Building the Interstate

W. L. Mertz and Joyce Ritter

FOREWORD

What follows is the documentation of the critical events during the building of the Interstate 

System. The record begins with the passage of the 1956 Highway Act, which kicked off the 

Interstate construction program. It ends in 1974 just after the passage of the 1973 Highway Act, 

which was landmark legislation for the Interstate System and the highway program in general. We 

made several attempts to interpret the 1973 Act for the reader but abandoned it in favor of relying 

on quotations from those involved at the time who said what they thought it was.

An earlier document named "Origins of the Interstate" explored the critical years in the 

conceptualization of the Interstate System culminating in the 1956 Highway Act.

Both documents rely heavily on quoted excerpts of speeches made by people who were 

influential in charting the course of the highway program during those years. We have found that 

no paraphrasing expresses the essence of the issues of the times as well as the words of those 

who were involved and spoke them.

By far the richest source of material has been American Highways, the quarterly journal of the 

American Association of State Highway Officials. It faithfully recorded the views of its own 

members, Congressmen, Federal officials and indeed, the adversaries of the highway program.

The reasons for stopping the record in 1974 are several. First, our scheduled time allotted for this 

task was running out. Second, the events following the 1973 Highway Act are recent history. We 

have been involved in that history and so are too close to it to make unbiased judgments about 

what should be highlighted.

Although the Interstate was authorized by the Congress in 1944 and most of the system was 

officially designated in 1947, construction did not begin in earnest until the passage of the 1956 

Highway Act. Part One, "The Origins of the Interstate", documents the events leading to the 1956 

Act. This Part Two begins there.

The record begins with the AASHO annual meeting in November of 1956 at Atlantic City N.J., just 

five months after passage of the Act.

Excerpts from the January 1957 Issue of American Highways.

REX WHITTON, Outgoing President, Missouri.

THE DEATH OF GENERAL MERRILL

He expressed great regret for the untimely death of General Frank Merrill two 

days after he was elected President of AASHO. It was on this occasion that 

Whitton, the Vice President succeeded to the Presidency.

(There is a story connected with that. General Merrill was the leader of the 

famous Merrill's Marauder's in World War II, and was a great friend and comrade 

of General Eisenhower. After World War II, he was highly placed in the military 

occupation of the Philippines where Frank Turner was putting the roads back 

together. They had daily interactions. After military retirement, Merrill was 

appointed to head the New Hampshire highway department by Governor 

Sherman Adams, soon to become the White House chief of staff under President 

Eisenhower. One of the reasons he was elected President of AASHO, so the 

story goes, was, it was perceived, that he would have access to the Oval Office 
and influence with Ike, which, it was thought, was needed for the passage of the 

1956 Act.)

PASSAGE OF THE 56 ACT

Whitton thanked everyone involved in the 1956 Act. He noted that the passage of 

that monumental legislation was due largely to good public relations and 

encouraged all to pay more attention to that critical function in the future. He 

noted that Congress had asked the highway departments for four studies. Their 

performance on those was critical to the future of the highway program. The 

studies were; a new Interstate cost estimate, maximum sizes and weights, a 

study of a policy for the reimbursement for highways already on the Interstate 

System and a study on the costs of different classes of highways.

NOTE: The reimbursement issue was very controversial and AASHO's 

recommendation for it did not survive in the 1956 Act.

He appealed to the members to update their procedures to modern methods 

using computers, photogrammetry and efficiency procedures.

JOHN VOLPE, Federal Highway Administrator.

GENERAL MERRILL AND FRANCIS du PONT

Volpe gave great credit to deceased General Merrill and to Francis du Pont for 

getting the 1956 Act started.

He emphasized the great importance of the events during the crucial two years 

between Ike's famous speech kicking off the campaign for an expanded highway 

program and passage of the 56 Act.

DON'T COMPROMISE ON INTERSTATE PROJECTS

He warned the members to not compromise when faced with local opposition to 

a segment of Interstate because of the special National importance of the 

program. He warned them of the temptation to overbuild since the Federal 

Government would be picking up 90% of the cost.

BEGIN THE INTERSTATE IN URBAN AREAS

"We have been asked whether it is a good policy for a State to concentrate in 

early stages of the Interstate program on projects in urban areas, on the grounds 

that it is in those areas that the need for traffic relief is the greatest. Our answer 

is that we strongly favor such a policy provided, first, that urgent rural needs are 

not overlooked and, second, that firm agreement has been reached with officials 

of the urban areas on the location and design of the proposed improvements."

"The second condition is especially important. Highway improvement in urban 

areas is probably the most critical feature of the program. Over half the Interstate 

funds will be spent there, and the extremely high cost per mile of the urban 

facilities makes it essential that they be properly located to insure wise 

expenditure of State and Federal funds. Correct location can be of even more 

importance to the cities themselves, however, for these freeways will become 
integral links in the urban transportation network, often serving transit as well as 

private vehicles. Properly located they can encourage good urban development, 

aid urban renewal, and be of great over-all benefit to the community. Improperly 

located they can impair or even prevent desirable growth and community life. So 

we must be assured that, as required by the 1956 Act, local needs be given 

serious and proper consideration. I urge State Highway officials to seek and to 

utilize the cooperation of city officials in locating these urban expressways."

"Much needs to be done by the cities to insure their ability to cooperate with the 

States in planning these facilities. It is most gratifying that a Joint Committee of 

this Association and the American Municipal Association is at work on this 

problem. The group held its first meeting only last Friday. It is fortunate also that 

the National Committee on Urban Transportation, composed largely of city 

officials and on which the Bureau is represented, has long been at work 

preparing manuals for the collection of highway planning data for cities 

comparable to those obtained in our 20-year program of Statewide Highway 

Planning Surveys. These manuals are now being tested in eight pilot cities in as 

many States. This Committee's work will be invaluable to the Joint AMA and 

AASHO Committee and to all States. Both Committees deserve, and I am sure 

will receive, the full support of all States."

THERE WILL BE OPPOSITION TO CONTROL-OF-ACCESS

He noted that the concept of controlled access was new and the Interstate was 

the first time the concept was required for an entire system. He warned that the 

concept was not well understood and opposition would develop but the 2/3 

reduction in accidents was well worth it. He noted the growing number of "before 

and after" studies that were documenting the economic advantages of controlled 

access. He noted particularly Rt. 128 in Boston. He called their attention to the 

requirements for a new cost estimate for the Interstate and periodic updates 

through 1968. He urged cooperation and compliance with the new labor 

provisions of the 1956 Act. He said that delegations of authority to BPR field 

offices were necessary to keep pace with the expanded program. Approval of 

Secondary program projects had already been delegated from Washington to the 

Division Offices (now Regions). Fifteen additional Supergrade positions were 

given to BPR as part of the reorganization. $200 million of Interstate projects had 

been obligated.

SEN. DENNIS CHAVES, N.M., Chairman Senate Public Works Committee.

THE CONGRESS WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK IN THREE YEARS

He described the Highway program as being a 13-year program with a 3-year 

space to start with through 1959, after which the Congress would look the matter 

over and make decisions about the future.

He noted that prior to the Reorganization Act (The Monroney-Mansfield Act), 

roads were authorized through the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads.

He warned the members not to forget the views of the citizens. That was the 

reason that the Act called for public hearings. He worried about the affect 

bypasses would have on businesses.

SEN. EDWARD MARTIN, Penn.
COMPROMISE AND POLITICS COULD UNDERMINE THE INTERSTATE 

PROGRAM

He stressed the importance of the Interstate in economic growth, national unity, 

etc. He placed great emphasis on the studies required, i.e, ICE, 210 study, etc. 

He stressed the importance of keeping politics and compromise from 

undermining the functional attributes of the Interstate System. One of the

problems that he saw was the number of governmental units dealing with 

highways-46,000 by his count. He saw this as a threat to the program.

REP. GORDON H. SCHERRER, Ohio, House Subcommittee on Roads.

WORRY ABOUT FRAUD

He extolled the virtues of the Interstate Program and worried aloud about the 

many attempts there would be for graft, fraud, inefficiency, and chicanery in a 

program so large. He appealed to the members to hold the line.

BERTRAM D. TALLAMY, Administrator Designate, N.Y. Thruway Auth.

He cheered them on and told them how good they were and that they would face 

great adversity in the great task ahead, but they would do it and achieve mightily.

FIRST INTERSTATE PROJECT COMPLETED IN KANSAS

A section of U.S. 40 West of Topeka was opened to Traffic Nov. 14, 1956.

NOTE: This was probably the first section of Interstate opened to traffic after the 

passage of the 1956 Highway Act. Obviously, Interstate segments had been built 

and opened to traffic before this date.

C.D. CURTISS, Commissioner of Public Roads, BPR.

THEY WERE ALL DOWNCAST THE YEAR BEFORE

The President signed the 56 Act on June 29, 1956. He contrasted the mood of 

the convention to that of the year before when they were all downcast by the 

defeat of highway legislation. He said that more money would be made available 

to the Highway departments in four years than in the 40 years before. He 

emphasized the need for the use of computers and photogrammetry and modern 

management practices and standard designs in order to efficiently implement 

such a large program.

He quoted at length many of the provisions of the Act and called attention to five 

studies required by the Congress from Interstate cost estimates to the 210 cost 

allocation study.

Excerpts from the April 1957 Issue of American Highways.

THE DEATH OF THOMAS H. MacDONALD

The cover was a portrait of MacDonald edged in black. He died on Sunday, April 

7, 1957 at Texas A&M., College Station. He was carried back to Washington on 

the National Limited to be buried at Cedar Hill Cemetery.
Pyke Johnson wrote the eulogy which spelled out 10 points that were most 

important to MacDonald just before his death:

MacDONALD'S TEN PRINCIPLES

1. Recognition of the essential fact that transportation is not simply a 

service agency. It is a force which can and does affect our whole way of 

living or making a living.

2. The highway program must rest upon the essential premise that we are 

dealing with the lives of people and in the end they will make the final 

choices. No government can dictate.

3. The Highway partnership has proved its durability and is a model that 

should be applied to other programs here and abroad.

4. The extension of the highway program into urban areas is simply an 

extension of the same principles that have operated in the past.

5. If the States are to carry forward successfully the provisions of the 56 

Act, they must reorganize and provide centralized policy for the urban 

and secondary programs.

6. Every urban area should have a comprehensive transportation plan 

geared to the total future needs of the area. This work should go forward 

immediately in order to limit the costs of rights-of-way, relieve congestion 

and to find locations for the Interstate.

7. The scenic beauty of the Interstate highways should be preserved by 

laws preventing the encroachment of ugly structures.

8. It is idle to attempt to estimate the final cost of the Interstate or its date of 

completion. The important thing is the existing rate of construction and 

does it meet existing needs.

9. Everything possible should be done to keep the people fully informed as 

to what is being done and why. In the end, the public interest will prevail.

10. Research in all aspects of highway construction, management and 

operation should go forward unremittingly.

The Chief was born in Leadville, Colorado July, 23, 1881.

WILLIAM A. BUGGE, President of AASHO

This was a reprint of a speech he gave in March of 1957 to the Mississippi Valley 

Association.

LIMITED ACCESS IS A RADICAL CONCEPT

He spelled out what he considered to be the real issues facing the highway 

departments. The dimensions of the new program were so staggering that 

considerable skepticism that the States could do the job had been expressed. He 

cited an article in the American Road Builder Newsletter that predicted that the 

concept of limited access and by-passes was so radical that State legislatures 

would not pass enabling legislation and so many States would have to pass up 

the 90% and use their 10% on regular 50-50 programs at least for the time being.

LOOK AHEAD TO WHAT IS NEEDED

He stressed the need for all highway departments to reevaluate their 

organizational structure and to provide career stability to attract sufficient 
engineers to do the job. He noted the feeling in some quarters that the Interstate 

program was a Federal takeover. He saw no grounds for that.

He saw the use of new techniques in management, computers, photogrammetry, 

design, finance, law, construction equipment, public relations, etc., as necessary.

He felt that the highway departments must depart from traditional procedures and 

employ consulting engineers to help level off the peaks in the design load. 

Bonding would certainly have to be judiciously used and many legislatures would 

have to provide increased highway funding.

A.E. (ALF) JOHNSON, Executive Secretary , AASHO

This was a reprint of a speech he made at the Mississippi Valley Conference in 

Chicago, Ill., March 7, 1957. He made several observations:

ELEVEN OBSERVATIONS

1. "Congress has listened and given this 'Federal-State partnership' the first 

chance at doing the job (building the Interstate). If the partnership falters 

and fails, someone else will do it for us, of that you can be sure...."

2. "If we have differences between States or with the Bureau of Public 

Roads, let us keep our differences to ourselves and resolve them within 

our own group and not air them before the public and in the press..."

3. "Public hearings required by the Act of 1956 will require the finest in 

public relations. Hearings must be sincere formalized, and the 

Department must be fully prepared to explain and support their proposals 

with factual data and logical reasons."

"If a hearing should force a change in project location, the public and 

political reaction can be so powerful as to effectively block a subsequent 

location and placing the project under construction."

"The (above) experience should be avoided if possible. Be properly 

prepared before holding hearings. If you cannot marshal support for a 

proposed plan at a hearing, you should probably withdraw it and take 

another look."

4. "Pick your most critically needed projects first, for if the need is apparent, 

public support is more certain. Do not force construction on routes where 

the need is less apparent..."

5. "The highway official must furnish definite assurances that the other 

highways under his jurisdiction will not be neglected while he is 

expediting the construction of the Interstate..."

6. "With the large number of right of way parcels that must be acquired, the 

number of persons involved, and amounts of money expended, the 

official should be constantly aware of its importance and insist on all right 

of way transactions being thoroughly documented and properly handled."

7. "The official must assure himself that he is not overdesigning nor 

underdesigning as both are a gross waste of public funds entrusted to 

him for spending."

