Page images
PDF
EPUB

And whạt, gentlemen, did this greatest and most thorough-going of all students of transportation and highway problems find to be the proper allocation of costs of streets and highways?

He found the percentage of annual costs chargeable to motorvehicle users for the years 1933–37—the last years covered by the study which took 7 years of research to derive—he found the costs chargeable to motor vehicles users should be as follows:

For State highways, 83 percent of the total cost; for county and local roads, 34 percent of the total costs; and for city streets, 30 percent of the total costs.

In the District of Columbia there are nothing but city streets. Yet, according to the proposed budget figures of the District of Columbia Highway Department for the years 1947, 1948, and 1949, the motorist will pay in gasoline taxes, registration and weight taxes, and motor vehicle fees, not 30 percent, but in excess of 69 percent of the projected revenue of the Highway Department. Gentlemen, the situation is in reverse.

Here in Washington we motorists bear 70 percent of the burden of the street system, and derive only 30 percent of the benefits.

On the other hand, the general public bears but 30 percent of the costs, even when we assign to them moneys received in Federal aid, and derive 70 percent of the benefits of our streets. This is a taxation truly out of balance. Here is taxation of a special class for the moneys that should come from the general funds.

Additional funds should come from general funds if they are needed. The need for additional highway and street funds has not been clearly demonstrated to us.

I have got the greatest respect for Captain Whitehurst. I am inclined to agree with Captain Whitehurst, when, less than a month ago he was speaking at the convention of the Association of Highway Officials of the North Atlantic States.

Captain Whitehurst pointed out that unstable prices and uncertainties in the labor market have retarded construction.

"Never before,” he said, "have more funds been available for building and never have there been such unstable conditions-engineering estimates accurate today are likely to be obsolete tomorrow."

Gentlemen, in the face of statements such as these, can increased taxes on motorists be seriously considered? We think not.

I have looked over Captain Whitehurst's extensive program, and it is a beautiful nightmare. It may come into existence in the next 25 or 30 years. But it would be impossible with labor, material, and costs of construction to carry it through in less time than that.

I have looked at his beautiful program on K Street, fine. But what do we want with it? Washington has got the most beautiful streets and the best streets in this country, and I have seen quite a few of them; there is plenty of room on the streets, Mr. Chairman. If we just could get away from using the streets for parking purposes, that would solve the problem that we have.

There would be no object in building streets, building these beautiful highways, and then parking on them. There is no other city in the country where 12 o'clock at night you cannot get through the street because there are so many cars on it.

Go to Baltimore, go to Philadelphia, Atlantic City, St. Louis, Cincinnati, you can drive as fast as you want.

The members of the District of Columbia Trucking Association, Inc., are opposed to any increase in gasoline tax here in Washington because they feel it represents an unneeded increase in "class taxation” for the benefit of the general public, a public, gentlemen, which has not in years past, and does not today, carry its share of the financial burden of our street system.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Bates. Thank you very much, Mr. Humphreys. Mr. HUMPHREYS. Thank you. Mr. BATES. Is Mr. Carry here? STATEMENT OF JAMES B. CARRY, SUPERINTENDENT OF TRANS

PORTATION FOR THE CHESTNUT FARMS-CHEVY CHASE DAIRY, WASHINGTON, D. C.

have you?

Mr. CARRY. My story is not going to be very long, Mr. Chairman. My name is James B. Carry, and I am superintendent of transportation for the Chestnut Farms-Chevy Chase Dairy, Washington, D. C.

We operate about 375 vehicles in the city of Washington, and we consume approximately 40,000 gallons of gasoline per month, cr about 450 some odd thousand per year.

We are opposed to the gasoline tax raise because it will increase our operating costs of about 45 hundred dollars per year, and as you know, any raise in operating costs must come out of the milk bottle.

I am also informed by Mr. Keller that there is approximately—the rest of the dairies in the city consume about 60,000 more gallons per month, making a total of about 100,000 gallons per month.

It has been my experience over the years that any taxes put on very rarely come off. That is about all i have to say. Mr. BATES. How many trucks have you got all together, Mr. Carry? Mr. CARRY. 375. Mr. BATES. You have not had a chance to look over this

program, Mr. CARRY. No, sir; I have not seen it.

