged to seek its own applications. It is far more pru-
dent for the Federal government to underwrite the costs of research that will
lead to a more efficient transportation system than to spend the same amount
of money subsidizing antiquated and ailing systems.
Federal funds should be allocated in a prudent manner so that the bene-
fits of these efforts will flow to the maximum number of people. The taxpayers
themselves should be the recipients of the benefits -- not just a few favored
contractors nor a few ailing companies.
Research in transportation should begin with a comprehensive assessment
of the Nation's capabilities, its potential, and its needs. The program should
explore the benefits -- and the costs -- of such developments as high-speed
ground transportation, giant cargo submarines, nuclear powered ships, and air
cushion vehicles. It should explore the potential of large supersonic planes
as well as that of much smaller, slower vehicles that can take off and land in
small spaces so that many more people may be served.
Transportation is of vital importance to every one in this land. Using
our tremendous capacity for research, it should be possible to develop a pru-
dent program that will provide many benefits to the economy as a whole.
AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY
Safety is important to everyone who travels, whether he goes by rail, ship,
plane, or private automobile. When a passenger buys a ticket on a plane, he
has a right to know that the plane has been manufactured to exacting specifi-
cations, that it has been properly maintained, and that every reasonable effort
has been made to assure the safety of his flight.
When a person steps into his private automobile, he should be assured
that the car has been properly designed, that it was well constructed, and that
it has been properly maintained. As he travels down the road, he should be
-20-
assured that the highways are adequate, well designed, and properly constructed.
And he should be assured that the drivers he meets along the way will not be
licensed despite records of incompetence.
Vehicle safety consists of many ingredients: good design, skillful construc-
tion, proper maintenance, adequate training, and prudent operation. The best
designed vehicle in the world may be unsafe in the hands of an incompetent
driver. On the other hand, even the best driver may be unsafe if the
vehicle under his control has been constructed or maintained in faulty manner.
We therefore recommend a broad-based attack on the causes of accidents
that would be designed to maximize the safety of travel.
(1). A comprehensive program of accident investigation should be under-
taken -- not in the usual sense of determining who is legally to blame -- but
to understand all the contributing factors that caused the accident. For years,
every air line accident has been investigated by skilled investigators from the
Civil Aeronautics Board. Using scientific devices and modern techniques, these
men are able to determine with a high degree of efficiency precisely what it
was that brought about the accident. Their focus is not to find the culprit,
but to ensure that a needless repetition will not occur. A similar program
to investigate automobile accidents will teach us much that we do not yet
know about mechanical and human failures.
(2) High standards should be established for the licensing of drivers.
Good driver training courses should be made available in all the Nation's high
schools and in other suitable institutions. These courses should teach the pro-
spective driver how to handle his vehicle under normal conditions as well as on
roads that are rough, wet, or icy. They should include practice in mechanical
simulators designed to improve driver competence in unusual and emergency sit-
uations.
-21-
We believe that the States should be encouraged to adopt a uniform law
to standardize, on a nationwide basis, drivers' licenses and requirements.
(3) Federal, State and local governments must do far more than most are
now doing to make sure that unsafe vehicles are not driven at risk to the
lives and safety of our citizens. We believe that Federal safety standards
for automobiles are a necessity. But we also believe that State and local
governments should participate actively in the establishment of standards. The
States have a vast wealth of experience in the field of traffic safety which
should be utilized.
We also recommend that our States adopt uniform systems of motor vehicle
inspection in facilities equipped with modern testing devices. Local police
should remove from the streets vehicles which cannot pass such inspections.
Inspection should be a requirement for automobile registration.
STREAMLINING THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS
Scarcely an item moves from producer to consumer without making use of
at least two distinct modes of transportation. Virtually every item makes
part of the journey by truck, moving part of the distance by rail, air, or
water. Today, coordination between the various modes of transportation offers
greater possibilities than ever before. But much of this potential economy is
lost if excessive costs are involved in shifting commodities from one mode of
transportation to the other.