8. He advocated an "assembly line" approach to project development as 

opposed to prior practices of undertaking planning and design only after 

the money was in hand.
9. "There are still charges made that control of access must be eliminated 

or undergo serious dilution..." He went on to say that how commercial 

development was handled was crucial to the retention of the limited 

access concept. "Highway officials must prove the worth of controlled 

access or the beneficial effect upon local business of taking through 

traffic around the town on a traffic relief route by referring to research 

and economic studies that have been made on the subject, generally by 

some other State."

10. He noted that uniform standards for Interstate signing were then under 

development.

11. "...There are still those who oppose various features of the highway 

program for selfish reasons. The program can be terminated in several 

ways. Any reason within our control must never be a cause. We must 

remain vigilant."

Excerpts from the July 1957 Issue of American Highways.

W.A. BUGGE, President

This was a reprint of a speech that Mr. Bugge made to the Western Assn. of 

State Highway Officials in Houston, Texas, June 11, 1957.

WHAT HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS SHOULD DO

He first touched on the dimensions of the 1956 Act and then turned to the 

responsibilities of the highway departments. He worried that because of the 

greatly increased problems brought on by the new program that the States might 

have a tendency to buck the problems back to Washington and he felt that that 

would be a sure way of insuring the downfall of State sovereignty in highways. 

He reminded them that the Federal government was not capable of running a 

vast highway program even if it wanted to. He stressed that the States must take 

a more active role in planning and research than they had been inclined to do in 

the past. They must be more active in the development of standards not only for 

construction but uniformity of State laws on traffic control and regulation.

He emphasized that the 90-10 matching rate did not alter at all the traditional 

prerogative of State initiation of all projects. He felt that every State should review 

its legislated authority and seek necessary changes and also to review their user 

revenue situation in order to insure adequate matching and to take care of non 

Federal-aid responsibilities. Each should review its management structure and 

salary schedules and seek changes in order to obtain and hold engineering 

talent. Greater efficiencies should be sought through computers, 

photogrammetry, and innovative construction equipment and techniques.

He felt that new personnel relations were required in order to instill trust and 

confidence in employees. Public relations was also extremely important and an 

area that highway engineers had traditionally shunned but success or failure 

might well hinge on their abilities in that area.

He also felt that all departments needed to strengthen their abilities in the area of 

accounting not only for showing accountability for public funds but from the 

standpoint of evaluating economic payoffs of projects and methods for planning 

and programming purposes.

F.C. TURNER, Deputy Commissioner & Chief Engineer, BPR.
This is a speech given at the Third Annual Seminar, American Right of Way 

Association, Chicago, May 16, 1957. It was titled "Federal Highway Program and 

Procedures."

He reminded them that the 1956 Act was not new at all but was the 49th 

amendment to the 1916 Act.

THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING

He spelled out the history of the highway program and emphasized the 

importance of planning in influencing the course of events over the years. He 

cited the reports Toll Roads and Free Roads and Interregional Highways as 

being crucial to the establishment of the Interstate program. He also cited 

President Eisenhower's speech in 1954 calling for a "Grand Plan" for highways 

as another critical milestone.

He pointed out that the requirement of the 1956 Act that the Interstate be 

designed and built for traffic requirements many years in advance, was the first 

time in history that the program was required to be forward looking and not just 

reactive to already existing congestion (This was indeed contrary to the principle 

upon which the program was built through the twenties, i.e., that only projects be 

built that had the demonstrated ability to return more revenue than they cost. 

Doing otherwise was considered to have been the error of the counties and 

townships, thus squandering their resources on small projects with insignificant 

travel. MacDonald had been quite critical of Germany for building the 

Autobahnen when the traffic wasn't already there).

The control of access was also radically new and of direct concern to the 

audience. He cited statistics to show the safety and capacity implications.

THE SYSTEM CONCEPT

He noted the recent development of the "System" concept in highways which 

was greatly accelerated by the 1944 Highway Act which required the 

development of multiple Federal aid systems and thus required the revision of 

State laws to permit that function to take place. He cited this as a great step 

ahead in planning for priorities in highway improvements and the allocation of 

resources to where they were most needed.

CLIFTON W. ENFIELD, General Counsel, BPR

This was given to the Third Annual National Seminar of the American Right-ofway Association, May 16, 1957, Chicago. It was titled "Acquisition of Right-ofway for Federal-aid Highways."

NEWNESS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION

He noted that right-of-way acquisitions during the next 13 years would exceed 

the total such actions for highways in history partially because 75% of the 

Interstate would be constructed on new alignment.

He stressed that since the function was so new, whole new disciplines and 

concepts would have to be developed. New legislation would have to be enacted, 
standards developed, appraisers hired and trained etc., and it would all have to 

be done quickly.

The very nature of right-of-way acquisition by eminent domain would result in 

litigation, a field new to the departments and they must prepare for it.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL ACQUIRE IN SOME CASES

He cited the issuance of PPM 21-4 having to do with acquisition of right-of-way 

by the Federal government on the State's behalf. This was a new feature of the 

1956 Act available to those States that did not have the legal authority for access 

control and other features such as utility relocation. He described the process in 

some detail noting that the Department of Justice would do the acquisition 

through the local office of the United States Attorney.

The speech was quite technical and comprehensive in an area that has received 

little public attention.

A.E. JOHNSON, Executive Secretary, AASHO.

This was an address given to the American Right-of-way Association on May 16, 

1957.

THE COMPLEXITY OF R.O.W. ACQUISITION

He noted that the 1956 Act had spurred r.o.w. legislation in more than a dozen 

States. He said the expanded highway program was under scrutiny by Congress 

because of the vast sums involved and the feature that the Federal government 

would acquire r.o.w on request. He said that a Congressional hearing on the 

subject had begun the day before.

THE POTENTIAL FOR SCANDAL

He said that 44 departments had indicated that they would have no need to have 

the Federal government do the acquisition. He discussed the details of how 

various departments were organized. He said proposals were before Congress to 

allow payments to displaced tenants. He urged extreme care and diligence in the 

acquisition process to avoid scandal.

JOSEPH C. HAZEN, Managing Editor, The Architectural Forum.

This Speech was delivered to the 43rd. Annual Road School, Purdue University, 

April 24, 1957.

THE AUTOMOBILE IS ON THE WAY OUT-THE INTERSTATE IS TOO LATE

"To dispel immediately any friendliness that may be lurking in some dark corner 

of this room, let me tell you of the thought that kept my mind off the road I 

travelled this morning between Indianapolis and Lafayette: I kept wondering if 

this conference on road building in 1957 didn't make about as much sense as the 

last annual convention of carriage makers back in 1909. Why? Did you know that 

General Motors has announced the formation of a new division, prophetically 

named 'the electronic highway department!' And did you know that the Rotor-
Craft Corp. of Glendale, Calif. has announced the production of a jet-powered 

helicopter for civilians-as simple to operate as an outboard and priced at half the 

cost of our cheapest automobile-less than $1000! Who needs roads?"

"...I suggest 'The Metropolitan Transportation Problem' by Wilfred Owen of MIT 

and any articles you can find written by his MIT colleague, John T. Howard."

"Maybe I will have trouble convincing you that the outlook for highway building is 

a gloomy one, for I know and you know that $100 billion of federal, state and 

local funds will go into highway building in the next 10 to 15 years. But in one 

major respect the outlook for highway building is gloomy: unless we are very 

careful, the program will completely fail its purpose."

DEFINITION OF THE HIGHWAY FUNCTION

"Most people will say that the purpose of a highway is to move traffic. Not so. 

That is its function. Its purpose, like that of any public facility, is to serve the 

community. Unless the new highways serve the community, regardless of how 

well built they are, how smooth, how fast, how heavy an axle load they will carry 

or how attractive they are-regardless of how well they meet all these tests, if our 

new highways do not serve the community, they fail."

"First, what do we mean by 'Community?'..." He went on to define it as the metro 

areas where 60% of the population lives.

"Our metropolitan areas are growing in acreage as well as in population, 

consuming rural land at a gluttonous rate...These land-eating metropolitan areas 

of our country comprise the community of which we speak-the community which 

the new highways must serve."

THE CITIES ARE OUT OF CONTROL NOW

"...The auto can break cities as well as make them. The auto's speed and turning 

radius long ago made the city's horse and buggy street pattern quite obsolete; 

the auto's quantity production long ago made the city impossibly congested; and 

then the auto provided the means by which the upper and middle income groups 

could escape from the city...and the means by which the city's slums and blight 

are now being transplanted into the suburbs and into the country."

"Out of control, as it is today, this city smashing chain reaction will end only when 

we run out of unspoiled land as one metropolis sprawls into another."

He described urban sprawl in detail and dimensioned it and quoted Catherine 

Bauer, a leading Geographer in the Forum Magazine: "'The challenge of 

tomorrow-the shaping of the metropolitan community that must provide for these 

46 million more Americans outside our central cities-is going unheeded by and 

large. Most new development continues to take place outside the jurisdiction of 

responsible local government or of well-staffed planning agencies. Growth in the 

hinterland just happens-shaped in the main, by fate, the ad hoc decisions of 

individual developers, and the narrow financial concerns of the Federal Housing 

Administration and the lending agencies.'"
THE NEED FOR HIGHWAYS TO BE DERIVATIVE TO COMPREHENSIVE 

PLANNING

"Fortunately, the auto and the highway which have contributed to the growth and 

congestion crisis now confronting our cities can also be their salvation. But will 

they? Will the new 41,000 mile highway program, about 6,000 miles of which will 

be built within urban areas, relieve the traffic congestion which is choking our 

cities? Not unless it helps solve the fundamental problems that cause this urban 

congestion."

He went on to point out that if the highways were planned to implement other 

public works that the urban areas had planned or were underway, the highways 

could help, but if they weren't, they would compound the problems.

"You say there is no question about this cooperation between the highway 

planners and the community leaders. I say there is..." He cited a particular 

highway in New Jersey where its construction was sprung on the local officials as 

a complete surprise.

"Of course, it would be ideal if every community not only had a master plan of 

future development but also had it published for all to know. Better yet, the 

downtown renewal program and the access highway program should be planned 

simultaneously, as it has been in several of our more wide-awake communities."

He pointed out that a new radial freeway would extend suburban sprawl further 

out and create housing that would become eventual slums and that such 

developments would overload the highway.

"These and similar questions indicate that the transportation problem is not 

simply a matter of providing more and bigger highways and parking lots. As 

Wilfred Owen says, the metropolitan transportation problem is really only partly a 

transportation problem. 'Half is building additional transport facilities. The other 

half,' he says, 'is creating an environment in which the transportation system can 

work.' By 'creating an environment,' he means imposing restraints to avoid the 

creation of transport demands beyond the capacity of the transportation system. 

In other words, to make sure that the problem a highway is designed to solve 

doesn't change as soon as the concrete has set."

COMPREHENSIVE PLANS MUST PRECEDE HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

"I can hear you say that often the city has no plans for the highway designers to 

tie into. All too often this is true. But most large cities and many smaller 

communities do have plans and planners. For you to ignore or disregard them is 

inexcusable. If they do not exist, then it behooves the highway builders to urge 

the cities to find out-or to find out for themselves-how a proposed highway can 

best serve the true interests of the community."

"Highway planning today involves so much more than technology and design that 

few engineers are qualified to handle the job alone. Their work today involves 

land use plus planning, industrial development, land economics, urban renewal, 

city planning and a host of other specialties. If they are intelligent enough to see 

this, they are also intelligent enough to see that they cannot do the full job alone. 

They must work closely with city planners and, where cities do not employ 

planners, perhaps they should hire planners themselves as consultants. Surely 
we want our highways in a hurry and at minimum cost consistent with sound 

design. But speed of construction and low cost may be far less important than 

the long range benefits and economies that may be had by devoting a little extra 

time and money on integrating the highways into other city plans."

COORDINATION AND COOPERATION A MUST

"Without such thoughtful coordination of the highway program with city planning 

and urban renewal, the proposed $100 billion of highway spending will buy as 

much chaos as concrete, and years from now we will be little better off than we 

are today."

"...Smarter men than I have prophesied that during the next few years you and 

your colleagues, in planning the highways under the new Federal Aid program, 

will have more effect on the pattern of growth and the character of our 

metropolitan areas, than all of the planning done by all of our city planners since 

the war."

"That, gentlemen, is an awful responsibility. I beseech you to handle it carefully."

Excerpts from the October 1957 Issue of American Highways:

INTERSTATE ROUTE MARKER SELECTED AND NUMEROLOGY MAP APPROVED

The article documented approval of the Interstate numbering sign at a meeting of 

the Committee on Administration held at the AASHO Road Test on August 14, 

1957. Over 100 designs were considered. The policy and procedure governing 

the use of the signs was also presented.

WILLIAM A. BUGGE, President of AASHO

The title of the speech was "Cooperation, The Password To Success". It was 

delivered at the 16th annual meeting of the Southeastern Association of State 

Highway Officials.

"...We are now in the big time. There are disciplines and interests that have never 

been interested in the highway program before that are now becoming 

interested. These new interests can give us many problems not before 

encountered."

WE CAN'T WAIT IF COMPREHENSIVE PLANS DON'T EXIST

"We hear allegations now that the men who have developed procedures and 

planning and who have located and designed the nation's foremost urban motor 

facilities are not entirely capable of doing so, and may need some expert 

assistance from outsiders. I say that the highway engineer, going about his 

location, development and design, as he does, follows proper and established 

procedures of planning. He determines what the traffic is, where it wants to go, 

what it will be within a given time in the future, and the existing and probable land 

uses within the city. He determines where the cheapest right of way may be 

available, and he combines all these factors and makes a recommendation. As 

long as he bases and supports proposals on such procedure, he is doing a good 

engineering and planning job and is performing as he should if competent and 

adequate professional planning has not already been done or is underway."
"If an urban area has some advance planning as to land use development and 

the like, any highway department would be most happy to have this information 

and consider it. If such planning has not already taken place, it is doubtful that 

time can be afforded in an urban area to develop such plans, and the highway 

departments will have to go about their job and do the best planning, location 

design that is possible."

