I want to ask one question with regard to the highway marking program. Can you give us some idea of whether there are any States and, if so, identify them that at the present time have the kind of primary highway markings that you envisioned as you testified with regard to the cost bringing the marking program up to standards over the Nation.

Mr. TURNER. Well, most all of the States have pretty adequate systems of markings. What we will be doing in the new manual is to make some revisions in already existing types of signs. We will expand over into considerably greater use of the symbol-type sign which was largely pioneered in Europe and has been used rather extensively; but interestingly we are finding that they are trending toward our type of signing and we are trending toward theirs a little bit.

Mr. HENDERSON. Do you think we can get to a point where we meet each other?

Mr. TURNER. I think we are very close together. In fact, much of what we are adopting in our present manual and what they are adopting in their manuals is based on joint discussions, international conferences and agreements so there will be worldwide uniformity in signals and markings for highway systems as well as in our own country here.

Mr. HENDERSON. What I was really trying to get at is the painting of the centerlines and edge lines. Are there any States that you think now would be a model in their primary system in their painting of centerlines and edge lines?

Mr. TURNER. I would hesitate to name any individual State or several States that I would consider as models because a majority of our States have a good signing system and edge markings, centerlines, and so on.

There are a few that regretfully are not as good as the others, but a majority of our States do a good job of this and the edge striping is a new feature over much of our highway system in the last few years, largely developed in the Western States.

It has proven to be not only a convenience to the driver but also a very definite contribution to safety-marking the edge of the roadway and the edge of the traffic lane.

In most of the Western States they use this regularly with good results and all of our Interstate System is marked in that fashion to start with.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Turner, Mr. Foley, and the others that have been here this morning.

I recognize Mr. Harsha.

Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Congressman Nelsen from Minnesota be made a part of this record.

Mr. HENDERSON. Without objection, the statement will appear in the record at this point.

(Statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. ANCHER NELSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Roads Subcommittee: As you open hearings today on the federal road-building program, I would like to combine an appeal for accelerated rural road-building with a call for increased stress on highway safety.

Despite the fact that the federal interstate program began in 1955, more than a third of Minnesota's interstate remains uncompleted, a lot of it along Interstate 90 between Worthington and Albert Lea in my Second Congressional District. At the present rate, it will be 1976 before our district's section of the interstate is finished. And as one knowledgeable constituent put it, "it will be a miracle if this schedule holds up."

To be sure, the delays we have experienced are not alone the fault of the federal government. But we do have a great obligation here in the Congress to see that this pay-as-you-go program advances as intended because it is vital to business expansion in rural areas. In fact, it is one of our best investments in rural development.

I would also like to recommend using a part of federal revenues from alcohol taxes for the highway safety program because problem drinkers are causing about half the deaths on our public roads.

As the President has pointed out, we're losing 50,000 lives a year in highway accidents-more lives than we have lost in combat in the entire Vietnam war. Also, the use of alcohol is estimated to be a factor in causing at least 800,000 crashes each year.

Under these circumstances, it seems highly appropriate to use some of the money the federal government takes in from alcohol taxes for the cause of improved highway safety. Particularly is this step appropriate when it is recognized that there may be as many as 18 million alcoholics and problem drinkers in this country.

I know your Subcommittee will give careful consideration to these suggestions, and I want to express my appreciation for your work to advance our federal highway program.

Mr. HENDERSON. That concludes the hearing for today. The subcommittee will resume Tuesday, February 22, 1972.

(Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene on Tuesday, February 22, 1972, at 10 a.m.)

1972 HIGHWAY LEGISLATION

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1972

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ROADS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:12 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John C. Kluczynski, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. The hearing will come to order. The Subcommittee on Roads continues its hearings today on highway safety.

We will continue on Wednesday and conclude the safety hearings on Thursday.

I would like to announce to the members that due to a rescheduling of witnesses we will only hear two witnesses this morning and we reconvene at 2 p.m. to hear the National Safety Council, with former Governor Pyle testifying.

The clock to my right says since Thursday a.m. this clock has been running during these safety hearings. Since we started these hearings last Thursday, there have been 720 deaths and 29,100 injured on the highways of our country.

Gentlemen, something must be done. For the last few years there have been an average of 56,000 deaths, and that is the purpose of the safety hearings, and I hope we can do something to cut down the massacre on our highways.

The first witness this morning will be my very good friend, the gentleman on the Ways and Means Committee. We are always happy to hear from the members on the great committee because they have been cooperating with us 100 percent. And it was the Ways and Means Committee who approved the extension of the trust fund. We appreciate everything they have done.

Mr. Charles A. Vanik of Ohio, will you kindly take the witness chair and proceed in your own manner.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. VANIK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. VANIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I ask unanimous consent that my formal statement be inserted in the record so that I can just address myself to the heart of the problem that I want to call and direct the committee's attention to.

Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Without objection, Mr. Vanik, it is so ordered. Your prepared statement will be in the record in its entirety at this point.

(Mr. Vanik's prepared statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. VANIK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

GRADE SEPARATIONS

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the Committee. I will be brief.

