money that is necessary for the superstructure which we hope will soon be placed under contract.

If we take the South Capitol Street Bridge money out, the piers, which are nearing completion, will all stay there until such time as funds can be provided to put the superstructure on them. In other words, the investments so far made of 21 million dollars and more will not be drawing interest and will not become available for use or do what they were intended to do until we get the superstructure on it.

I think at this time that is all I have to say about the seriousness of the present situation.

Now, as to the second feature upon which our recommendation has been predicated, that is highway development following the fiscal year 1949 or what we refer to as the postwar period; we have prepared. after extensive study and factual surveys, a program of major capital improvements to cover the 6 years of 1950 to 1955. These recommendations are contained in Nos. 6 and 7 of the Highway Department statement to the Commissioners concerning highway funds from 1939 to 1955.

And I would like to add at this point that we would like to file copies of that statement with the committee.

Senator CAIN. Fine.

(The document above-mentioned was filed for the information of the committee.)

Mr. WHITEHURST. Substantially all of the projects listed in this schedule have received continuous and convincing study of their need, have been approved by several official agencies and advocated by a great number of civic organizations. Coupled with this program of major capital improvements, it is intended to carry out the regular work of the department. In order to accomplish these two objectives, the 1-cent increase will be needed during these years. The amount of money, after deducting for fixed and operating expenses and minor capital improvements in substantially the 1948 and 1949 amounts will leave available for major capital improvements approximately $3,700,000 annually, an amount entirely consistent with that heretofore expended for major capital improvements, without fully allowing for that portion of the increased cost of construction work which will undoubtedly remain for some time to come. We must accustom ourselves to these new costs for certainly a large portion of the increase will remain in the new price structure with which we must deal.

No attempt has been made in this statement to discuss the startling and in many cases inaccurate statements that have been broadcast throughout the District of Columbia by opponents of this measure.

As previously stated, we are definitely of the opinion that the amount of motor-vehicle taxes should be consistent with the need of highway development. The figures that we have furnished you are from the official records of the District of Columbia, except, of course. those figures dealing with anticipated revenues. If we are as successful in the future in anticipating revenue as we have been in the past, our figures will not be far wrong. Our opponents in an endeavor to combat this situation and try to convince you that we do not need additional funds, have done two things, in the main:

(1) Raised the estimated revenue, for which they have no responsibility, and if their accuracy is as faulty in this direction as the use of actual and official figures, I have little faith in their forecast.

(2) The other thing they have endeavored to do to show sufficient funds are available for major capital improvements is to stabilize fixed expenses, maintenance and operation and minor capital improvements at the 1947 level. This cannot be done and the laws of Congress complied with, nor the people of the District of Columbia receive the benefits in local improvements to which they are entitled and to which building operations will demand and necessitate.

Not that we believe the gasoline tax rate in the District of Columbia should be predicated upon the rate in our neighboring States, but it is of interest to call to your attention that the rate in Virginia is 6 cents per gallon, in Maryland 4 cents, where a bill is now pending to raise the rate to 5 cents, in Delaware 4 cents, in Pennsylvania 4 cents, and in West Virginia 5 cents. The national weighted average is slightly above 4 cents so that in increasing the tax in the District of Columbia it certainly cannot be said that the increase advocated is exorbitant or unreasonable when compared with other jurisdictions.

In the Washington Post of March 9, 1947, the following editorial is of more than passing interest in many respects. It states our position so well that it is quoted here for your consideration:

Opposition by District petroleum companies to an increase in the local gasoline tax is the natural reaction of men who fear their business may suffer. Certainly if an adequate program of highway improvements could be carried out without the 1-cent a gallon hike asked by the District Commissioners, there would be no justification for the added tax. The gasoline operators insist that it can be, basing their assumption on the hope for more cars to consume more gasoline. Capt. H. C. Whitehurst, the District Highway Director, replies that his department must operate on current figures rather than mere predictions. We think the only safe course is for Congress to accept the realistic appraisal of the Highway Department.