CAN'T TOLERATE A TWO YEAR MORATORIUM TO WAIT FOR URBAN 

PLANNING

"We should bear in mind that the urban part of the Interstate program, and the 

allocation for the urban extensions of the primary Federal-aid system are not 

large enough nor designed to take care of all of the urban transportation 

problems. The recent Hartford meeting of the Connecticut General Life Insurance 

Company on highway planning in metropolitan areas has brought some of the 

attitudes that exist into the open and identified them. Some are constructive, 

some serve as warnings that we must heed. There one proposal was made that 

we have a two-year moratorium on the highway program to give the planners an 

opportunity to prepare for the program. The economic penalties for delaying 

already vitally needed facilities for another two years would be tremendous. A 

two-year moratorium is a bit ridiculous. We note that the American Municipal 

Association official in attendance denounced the proposal. We know that there 

are constructive planners who can help us and some others that dwell in the 

realm of untried theories."

He noted that $1 billion had already been obligated on the Interstate. He 

estimated that the Interstate would require about 2 million acres of right of way 

but 1.5 of that would be from unproductive land.

CONSIDER LOCAL PLANS

He listed 8 different meanings of "cooperation" ranging from the departments 

cooperating with each other to cooperation within highway departments. No. 5 

was cooperation with the local officials. "Local officials-Urban and County have 

an intense interest and responsibility in the highway programs, and we should 

make them feel they have a part in the successful execution of the program...By 

considering any plans and proposals that these local governments may have for 

highways is most helpful and establishes good relationships..."

No.6 was cooperation with civic groups and other organizations. "By cooperating 

with this type of group, we can gain support for our proposed projects especially 

if we are able to show the reasons for our proposals and explain how we arrived 

at those proposals as we should in every case..."

No. 7 was cooperation with the public. "Here I refer to dislocated persons, who 

are having to move because of right of way acquisition."

CONGRESS IS BEGINNING TO HEAR COMPLAINTS

"We are right now in the stage of the program when there is a period of 

dissatisfaction. Many individuals are disgruntled-the housewife whose home is 

being filled with dust, the merchant or innkeeper who is being left on an old road, 

the farmer whose farm is being cut in two, the dislocated apartment dweller, the 

property owner, and others, are dissatisfied and will be until the highway project 
in question is completed, handling traffic, and a period of stabilization and 

readjustment has elapsed."

"In the past, these dissatisfied individuals have usually carried their complaints to 

the highway departments, the highway commission and the Governor. There has 

been so much publicity, however, about the big national highway program that a 

great volume of mail now goes to the Congress."

AASHO MUST HAVE A LEGISLATIVE POLICY

"...During the past year the highway officials have not had a legislative policy. 

Our thinking was in line with the Chairman of the House Public Works 

Committee. We must, however, have a strong legislative policy this coming year 

or lose prestige. We cannot and should not neglect our responsibilities and leave 

certain important items to the good judgement of the Congress, even on 

controversial matters..."

TRANSIT CAN MEAN TROUBLE

"Other things that can complicate our picture can be the rapid transit problem, 

wherein those interests are looking longingly towards our road funds, and the 

actions of organized groups, and business interests that are being affected by 

the relocation of the highways or by the control of access..."

He closed by admonishing his audience to keep the word "cooperation" 

uppermost in their minds.

C.D. CURTISS, Comm. Public Roads, to SASHO

The Commissioner gave a status report on the program, complimented certain 

Interstate highway projects, especially in the South, and discussed the 

importance of the AASHO Road Test as an element in the Congressional 

requirement for a uniform size and weight study and also its importance in the 

Section 210 Cost Allocation Study.

F.A. DAVIS, President of SASHO-Welcome.

THE PUBLIC IS DEMANDING RESULTS

"...Getting the big new highway program rolling has been the toughest job and 

the greatest challenge that the highway engineer has had to face until now. The 

big program has been a reality for a little more than a year. Some of our people 

expected immediate results but in most instances the public has been 

considerate and understanding. It is generally realized that a construction 

program of this magnitude cannot be put under way immediately. However, we 

have now had our breathing spell. After more than a year, the public wants to see 

results in the form of work under way, and the public has a right to expect results. 

We must now deliver the goods in the form of completed projects. The obstacles 

that stand in the way must be overcome..."

GOOD PUBLIC RELATIONS A MUST
"...The location of the Interstate routes and the hearings on them give new 

emphasis to the problem of public relations. The motel owner on the existing 

road bitterly resents being left to wither on the vine-or so he thinks-while the big 

new super-highway that is to be the Interstate route is relocated over the hill from 

him. The farmer doesn't want to go down to the next interchange to get across 

the road to visit his neighbor on the other side. They all think that controlled 

access is fine for the other fellow but it should not apply to him. We shall have to 

get our story across to the public, and get it presented in its best light, if we are 

going to have support for this program. The Interstate System will, I think, sell 

itself when substantial mileage of it is in use, but in the early stages there are 

many misconceptions and much local opposition. The hearings now required on 

all Federal aid projects brings us in much closer touch with the local people than 

ever before. If we use it properly, it is a wonderful opportunity..."

NOTE: This may have led to the AASHO Committee on Public Information being 

directed at the 1957 annual meeting to assemble all information on the economic 

impact of limited access highways. The resulting report, dated December 1958, 

entitled Expressways Benefit You, though identified as preliminary, yielded 

considerable information. A polling of States' public relations activities in 1954 

showed only a few States had public information programs.

COMPLETION HAS ALREADY SLIPPED THREE YEARS

"...No one can say what the future holds. The Congress, this year enacted no 

new legislation. But the coming year will bring up many questions of vital interest 

to all of us. Congress will have before it the revised cost estimate of the Interstate 

System. According to all reports, this is considerably in excess of the original 

estimate, and will require much more than the 27 billion dollars contemplated by 

the 1956 Act. What will Congress do? The 13-year period of construction has 

already been extended to 16. Will it be further extended or will additional funds 

be provided?"

"Congress will also have before it the report on toll and free roads previously 

constructed and now made a part of the Interstate System. It will be interesting to 

see how this controversial question is resolved. Likewise, the question of control 

of billboards along the Interstate System is going to come in for a lot of attention."

"Unquestionably, Congress is going to insist on progress on the Interstate 

System. We shall have to demonstrate the fact that we are capable of carrying 

out this highway program as designed, and on schedule. Otherwise, we can 

expect drastic action."

DON'T EXPAND THE INTERSTATE

"There has been much pressure to expand the Interstate System beyond the 

41,000-mile limit now set on it. I understand that the Bureau of Public Roads has 

requests for about 14,000 miles additional. They have the unenviable task of 

selecting 1,000 miles out of this. Many of us feel that the Interstate program will 

be a continuing one. As the System is developed, the public will demand that it 

be expanded. But we also feel that it would not be wise to expand it until we are 

at least well on the way with the present system..."

Excerpts from the January 1958 Issue of American Highways.

WM. A BUGGE, The President's Annual Address
"...I want to mention Thomas H. MacDonald. He is no longer with us, but the 

monument he built with his heart, his intelligence and his tireless devotion to duty 

stands on. He designed this relationship between the Federal and State 

governments in highway matters. He saw it grow into one of the finest 

instruments ever developed. He saw it flourish and he saw it build a highway 

system which is the finest ever achieved by man..."

WORRIED ABOUT FEDERAL DOMINANCE

"Of course, there is a danger that the Federal-State relationship he built may be 

changed. For the Federal government is pouring large sums of money into a 

highway program. If the States can't spend that money effectively, the Federal 

government will spend it and that means a subordination of the role of the State 

highway departments. The State highway departments may become mere 

messengers of the Federal government..."

"The manner in which the States discharge their obligations in this large-scale 

highway program will determine largely just what role the State highway 

departments play over the years ahead."

PUBLIC SUPPORT ESSENTIAL

Certainly the legislation we can expect at this next session of the Congress will 

reflect the public support the State Highway departments have. If the people 

support their State highway departments, highway policy will continue to be 

determined at the State level. But if we haven't earned the public support through 

effective and vigorous action there is grave danger that highway policy will be 

transferred piece by piece to the Federal government. That would be fatal to the 

success of our highway program."

THE NEEDS STUDY

"Now I come to the subject which Congress will deal with which is of 

overwhelming importance to the success of the program. That's the consideration 

of the "Needs Studies" the States have made. This will set the score of the 

highway program. It will determine just how much money a (each) State gets for 

improvement of its portion of the Interstate system."

THE COST OF THE INTERSTATE WILL BE MORE

"These totals are going to be more than the total in the 1955 "Needs Study." But 

there are valid reasons for this. It is assumed there will be a modest increase in 

the estimated cost of the Interstate System over the 1954 figure, however, the 

increase can accurately be explained as follows: One half is caused by the 

increase in construction and right of way costs since 1954, the other half by a 

better realization of the design and construction requirements of the traffic needs 

of 1975. Nevertheless, this association will be called upon to defend those cost 

figures and to defend the policy which would allocate the money among the 

States on the basis of the relationship of need. This must continue to be of 

concern to us during the next session of Congress..."

The rest of the speech was routine reports of status.
SEN. ALBERT GORE, Address to the Annual Meeting

His speech was largely historical in nature.

"My distinguished predecessor in the Senate, the late Senator Kenneth D. 

McKellar, was among those in Congress who was instrumental in the passage of 

the 1916 Act. It has been said that he became interested in a Federal highway 

program when he found it necessary to ship his automobile from Tennessee to 

Washington by rail because there was no adequate road over which it could be 

driven..."

CONCERNED ABOUT THE EARMARKING OF FUNDS

"...A...major policy change contained in the 1956 Act was the provision 

earmarking certain highway user taxes for use solely in highway construction. I 

want to be quite frank in saying that I have some reservations about the 

earmarking of tax funds. If carried too far, there is no question but that such 

earmarking can completely hamstring a legislative body by denying it effective 

control over the appropriation of funds. I can assure you that Congress will watch 

most carefully and jealously the operation of the highway trust fund. We will 

certainly seek to insure that the funds are used strictly for the purposes for which 

they are earmarked..."

"...The program has not gotten off to as fast a start as many of us would like to 

see..."

"...In his announcement of October 18, the Secretary of Commerce approved not 

only an additional thousand miles specifically provided for in the Act, but also yet 

another 1,102 miles said to have become available as a result of estimated 

savings in mileage by the use of new locations with more direct connections 

between control points on the System..."

CONCERNED ABOUT THE DESIGNATION OF THE LAST 2000 MILES

"...I say to you quite frankly, that I was and am somewhat concerned about the 

action of the Department of Commerce in approving for designation new 

additions to the Interstate System which had not been sought by the States and, 

at least in some instances, without even having consulted the Highway 

Department in the States in which they were to be located. The Federal Aid 

Highway Act of 1944 which established the Interstate System provided that the 

routes to make up the System should be "selected by joint action of the State 

Highway Departments of each State and the adjoining States, as provided for by 

the Federal Highway Act of November 9, 1921, for the selection of the Federal 

Aid System..."

"So far as I have been able to ascertain, up until last month, the Bureau of Public 

Roads had invariably adhered to a policy of considering only those requests for 

additions to or changes in the System for which one or more of the States had 

made formal application...We can't have a partnership if we don't even have 

consultation..."

FREE OF FRAUD
"...We shall insist that this great highway program be clean of fraud, free of 

partisan politics, and conducted in true cooperation and mutual respect by both 

Federal and State officials."

BERTRAM D. TALLAMY, Administrator's Annual Address.

DECENTRALIZATION OF BPR

"...I thought I would talk to you about such things as our progress, the status of 

the trust fund-that must be of interest to you-the fact that we have decentralized 

our operations a great deal now in an effort to expedite the highway program. I 

would like to tell you about some of the problems of the future and the pitfalls as I 

see them in this program, including the need for overall planning in connection 

with the development of our metropolitan plans for highway development. I think I 

ought to talk to you a little bit about the thousand mile addition of the Interstate 

System. (Laughter-this was what Senator Gore earlier accused the 

Administration of designating without consulting the highway departments.) And 

another thing that is very important, I think, is the matter of public hearings."

He gave the status of program obligations and the condition of the Trust Fund 

which included a discussion of the strategy to avoid a deficit in the Fund. He 

noted that all program authority except final location approval had been 

delegated to the field offices. He spoke of the shortage of trained engineers and 

encouraged the use of electronic computers and photogrammetry wherever 

possible and offered technical assistance in both of those areas. He stressed the 

tremendous amount of work being done in the cities:

METROPOLITAN PLANNING

"...We are not getting credit, neither the Federal government nor the State 

highway departments, for this particular work that we are doing (metropolitan 

planning), and doing properly. And let me stress the vital importance of 

proceeding in accordance with a good overall basic plan when you undertake the 

construction of urban arterial highways or sections of the Interstate system in 

metropolitan areas."

"I said you were doing it right and you are. The law requires, and you would do it 

any way, that we design these highways for 1975 traffic. Now, before you do that, 

you have to know what the traffic is today. You have to know where it starts and 

where it wants to go in the metropolitan area, and then you have to find out the 

peak loads of traffic, where it comes from and where it wants to go at rush hours. 

Then you have to know the same information for 1975 before you can properly 

design a highway to carry 1975 traffic."

"Now it is perfectly obvious that you cannot forecast traffic of the future in any 

metropolitan area unless you know how that area is going to function in 1975, 

how it is going to develop between now and 1975, what vacant areas today are 

going to be industrial, what single dwelling unit areas today are going to be 

multiple dwelling units. Is your commercial area going to expand into a downtown 

section or are other areas going to be opened up for commercial development? 

Is urban redevelopment in the picture?"