But here the container can play a part. Making possible efficient and
highly mechanized handling methods, standardized containers can move quickly
from train to ship or from truck to plane. Standardized containers can be used
in any mode of transportation to haul goods to any part of the world.
-22-
But all of this requires a degree of standardization. Much of the potential
economy of coordinated transportation will be lost if every carrier develops
his own type of container with the result that thousands of different sizes
exist.
Long ago the United States learned the value of constructing all rail-
roads on a standard guage. We also learned the values of standardized weights,
sizes, and specifications.
Containers show promise in all areas of transportation. They permit more
rapid loading of planes, trains, and ships. They permit more rapid off-loading.
Thus they permit moreefficient utilization of expensive transportation and
make it possible for American shipping companies to compete on a more equal
basis in other parts of the world. A Federal Department of Transportation,
cooperating with appropriate bodies, can lead the way to standardizing containers
so that maximum use may be made of their potential.
-23-
III. URBAN TRANSPORTATION
By 1980, the United States will contain a quarter of a billion Americans,
some three-fourths of whom will live in our great metropolitan centers.
Unless our cities, their suburbs, and the millions of Americans who inhabit
them, are to strangle on their own traffic, we must plan realistically for
the means by which our metropolitan populations of the future can be trans-
ported efficiently and in comfort.
The state of mass transportation in our metropolitan areas today is a
sorry one. It is not at all uncommon for less time to be consumed in a flight
between two cities than in travel from airport to urban center.
Patronage has declined on many urban transit systems because of discomfort,
inconvenience, infrequent and unreliable service, and other factors. In other
areas it has not kept pace even with the increase in population. Often the
problem has been attacked by the construction of freeways that enable large
numbers of cars to pour into our cities every day. The result has been
decreasing use of urban transit facilities followed by a deterioration of
service and by still more cars crowding the freeways as more commuters take to
their automobiles. Thus, the cycle of deteriorating service and increasing
automobile congestion has become self-reinforcing.
The transportation requirements of metropolitan America cannot be met
by private automobiles alone. But, paradoxically in most cities, commuter
common carrier service has deteriorated and in many communities has entirely
disappeared. Taking large amounts of valuable urban land for roadways and
parking facilities has frequently caused local hardship. The cost of building
highways, roads and parking facilities increases almost daily. (The costs of
highway construction increased almost six percent from the first quarter of
-24-
1965 to the first quarter of 1966.) Widespread public dissatisfaction has
been caused by the shoddy and inadequate state of most metropolitan trans-
portation systems.
The problems are urgent. Urban transportation has been a vital factor
in the growth and development of urban areas for over a century. The very
existence of our cities as viable economic centers depends to a very great
extent upon sound metropolitan transit. Considerable imagination and drive
will be required to grapple with these important problems. Solutions are
needed now.
Federal urban transit programs should not foist preconceptions from
Washington on local communities. Rather, Federal efforts should encourage
a development of a balanced transportation network used by private and public
carriers for every community. This balance should be developed locally because
a transit system that may be ideal in one community may be utterly unsuited
to another.
INCENTIVES FOR COMMUTERS
Solutions to the difficulties of urban transportation must go to the
heart of the problem if they are to be successful. The greatest single problem
of metropolitan transportation is how best to transport hundreds of thousands
of people into the core city within a few hours in the morning, then transport
them back to their homes again in a similarly brief evening period, and repeat
the process five days a week.
Commuters are people. They have human needs and desires. Among these is
a distaste for crowded, uncomfortable vehicles which assault the senses in the
process of providing relatively swift transportation of uncertain dependability.
-25-
Today the only advantage of most transit systems over private transportation
is that they cost less, but in some areas they are pricing themselves out of
the market.
In an era of economic prosperity, low fares -- where they still exist
-- have not proven sufficient to attract commuters. Many carriers operate at
or below their financial breakeven point even while streets and freeways are
jammed with commuters who find it more pleasant -- or at least less unpleasant
-- to drive their automobiles to and from work and are willing to pay the
added cost involved.