As a large industrial area, the Greater Cleveland, Ohio community is crisscrossed with railroad tracks. Many of these tracks have not been provided with grade separations or road crossing protections. Since January 1, 1969, there have been 12 auto accidents on a single Penn Central grade crossing on Five Points Road. Four persons have died in these railroad-highway accidents-three of them within the last few weeks. In addition to the death and injury caused by accidents on these grade crossings, constant massive traffic jams are caused in this heavily urbanized area when autos must wait for trains to pass.

The grade crossing problem of course, is not just a Cleveland problem. It is a national problem. At the present time, only about 45% of the grade crossings on the Federal system have automatic protective devices. Off the Federal system, only about 15% of the crossings have this type of protection. Each year, there are about 12,000 accidents at these grade crossings. In 1970, the latest year for which figures are available, 1,440 persons died in grade crossing accidentsbringing the total since 1920 to 86,000 auto-train accident deaths.

There are, of course, provisions in the law for Federal assistance in the removal of the hazards of railway-highway crossings. Because of the bankruptcy of the Penn Central Railroad, however, it has become nearly impossible to take advantage of these programs. Section 130 of Title 23, for example, provides for assistance in grade separations but requires that the Secretary of Transportation shall establish a percentage of the construction costs of each separation project which "represent the net benefit to the railroad or railroads for the purpose of determining the railroad's share of the cost of construction" up to a total of 10% of the cost of the project.

Throughout the entire Northeast United States, this aid program has been blocked by the professed inability of the Penn Central to contribute up to the 10% required. At the present time, there are apparently 50 grade separation projects worth $50-$60 million which have been delayed. In addition, 150-200 other grade crossing safety projects are in a state of limbo. Even the grade separa tion construction provided for along the Boston to Washington high-speed corridor has been delayed by the money problems of the railroads. This special separation project is still only in the engineering design stage.

There is another problem available to the States. This involves the use of "G" funds or funds provided under 120(d) of Title 23, but, as it has been explained to me, the States are reluctant to employ this section since it cuts down on the amount of money they have available for other road construction. Many state laws, of course, also require a construction contribution by the railroads.

I hope, therefore, that as your Committee reviews the Nation's highway safety program, it will consider special, emergency legislation which will enable grade separation projects to continue despite the bankruptcy and seemingly endless financial problems of the Nation's major railroad.

Railroad's do benefit from grade separations. There should be some continued requirement that they pay for the benefit which accrues to them from these safety projects. Legislation should be considered which would permit separations to proceed immediately with 100% Federal funding and which would create an account establishing the amount of money which the railroads owe for construction work which provides a benefit to them. This account would be repayable over a period of years with some amount of interest.

The longer we wait for a solution to this problem, the more lives are lost in needless accidents and the more congestion and delay is created.

Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, of course, we are all very happy that President Nixon has been able to reach the Chinese wall, but there is a serious wall that confronts us in America, particularly those in the northern part of the industrial Northern States, and that is created with the problems of the Penn Central.

This is an insoluble problem. We are just bottled up in the State of Ohio on grade-crossing elimination. And we just simply cannot make any kind of an arrangement or agreement at all with the Penn Central in its present condition.

We have a State law, of course, which is adapted after the Federal pattern which calls for a contribution by the railroad in order to eliminate grade crossings. And the railroad is completely and totally unable to make any kind of an adjustment, any kind of commitment. There is no way at all to negotiate or to arrive at an agreement concerning either a present sharing of costs or a future sharing of costs or contribution to be provided by the railroad.

In my community, we have one crossing which is out on the southwesterly portion of the city, outside of my district. It is called the Five Points area. There have been 12 automobile accidents out there since January of 1969. Four persons have died. In my district, I have the city of Euclid, where we have waited for 20 years to get underpasses built under the railroad, which cuts the city right in half. It is a city of 80,000 people and in this city there is only one place where citizens may cross at a grade separation or through an underpass. Otherwise, they must cross over the tracks of several railroads, including the Penn Central.

Now, after this long delay, the plans are concluded, everything is ready to go excepting the Penn Central, and it looks like it could potentially be another 20-year delay. This is really a national problem wherever in the country we have had to deal with this railroad.

I think at the present time there are some 50 major grade separation projects which are being held up. A great many of these are in Ohio. Some are as bad and some are perhaps worse than the one I have mentioned.

I suggest this to you: Somehow as a part of the safety legislation which you are considering now that you make provision for full Federal funding of the cost of the project of the railroad contribution and take a lien, or provide some procedure wherein we can reserve a claim against a defunct railroad for what should be its normal contribution.

In other words, I do not believe that the people of my community, or, indeed, Mr. Chairman, of your community, which happen to be served by the Penn Central-I do not believe that our communities ought to be discriminated against and made to suffer the cruel hazard of unprotected railroad crossings simply because we have to deal with a defunct railroad situation.

My State highway director, and my local county engineer tell me that it is absolutely impossible in the foreseeable future to have any kind of a negotiated settlement of this issue with the railroad. They say it is absolutely impossible to work out the terms of an agreement in which the contribution might be worked out.

So I say, Mr. Chairman, that in my community, no other single thing could contribute more to the cause of highway safety than action by this committee to provide for either a State advancement or a Federal advancement to make up for the railroad's contribution under an arrangement in which a lien or a claim would remain against the railroad for the amount of the normal railroad's contribution.

I do not think we ought to let a defunct railroad out of its obligation simply because it is defunct because it later might generate a capital resource out of which the claim might be paid. I do not think that our

79-423 0-72-8