"Those are the things that the State highway engineer has to know before he can 

forecast what the traffic flows are going to be in 1975, and he has to know that 
before he can design his highways for 1975. Obviously, so if the city doesn't have 

a good urban program planned today, one that the State highway engineer can 

use to facilitate his designs he must go through the same basic steps that the city 

has to go through to develop its own master plan for transportation. That hard 

fact ought to be recognized by everybody and if, by chance you are ignoring it I 

certainly urge that you immediately review your procedures for urban arterial 

development to make certain that this basic method is being followed. It is the 

only sound approach and it is the only way you can be sure that these wonderful 

highways which you are developing will actually stimulate metropolitan 

development as it should be stimulated..."

INTERSTATE DESIGNATIONS

"...Now as to the Interstate System expansion which we announced recently. If 

there was ever a problem and a headache that was given to the Bureau of Public 

Roads, it was to be the Solomon to distribute the newly authorized 1,000 miles 

plus some 1,102 miles in saving when there were 13,775 miles of requests. It 

was done analytically."

He described how the elimination of stubs, discontinuities etc., brought the 

candidate mileage down to 5,285 from 13,775. Those remaining were carefully 

considered from the standpoint of Defense, system integration, population served 

and economic importance. Rating weights were assigned to each factor and then 

to each route and the evaluations continued until those remaining were within the 

mileage to be allocated.

"We would like to have called in all of the States where new routes appeared 

during the latter part of this analysis looming up as very important. It would have 

been very desirable to have called you in and said, 'This looks good and we 

would like to have you initiate it,' but to do so would have involved joint action of 

a number of States all over the United States which would have surely delayed 

the decision many months, and would, in turn, have delayed the advancement of 

other routes for which you have already made application."

"I think we did it right, but certainly there was no intent on the part of the Bureau 

of Public Roads or the Department of Commerce to indicate any beginning at all 

of the Bureau of Public Roads dominating this highway picture..."

PUBLIC HEARINGS

"...This new legislation required that we-you, rather,-hold public hearings...it has 

been necessary during the initiation of this program to go to the public hearings 

with nearly completed plans, and in a few places completed plans, because you 

had them already finished at the time this legislation requiring public hearings 

was adopted so there was no other alternative, but that time is gone now and we 

should hold our public hearings ...when you have decided on the best location, 

you know where the interchanges are going to be...and you know that it is 

physically possible to build the route there...but no further." He went on to 

describe that if information was developed at the hearing that required a change 

in location, a lot of money would have been wasted in the development of final 

plans.

He indicated that costs would be up in the revised Interstate Cost Estimate about 

to be submitted. He noted the difficulty of estimating costs 15 years in advance 
but he felt that the program would put so much work under construction that 

costs could come down.

SEN. FRANCIS CASE, S.D., Address to the Annual Meeting.

EVENTS LEADING TO THE 56 ACT

"...We were told by your representatives and by the Bureau of Public Roads that 

we were not keeping pace with the growing highway needs of the country, so in 

the 1954 Act we attempted to provide a Federal aid program which would roughly 

approximate the dollars being collected on these taxes I have mentioned, so we 

stepped up the total amount for the ABC Roads from 550 to 700 million dollars 

per year. We stepped up the interstate program from 25 million to 175 million. 

Percentage wise that was a much larger increase, but as it was indicated this 

morning, the interstate system had been in the doldrums. Authorized in 1944, 

designated in 1947, we had been spending only about 25 million dollars a year."

"One reason for the position of the interstate system was not merely the small 

amount of dollars provided for it but it was the fact that the standards for the 

interstate system were properly higher than for the other parts of the primary 

system and the states confronted with the necessity of getting the most road 

miles for their dollars were reluctant to match too much on a 50-50 basis. They 

had to put in more to meet the standards and yet could not get as much for their 

dollars."

"...So in the 1954 Act we proposed that the percentage matched by the Federal 

Government be increased. I do not recall whether it was a 75-25 basis or 66 2/3 

and 33 1/3 basis. In the conference it was settled at 60-40. We established a 

principle that if we were going to build an interstate system to a higher standard 

at the interest of the Federal government then it would be appropriate that the 

Federal Government should make a larger contribution toward the cost of 

meeting that high standard."

"Then we did some other things in the 1954 Act which laid the foundation for the 

1956 Act which were epochal in character. We had had some discussion about a 

joint Congressional study of the needs for bringing our several highway systems 

up to date, not merely the interstate but the primary, secondary and urban."

"So we wrote into the Highway Act Section 13 which directed the Bureau of 

Public Roads to make a study in cooperation with the several state highway 

authorities of the needs of the several systems to see what was needed to bring 

the system up to the standard necessary to meet our traffic requirements. That 

Section 13 study became the basis for the work of the Governors Committee and 

the Clay Committee which followed a year or two later."

"In 1954 when we were working on the step-up of the rate of aid for the agency 

roads some of the brethren in the Senate and the House were a little skeptical as 

to whether or not the President would approve and provide that large an 

increase. In fact, we were told in the conference that some members of the 

Congress felt quite confident the President would not agree with it if we followed 

the recommendations of the Senate bill in that respect."

EISENHOWER'S URGING
"I have never forgotten when we went to the White House at the time the 

President signed the 1954 Act that he had a fist-full of pens there and he signed 

a few letters with each pen and passed them out to us. He said, "That gets us 

started, but we must do more," and he went on to talk to us about other public 

needs, too."

"That was followed by the message he sent to the Conference of Governors, 

delivered by Vice President Nixon, in which he threw out the bold challenge for 

the greatly stepped-up building of the interstate highway system. The President 

appointed a committee headed by General Lucius Clay and in 1955 those 

recommendation came to the Congress."

"...We had the Constitutional problem (in 1955) that you cannot originate revenue 

measures; they can only start in the House. In fact, the bill itself must carry a 

House Number, if it included tax features."

FAILURE IN 55

"Some of us thought it might be possible to develop a use fee or a license system 

for cars that travel on the interstate road and use that as a method of financing. 

Be that as it may, the thing could not be worked out satisfactorily in 1955 when 

we originally passed the version of the stepped-up program which was the basis 

of the Senate action. In the House of Representatives they ran into the same 

hard stubborn rock to get across and the bill failed in the 1955 session of the 

House, but in 1956 Congressman George Fallon and his associates Harry 

McGregor and others, came forward with the taxes that were worked out by the 

Ways and Means Committee to finance the program."

"...The second thing that ought to be considered and must be considered in the 

work on the 1958 Act will be the evaluation of the cost estimates for completing 

the interstate system. I think many of you are familiar with the fact that one of our 

greatest problems in both the Senate and House and also in the Conference was 

the method of apportionment that should be used for the interstate funds. In the 

1954 Act we had met the problem halfway, you might say, by providing for the 

allocation of 50 percent of the funds on population alone and then the other 50 

per cent on the one third-one third-one third familiar ratio which, when added 

together, gave us two-thirds on the basis of population one-sixth on area and 

one- sixth on mileage."

HOW TO APPORTION?

"Because of the great spread of different yardsticks that must have been used in 

the cost estimates that were available to us at the time of the conference on the

1956 Act we finally arrived at a compromise of continuing to ride on the old 

formula for the first three years and then for the last ten years the new estimate 

of costs on which you have been working and to which Mr. Tallamy referred this 

morning. But there is nothing automatic about that. The 1956 Act could not bind 

and does not pretend to bind the Congress that will be in session in 1958. We 

could go through all of this again, this matter of determining the apportionment."

"...If the cost estimates stand up, then they will be basic and we will start out 

apportioning the states one-tenth of the cost estimated for the cost of completing 

the miles in that state designated under the original 40,000 miles designation."
"Those of you familiar with the language on the additional 1,000 miles remember 

that the addition of that 1,000 miles did not automatically increase the amount of 

money going to the state..."

THE TOLL ROAD PROBLEM

"A third thing which the committees are almost certain to take up is the 

determination of whether or not states that have had toll roads incorporated into 

the interstate system will be reimbursed for the cost of the same. Some 2100 

miles of toll roads or turnpikes are incorporated into the interstate system now. 

Congress could turn a deaf ear to the pleas of those states for reimbursement on 

the grounds that those roads are already built, but I think that there will be a 

feeling that there should be some reimbursement to the states if the roads are 

made free before the tolls have completed retirement of the bonds outstanding. 

This will be a vexing problem and a difficult problem because the natural 

temptation will be to say 'Let's not pay for them right away. They are being used, 

they are in operation, the states are collecting the money for them.'"

The rest of the speech was about things that might possibly come up in the next 

highway hearings.

REP. GEORGE FALLON, Md., House Public Works Committee-Address to the Annual Meeting.

He indicated that the Congress would be reviewing the progress of the Interstate 

and that it was looking forward to receiving the new cost estimate and the other 

studies being done by BPR.

COMPLAINTS

"...I think I hear practically all of the complaints that you officials live with all the 

time. There are those who claim the program is bogging down and want it 

speeded up and those who in cities would like to declare a moratorium for two or 

three years to provide time for urban planning; those who insist on a community 

bypass and those who resist the bypass; those who can never agree with those 

who consider the interstate ugly or "phony" as to defense importance; those who 

see opportunity in doing strange and wondrous things with the Trust Fund 

money..."

CODIFICATION OF HIGHWAY LAW

"...Another legislative job facing our Committee is the codification and 

modernization of Federal highway laws, now largely a hodge-podge and in many 

respects obsolete. I am sure that this is of extreme importance to the Bureau of 

Public Roads and to you in the State highway departments. I will introduce 

legislation to accomplish this and hope it will move along rapidly..."

"...Speaking of modernization and moving this program forward, its very size and 

newness has generated the need for expanded and improved public relations 

between highway departments and the people who are affected. I mentioned 

some of the typical complaints and charges that I hear; actually the immensity of 

the program and its long- term benefits have not yet really come home to the 

public."
THE NEED FOR GOOD PUBLIC RELATIONS

"As highway engineers and administrators, you have an enormous responsibility 

in your contacts with the public to spell out the value of the new highways and to 

deal, in every case, with tact and diplomacy."

"...An enlightened and understanding public is not only essential to the success 

of your local highway programs but of immense help to Members of Congress in 

their efforts to shape acceptable legislation. We need the support of the folks 

back home."

He touched on the need for more attention to highway safety and congratulated 

AASHO on the great job it was doing.

C.D. CURTISS, Commissioner, BPR to the Annual meeting, Nov. 18, 1957

Curtiss urged the use of all forms of media, including the public hearings, to 

disseminate knowledge about the new program. He felt that the immediate future 

would be difficult until sufficient mileage was open for traffic at which point, the 

program would sell itself.

URBAN PLANNING

"Perhaps the greatest challenge...is in the urban areas. Here, as you all know, 

careful cooperative planning is a basic requirement, and such work has been 

carried out in a number of States. Where up-to-date master plans providing for 

different types of land use were available, work on urban sections of the 

Interstate was initiated without delay...Where up-to-date plans are not available, 

further surveys and studies are necessary to properly locate the Interstate..."

"As experience has shown, this is an undertaking which requires the full 

cooperation of all levels of government. Fortunately we are not strangers to this 

kind of cooperation. It has been going on for some time-long enough to 

demonstrate that our State highway departments are well qualified to carry out 

the necessary planning surveys in cooperation with municipal officials of the 

areas under study."

He cited several studies around the country as models of good cooperation and 

practice..."The joint AMA-AASHO Committee and the Urban Transportation 

Committee are making a most useful contribution to a better understanding of 

urban transportation problems and the need for full and prompt cooperation at all 

levels of government. Leadership of the individual State highway departments is 

necessary to make this cooperation effective."

The rest of the speech was quite comprehensive. The topics were the same as 

those covered by the other speakers at the meeting.

H.S. FAIRBANK Received first MacDonald Award, Nov. 18, 1957

D.C. Greer presented the first Thomas H. MacDonald Award to Herbert S. 

Fairbank. Fairbank graduated from Cornell in 1910 and joined BPR that year. His 

first job was editor of the Public Roads Magazine. He was credited with co-
authorship of Toll Roads and Free Roads, Interregional Highways and Highways 

for National Defense.

An interesting sidelight was Mr. Greer's description of Mr. MacDonald's death: 

"As you know, approximately seven months ago on April 7, 1957, Thomas H. 

MacDonald down at Texas A.& M. College at College Station, Tex., walked over 

to the cigar counter after a very pleasant dinner with his family and friends and 

bought a cigar, sat down on a comfortable divan and passed away."

The July 1958 Issue of American Highways.

WM. E. WILLY, Pres. WASHO, at Salt Lake City, June 3, 1958.

Mr. Willy noted that the new Interstate Cost Estimate had increased the cost from 

$27 billion to $37 billion. Considering the extra 1000 miles that were not in the 

estimate, he speculated that $40 billion was not unreasonable. He felt that with 

the time stretch outs caused by limiting the apportionments to avoid deficits in the 

Trust Fund that 20 years to complete the System was not unreasonable. He had 

the following to say about planning:

LONG RANGE PLANNING

"Long-range planning is a wonderful thing, but with the rapidly changing national 

and world situation I wonder if it is wise and the most economical thing to do, to 

try and outguess them for perhaps more than three years at a time. I feel that if a 

State has a three-year construction program, where annually you drop off a year 

and add another, then you are pretty well ahead of the situation. There is a great 

need to have a flexible type organization where you can shift with the tide and 

accept overnight changes as a regular thing rather than as an emergency. If 

there is an active plan where you are working at least one year ahead of the 

current fiscal year, you will be in a better position to accept these sudden 

changes than if you have everything keyed to a beautiful but impractical longrange schedule. One overnight development could knock the whole thing out of 

kilter if you attempt to plan too far ahead. I know we are all hoping for the day 

when we have the stability to do real long-range planning, by which we can give 

the motorist and taxpayer and everyday citizen the most for his money. I don't 

know when this happy day will arrive but I am personally looking forward to it with 

a great deal of anticipation."