Ways must be found to win commuters back to transit systems and to convince
them that they are better off with their cars left at home or at suburban
stations. At the very least, transit systems can make themselves vastly more
attractive than they now are so that commuter travel becomes a pleasure and
not an unpleasant daily experience. Added attention to the convenience, speed,
frequency of schedules, reliability, physical comfort of passengers and the
aesthetic appearance of vehicles could well work wonders in this area.
Federal and State governments should also consider ways to provide financial
incentives to metropolitan residents to persuade them to use urban transit systems.
In addition to reasonably priced fares, we believe that a plan whereby the users
of transit systems are given income tax benefits (perhaps through receipts which
could be filed with tax returns) merits serious study.
Unless we are prepared to see our cities sacrifice valuable land for freeways
and the parking facilities which they require, some means must be found to
attract commuters back to transit systems. There is an increased need for
additional research in this and related aspects of transportation. Insufficient
efforts have been made in this direction. The transportation industry and Federal,
State, and local governments should devote even more attention to these problems
than they have to date.
-26-
FEDERAL MASS TRANSIT PROGRAMS
The Federal Government's experimental program of demonstration grants
should be continued and evaluated. The Federal program which provides long-
term low interest loans for urban transportation facilities should be expanded.
Any new legislation intended to supplement the Urban Mass Transit Act of 1964
should encourage increased State and local governmental initiative in resolving
local transit problems. In this connection, we believe that the administration
of Federal urban transit programs should be transferred from the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to the new Department of Transportation. We
oppose any Federal subsidy for operating expenses since this would only prolong,
not solve, the problem of locally operating local services.
THE NEED FOR COORDINATED LOCAL PLANNING
The role of local government is a vital one. Local governments need to
cooperate in their planning efforts so that transportation planning is made
for the metropolitan area as a whole. Transportation planning in the core
city which runs counter to planning in the suburbs can produce only chaos.
The experience of freeway planning in and around the Nation's Capital should
provide an object lesson for the rest of the Nation. There, area-wide planning
is virtually non-existent. Instead of cooperating, planners feud with each other
with the result that transportation planning has been gravely hampered through-
out the entire metropolitan area. It should be obvious that transportation
planning in our metropolitan areas must consider all available forms of trans-
portation: commuter railroads, busses, and the private automobile.
STATE AND LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY
In order to have effective transportation systems in our metropolitan areas,
we must have cooperation between State and local governments and the operators
This point is more fully discussed in another paper of the Republican Coordi-
nating Committee prepared by this Task Force: The Challenge of the Modern
Metropolis: The Republican Response, published in June 1966.
-27-
of privately owned transportation systems. The establishment of public
metropolitan authorities which encompass the entire metropolitan area and
which have full authority to manage area wide transportation facilities and
services (including selling bonds and setting rates and schedules) often is
an important first step for large metropolitan areas. The States can also
provide technical and financial assistance to urban areas for mass transpor-
tation. At the present time the realities of contemporary urban transit
systems require a more realistic tax and depreciation policy for private
metropolitan passenger carriers. Local and State governments should consider
subsidies for transportation services which are needed by the public but which
cannot now operate at a profit. Serious consideration should be given to the
creation of tax incentives at all levels of government. Every reasonable
effort should be made to encourage the development of privately operated
carriers that can become economically self sufficient while adequately serving
the public's need.
THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF FREEWAYS
While adequate highways are necessary to enable the movement of people
and goods from one point to another, we should not overlook the fact that they
have an important impact on land use, on the location of industry, on the tax
base, and upon the character of the communities through which they pass.
The impact of a freeway on a highly urbanized community may be profound.
Unless the freeway is planned with due regard for the full consequences, that
impact may be harmful. This fact is evidenced by the conflicts that now rage
in California, the District of Columbia, and elsewhere over the location
of proposed freeways.
-28-
It is clear that well-planned freeways can provide substantial benefits
to the Nation. But before a particular freeway is built, careful consideration
should be given to its liabilities and to its costs. Careful attention should
be given to the impact on families, neighborhoods, business enterprises and
whole communities. Appropriate care should be taken to preserve places of
historical and cultural interest and areas of scenic beauty.