Mr. Bates. I suppose in laying out any type of a program for a community, whether it is a highway program or a building program or construction program or any other type of program, it ought to be geared into a long-range need.

The Highway Department has developed such a program of that type. I have not had a chance to examine it myself at the moment, but I wanted to do that and also make some studies of the 5-year program, those that have a priority over the others in the longrange program, and the necessity of any new sources of révenue such as the gasoline tax to finance that type of program.

. I had hoped that somebody representing these organizations, along with Mr. Keller, would have had an opportunity of making a complete study of that long-range program and the short-range program, and then give us the benefit of their thoughts as to the need of those improvements, say, in the short-range program that would require an increase in the tax rate, if it were going to be consummated. That would be valuable information for the committee because it would single out those improvements that, in the opinion of the representatives who are here this morning. could be delayed.

I am somewhat impressed by the testimony-Captain Whitehur even gave it himself--that the relative costs of construction today are so far ahead, so much greater than what they were, say, 3, 4, 5 years ago, that there is a very serious thought in my mind as to whether or not we should embark upon a major program in any governmental entity, whether it is the District of Columbia or the Federal Goverment, until we can see where the costs come more in balance with the normal costs.

I recall only about 2 weeks ago, I had a similar condition in a highway development in my own district where the estimated cost in 1911 was around $350,000, and the actual bids on the same project last December were a million two hundred thousand dollars. Now, some thing has gone haywire in between there somewhere.

I am sorry yesterday I did not take the opportunity to examine the contractor, the cement contractor, concrete contractor while he was here, as to why the costs of construction have doubled and tripled over that period of time, when labor has not doubled in that period of time; and I questioned very much if material has doubled in that period of time.

Do you happen to know, Mr. Harrison, let us say, 5 years ago what cement cost at that time and what it costs today?

Mr. S. R. HARRISON (Deputy Engineer of Streets, District of Columbia). Concrete bid on the last large project we had was $8.51) a cubic yard.

Mr. Bates. Mr. Harrison is with Captain Whitehurst in the Highway Department.

You say $8.50 a cubic yard?

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir. I would say that is two or three dollars more than 4 or 5 years ago.

Mr. BATES. Two or three dollars.
Mr. Harrison. Yes; it used to go to five or five-fifty.

Mr. BATES. If that is so, say on concrete, that is for mixed concrete, that you are speaking about now?

Mr. HARRISON. That is for delivered.

Mr. Bates. On the job, delivered on the job; that only shows an increase of 65 percent.

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir; that is normal.

Mr. Bares. Yet, bids on highway jobs, as a whole, have gone up & hundred percent--150 percent.

Mr. HARRISON. That is due to other factors, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BATEs. Have you had an opportunity to analyze those?

Mr. HARRISON. A great deal depends on how the concrete is to be used. Carpentry work has increased.

Mr. BATES. What is that?

Mr. HARRISON. Carpenters' wages have increased; there is a great deal of form work; the cost of that is thrown into the cost of concrete per cubic yard because it must be formed to use the concrete, and that is the reason for the statement you hear of $10 and $15 concrete. It is not the price of the concrete; it is the cost of the excavation, forming, reinforcing, and everything that goes into the use of the concrete.

Mr. Bares. Yes, even with that-that is what we call general construction work. I have done a lot of that myself, and I am somewhat familiar with it. I still question the increased cost, 100 percent, 150 percent; in this case that I mentioned in my own district, 200 percent, in a period of 5 years. There is just something haywire in between there somewhere. For the most part, the equipment they are using is the equipment they owned 5 years, 6, 7 years ago because

6 they just have not done any work during the interim, unless they have done it for the Government, and that increased cost cannot be attributed to increased cost of labor, because labor, I do not think, has doubled during that period of time.

Mr. HARRISON. No, sir; and our prices have not gone up 200 percent you mentioned. Our paving costs have increased; we are up in the neighborhood of 50 or 60 percent.

Mr. BATEs. Now, let us take the Dupont Circle job as just an illustration, because it was mentioned here this morning. It was mentioned at some other point in the hearings.

Your first estimate had costs of the Dupont Circle job as beingwhen was that made, and what was the estimated cost ?

Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Chairman, I would rather compare another project for this reason, that the Dupont Circle project, the plans were never statie; the plans were changed.

Mr. BATES. So you have no relative comparison or condition there.

Mr. HARRISON. On the K Street elevated structure, the estimate on that project, the prewar estimate, was a trifle over $2,000,000—2 million, as I recall, and one or two hundred thousand dollars.

We have just received bids on it, and the low bid was $3,400,000. Mr. BATES. Three million four? Mr. HARRISON. Which does not reflect a hundred or two hundred percent at all—that much of an increase at all.

Mr. BATES. Well now, from the studies, Mr. Harrison, that your department has made, say, of future costs, a year from now, 2 years from now, whatever basis that was available for that study, have you come to any conclusion as to whether or not prices, say, a year from now or 2 years from now will be substantially less than what they are today?

Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Chairman, as other people, we hope they will, but we see no reason why they will be lower.

Mr. BATEs. The reason I mention that again today, which I mentioned yesterday, is because the United States News--and they have some pretty reliable reporting in that paper, that magazine-estimated that the cost of housing, which is practically all framework but embraces carpentry, of course, and plumbing and heating and all the accessories, a year and a half from now or a year from now may be 30 percent less than what it is today.

Mr. HARRISON. There is probably a good reason for that in that lumber has increased more than any other commodity. Lumber has increased I think the latest figures are-182 percent.

Mr. BATES. 182 percent.

Mr. HARRISON. Yes; and that can come down, the price can come down, which would materially affect housing.

Mr. Bates. Of course, where you are doing a lot of concrete work and a lot of framework, that is going to affect your concrete work

[ocr errors]

materially.

single out those improvements that, in the opinion of the representatives who are here this morning. could be delayed.

I am somewhat impressed by the testimony_Captain Whitehurst even gave it himself—that the relative costs of construction today are so far ahead, so much greater than what they were, say, 3, 4, 5 years ago, that there is a very serious thought in my mind as to whether or not we should embark upon a major program in any governmental entity, whether it is the District of Columbia or the Federal Government, until we can see where the costs come more in balance with the normal costs.

I recall only about 2 weeks ago, I had a similar condition in a highway development in my own district where the estimated cost in 1941 was around $350,000, and the actual bids on the same project last December were a million two hundred thousand dollars. Now, something has gone haywire in between there somewhere.

I am sorry yesterday I did not take the opportunity to examine the contractor, the cement contractor, concrete contractor while he was here, as to why the costs of construction have doubled and tripled over that period of time, when labor has not doubled in that period of time; and I questioned very much if material has doubled in that period of time.

Do you happen to know, Mr. Harrison, let us say, 5 years ago what cement cost at that time and what it costs today?

Mr. S. R. HARRISON (Deputy Engineer of Streets, District of Columbia). Concrete bid on the last large project we had was $8.50 a cubic yard.

Mr. Bates. Mr. Harrison is with Captain Whitehurst in the Highway Department.

You say $8.50 a cubic yard!

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir. I would say that is two or three dollars more than 4 or 5 years ago.

Mr. BATES. Two or three dollars.
Mr. HARRISON. Yes; it used to go to five or five-fifty.

Mr. Bates. If that is so, say on concrete, that is for mixed concrete, that you are speaking about now?

Mr. HARRISON. That is for delivered.

Mr. BATEs. On the job, delivered on the job; that only shows an increase of 65 percent.

Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir; that is normal.

Mr. Bates. Yet, bids on highway jobs, as a whole, have gone up a hundred percent—150 percent.

Mr. HARRISON. That is due to other factors, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bates. Have you had an opportunity to analyze those ?

Mr. HARRISON. A great deal depends on how the concrete is to be used. Carpentry work has increased.

Mr. BATES. What is that?

Mr. HARRISON. Carpenters' wages have increased; there is a great deal of form work; the cost of that is thrown into the cost of concrete per cubic yard because it must be formed to use the concrete, and that is the reason for the statement you hear of $40 and $45 concrete. It is not the price of the concrete; it is the cost of the excavation, forming, reinforcing, and everything that goes into the use of the concrete

. Mr. BATES. Yes, even with that—that is what we call general con

« PreviousContinue »