OPPOSITION TO BY-PASSES

He spoke of the problems they were encountering with the Interstate Program: 

"Number one is probably the by-passing problem. Try as we might, we have not 

been able to halt the loud outcry of the motel, restaurant and service station 

people. Most of the public are on our side, but they make up the great silent 

majority, so the public hearings are inevitably crowded with the anti-by-pass 

element. We can only hope that as the Interstate program pushes ahead, in spite 

of this opposition, the benefits will come to be so gratifying that the tide will 

automatically turn in the right direction."

PROBLEMS WITH LIMITED ACCESS

"Another problem is concerned with control of access. The big change in thinking 

as outlined in the 1956 Highway Act that now we are building highways for the 

benefit of the motorist and the property owner has little or nothing to say in the 
matter. After doing things one way for 40 years, since the passage of the first 

Federal-aid Highway Act, we now have to do a complete about face in our 

philosophy of road building. Here in the West this concept is proving highly 

unpalatable to our ranches and farmers, who have long been accustomed to 

almost totally unrestricted freedom, of movement. Until recently an unforeseen 

factor was the dividing of large range holdings as the Interstate System was 

routed, sometimes diagonally, through grazing or crop lands. Perhaps the water 

hole would be on one side and the grazing land on the other; round-up time 

without adequate cattle passes would be something to behold."

"...Now that the 1958 Act provides for hearings in rural as well as urban areas, 

we will do our best to lay some good-will groundwork for future negotiations with 

farmers and ranchers..."

A.E. JOHNSON, Executive Secretary AASHO at WASHO, Salt Lake City.

PROBLEMS WITH THE FIRST COST ESTIMATE

The rest of the title was "Voluntarily Established or Federally Imposed-The 

Decision is Ours." He described himself as the "Official Worrier from 

Washington." and worried that unless the States exhibited more progress in 

establishing voluntarily more uniform standards of practice and construction, the 

Federal Government would have to do it for them: "This fact is forcibly brought to

our attention by the scheduled hearings starting July 7 before the Senate Public 

Works Committee on the General Accounting Office Report on the results of its 

checking the new Interstate cost estimates in eleven selected States. It is pointed 

out that non-uniformity in practice and variance from the controlling estimating 

manual and official design standards apparently exist, but that agency is not 

qualified to pass on the engineering reasoning involved. The Bureau of Public 

Roads has defended the estimating procedures and results..."

"...I do not believe that States have done anything that is wrong, or for which they 

must apologize, and engineering-wise they have produced the best 

comprehensive highway preliminary estimate that has ever been made, but they

must aggressively explain what they have done and why, and explain estimating 

procedures and their inherent and expected accuracy. The law clearly stated that 

the estimates would be made on a uniform basis, and the official who is not an 

engineer, but must appraise the adequacy and adherence of the estimates to the 

law, must have his questions answered to his complete satisfaction, or he will 

want to write the law so tightly as to include engineering standards."

"Personally, I am disappointed that some minor variations from the official 

procedures manuals and official design standards apparently occurred at a time 

when cost estimates were to be used for the apportioning of federal road funds 

for the first time on a needs basis and allowed an element of suspicion and 

question to arise in official quarters. I deplore the carelessness and plain 

arithmetical errors that apparently crept into some of the estimates. You made a 

"B" in your Highway Engineering Course, but "FLUNKED" Arithmetic because of 

carelessness..."

STRESSES AND STRAINS ON THE OLD WAYS

He urged better cooperation and development of uniform procedures in a wide 

range of categories including signing, size and weight, etc.:
"The invisible wall around a State is falling down, and any "prima donna" official, 

who insists on imposing his own personal preferences instead of cooperatively 

working with others to develop the best possible uniform practice, is passing out 

of existence, and that started when the Highway Act of 1956 was signed..."

"...Many highway departments for the past generation have been basically rural 

highway agencies. We hear allegations that the average highway department is 

incapable of planning and building urban highway facilities. Unless the highway 

official is able to prove that he is fully cognizant of his increasing urban 

responsibilities and is capable of discharging them, this is another area in which 

we are threatened with federal legislation..."

"...The Interstate program is a blessing in many ways but creates new problems 

of serious proportions. It will give impetus to improved highway designs, 

techniques and operations but also spotlights many practices that must be 

improved and made more uniform. Through AASHO and the Highway Research 

Board we already have the proper organizations and facilities to develop 

technological advances, research and uniformity in the highway field as the need 

arises and do so in a minimum of time."

Excerpts From the January 1959 Issue of American Highways.

CLAUDE R. McMILLAN, S.C., AASHO President.

IN DEFENSE OF THE FIRST COST ESTIMATE

"...We have just gone through our first apportionment of Interstate System funds 

on the basis of cost estimates. It was to be expected that our first estimates 

would not be so accurate as later ones. Therefore, we had not expected the 

criticism that came from Congress. Admitting that some of the criticism may have 

been justified, we feel, nevertheless, that the estimates were prepared by the 

most competent engineers in the country and, with few exceptions, no one could 

have done better. The estimates were a sound basis for apportioning the 

interstate funds, bearing in mind that such errors as there were would be 

corrected by future estimates as construction progressed. I caution all members 

of highway departments, however, to profit by our experience of last year and to 

exert every effort possible to see that future estimates be prepared with such 

care and accuracy that they will not only look right but will also be right."

TRUST FUND RUNNING A DEFICIT

"...The Highway Trust Fund is now running a deficit, due to a provision in the 

1956 Federal-aid Highway Act which limits apportionments of Interstate funds to 

the States to estimated amounts in the Trust Fund. This provision-the so-called 

Byrd amendment should be suspended, or even better, repealed."

"Because of the condition of the Trust Fund, Director Maurice Stans of the 

Bureau of the Budget has warned that a choice must be made soon between 

increasing the Federal gasoline tax or using general funds to meet the deficit."

"The Congress can correct this situation simply by applying all of the special 

motor vehicle taxes to the Trust Fund. The total revenue from all special Federal 

excise taxes of $3.5 billion annually is more than sufficient for all authorizations 

from the Trust Fund. Under the present law 100 per cent of the tax on gasoline 

and diesel fuel, and the use tax on certain vehicles go into the Trust Fund, but 
not all of the special taxes on tires, trucks, buses and certain other items go in 

the Fund. All of these special excise taxes on vehicles should go into the Fund, 

and also, if there should then be a deficit, the deficit should be met from general 

revenues. If necessary, bonds could be sold against future revenues similar to 

the method proposed by the Clay Committee. Because of the national defense 

and general welfare value of the Interstate System highways, there is an inherent 

obligation on the part of the Federal Government to bear a part of the cost of the 

system from general funds."

"Congress should NOT increase the Federal gasoline tax. (They did.) Any such 

action would further add to the already heavy burden on highway users. Motor 

vehicle owners, as a class, are now paying more than their share of taxes. 

Furthermore, we must face up to the possibility, be it ever so remote, that the 

Federal-State motor fuel tax combination may be approaching the point of 

diminishing returns."

"I do not believe the American people want the program cut back..."

SEN. ALBERT GORE, Tenn. Address to the annual Meeting.

RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE INTERSTATE PROGRAM

He had some real question as to whether the entire highway program should be 

dependent on highway user taxes. He did not agree that the cost estimate was 

the best way to apportion Interstate funds but he hadn't been able to think of an 

alternative. He noted dissatisfaction in the Congress with the preoccupation of 

beginning the Interstate in the urban areas. He wanted to see more intercity 

pavement. He noted that he had been an opponent of the limited access concept 

but that he had finally been won over. He deplored the burgeoning idea of a time 

stretch-out of Interstate completion. He felt that we should keep on schedule.

SEN. FRANCIS CASE, S.D., Senate Public Works- Address to the Annual Meeting.

CODIFICATION OF TITLE 23

He stressed the importance of the General Highway Act of 1968 which codified 

all highway law into one statute called Title 23. This was separate from the 

Federal Aid Highway Act of 1958.

THE 1958 HIGHWAY ACT

He cited the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1958 as being significant in the following 

ways:

1. Acceptance of the new cost estimates as the basis for making 

apportionments for the Interstate. He felt that that was a milestone.

2. Establishment of bill-board regulation on new right-of-way on the 

Interstate.

3. Establishment of $400 million in "D" funds to meet emergency needs to 

be matched by "L" funds advanced by the Government and to be paid 

back from future apportionments.

4. Provision for hearings for rural people on highway locations giving them 

the same rights as by-passed towns and cities had.
BORROWING FROM THE GENERAL FUND

He said that the issues facing the Congress in the coming session were:

1. Adequate financing of the Trust Fund. He noted that Congress had 

waived the Byrd Amendment the year before thus allowing the full 

authorizations to be apportioned even though there was a deficit with the 

condition that the necessary funds be borrowed from the general fund. 

The result was that repayments were going to have to be made to the 

general fund before the next apportionments could be made, thereby 

leaving nothing to apportion for 1961 and that 1962 could not exceed 

$600 million thus throwing the program way off schedule. Even after 62, 

the maximum amounts expected were in the range of $1.3 to $1.5 billion. 

He spelled out the alternatives:

a. Place the burden of making the Trust Fund whole on the general 

funds of the Treasury. He felt that there was absolutely no hope 

of passage of such an initiative.

b. Increase the highway user revenues and/or adopt new ones. 

This meant an increase in the gas tax and perhaps other user 

taxes, all of which would meet with strong resistance. He 

speculated on the feasibility of a "Use" stamp costing $5.00 and 

to be bought at the Post office.

c. Authorize a bond issue to cover the anticipated shortage and 

stretch out the time that the existing levies were authorized. He 

noted that this solution had considerable support on the Hill but it 

would increase the National debt and the timing was poor for 

that.

d. Modify the scope and/or standards of the Interstate. He noted 

that this might be the likely outcome. Simply stretching out the 

program as long as it took. He didn't feel that there would be 

much support for modifying the standards for the Interstate 

downward.

2. A demand for greater highway safety. He said that there were more than 

30 bills in Congress on the subject. Something was going to pass. The 

public would no longer put up with the carnage and the initiatives were 

going to have to go into all aspects of the road, the driver and the 

automobile.

REIMBURSEMENT FOR INTERSTATE TOLL ROADS

3. Requests by States for recognition of money they have put into free 

roads and toll roads that are on the Interstate System. He said that he 

had become more aware of how important this issue was after travelling 

in those States that had significant such mileage. He said that BPR 

reported that it would take $4.83 billion to reimburse them and that BPR 

was due to report on the subject to the Congress. He felt that the sheer 

size of the total and the current problems of avoiding deficits in the Trust 

Fund made it mandatory that the subject be put off till a future time.

REP. GEORGE FALLON, Md., Public Works Committee-Address to the Annual Meeting.

A FISCAL CRISIS APPROACHING
He reminded the audience that the 1956 act authorized $27 billion through 1969. 

The new cost estimate just completed raised the cost by 37% and that was only 

for 38,549 miles. He advocated readjusting the authorizations automatically when 

new estimates come in rather than having to legislate every time. He also 

recalled that the 56 act used a formula based on population and miles of road for 

apportioning Interstate funds until the new cost estimate could be completed. The 

Congress decided on using the 1958 cost estimate to apportion 1960 and 1961. 

Rep. Fallon felt that 1962 should also be apportioned using the same estimate in 

order to keep the apportionments far enough ahead but that the prospects of 

having no funds to apportion, as Sen. Case had described, made the raising of 

revenues urgent and this had to be done by Ways and Means. (Actually the 

Congress raised the gas tax by one cent and raised some other user taxes in 

1959).

OTHER ISSUES

He noted that there was a technical glych in Title 23, just passed which altered a 

section of Highway law that had just been passed. This had to do with the 

maximum time of r.o.w. acquisition before construction. He said that that would 

have to be fixed by the new Congress just elected.

He hoped that Congress would deal with the reimbursement of toll roads 

question in the next session.

He stressed the need for careful advanced planning to keep the highway 

program progressing smoothly. He was fearful that the Congress might resort to 

making ad hoc decisions not well thought out.

REP. GORDON H. SCHERRER, Ohio, Public Works Committee- Address to the Annual Meeting.

POSSIBILITIES OF SCANDAL

He warned of the possibilities of scandal with such large sums at stake. His 

speech was quite routine and laudatory.

BERTRAM D. TALLAMY, Federal Highway Administrator-Address to the Annual Meeting.

THE FISCAL CRISIS

He stressed the need for solution to the fiscal crisis brought about by the 

suspension of the Byrd Amendment for FY 58 and 59. He warned against frills 

and unnecessary items creeping into the Interstate cost estimates. He said they 

must hold the line against too many interchanges.

URBAN PLANNING

He devoted considerable attention to the growing urban problem. He noted that 

several highway departments had set up special organizational units to deal with 

urban planning. He said that BPR had set up a special unit in the Office of 

Engineering to coordinate urban highway and Interstate System development 

with urban master transportation and land use planning:
"We must all realize that the time is rapidly approaching when it will be necessary 

to have an approved master plan of arterial highway routes in metropolitan areas, 

showing reasonably long-range extensions to the System. In our rapidly 

changing metropolitan areas such planning and programming is becoming 

increasingly imperative to assure the maximum benefit from our highway work 

and to avoid waste...I trust that in the immediate months to come all States will 

cooperate with appropriate metropolitan officials in the establishment of a basic 

State arterial construction program and to accomplish those objectives within the 

time which may be reasonably required for their establishment..."

The rest of the speech was a rather routine progress report.

Excerpts From the April 1959 Issue of American Highways.

A.E. JOHNSON, Executive Secretary of AASHO-Address to American Society of Public 

Administration.

The assigned topic of his talk was "Work Load Valleys and Peaks-Highways". He 

cited the many peaks and valleys that the program had experienced over the 

years and how devastating they were:

PROSPECT OF A SHUTDOWN OF THE INTERSTATE PROGRAM

"Unless there is legislation in the Congress this year to provide additional funds 

for the enlarged road program, there will be no apportionment of federal-aid 

funds to the State highway departments for the 1962 fiscal year for the very 

important Interstate highway program. There will be no interruption in the 

primary, secondary and urban Federal-aid programs as these systems have prior 

call on the highway trust fund with the balance going to the important Interstate 

highway system. To give you some idea of the effect of an interruption in the 

Interstate program assuming that the States do not get their 1961 apportionment 

of Interstate funds this coming July or August, thirty-two States by July 1960, a 

year from now, will have had to have stopped awarding contracts for construction 

on the Interstate network and the present rate of construction work in the 

Interstate system is over $2.5 billion annually."