We need to give more careful attention to planning our freeways and other
transportation facilities. Sometimes the air rights above a freeway cut can
be used for the erection of apartments and office buildings. Sometimes a
proposed freeway can be re-routed to avoid the destruction of a redwood grove,
a mountain lake or a happy neighborhood. These considerations are important
and they should be fully taken into account before any highway is constructed.
CONCLUSION
This paper is one in a series on intergovernmental relations. It has been
prepared because the Nation's transportation system is important to everyone
in the land -- so important that we sometimes take it for granted. We seldom
stop to consider the fact that millions of Americans are utterly dependent upon
a functioning transportation system. Should it suddenly break down, millions of
people living in our cities would starve in a matter of days.
In a very real sense our transportation network ties us together as a
Nation. It makes it possible for each section of the country to produce those
items which it is best able to produce and for each of us to enjoy a more
abundant life.
We have a good transportation system today but like all good things, it
can still be improved. It can be improved through the institution of private
enterprise, the intelligent actions of government, and the inventiveness of
America.
*
*
*
REpublican NATiONAL COMMiTTEE
1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
NATIONAL 8-6800
NEWS
FOR RELEASE
THURSDAY AM'S
June 30, 1966
TRANSPORTATION IN MODERN AMERICA
The Republican Coordinating Committee has released a position paper calling
for financial incentives for commuters, a three-point auto safety program, and a
Federal Department of Transportation.
The paper, "Transportation in Modern America," was adopted Monday by the
Coordinating Committee and released today by GOP National Chairman Ray C. Bliss.
The 28-page document was prepared by a Task Force headed by former Congress-
man Robert Taft, Jr. of Ohio, through a subcommittee chaired by Dr. Karl Ruppenthal,
Director, Transportation Management Program, Stanford University.
"Ways must be found to win commuters back to transit systems," the paper
said. "In addition to reasonably priced fares, we believe that a plan whereby the
users of transit systems are giventincome tax benefits (perhaps through receipts
which could be filed with tax returns) merits serious study."
The GOP auto safety program consisted of three parts:
1. An accident investigation program to determine the causes of accidents,
similar in scope to the investigations of air line accidents.
2. Nationwide driver training and standard drivers' licenses and
requirements.
BERMAD FORD
-2-
3. Federal safety standards for cars with State and local participation
in establishing standards, and nationwide state systems of auto inspection.
In calling for a U. S. Department of Transportation, the GOP group pointed
out that President Eisenhower had urged Congress to create such a department. A
high priority function of the department "should be the prompt development of a
government-wide transportation policy for Congressional enactment."
Charging that government agencies in the transport field frequently work
at cross-purposes, the high level GOP group said:
"The development and implementation of a coherent national transportation
policy is long overdue." The report also criticized Congress for "its own
obsolete mechanism for dealing with major issues of national transportation
policy"
The Republican Coordinating Committee also urged the creation of a Metropol-
itan Highway System to give Federal support for the construction of streets and
highways in the cities and their suburbs.
Charging a "dangerous deterioration of America's merchant marine," the GOP
document criticized the lack of action despite the President's promise of a new
policy. The paper called for an "experimental approach aimed at restoring the
economic self-sufficiency of the merchant marine."
In addition to its proposal for commuter incentives, the Republican transport
statement on urban transportation urged consideration of State and local government
"subsidies for transportation services which are needed by the public but which
cannot now operate at a profit." "Tax incentives at all levels of government"
were also advocated.
The GOP group concluded by urging "more careful attention to planning our
freeways and other transportation facilities. Sometimes the air rights above a
freeway cut can be used for the erection of apartments and office buildings.
-3-
Sometimes a proposed freeway can be re-routed to avoid the destruction of a
redwood grove, a mountain lake or a happy neighborhood. These considerations
are important and they should be fully taken into account before any highway is
constructed."
The paper was prepared for Taft's Task Force on the Functions of Federal,
State and Local Governments by a special Task Group on Transportation.