It is true that the Highway Department's program is ambitious, but it is not beyond the requirements of sound planning. The tremendous backlog of minor improvements postponed during the war should not be further delayed. And certainly the program of major construction, including the elimination of traffic hazards, is one that must go forward if we are to keep pace with the demands upon our streets as the District continues to grow. We cannot afford to wait, as the petroleum industry report intimates, until the rosy day when such improvements may be less costly.

There would be more argument against the tax increase if it would make District gasoline prices discriminatory. Such is not the case. The present 3-cent tax here is already 1 cent below Maryland's and 3 cents below Virginia's. The only visible deleterious effect of a 4-cent District tax might be to reduce the number of motorists from outside the District who buy their gasoline here. This, we think, is a lesser consideration than the need for proceeding with the highway program. If Washington is to have a highway system consonant with the metropolitan center that it is, it must pay for it. And the most logical source of revenue is the users of the highways.

Many of the statements contained in the literature being broadcast by the District of Columbia Petroleum Industry Committee are totally contrary to facts. The allegations are even more startling than those stated as facts. In a communication, signed by Mr. Keller, dated March 11, 1947, it is stated "the average District motorist will have consumed 950 gallons of gas at the end of the first year's operation." The passenger car, which is the average motorist, does not

consume anywhere near this amount of gas. The Public Roads Administration in its last quarterly publication of a Journal of Highway Research presented an article showing the trends in motor-vehicle travel, 1936 to 1945. The average passenger car, including taxicabs, averaged approximately 8,000 miles per year and based upon a gas consumption of 15 miles per gallon, this would equal 531 gallons for the year for the average motorist and not 950 gallons, as stated by the Petroleum Industry Committee.

Another statement of the Petroleum Industry Committee under the title of "Petition" states:

If the proposed increase becomes law, the average District of Columbia motorist will have to pay $69 annually for automotive taxes for operating his motor vehicle.

This is a grossly misleading statement implying that the increase in gasoline tax will necessitate this payment of $69 and inasmuch as the $69 is an over-all tax arrived at through the use of erroneous gas consumption figures, this figure is equally as wrong as the figure above quoted.

The Petroleum Industry Committee advised the Director of Highways when the gas-tax increase was first proposed that they proposed to do everything possible to kill the increase. They were not interested in justifications but they were basically opposed to the increase in the gas tax. This is certainly a narrow-minded viewpoint and the tactics that they have employed verify their intentions at any cost.

One of the outstanding obligations of responsible officials of government is to earnestly and sincerely endeavor to provide for greater highway safety. The increase in highway fatalities and accidents must not only be stopped but greatly reduced. Few of us ever stop to think seriously of highway safety. Three main factors enter into highway safety-the highway, the human element (driver and pedestrian) and the vehicle. The three factors of this triangle must be brought into proper relationship if we are to provide safety and the free flow of traffic on our highways. The highway side of this triangle, including traffic appurtenances and special facilities, can and should be solved through sound engineering; the human element factor must be reached through education and enforcement; the through inspection, with control of its use.

The objectives necessary to reduce the terrific accident toll can and must be reached. They can be reached only with the aid of adequate revenue to accomplish the necessary engineering, education and enforcement.

At a recent convention of the highway Officials of the North Atlantic States in Atlantic City, Mr. J. T. Callaway, assistant to the vice president of the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., and president of the American Road Builders Association, made the following statement:

Certainly, the tragedy of highway fatalities has too far surpassed highway safety modernization for us to confuse governmental economy with human welfare.

Highway Commissioner Spencer Miller, Jr., of New Jersey, restated the case in his own terms:

The human costs of highway accidents have become so great that we dare not refuse to increase highway safety, whatever the financial cost.

Governor Warren of California converted the press with the cold realities of fact and figures as to highway safety and stated whether the gas tax be 3 or 7 cents, the staggering loss of human lives is too grave to longer quibble over pennies.

Selfish interests' opposition will never aid.

We have no quarrel to pick with those who oppose this increase for sound reasons, but we do have a quarrel with those, who, through extravagant, inaccurate, and distorted statements and figures, endeavor to poison the minds of the citizens of the District of Columbia against this bill. If we did not consider this tax increase necessary in order to accomplish the objectives so vital to give the people of this city that to which they are entitled, we would not be here today.

