Page:America's Highways 1776–1976.djvu/479

 This language was intended as permissive modification of the original legislative prescription in the 1944 Act that the system was “. . . to connect by routes, as direct as practicable, the principal metropolitan areas, cities, and industrial centers. . .” There may also have been concern about the needs of the cities as contrasted with those of cross-country travel, about possible dislocations of homes and businesses, and about the costs of new right-of-way.

Broadening a provision of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1950, the 1956 Act required that the State highway departments, in planning a Federal-aid project (Interstate or ABC) involving the bypassing of or going through a city or town, must hold, or offer to hold, a public hearing and must consider the economic effects of such a location. (This provision was subsequently expanded to cover rural Interstate projects as well.)

The public hearing has a dual purpose: for the State to present and explain its proposals to the public and for the public to present its views to the State. Decision by popular vote was not intended. Decision by the responsible highway official is properly made by weighing the economic and social costs and benefits to highway users and to the locality, the region, and the Nation, and choosing that solution which produces the greatest overall benefit—often a far from simple task.

Acquisition of right-of-way had been recognized as a large, costly, and complicated aspect of the Interstate System program. To ease the problem, the 1956 Act authorized use of apportioned Federal-aid funds for advance acquisition of right-of-way, provided that actual construction followed within a specified period (within 10 years now).

At that time, not all States could legally acquire control of access, and while all could take land by eminent domain, some could not begin construction on the land until the taking process had gone through the courts. The 1956 Act, therefore, provided a means whereby, at the request of a State, the Federal Government could acquire land (and prompt entry to it) or access control for an Interstate project and then convey the title to the State. Some States took advantage of this mechanism ; however, most States soon obtained legislation or procedures for obtaining access control and prompt right-of-way entry.

The early consideration of toll road construction for the Interstate System has already been mentioned. The subject received a great deal of attention again in both 1955 and 1956. The decision reached in the 1956 Act was that toll roads, bridges, and tunnels could be included in the Interstate System if they met the System standards and if their inclusion promoted development of an integrated system. The Act reiterated that Federal-aid funds could not be used on toll roads, nor on toll bridges and tunnels except under the special circumstances already covered by Federal-aid legislation.

The Act did provide that Federal-aid Interstate funds could be used on an approach to a toll road incorporated in the System, if the toll road is to become free when the bonds are liquidated and if there is a reasonably satisfactory alternate free route available by which the toll section may be bypassed.

As a result of these provisions, some 2,300 miles of toll facilities (roads, bridges, and tunnels) have since been incorporated in the Interstate System.

A sharp controversy had developed over the question of reimbursement to the States for Interstate projects already built with less than 90-percent Federal aid or with none at all. While both free and toll facilities were involved, the arguments generally centered on the latter. In the 1956 Act, the whole matter was in effect deferred—the law declared the intent of Congress to determine whether or not the States should be reimbursed for work completed between 1947 and 1957, and if so, how, when, and how much; and the Secretary of Commerce was requested to report to Congress on this issue. The report was made in January 1958, but Congress took no action to provide reimbursement for either toll or free road construction.

The language of Title II was formidable, for in large part it comprised amendments to the Internal Revenue Code. But it was a landmark in Federal highway law since it established, for the first time, a linkage between Federal excise taxes on highway users and Federal aid for highways. It sought to achieve three major objectives: To finance the long-range Federal-aid program, including the funds specifically authorized to complete the Interstate System and an anticipated, but not legislated, escalating ABC program during the same period; to provide revenue wholly from highway-user tax revenues; and to confine the program to a pay-as-you-go basis.

The Federal excise taxes earmarked to pay for the Federal share of the highway program and their rates reflected a balance between the need to pay for highways and for other functions of Government and the cost occasioned or the benefit gained by each class of highway beneficiary in forms that were practical of collection. The result of this endeavor by Congress appeared at the time to be a productive and generally equitable tax schedule. Considerable revision was made in later legislation. The taxes included an increase in the tax on motor-vehicle fuel, an increase in the excise tax on the manufacturer’s sale price on commercial vehicles (new trucks, buses, and trailers), a new annual use tax on vehicles in excess of 26,000 pounds gross weight, and an increase in the tax on highway vehicle tires.

Linkage between highway-user tax revenue and Federal aid for highways was formalized in the 1956 Act by creation of the Highway Trust Fund. Into the Fund go the earmarked taxes; out of it are appropriated the Federal-aid funds for payment to the States. 473