In addition to Professor Ruppenthal, the Task Group members were:
--Roger Cloud, State Auditor of Ohio
--Charles Dearing of Wilbur Smith and Associates of San Francisco
--Edwin Michaelian, County Executive of Westchester County, New York
--Robert Redding, Transportation Attorney, Washington, D. C.
-30-
Republican NATiONAL COMMiTTEE
1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
NATIONAL 8-6800
NEWS
FOR RELEASE
THURSDAY AM'S
June 30, 1966
TRANSPORTATION IN MODERN AMERICA
The Republican Coordinating Committee has released a position paper calling
for financial incentives for commuters, a three-point auto safety program, and a
Federal Department of Transportation.
The paper, "Transportation in Modern America," was adopted Monday by the
Coordinating Committee and released today by GOP National Chairman Ray C. Bliss.
The 28-page document was prepared by a Task Force headed by former Congress-
man Robert Taft, Jr. of Ohio, through a subcommittee chaired by Dr. Karl Ruppenthal,
Director, Transportation Management Program, Stanford University.
"Ways must be found to win commuters back to transit systems," the paper
said. "In addition to reasonably priced fares, we believe that a plan whereby the
users of transit systems are given income tax benefits (perhaps through receipts
which could be filed with tax returns) merits serious study."
The GOP auto safety program consisted of three parts:
1. An accident investigation program to determine the causes of accidents,
similar in scope to the investigations of air line accidents.
2. Nationwide driver training and standard drivers' licenses and
requirements.
-2-
3. Federal safety standards for cars with State and local participation
in establishing standards, and nationwide state systems of auto inspection.
In calling for a U. S. Department of Transportation, the GOP group pointed
out that President Eisenhower had urged Congress to create such a department. A
high priority function of the department "should be the prompt development of a
government-wide transportation policy for Congressional enactment."
Charging that government agencies in the transport field frequently work
at cross-purposes, the high level GOP group said:
"The development and implementation of a coherent national transportation
policy is long overdue." The report also criticized Congress for "its own
obsolete mechanism for dealing with major issues of national transportation
policy"
The Republican Coordinating Committee also urged the creation of a Metropol-
itan Highway System to give Federal support for the construction of streets and
highways in the cities and their suburbs.
Charging a "dangerous deterioration of America's merchant marine," the GOP
document criticized the lack of action despite the President's promise of a new
policy. The paper called for an "experimental approach aimed at restoring the
economic self-sufficiency of the merchant marine."
In addition to its proposal for commuter incentives, the Republican transport
statement on urban transportation urged consideration of State and local government
"subsidies for transportation services which are needed by the public but which
cannot now operate at a profit." "Tax incentives at all levels of government"
were also advocated.
The GOP group concluded by urging "more careful attention to planning our
freeways and other transportation facilities. Sometimes the air rights above a
freeway cut can be used for the erection of apartments and office buildings.
-3-
Sometimes a proposed freeway can be re-routed to avoid the destruction of a
redwood grove, a mountain lake or a happy neighborhood. These considerations
are important and they should be fully taken into account before any highway is
constructed."
The paper was prepared for Taft's Task Force on the Functions of Federal,
State and Local Governments by a special Task Group on Transportation.
In addition to Professor Ruppenthal, the Task Group members were:
--Roger Cloud, State Auditor of Ohio
--Charles Dearing of Wilbur Smith and Associates of San Francisco
--Edwin Michaelian, County Executive of Westchester County, New York
--Robert Redding, Transportation Attorney, Washington, D. C.
-30-
House Republican Policy Committee
John J. Rhodes, Chairman
Immediate Release
140 Cannon House Office Building
Phone: 225-6168
August 10, 1966
Republican Policy Committee Statement on Department of Transportation
Historically, the Republican Party has encouraged the development of American
transportation. In the 1860s Republicans aided the opening of the West by pro-
viding land grant incentives for rail transportation. In the early 1900s, the
construction of the Panama Canal under the leadership of President Theodore
Roosevelt promoted our vital sea transportation. The highly successful interstate
highway system was inaugurated in 1956 under a Republican administration. And in
1959 the St. Lawrence Seaway was placed in operation.
