November 21, 2013

The following speech was delivered by Sen. Francis Case of South Dakota at the 39th Annual Meeting of the American Association of State Highway Officials in Pittsburgh on Nov. 10, 1953. It was published in the January 1954 edition of AASHO's American Highways publication.

Case, a Republican who served in the Senate from 1951 until his death in 1962, spent much of his tenure advocating for the expansion of the nation's road and water infrastructure. His speech at the meeting highlights six ideas to increase safety on the nation's roadways, including increased funding, addressing drinking and driving, and the possibility of tolls. Check out the piece below to see just how different, and in some way similar, things are today in comparison.

Last week I heard a game warden seek to minimize fears from hunting accidents when high-powered rifles were used. With 35,000 hunters opening the deer season in the Black Hills of South Dakota, only two injuries had been reported.

"Why it's far safer than driving the highways," the warden said. "Only a couple days ago, four people were hurt in a car accident just outside of town. Two of them died and who gave it a thought?"

Who does give a thought ot the tremendous casualty lists of today's highway traffic? Last year, more than 38,000 people died from highway accidents in the United States. That is more than 100 per day! No such toll came even from the war in Korea. One hundred per day means an average of more than four per hour—or one every 14 minutes, even as you and I talk about the subject here.

In this galaxy of experts, highway commissioners and engineers, a layman's opinions may not be worth much. I am confident, however, that my colleagues of the Congress are intensely interested in the total subject of highways and that whether you invited us to speak, out of respect for the committee spots we hold or because you have been impressed by our qualities of statesmanship, we came because we want to make a contribution to the building of better and safer highways in America that is consistent with our responsibilities.

I shall leave the massing of statistics and the development of details to others and make hold to offer "Six Suggestions for Safer Highways."

I. Increase federal appropriations for highways to the amount collected by the federal tax on gasoline.

Under the new 2-cent tax which went into effect Nov. 1, 1952 and has one more year to run, the federal government is collecting in round figures about $850 million. Federal appropriations for highways, including those for parks, national forests as well as the federal primary, secondary, and urban systems, average in round figures about $450 million.

Thus it is readily seen that the federal government collects almost double in gasoline taxes what it spends on highway purposes. This says nothing about the special automotive taxes on vehicles, parts, tires and lubricants, some of which can be regarded as manufacturer's excise taxes but some of which are in reality a tax on highway users. They yield over $2 billion per year; but I do not speak of them; I speak only of the federal gas tax.

The simple truth is that the federal government does not practice what it preaches in this field of taxes. It says to the states that they must not divert revenues from highway users to other purposes under threat of losing a share of the federal apportionments for highway aid; yet the federal government itself levies taxes on highway users and employs the revenue for general purposes.

All plans for better highways necessarily deal with funds at some point. There is no magic way to build roads without funds. The $32 billion deficiencies in our highway systems can only be corrected with more revenue from some source.

I am one who consistently votes on the side of lesser federal appropriations in the aggregate—I spent 12 years on the appropriations committee in the House—and both in the House and Senate my general position is for smaller federal appropriations, but I see no hope for better or safer highways in repeal of the federal gas tax and no justification for increasing it unless we use the increased revenue for developing the commerce from which it comes.

II. Apply a portion of these added funds to meet the nation's security needs, including belt routes and arterial outlets for cities over 10,000.

A number of recognized highway authorities have suggested changing the historic formula for apportioning federal aid in the primary and secondary systems. Most of such suggestions, in effect, diminish what the states would receive for use on the secondary system—more popularly known in Congress as "farm-to-market" roads. Whatever polish they can put on that idea with statistics on volume of traffic, I have my doubts that it can ever be sold to any Congress—least of all in an election year. And our biennial federal highway acts come in election years.

Nor do I mean by this that I think revamping of the historic apportionment plan is desirable—on the contrary, I think any plan to change it that has come to my attention raises far more questions than it answers. You cannot measure the true value of traffic by its volume nor its essentiality by its numbers. Rural roads have had "secondary treatment" at best and no Congress should ever reduce what they now receive.

We must recognize, however, that in an atomic age, a distinct need exists for routes in cities and out of them and around them that will permit traffic to flow and serve the nation's needs. An atomic attack will congest traffic in and near cities far beyond the capacities of any normal pattern of development.

Your president, Mr. Charles Ziegler of Michigan, in his admirable statement before the House Committee last spring, stated that the 38,000 miles of the interstate system consisting of slightly more than 1 percent of the nation's road mileage, carries 20 percent of all traffic, and is "of the greatest importance to our entire nation in war or peace."

President Eisenhower has said: "Next to the manufacture of the most modern implements of war as a guarantee of peace through a strength, a network of modern roads is as necessary to defense as it is to our national economy and personal safety."

So, I suggest as my second proposition that a large portion of the enlarged appropriations based on the receipts of the federal gas tax be applied to meet the nation's security needs.

III. Permit states to apply portions of their federal aid apportionments on primary highways to toll or "limited access" roads under specific authorizations and conditions.

The pros and cons of toll roads will doubtless be dealt with at length by other speakers during this convention. I merely wish to make a few observations. Our Senate committee gave considerable study to a proposal by Senator Bush of Connecticut along this line.