"Thirty-two States will have to release engineering and technical help that they 

have recruited and trained for the enlarged program which, according to the 

Statement of Intent of the Congress, was to be a continuous program until the 

system, as contemplated, is completed."

"The State highway departments also advise that if the program is interrupted 

and then resumed later, it would take a full year just to get wheels rolling again 

after the resumption."

RESOLUTION: Association of Highway Officials of North Atlantic States.

PLEAS TO CONGRESS TO AVOID SHUTDOWN

"Resolved, That the Association of Highway Officials of the North Atlantic States, 

assembled in convention in Atlantic City, New Jersey, on March 18, 19 and 20, 

1959, respectfully reiterates its previous recommendation to the Congress of the 

United States, to provi de funds to retain the original schedule established by the 

1956 Highway Act for the completion of the National Interstate Highway Program 

without impediment or delay;..."
RESOLUTION: Mississippi Valley Conference of State Highway Departments.

"Resolved, That the Mississippi Valley Conference of State Highway 

Departments in Annual Meeting assembled in Chicago, Illinois, March 19- 21, 

1959, urges and petitions the Congress to provide adequate financing for 

continuation of the ABC highway system; and for the Interstate System in 

accordance with the intent of the 1956 Act;..."

Excerpts From the July 1959 Issue of American Highways.

RESOLUTION: WASHO

"Resolved, That the Western Association of State Highway Officials assembled in 

annual meeting in Billings, Montana, June 22-26, 1959, petitions the Federal 

government to give financial substance to the expressed intent of the Congress 

to build the Interstate system as nearly as practicable in a sixteen-year period 

and without interruption in order that the program can proceed;..."

Excerpts From the October 1959 Issue of American Highways.

SEN. ALBERT GORE, Tenn.-Address to the Governor's Conference, Oct. 5, 1959.

EXPLAINS CONTRACT AUTHORITY

"...Because of the necessary time required to plan highway construction, 

Congress has always proceeded to authorize expenditures for highways in 

advance of the fiscal year in which construction was expected to be completed 

and payment therefore made..."

"...The apportionment of highway funds has always been regarded as granting to 

the States authority to proceed to plan for highways and obligate such funds for 

highways and to obligate such funds immediately with assurance that the Federal 

Government's proportionate share of the cost will be reimbursed to them 

promptly upon completion of the work at any time beginning with the first day of 

the fiscal year for which the funds were apportioned..."

"...The Act of 1956 created a Highway Trust Fund to which revenue from certain 

highway user excise taxes were earmarked and from which payments to the 

States were to be made. It did not, however, alter or modify...or detract from the 

validity of an apportionment of highway funds to the States."

"The highway program is now in grave danger. Proposals are under 

consideration in high government circles, not only to curtail drastically the scope 

of the program, but also to undermine the legal effect of an apportionment of 

Federal funds and to engage in planned default on the part of the Federal 

Government in its obligation to reimburse the States promptly the Federal 

Government's share of the cost of highway construction on which the States 

have proceeded in reliance upon solemn commitments of the Federal 

Government."

CRITICAL OF THE ADMINISTRATION

"...By 1958, it was obvious that the revenues earmarked to the Trust Fund were 

inadequate to defray expenditures which would result from apportionments of 
funds if these apportionments were made in the full amounts authorized. The 

Administration initially proposed a slowdown of the program with future 

apportionments to be made at reduced levels. Many of us in Congress 

disagreed, urging that a slowdown would be harmful to the nation's economy, 

then in recession, and that such a slowdown would prevent the timely completion 

of the minimum program considered necessary and as authorized in the Act of 

1956. The Administration subsequently agreed and recommended the 

suspension for 3 years of the so-called Byrd Amendment which would have 

restricted the apportionments made last year to a level which the Trust Fund 

would support. Congress agreed and passed the Act of 1958 which suspended 

the Byrd Amendment for two years rather than the three suggested by the 

Administration..."

"...Basic law authorizes appropriations from the General Fund to the Trust Fund 

as 'repayable advances' whenever funds in the Trust Fund are inadequate to 

defray expenditures arising from apportionments, which such 'repayable 

advances' to be repaid to the General Fund when they are no longer needed in 

the Trust Fund for that purpose."

"In its budget for fiscal 1960 the Administration did not request the appropriation 

of such a repayable advance. Instead, it recommended augmenting the Trust 

Fund by a 1 1/2 cent per gallon increase. I was one of those that opposed this 

increase..."

"...the Congress passed a bill, later signed by the President, levying an additional 

one cent tax on gasoline for 21 months and providing for earmarking additional 

highway user tax revenue in fiscal 1962, 1963 and 1964...It was said that the bill 

would permit the apportionment of...$1.8 billion in lieu of the $2.5 billion 

authorized for the Interstate System..."

"...The Federal Highway Administrator, Mr. Tallamy, testified before the Senate 

Finance Committee that even with the additional one cent gas tax, there would 

be a deficit in the Highway Trust Fund by June 30, 1960, in the amount of $157 

million. It was proposed to handle this deficit simply by defaulting on the 

obligation of the Federal Government to pay the States promptly upon 

submission of vouchers."

"Mr. Tallamy testified further that even with the revenue provided under the bill, it 

was proposed to impose on the States 'contract controls' which would restrict and 

limit the right of the States to use funds already apportioned or which would 

subsequently be apportioned to them..."

"Subsequently the Administration submitted to Congress a supplemental 

appropriation request for an appropriation from the General Fund to the Trust 

Fund as a 'repayable advance' in the amount of $359 million. Included in the 

requested language, however, was a restrictive proviso which would require 

repayment to the General Fund of the entire $359 million on or before June 30, 

1960. As submitted, the request was designed only to permit the Trust fund to 

honor vouchers promptly during the first half of the fiscal year. If the entire sum is 

repaid prior to June 30, 1960, there will be no way to avoid the default to the 

extent of $157 million to which I have referred."

"...I moved successfully to strike the proviso requiring repayment this fiscal 

year...This leaves applicable the existing law which requires repayment, not by 
any specific date, but when the Secretary of the Treasury makes a determination 

that the money is available in the Trust Fund for that purpose."

"Notwithstanding elimination of this language from the bill, the Director of the 

Bureau of the Budget revealed at a press conference on September 24 that the 

Administration proposed to require the Trust Fund to repay the entire $359 

million prior to June 30, 1960. If this is done, as I have said, there will be a 

deliberate default to the States in the amount of $157 million this fiscal year, with 

the prospect of still further default during the next fiscal year."

MORE CONTRACT CONTROLS COMING

"I am not advised concerning the specific details or the form of contract controls 

under consideration. Apparently, however, a ceiling will be imposed on the 

amount of funds a State may obligate, by category of highway, during a given 

fiscal year, and even within a portion of a year. Under such a program, the 

amount of unobligated apportionments a State may have to its credit will be 

meaningless, except to the extent that the use thereof may be permitted within 

the ceilings established by Administrative action. The purpose of the so-called 

controls apparently is to limit obligations so that the amounts which the Federal 

Government will later be called upon to reimburse to the States will not exceed 

the revenues in the Trust Fund derived from earmarked taxes. Such a program 

would contemplate no appropriations from the General Fund as repayable 

advances other than those of a temporary nature which would have to be repaid 

within the same fiscal year in which appropriated."

"There is no statutory authority whatever for the imposition of such controls...The 

applicable provisions of law indicate clearly that the only legal restriction upon a 

State's use of its apportioned funds is its ability to provide its own share of funds 

and to plan for and construct highways to meet the engineering standards 

prescribed in the law."

He went on to review and spell out in detail Federal-aid project development and 

the review and approval process.

"...If the proposed controls are implemented, such action will mean that the 

Administration has no intention of requesting appropriations to provide funds to 

honor the obligation of the Federal Government which is implicit in the 

apportionment of highway funds. This obligation has never heretofore been 

repudiated, nor has such repudiation ever before, to my knowledge, been 

suggested."

"I am convinced that this attitude is not shared by the Congress..."

THE BRAGDON COMMITTEE

"...I should like to refer to another development which may have a far reaching 

effect on the Highway Program. When he signed the bill which increased the gas 

tax by one cent, the President announced that a complete review and restudy of 

the entire Highway Program had been ordered. I am informed that this study is 

being conducted under the supervision of Major General Bragdon, special 

Presidential Assistant for Public Works matters. This study is now in progress. I 

am genuinely concerned about reports relative to some of the recommendations 

which may be made as a result of this study. I have heard, although such is 
admittedly unverified, that the tenor of the report which will be issued upon 

completion of this study will be such as to negate completely the concept of the 

Interstate Highway Program which was recommended by a Presidential 

Commission headed by General Lucius D. Clay and which was endorsed by 

President Eisenhower and enacted into law by the action of the Congress and 

the President as the Highway Act of 1956."

BEN WEST, Mayor of Nashville-Address to the Annual Meeting, Oct. 15, 1959.

He reviewed the beginnings of the highway program and the 1939 report Toll 

Roads and Free Roads as evidence of the Government's early awareness of the 

urban traffic problem:

"...Twenty years ago the Bureau and the State Highway Departments were 

cognizant of the needs of urban and municipal areas, and, in all probability, more 

so, than municipal officials themselves at that time."

He traced the deliberations of the Interregional Highway Committee leading to 

the passage of the 1944 Act with its emphasis on urban areas. He then 

remembered Eisenhower's 1954 speech to the Governors calling for a "grand" 

highway plan:

THE BRAGDON COMMITTEE

"On September 22, 1959, an article appeared in the 'New York Times' in which 

President Eisenhower was quoted as saying that he was concerned that too 

much money was being spent for highway improvements in and around cities, 

instead of inter-city roads. The President disclosed that a comprehensive review 

of the Interstate Highway program's current policies, practices, methods, and 

standards has been under way since July under the direction of General John S. 

Bragdon, his Special Assistant for Public Works Planning."

"I am reliably informed that the Bragdon study is seeking to question the use of 

federal aid highway money to build the Interstate System through urban areas. 

The reason for the study, the 'Times' article stated, was the President's concern 

that the program might be departing from its original objectives and costing more 

than necessary."

"The Bragdon study might possibly seek to justify a policy of by-passing cities 

with feeder traffic using existing street patterns."

"I hope and pray the present Administration has not lost confidence in its own 

fine Bureau of Public Roads and in the respective State Highway Departments. I 

sometimes wonder if the Administration has faith in the statistical facts

concerning urban population, its projections, and the number of vehicles 

expected in urban areas by 1975."

NOTE: Since the Bragdon Committee is referred to frequently during this period, 

a special report on that subject is appended.

"The President himself set the pattern and the goals in 1954 when he called for 'a 

grand plan for a properly articulated highway system that solves the problems of 

speedy, safe, transcontinental travel-inter-city transportation- limited access 
highways- and farm-to-farm movement- metropolitan area congestionbottlenecks-and parking.'"

"His own Advisory Committee, the so-called Clay Committee,.. recommended a 

balanced program for a network of modern highways federal, state, and local. 

The Committee recommended that 'the Federal Government assume primary 

responsibility for the Interstate network.. to include the most essential urban 

arterial connections.'"

CRITICAL OF PRESIDENT EISENHOWER

"The President should know fully what the problems of urban America are. They 

have been demonstrated, forcefully illustrated, and discussed with him many 

times. I have personally participated in some of these conferences. Our Chief 

Executive knows that two out of three Americans live in urban areas, and there is 

sound reason to believe that the ratio will soon jump to four out of five....yet, in 

public policies, and in public acts, there seems to exist a definite current of 

deliberate disregard and discrimination against this great majority of our people, 

and the rumored objective of the Bragdon study is but one example."

DEFENDS AND SUPPORTS THE URBAN INTERSTATE

"...Let us not forget that roughly one half of Highway Trust Fund revenues comes 

from cities and urban areas. This fact alone is sufficient to justify the allocation of 

roughly one-half of the Trust Fund money in urban areas and cities, where, 

incidentally, the cost of construction per vehicle mile is much less than in rural 

sections."

"I simply cannot understand a philosophy of government which would install a 

military study group in one the most efficient and conscientious Bureaus in the 

structure of the Federal Government- the Bureau of Public Roads-with the 

apparent purpose of seeking to justify a policy of by- passing cities, to treat them 

as beggars at the back door, so to speak...The Mayors of this country, including 

myself, have already had all doubt removed that these funds would not be 

administered by the Bureau and the Highway Departments wisely and soundly."

He speculated that General Bragdon might have been chosen for the job 

because of the importance of National Defense but pointed out that, if that were 

the case, he was studying the wrong things.

"I have had the pleasure of serving both as Vice-Chairman and Chairman of the 

National Committee on Urban Transportation...I have also been Co-Chairman of 

the Joint Committee on Highways of the American Municipal Association and the 

American Association of State Highway Officials..."

"The National Conference on Highways and Urban Development brought 

together 55 top highway officials, mayors, public works directors, city planners, 

traffic engineers, business and civic leaders, and transit officials for a five day 

meeting a little over a year ago at the Sagamore Center of Syracuse University, 

under the general chairmanship of AASHO's incomparable Alf Johnson...It is my 

fond hope that someone on the Bragdon group will find the time to read the 

report of the Conference. I am confident that it will be a revelation to the reader."
"...The American people want this National System of Interstate and Defense 

Highways as you, their State Highway officials, designed and located it. The 

users of these highways are willing to pay for it, judging from the uproar back 

home last summer during the financial dilemma between Congress and the 

White House."