For many years it has been apparent that there was a need for better coordina-
tion among the various governmental agencies that deal with transportation. As
a result, various proposals have been advanced to coordinate the vast transporta-
tion bureaucracy which uses, promotes, regulates, and operates transportation in
the United States and throughout the free world. The Hoover Commission Task Force
on Transportation recommended the creation of a department in 1946. And in his
final budget message to Congress, President Eisenhower stated: "A Department of
Transportation should be established so as to bring together at cabinet level the
presently fragmented federal functions regarding transportation activities." Now,
five years after the Eisenhower message, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has
endorsed this proposal. Certainly, the creation of an efficient and effective
Department of Transportation has been delayed much too long.
Unfortunately, the bill that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration proposed, and
that has now been reported by the Government Operations Committee, is faulty and
inadequate in a number of important respects and should be improved. In this bill.
important transportation activities have been excluded and those modes of trans-
portation brought under the Department do not have adequate representation. The
proposed transfer of aviation accident investigations to the new Department cannot
be justified. The broad powers granted the Secretary of Transportation under
Section 7 invade the policy-making authority of Congress. And the proposed
transfer of the Maritime Administration to the new Department would perpetuate the
present trouble-ridden mismanagement of the maritime crisis.
Therefore, while we favor and support legislation that would establish a Depart-
ment of Transportation, we believe that such legislation should contain the
following safeguards and improvements:
1. The aviation accident investigation function of the Civil Aeronautics Board
should remain independent. In the event the CAB's Bureau of Safety is
transferred to the new Department, as contemplated by the proposed
legislation, this country would return to the totally unsatisfactory
(more)
2.
arrangement that existed prior to 1958. At that time, as a result of
complaints and accusations from industry representatives, government personnel
and outside observers, Congress enacted the Federal Aviation Act. Under this
Act, an independent Federal Aviation Agency was established to regulate and
control the airways and the various promotional aspects of aviation. By the
same Act, the independent CAB was created. It was charged with the economic
regulation of aviation and the conduct of aviation accident investigations.
The CAB then created a Bureau of Safety to conduet such investigations. This
Bureau has acquired an outstanding reputation for experience, thoroughness, and
impartiality in the investigation of aviation accidents. Since the establish-
ment of these twin but independent bodies, aviation has prospered and air
safety has advanced. These advances would be jeopardized if these important
functions are brought together again within a new Department.
2. To date, little has been done with respect to the problem created by aircraft
noise, and no one in government has assumed direct responsibility for taking
action. This important problem should receive immediate and continuing
attention within the new Department. Adequate research and the establishment
of reasonable standards to reduce aircraft noise should be given a high priority.
3. Throughout the hearings on the proposed bill, Section 7 was criticized severely.
It was opposed by witness after witness, including the Transportation Associa-
tion of America whose membership represents all modes of transportation plus
shippers and investors. Under this section, the Secretary could adopt
national transportation investment standards and criteria without seeking
Congressional approval. He would have the authority to determine whether the
investment of federal money should be made on behalf of one mode of transporta-
tion or another. He could impose his standards of investment on other agencies
of government who administer investment programs enacted by Congress. This
section should be stricken from the bill.
4. The Administration bill would leave the urban mass transportation program
within the newly-established Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Certainly, urban transportation is an integral part of mass transportation.
The close relationship and interdependence between urban mass transportation
and other forms of transportation dictate that the urban mass transportation
should be transferred from the Department of HUD to the new Department. This
program only recently has been assigned to HUD. Now is the time to make this
transfer to the new Department.
5. As the April 20, 1966 House Republican Policy Committee statement pointed out:
"America is facing a crisis of major proportions with respect to its
(more)
3.
vital Merchant Marine. At the close of World War II, this
country had a Merchant Marine fleet of over 3,500 vessels.