Senator CAIN. Captain Whitehurst, that is a very comprehensive and illuminating statement.

I would suggest, it now being a quarter of 12, that the gentlemen at this table will obviously ask what preliminary questions they would like to ask and then we will recess in just a minute, and we will come back at 2 o'clock, and our first witness, with your permission, will be Captain Whitehurst, to whom we should like to direct questions.

We would like to have Mr. Auld present this afternoon, Mr. Arthur R. Pilkerton, Mr. Vernon E. West, and Harry L. Walker.

Is there anything you would like to ask, Mr. Bates?

Mr. BATES. Captain, in order that you might be prepared for the examination this afternoon, I wish you would provide the committee with the extension of the new highways in the District in the last 10 years, for each year; where you laid out the new arteries of traffic, and all that, so that we will know how many new highways you have developed down through that period of years.

Now, then, No. 2, what I would like to have you do is compare the cost, for instance, of resurfacing. For the most part, you go in for the asphalt resurfacing?

Mr. WHITEHURST. That is one nature of our work, where we put on a new top.

Mr. BATES. A new top altogether?

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. Do you do that under contract, or with your own force? Mr. WHITEHURST. Under contract.

Mr. BATES. You do it under contract?

Mr. WHITEHURST. We do all maintenance work under contract. Mr. BATES. So that this paying of the highways is under contract? Mr. WHITEHURST. That is right.

Mr. BATES. Give me the figures for 1937, and also 1947, on the basis of a square-yard cost, and that same principle would apply to the other types of roads. You do have concrete highways here. Do you build new concrete highways?

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. Give me the relative cost in 1937 on, I presume, a squareyard basis. Is there a typical depth of 4 or 6 inches?

Mr. WHITEHURST. Six, seven, and eight.

Mr. BATES. Six, seven, and eight. Give me the relative figures. Mr. WHITEHURST. We will give it to you for each year.

Mr. BATES. Show the increase, and that is all I want to know.

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. And then also your basic rates, your labor rates in 1937 and the percent increase as of 1947, for the common labor. That is, in your day labor.

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. You have a good deal of that?

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. So within your maintenance items, you carry out all of this contract work?

Mr. WHITEHURST. We do everything by contract that is susceptible of unit pricing.

Mr. BATES. And you advertise everything over $200 ?

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, sir; we advertise everything.

Mr. BATES. And you have plenty of bidders?

Mr. WHITEHURST. We could stand more. We are always looking for new men.

Mr. BATES. You have more than two?

Mr. WHITEHURST. Oh, yes.

Mr. BATES. I see.

And then what I would like to have also is that schedule of the capital outlays that you have projected, say, into 1947, 1948, 1949, and over that period of years, in the tabulated form. Mr. WHITEHURST. I have all of that.

Mr. BATES. So that we can quickly look at it.

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. Thank you.

Senator CAIN. I want to suggest, before you leave, that those who see fit to take exception to any testimony given during these hearings will obviously be given an opportunity themselves to testify at a later date, but we are setting the stage for a basis of understanding by these two committees of the House and Senate.

This meeting is recessed until 2 o'clock this afternoon, in this room. (Thereupon, at 11:50 a. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The committee reconvened at 2 p. m., upon the expiration of the recess.)

Senator CAIN. May I call the afternoon session to order, please, and we shall all bear in mind that we will work as hard as we can from now until 4:30.

Captain Whitehurst will return to the head of the table.

Captain Whitehurst, as most of you know, appeared this morning and presented programs concerning the Highway Division of the District and is now prepared to answer questions, particularly those to be directed to the witness by Mr. Bates, on my right.

While you are waiting, Mr. Bates, I will ask the witness just a few questions.

Captain Whitehurst, would you reflect on the percentage increase in costs of construction of highways and other construction costs over the last few years; where are they going and do you have any reason to believe they are likely to be brought back in the foreseeable future; namely, in your planning, are you still deferring certain capital expenditures because of an extravagant cost?