"Congress wants these highways built according to their expressed intentions, 

and not according to the dictates of special military study groups appointed from 

the ranks of Administrative staffs..."

MEMORANDUM OF LAW RELATING TO EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS APPORTIONED

THE ADMINISTRATION'S BASIS FOR FISCAL CONTROL

The October 1959 issue published a summary of the newly codified highway law 

Title 23 relating to the apportionment and project approval process. The article 

stated that: "There is no statutory authority for restricting expenditures to a level 

below that authorized by apportionments duly made. Counsel for the Bureau 

apparently relies upon 'inherent authority' as a legal basis for proposed contract 

control procedures. The following responses made by Mr. Enfield, Bureau 

counsel, to questions by Senator Kerr during hearings before the Finance 

Committee summarize the Bureau's position on the legal question involved:"

SENATOR KERR: "Mr. Enfield, the question which Senator Gore is trying to 

determine, and in which I am equally interested, is the basis in law of the 

proposal the director made a while ago or the policy being announced of contract 

control after an apportionment has been made, and of amounts of money within 

the apportionment as made..."

MR. ENFIELD: "The provisions in the law, that in my opinion give him that 

authority are found in sections 105, 106 and 110...Under the approval provisions 

of 106, which sets up the approval of the project, when that approval is given it 

creates under the law a contractual obligation to the Government to pay, to pay 

the Federal share of that contract."

"Now, I believe there is inherent in the approval which must be exercised under 

the statute by the Secretary, discretionary authority in the Secretary, to assure 

that when he constitutes that contractual obligation by approval that there will be 

moneys available to make payment."

The article goes on: "Prior to the creation of the Highway Trust Fund no control 

has been exercised over the obligation of apportioned funds except the limits 

imposed by the apportionment itself. No attempt was made to limit award of 

contracts to such amount as the Congress might have appropriated in its regular 

appropriations bill. On the contrary, States proceeded within the limits of 

apportioned funds available to them, and if the sum appropriated in the regular 

appropriation bill was insufficient, a supplemental appropriation was provided to 

make up the deficiency. The law setting up the Highway Trust Fund contains no 

provision modifying in any way the validity of an apportionment or limiting the 

availability for expenditure of the amounts so apportioned."

COMMITTEE NAMED TO INVESTIGATE THE HIGHWAY PROGRAM

THE BLATNIK COMMITTEE
"Under the chairmanship of the Honorable John A. Blatnik, member of Congress

from Minnesota and a member of the House Committee on Public Works, a 

special 18-man subcommittee was named September 4, 1959, by Congressman 

Charles A. Buckley of New York, Chairman of the House Committee on Public 

Works."

The names of all 18 were listed:

"Chairman Blatnik announced...'Our main objective is to obtain solid facts about 

every phase of the Federal highway program and after preliminary investigations 

hold open hearings.'"

"Congressman Buckley stated, in naming Blatnik Chairman of the subcommittee, 

that he was confident the committee would conduct a hard-hitting, thorough but 

fair investigation."

"Buckley said the investigation was 'necessary and desirable in light of numerous 

serious complaints from many sources, especially members of Congress who 

expressed their irritation and exasperation during committee hearings and floor 

debate on the bill providing an additional increase in the Federal gasoline tax. 

Members of the Committee on Ways and Means were particularly critical of the 

highway program and questioned the cause of substantial increases in program 

cost estimates over original estimates. Charges of inefficiency, extravagance and 

waste were also leveled against the program. This is especially serious in light of 

the fact that the Federal government is assuming 90 percent of the cost of the 

gigantic Interstate Highway Program, and while some Federal supervision exists, 

the actual construction and administration of the program is carried out by State 

highway agencies.'"

THE MILLS COMMITTEE

"Another committee to be known as the 'Subcommittee on Administration of the 

Internal Revenue Laws' headed by the Honorable Wilbur D. Mills, Congressman 

from Arkansas and Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means is 

composed of 7 members of the House Ways and Means Committee:.."

The members of the Subcommittee were named.

"It is understood this Committee will deal with a study of the financial 

requirements of the program and its administration from the monetary viewpoint."

THE BRAGDON COMMITTEE

"Still another investigative group headed by Maj. Gen. John S. Bragdon, 

President Eisenhower's special assistant for public works planning, will study and 

review the Nation's federal-aid road building program to determine if it is still 

within its original concepts and objectives and will include a complete study of the 

policies and administration of the federal-aid highway program by the Bureau of 

Public Roads and an evaluation of urban needs on the Interstate System."

"Among those assisting Gen. Bragdon will be Brig. Gen. Lacey V. Murrow 

(USAF, Ret.) former Director of Highways for the State of Washington, now a 

consultant in Washington, D.C., Commander Charles M. Noble (USN, Ret.) 
former Chief Engineer of the New Jersey Turnpike and more recently the Director 

of Highways of Ohio, now a consultant in Princeton, New Jersey, and Newman 

E. Argraves, former State Highway Commissioner for Connecticut, now a 

consultant in Hartford, Connecticut, as well as people from the Department of 

Defense, and others."

REIMBURSEMENT PLANNING

BPR'S PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING THE FISCAL CRISIS

"In Circular Memorandum No. 21-00, dated October 6, 1959, directed to Bureau 

of Public Roads Regional and Division Engineers, Commissioner Ellis L. 

Armstrong presented the 'Reimbursement Planning' or 'Contract Control' as it 

has previously been referred to. The memorandum and charts which 

accompanied it are as follows:"

"'The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1959 (P.L. 86-342, approved September 21, 

1959), provides additional revenue to the Highway Trust Fund for fiscal years 

1960 through 1964. Provided that there is orderly use of existing authorizations, it 

is expected that the total revenues to be available during this period will support 

Interstate apportionments of $1.8 and $2.0 billion for the fiscal years 1961 and 

1962, respectively, in addition to the apportionment of $925 million of ABC funds 

for the fiscal year 1961 and a similar amount assumed for the fiscal year 1962 

but which has not yet been authorized.'"

"'In signing the Act the President stated in part:

"'Because the bill does not provide the level of revenues required for continuing 

the highway program on the schedule contemplated under existing 

authorizations, it will be necessary to make orderly use of these authorizations so 

that spending can be held within limits that will avoid future disruption of the 

program. This action will be required if the Federal Government is to meet 

promptly its obligations to the States and at the same time adhere to the selffinancing principle upon which the highway program has been established.'"

"To provide prompt payment of vouchers on existing project agreements, 

legislation has been approved to appropriate a total of $359 million as a 

repayable advance from the general funds of the Treasury to the Highway Trust 

Fund. This will be available as an advance during the fiscal year 1960 for the 

purpose of avoiding temporary deficits that would otherwise occur in the Trust 

Fund beginning in October and reaching a peak in January."

"It is necessary to provide for an orderly scheduling of obligations and contracts 

in order to assure that the anticipated revenues that will be available to meet 

anticipated reimbursement requirements during the current and next fiscal years 

are not exceeded. Our objective, in cooperation with the States, is to establish 

the amounts which each State may expect to receive in Federal reimbursement 

from the Trust Fund for fiscal year 1961 and perhaps for two or more subsequent 

years."

The memo went on to describe in some detail the limitations on obligations to 

remain within the income of the Trust Fund:
"The obligation schedule is designed to keep the demands on the Highway Trust 

Fund during the current and next fiscal year to the amount of the tax revenues 

accruing to the Fund which will be available to meet estimated reimbursement 

requirements promptly....States desiring to proceed at a rate faster than can be 

supported from available Trust Fund revenues may elect to do so but with the 

clear written understanding that vouchers cannot be paid until and unless funds 

are available for reimbursement. Under current estimates of revenue and 

expenditures this cannot be expected to occur before late in the fiscal year 1963. 

Separate identification obviously will be required for any project advanced on 

such basis, and the letters of authorization and the project agreements shall 

specify that the Federal Government will not be expected to pay reimbursement 

vouchers on account of such project until funds become available..."

Excerpts From the January, 1960 Issue of American Highways.-The Record of the 45th 

AASHO Annual Meeting, Boston-Oct. 12-16, 1959.

R.R. BARTELSMEYER, Ill.- The President's Annual Address.

EXPLANATION OF THE FISCAL CRISIS

"...We have all been keenly aware that for the past three or four years, everyone 

has been talking about accelerating and stepping up the activities in the State 

Highway Departments in order to gear-up to the level demanded by the greatly 

enlarged highway program. Early during 1959 the high plateau of activity aspired 

to had generally been reached and the leveling-off started. However, at about the 

same time, instead of remaining sure that the program would continue at the 

anticipated pace, just about the exact opposite occurred and until very recently 

there was no definite assurance that the program would not be drastically 

curtailed..."

"...Suggestions were made that the highway program should be turned off and 

on, in accordance with funds made available for short periods, or in accordance 

with the general economic situation..."

ACCUSATIONS OF CORRUPTION

"...We have seen a great increase in the attacks and criticism of the program. It 

must be realized that when any individual public financed endeavor gets as big 

as the highway program, such things are sure to occur. That is the very normal 

way we do things in this country. You hear accusations made that the program is 

beset with scandal and corruption. You hear that the highway departments are 

gold-plating the work on the Interstate System and are going completely 

overboard on planning and designing..."

"Special Sub-Committees of the House Public Works and Ways and Means 

Committees have been established to investigate the Highway program We 

welcome this move and should do all within our abilities to assist and furnish 

information to these committees, as they check into all phases of our highway 

activities."

MORE FEDERAL CONTROL?

"I would be remiss in my remarks if I did not call your attention to still another 

trend of thinking that is being advanced-to impose more Federal controls in the 

building and the operation of the Interstate System. The line of reasoning behind 
all this, I presume, is that because the large percentage of cost to construct is 

financed with Federal funds, complete controls should be imposed at the Federal 

level. The thing they forget is that it is the taxpayer at home who provides the 

Federal funds."

"...Two of my immediate predecessors as President, William A. Bugge and 

Claude R. McMillan in 1957 and 1958, both gave warnings of this trend toward 

greater Federal control in their annual meeting remarks. It is still receiving much 

support and should be watched very closely."

"...This does not infer criticism of the Bureau of Public Roads. The relationship 

between this arm of the Federal Government and the State Highway 

Departments has worked out very successfully for many years..."

"...We did not take a position (with the Congress) for or against an increase in the 

gasoline tax. We emphasized and asked that Congress and the Executive 

branch develop and enact a solution to prevent an interruption in the program. 

This was accomplished before Congress adjourned last month."

CONTRACT AUTHORITY

"A problem still with us is the Contract Authority and Reimbursement Assurance 

concept that the States have enjoyed and taken for granted for the past 45 years 

of Federal Aid highway apportionments. Until now the States have been free to 

move apportionments to obligation at any time desired, during the effective 

period, with the firm assurance of receiving reimbursements promptly. Now we 

have been informed a change in this procedure has been made. We trust there 

may still be some action taken by the Congress early next year if that is 

necessary, to keep this Federal-State relationship as it has been in the past."

URBAN PLANNING

"Great strides were made in connection with urban highway problems by the 

Joint AASHO-American Municipal Association Committee. A very concise and 

complete report of the Sagamore Conference held in late 1958 was released. 

The recommendations contained in this report should serve a very useful 

purpose in advancing the cooperative effort of all governmental agencies 

responsible for urban highway work. Following a directive of the Executive 

Committee a number of seminars were planned where highway planners and 

engineers would gain a better understanding of city and urban planning 

techniques. These meetings were cancelled on short notice when the assurance 

of continued Federal aid at the present level seemed doubtful. We hope these 

meetings can be reactivated in the future."

DEFENDS THE URBAN INTERSTATE

"It is rather alarming to note the considerations being given to a curtailment of the 

Interstate Highway Program in urban areas. Since some of the greatest and most 

acute needs for adequate modern highways exist in the urban areas, it is 

inconceivable that a sound and well balanced Interstate Highway System should 

not include extensions into these areas. For a public works project as 

comprehensive as the Interstate Highway Program, involving the large 

expenditure of public funds anticipated, it seems important to provide for some of 

the needs and spend a substantial amount of the money in the urban areas, if the 
program is to receive the fullest public acceptance. Our efforts should be to 

prevent this part of the program from being weakened or reduced in any 

manner..."

SEN. PAT MacNAMARA, Mich., Chairman Sub-committee on Roads.

HOW CONGRESS DEALT WITH THE HIGHWAY FISCAL CRISIS

"...We have just squeaked through another highway crisis in Washington, trying 

to make sure that the 41,000-mile program authorized by law proceeds 

somewhat according to schedule."

"I say we squeaked through because right up until the last moment we weren't 

sure that the program would continue at all much less go forward on schedule."

"As you know there were two aspects to this year's highway crisis, separate in 

the manner of handling, but both of them dealing with financing."

"One part was the financing of the entire Interstate program over the next two 

fiscal years, 1961 and 1962, and the apportionment of funds during each of these 

years."

"This was accomplished by imposing a new 1- cent a gallon tax on gasoline, on 

top of the present 3-cent tax, for a 21-month period which began October 1."

"The 1959 law also transfers half of the 10- percent excise tax on automobiles to 

the Highway Trust Fund for a three-year period beginning July 1, 1961..."

"...I opposed, in principle, both of these measures."

"In the first place, I do not like to see the imposition of increased consumer taxes 

on the Federal level. This is another unfair burden that is in no way based on the 

principle of taxation according to the ability to pay."

"Further, as a Senator from the State which is the home of the automobile 

industry, I have long recognized the inequity of excise taxes on automobiles..."

"...Even so, despite the new gas tax revenue, actual revenues to the Highway 

Trust Fund are still expected to be below need for fiscal 1961."

"This results in apportionment for fiscal year 1961 of only $1.8 billion, instead of 

the previously authorized $2.5 billion."

"...The second crisis developed when we tried to make sure that commitments 

already made to the States for the present fiscal year, 1960, would be fulfilled."

"This called for a repayable appropriation of $359 million from the Treasury's 

general fund to the Highway Trust Fund..."