By 1951, there were 1,955 active U.S. flag ships. Today
there are only 1,000, including those reactivated for the
Viet Nam War. The U.S. has dropped to 14th place among the
world's major shipbuilding nations while Russia has risen
from 12th to 7th place as a maritime nation
The Merchant
Marine shipbuilding effort in this country must be increased.
Unless this is done, our defense commitments throughout the
world will be in jeopardy. Indeed, our national survival
may depend upon the shipping that should be under construction
but which the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has scuttled.
We demand that steps be taken to correct this disastrous
situation.
Although faced with this major crisis, the proposed bill does little more
than transfer the problem to a new Department. There is nothing in the bill that
reflects a sense of urgency or that calls for a redirection of effort. Moreover,
there is no indication that the functions of the Maritime Administration will
even be handled by one man with clear-cut authority. The present plight of the
American Merchant Marine demands action. Unfortunately, the present stepchild
status would continue under the proposed bill. The proposed transfer does not
correct the Johnson-Humphrey Administration's known and apparent deficiencies in
the maritime field. Therefore, we believe that the Maritime Administration
should be established as an independent agency.
House Republican Policy Committee
John J. Rhodes, Chairman
Immediate Release
140 Cannon House Office Building
August 10, 1966
Phone: 225-6168
Republican Policy Committee Statement on Department of Transportation
Historically, the Republican Party has encouraged the development of American
transportation. In the 1860s Republicans aided the opening of the West by pro-
viding land grant incentives for rail transportation. In the early 1900s, the
construction of the Panama Canal under the leadership of President Theodore
Roosevelt promoted our vital sea transportation. The highly successful interstate
highway system was inaugurated in 1956 under a Republican Administration. And
in 1959 the St. Lawrence Seaway was placed in operation.
For many years it has been apparent that there was a need for better coordi-
nation among the various governmental agencies that deal with transportation. As
a result, various proposals have been advanced to coordinate the vast transporta-
tion bureaucracy which uses, promotes, regulates, and operates transportation in
the United States and throughout the free world. The Hoover Commission Task Force
on Transportation recommended the creation of a department in 1946. And in his
final budget message to Congress, President Eisenhower stated: "A Department of
Transportation should be established so as to bring together at cabinet level the
presently fragmented federal functions regarding transportation activities."
Now, five years after the Eisenhower message, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration
has endorsed this proposal. Certainly, the creation of an efficient and effective
Department of Transportation has been delayed much too long.
Unfortunately, the bill that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration proposed, and
that has now been reported by the Government Operations Committee, is faulty and
inadequate in a number of important respects and should be improved. In this bill,
important transportation activities have been excluded. The proposed transfer of
aviation accident investigations to the new Department cannot be justified. The
broad powers granted the Secretary of Transportation under Section 7 invade the
policy-making authority of Congress. And the proposed transfer of the Maritime
Administration to the new Department would perpetuate the present trouble-ridden
mismanagement of the maritime crisis.
Therefore, while we favor and support legislation that would establish a
Department of Transportation, we believe that such legislation should contain
the following safeguards and improvements:
1. The aviation accident investigation function of the Civil Aeronautics Board
should remain independent. In the event the CAB's Bureau of Safety is
transferred to the new Department, as contemplated by the proposed legislation,
this country would return to the totally unsatisfactory arrangement that
existed prior to 1958. At that time, as a result of complaints and accusations
from industry representatives, government personnel and outside observers,
Congress enacted the Federal Aviation Act. Under this Act, an independent
Federal Aviation Agency was established to regulate and control the airways
and the various promotional aspects of aviation. By the same Act, the
independent CAB was created. It was charged with the economic regulation of
aviation and the conduct of aviation accident investigations. The CAB then
created a Bureau of Safety to conduct such investigations. This Bureau has
acquired an outstanding reputation for experience, thoroughness, and
impartiality in the investigation of aviation accidents. Since the establish-
ment of these twin but independent bodies, aviation has prospered and air
safety has advanced. These advances would be jeopardized if these important
functions are brought together again within a new Department.