The Senate committee concluded to report the Bush bill with certain amendments. Notably, the amendments limited the bill to a specific project and required the road to become toll-free when the special costs of its construction had been recovered and that money made available for other public highway use.

This action was consistent with, and in some respects is similar to, special bills that have been enacted with respect to the construction of toll bridges. To be sure, the permission for construction of a bridge may have stemmed from congressional control of commerce over navigable streams, but it carries also the authority to collect charges on a portion of a highway built in part with federal funds. A bridge is a portion of a road with limited access—a toll road can be similarly regarded.

This may seem like oversimplification but I submit two propositions on the point: (1) That if highway users are willing to pay the extra costs for the greater safety and facilities of a modern divided highway, they should be permitted to do so; and (2) that unless we do have more toll highways, we shall not be able to build highways in many areas that are adequate for the demands upon them.

IV. Take drinking drivers off the highways and support mandatory sentences for repeating offenders when reckless speed is clearly shown as the cause of a major accident.

Your able secretary, Mr. Hal Hale, is a member of the National Board of Judges of the National Safety Council. Mr. Hale tells me that three out of every 10 drivers involved in fatal accidents were violating the speed law. Also, that 23 out of every 100 fatal accidents involved either a drinking driver or a drinking pedestrian. And it is common knowledge that a great many so-called drunken driver accidents are listed in other categories, such as reckless driving.

In addition to the 38,000 people killed last year in highway accidents, over 1.5 million accidents were reported that involved injuries and damage. The social and economic cost of this staggering number is hard to comprehend. The suffering and agony cannot be measured, but the economic loss has been estimated at $3. 75 billion—wages, hospital bills, repairs, etc. In addition, motor vehicle owners paid out almost $3 billion for insurance protection. This would make well over $6 billion as the cost of insurance and damages, twice what is spent on highway construction by state and federal governments in the same period.

A friend of mine who is a native Norwegian says that the Scandinavian countries have a strict law that drivers who drink must not drive when drinking. The sentence is automatic if found guilty. The result is that they go by cab when they part at night and they have a minimum of night and early morning accidents.

Some such steps are warranted in America. A toll of 38,000 deaths and 1.5 million accidents with injuries is too large to ignore; the incidence of accidents due to drunken driving and excessive speed must be reduced. Expenditure of highway funds wisely can reduce the incidence of accidents, but the problem cannot be met wholly by the expenditure of money.

V. Take the super-trucks off highways that are not wide enough or strong enough to stand them.

In 1952, there were 4 million trucks registered in the U.S. The National Safety Council estimates that 2.3 million of them—over 50 percent of them—were involved in accidents during that year. This does not mean, of course, that the truck operators were the ones responsible. The blame may be that of the other car driver involved, but the greater percentage does suggest that trucks create highway hazards out of proportion to their numbers, for altogether there are 53 million motor vehicles on our highways.

The question of truck use of the highways has several angles and doubtless could develop and afternoon's debate of itself. I do not suggest that all trucks be taken from the highways or that we build highways for trucks alone. We cannot do that at this time, certainly, but we can post certain highways against use by certain trucks just as we post certain bridges. In my opinion, that should be done, and supported by legislation if necessary.

A big semi, particularly a double job of long oil trucks swinging around curves on a mountain highway or whipping in and out between traffic on a wet pavement on a dark night is as great a menace to highway safety as can be imagined. If the truck operators do not have the good sense to modify such operations, legislation must.

VI. Make a currently revised drivers handbook available to the public schools and encourage a driving course in every high school.

Do you remember way back when the dealer of whom you bought your car came around and gave you instructions in driving it for a week after you bought it? Does that happen anymore? Not often—for it seems to be taken for granted that everyone knows how to drive a car.

Most people do have a smattering of knowledge about driving—but the trouble is that for far too many, the knowledge is piece-meal and incomplete or out of date. In my hometown of Custer, S. D., the high school offers a course in driving. The students, if they wish, can take the course and get credit for it. But the car they have for practice is not exactly the latest in gadgets, transmission, and control. They do learn the fundamentals, however, and the course is of very definite value. My daughter, however, tells me that the textbook used in the course lacks a great deal in up-to-dateness.

Now I suppose it would be difficult for any textbook writer to keep current with the rapid pace of change set by our automobile manufacturers. And even if the author did, the average school would find it difficult to buy a new set of textbooks for each change in models. It has occurred to me, however, that a loose-leaf textbook might be devised, similar to that which dealers use for a parts catalog, and that the major car manufacturers could supply the revision sheets each year as a matter of practical advertising. In that way, the high school students would better understand the tremendous dynamo power which modern science has placed at their toetips and in their hands.

A recent nation-wide survey disclosed that 99 percent of the school superintendents believe that driver education should be taught yet only a fifth of school systems covered required driver training. In one school of 800 students, only 8 percent are trained due to shortage of teacher time. One teacher complained of lack of cars or training devices—saying "it's like trying to teach typing without a typewriter." But reports were uniform that the training reduced the rate of accidents. As one superintendent said, "We ought to teach the child to do well and properly what he is going to try to do anyway."

To this Association, concerned as it is with getting the greatest public service and safety from our highway expenditures, I venture to offer these "Six Suggestions for Safer Highways."