(over)
2.
ment of these twin but independent bodies, aviation has prospered and air
safety has advanced. These advances would be jeopardized if these important
functions are brought together again within a new Department.
2. To date, little has been done with respect to the problem created by aircraft
noise, and no one in government has assumed direct responsibility for taking
action. This important problem should receive immediate and continuing
attention within the new Department. Adequate research and the establishment
of reasonable standards to reduce aircraft noise should be given a high priority.
3. Throughout the hearings on the proposed bill, Section 7 was criticized severely.
It was opposed by witness after witness, including the Transportation Associa-
tion of America whose membership represents all modes of transportation plus
shippers and investors. Under this section, the Secretary could adopt national
transportation investment standards and criteria without seeking Congressional
approval. He would have the authority to determine whether the investment of
federal money should be made on behalf of one mode of transportation or another.
He could impose his standards of investment on other agencies of government who
administer investment programs enacted by Congress. This section should be
stricken from the bill.
4. The Administration bill would leave the urban mass transportation program within
the newly-established Department of Housing and Urban Development. Certainly,
urban transportation is an integral part of mass transportation. The close
relationship and interdependence between urban mass transportation and other
forms of transportation dictate that the urban mass transportation should be
transferred from the Department of HUD to the new Department. This program
only recently has been assigned to HUD. Now is the time to make this transfer
to the new Department.
5. As the April 20, 1966 House Republican Policy Committee statement pointed out:
"America is facing a crisis of major proportions with respect to its
vital Merchant Marine. At the close of World War II, this country
had a Merchant Marine fleet of over 3,500 vessels. By 1951, there
were 1,955 active U.S. flag ships. Today there are only 1,000,
including those reactivated for the Vietnam War. The U.S. has
dropped to 14th place among the world's major shipbuilding nations
while Russia has risen from 12th to 7th place as a maritime nation.
The Merchant Marine shipbuilding effort in this country must
be increased. Unless this is done, our defense commitments through-
out the world will be in jeopardy. Indeed, our national survival may
depend upon the shipping that should be under construction but which
the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has scuttled. We demand that
steps be taken to correct this disastrous situation.
Although faced with this major crisis, the proposed bill does little more than
transfer the problem to a new Department. There is nothing in the bill that
reflects a sense of urgency or that calls for a redirection of effort.
Moreover, there is no indication that the functions of the Maritime Adminis-
tration will even be handled by one man with clear-cut authority. The present
plight of the American Merchant Marine demands action. Unfortunately, the
present stepchild status would continue under the proposed bill. The proposed
transfer does not correct the Johnson-Humphrey Administration's known and
apparent deficiencies in the maritime field. Therefore, we believe that the
Maritime Administration should be established as an independent agency.
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
THURSDAY, DEC. 15, 1966
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-
House Republican Leader Gerald R. Ford, Mich., today urged that Federal
officials meet quickly with auto industry representatives to avoid any possible
shutdown of automobile plants due to the new auto safety law.
Ford said he was "deeply concerned" about a statement by Henry Ford II,
declaring that some of the federal government's proposed safety standards for
1968 model cars are absolutely impossible to meet. The Ford Motor Co. president
said these standards must be changed or some Ford plants may have to be closed.
"There already have been cutbacks in 1967 auto production which have
resulted in worker layoffs in Michigan and elsewhere," Ford said. "I am deeply
concerned that there will be further cutbacks and layoffs next fall unless the
government and the auto industry can come to a meeting of the minds about 1968
automobile safety standards. "
Ford said he has called the office of Dr. William Haddon, director of
the National Highway Safety Agency, to ask whether a meeting between Haddon and
auto industry officials can be set up quickly to explore the Ford Motor Co.
grievances.
The automobile manufacturers have until Jan. 3 to comment on the
proposed safety standards. The standards as adopted will be published Jan. 31
and will take effect with the start of the 1968 model run.
Ford Motor Co. safety director Will Scott has said several of the
proposed standards cannot be met. He specifically mentioned one that requires
the inside of a car to be made of energy-absorbing material.
# # #