"...The money was appropriated in a rider to the Mutual Security Appropriations 

bill, a rather unorthodox maneuver, but expedient."
CAUSES OF THE CRISIS

"...When the Highway Act was written in 1956 we thought we had provided such 

a plan, one that would carry the program to completion in 1972."

"...I suppose that it was inevitable that with such a tremendous undertaking all 

would not go according to plan."

"In the first place, the 40,000 miles when actually measured turned out to be 

38,548 miles."

"This left 1,452 'saved' miles available for allocation, but the saving was more 

imaginary than real since the new allocation boosted the Government's $25 

billion estimate by about $1.5 billion."

"Then there was a 15-percent increase resulting from local traffic needs, 3 

percent from utility relocation costs, 12 percent from general price increases."

"Altogether these new costs have raised the original $25 billion Federal estimate 

to $36 billion..."

"Still another factor...was...the action taken by Congress last year...Primarily as 

an anti- recession measure the apportionment for fiscal year 1959 was increased 

by $200 million and for fiscal 1960 by $900 million...This... created an immediate 

drain on the Trust Fund amounting to an estimated $1.6 billion."

"At this point you may ask whatever happened to that extra thousand miles that 

makes this a 41,000-mile interstate program."

"That has been designated too, but no financing provisions are included in 

current legislation..."

THE ANOMALY OF THE BYRD AMENDMENT

"...The Byrd Amendment requires the Secretary of Commerce to limit actual 

apportionments to the States to the available revenue in the Highway Trust 

Fund."

"...The presence of this provision is thoroughly inconsistent with the financing 

plan contained in the 1956 Highway Act."

"The broad outline of that plan anticipated that there would be an interim period 

when expenditures outran receipts by the Trust Fund."

"It was expected that excess revenues in the fund in the early and latter years of 

the program would balance out the higher expenditures in the middle years. This 

would include repayment to the Treasury of advances to make up the interim 

deficit."

"However, this plan got a rude jolt with the adoption of the Byrd Amendment."
"...Last year, when Congress boosted the fiscal 1959 and 1960 apportionments, 

the Byrd Amendment was suspended for these two fiscal years."

"This insured fulfillment of the authorized apportionments for these two fiscal 

years with the $359 million appropriation from the general fund completing the 

1960 commitment."

"However, while suspension of the Byrd amendment last year was necessary, 

the net effect was robbing Peter to pay Paul."

"Had we not enacted the new revenue raising measures this year, application of 

the Byrd Amendment would have meant no interstate apportionment for fiscal 

year 1961."

"And the apportionment for fiscal 1962 would have been only about $500 million 

instead of the planned $2.2 billion..."

THE ADMINISTRATION RELUCTANT TO BORROW

"...The present Administration refuses to consider more advances from the 

general fund even though it knows they would be repaid with interest."

"They refuse to consider this solution, a solution which was intended under the 

1956 Act because it causes a temporary dislocation in the sacred budget."

"While it is called the Byrd Amendment it is actually Administration inspired. My 

own feeling is that it should be repealed, if we expect to carry out the intent of the 

1956 Act."

"I cannot predict..our..next cliff-hanging adventure, but undoubtedly it will occur."

MURKY FISCAL FUTURE

"Further increased construction costs could certainly upset the precarious 

balance we have achieved."

"And we have got to decide how our two new States, Alaska and Hawaii, can 

share in this program as they rightfully should."

"Financing of the additional 1,000 miles must be worked out."

"The Byrd Amendment will continue to plague the program and the consumer 

faces the risk of the new gas tax becoming 'temporarily permanent' and the auto 

excise tax continuing despite the legal requirement to reduce it..."

REP. GORDON H. SCHERRER, Ohio, Subcommittee on Roads.

"...During the last six months, Congress and some other people dawdled and 

politiced so long with the highway financial crisis that we barely missed detouring 

the whole construction program up a blind alley."
"...It would be funny if it were not so serious, but I checked the record and found 

those who were crying the loudest about the program being too big were the very 

same people who just a year ago had panicked during the recession and voted to 

expand and accelerate highway construction by $1.6 billion, without providing the 

money for the trust fund to do the job. Less than 12 months later they had thrown 

their crying towels away and were urging that the program be cut in half."

CHARGES OF WASTE

"Some of our other friends made the Bureau of Public Roads and the state 

highway departments the chief whipping boys. In the short space of a few weeks 

we developed an amazing number of sidewalk highway engineers and experts 

on road legislation."

"The country was led to believe from the way some people talked that the 

depleted condition of the trust fund was due to the fact that the highway 

engineers had gone hog-wild with the people's money. It was charged that there 

were too many fancy, costly, and overly complex cloverleafs and interchanges; 

that rights-of-way were much too wide; that you fellows were deliberately picking 

out the highest priced real estate through which and over which to run the new 

roads."

"Charges of waste, inefficiency, and even fraud in the administration of the 

highway program were hurled about with some abandon. State highway 

departments were repeatedly accused of squandering money on the interstate 

system because the federal government was paying 90 per cent of the cost. It 

was argued that by raising the state's contribution to the interstate system, this 

waste could be stopped."

"...Irreparable harm can be done to a really fine highway program by ballooning 

up and unduly publicizing the mistakes and deficiencies and failing to point out 

how few they are in proportion to the thousands of fine and successful projects. It 

must be kept in mind that the political headline-hunters realize that incidents of 

wrongdoing make good press copy."

REASONS FOR THE FISCAL CRISIS

"Above all the record should show that none of the derelictions charged, true or 

untrue, were responsible for the financial crisis in the highway program. Let me 

give you the six factors that got us into this box or financial crisis."

1. "The trust fund absorbed, as was not contemplated, approximately $1.5 

billion of highway obligations due and owing on the effective date of the 

1956 act."

2. "In 1958 Congress, particularly the Senate, got the recession jitters, as I 

have said, and provided in the 1958 act for an acceleration of the road 

program by $1.6 billion. This was done without providing the revenue for 

the trust fund to meet this increased cost."

3. "The Senate also added 1,000 miles to the 40,000 mile interstate 

system. These are often called 'political miles.' Again, no revenues were 

provided for the trust fund to pay for this additional mileage."

4. "Highway standards and requirements were increased to take care of 

some local needs. Standards had to be increased because, like our 

population, there was an unexpected and unforeseen increase in motor 
vehicles. Even since 1956 motor vehicle use on our highways has 

increased at a far greater rate than was predicted by the experts just 

three years ago."

5. "The original estimates of cost on which the 1956 act was based were 

made rather hurriedly by the state highway departments in 1954. There 

were some miscalculations. From 1954 to 1958 construction costs and 

right-of-way acquisitions increased by about 12 per cent because of 

inflation."

6. "Even if all of these things which I have just mentioned had not 

happened, the successful operation of the trust fund was doomed at the 

very outset when the Senate added the Byrd Amendment. The 1956 

House-passed bill contemplated that in the first years of the program 

expenditures would exceed trust fund receipts while in later years 

receipts would exceed disbursements. Therefore, in the early years there 

could be borrowings from the surplus near the end of the program. With 

the tremendously increased cost of the program, of course there will be 

no such surplus. Even if there had been a surplus, no borrowings could 

have been made because the Byrd Amendment provided that 

apportionments to the states could be made only to the extent that the 

trust fund could support the expenditures."

"...Why then did Congress only pass a temporary measure, and not provide the 

funds necessary to complete the entire program? Why did Congress not cut the 

program or change the distribution formulas or state contributions?"

CONGRESS WAITING FOR THE SPECIAL REPORTS

"Congress did not act simply because it did not have before it the evidence on 

which to act intelligently. If it had attempted to move in any direction these 

various controversial matters, it would have done so in the dark. It realized that 

16 months from now it can act intelligently on all of the issues, because 

Congress will then have before it two reports resulting from extensive and 

exhaustive scientific studies and surveys that are now being made."

"These reports will enable us to determine the following highly controversial 

questions:

1. Should the tax base for the trust fund be broadened to include other than 

highway users who may receive benefits from our modern highways, 

such as adjoining landowners, Department of Defense, and so forth?

2. What effect do various vehicles have on the highways and the life 

thereof, and what standards and costs of construction are made 

necessary to carry and support the different sizes and weights of 

vehicles?

3. What is the fair and equitable share of the taxes or charges that each 

class of highway users should pay?

4. What will be the actual cost of completing the interstate system?

5. Are highway users paying too much or too little of the cost of building 

and maintaining highways?

6. Are commercial vehicles paying too much or too little compared to 

passenger cars?

7. Should standards of construction, right-of- way widths, etc. be increased 

or decreased?

8. Is the interstate or ABC system being discriminated against?
9. Should the formula of sharing costs between the states and the federal 

government be changed?"

"It is now crystal clear that no one can decide or properly act on these numerous 

highly controversial issues, involving both financing and construction, until these 

1961 reports are available."

THE BRAGDON COMMITTEE

"In spite of this, I learned to my amazement two weeks ago, first through the 

press and then from other reputable sources, that since June a special 

committee appointed by the White House (this was the so-called Bragdon 

Committee) has been busily engaged in preparing recommendations on many of 

the issues which will be the subject of the 1961 reports. As I have pointed out, I 

cannot possibly understand how any intelligent or sound recommendations can 

be made without the benefit of the '61 reports."

"Let me give you an example of one of the decisions that has already been made 

and which this White House committee is now in the process of trying to justify."

"These portions of the interstate system within industrial areas are to be 

substantially de-emphasized, if not completely eliminated. This special committee 

will try to find justification for eliminating the interstate system within industrial 

areas but, if it cannot do this, then it will definitely recommend substantial 

curtailment of this part of the highway program. Such a policy would be a rape of 

the very heart of the original Clay Report and the 1956 highway act."

"...The density of traffic on the industrial and urban parts of the interstate system 

is more than a hundred times greater than the average density of traffic on the 

remaining 99-plus per cent of America's highways. While those portions of the 

interstate system connecting industrial centers need rebuilding and improvement, 

the density of traffic on that portion of the interstate system is infinitesimal 

compared to that adjacent to and through the industrial and urban areas of this 

nation."

CRITICAL OF THE ADMINISTRATION

"...It should be apparent now that, if this new policy of eliminating or deemphasizing the urban sections of the interstate system had been known, the 1 

cent increase in the federal gas tax would never have passed the Congress. I 

was asked by the President, as the ranking Republican on the Roads 

subcommittee, to introduce the legislation to increase the federal gas tax 1 1/2 

cents. I did so to save the highway program-to avoid more deficit spending which 

would accelerate the inflationary spiral. I didn't introduce the measure to continue 

a program out of which they were planning at the time to cut the heart."

"...I understand this new White House committee...plans some cutbacks in 

standards. I am sure, however, there is one member of that committee who will 

stick to his guns. Charlie Noble was Ohio's outstanding Highway Director..."

"In the Wall Street Journal of October 1, we find a quote which pretty well 

answers the question as to what constitutes real waste:
'Some of these plans may look too big for their britches in 1959 but they'll fit just 

right in 1979. It doesn't make sense to build something new and then have to 

rebuild it in ten years. That's real waste.'"

REIMBURSEMENT FOR TOLL ROADS

"...Ever since I came to the Congress seven years ago I have had the privilege of 

serving on the Roads Subcommittee with George Fallon, its able and 

conscientious chairman...A few weeks ago, because he did not succumb to 

politics to the detriment of the road program-because he did not support the pet 

project of the Chairman of the Committee on Public Works, he was for all 

practical purposes kicked out."

"His chief sin was opposing legislation that would have added another $4 billion 

price tag to the highway program. George Fallon, like I, believes in the policy of 

some form of reimbursement for toll roads and freeways built by forward looking 

states. However, he, like I, in these days of financial crisis, when we need all 

available money to build new highways to meet the critical traffic needs of this 

country, could not support reimbursement payments at this time. We could not 

support this legislation which would have jeopardized the passage of the 

financing bill."

CRITICAL OF THE BLATNIK COMMITTEE

"So the Chairman of the Public Works Committee (this was Buckley, New York 

who wanted the New York Thruway paid for by the Trust Fund) appointed a new 

special roads subcommittee (chaired by Rep. Blatnik) to investigate the charges 

to which I referred in the beginning of my speech. Of course, the regular standing 

subcommittee could and should have done whatever investigating is needed. It 

should be noted that this new investigating roads subcommittee, with three 

exceptions, has the identical membership of the Subcommittee on Roads. Of 

course George Fallon is not its chairman."

"It is obvious that the new committee was created to get rid of George Fallon so 

that the gentleman from New York could control and dominate it..."

"...Now why do I wash the Committee linens in public? First, this sub-committee 

is going to investigate among other things waste, inefficiency, and fraud. I was 

taught in law school many years ago that one must go into court with clean 

hands. I think you members of the state highway departments and the Bureau of 

Public Roads who are to be scrutinized should know all of the facts surrounding 

your investigators. I think the public may better evaluate the findings and reports 

of this committee, particularly in an election year when it is obvious to the least 

informed that the Bureau of Public Roads particularly is to be under attack..."

B.D. TALLAMY, Federal Highway Administrator, BPR-Address to AASHO.

His speech was very laudatory of the highway departments and he gave a status 

report on progress of the highway program.

DEALING WITH THE FISCAL CRISIS
"...However, some new concepts regarding the program have been advanced 

this year. The philosophy of acceleration enunciated in the 1956 Act and spelled 

out in the 1958 Act was in serious jeopardy. The whistles began blowing from 

several directions and it was nip and tuck during the recent session of Congress 

as to whether we would have a highway financing bill at all this year. Everyone 

here is familiar with the legislative history of the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1959. 

I won't go into it now nor will I talk about its provisions. The important point is that 

we do have legislation that will permit the Interstate and ABC Programs to 

advance with prompt reimbursement to the states at a reasonably satisfactory 

rate. Furthermore, the reduction in the Interstate apportionments for fiscal 1961 

and 1962 is not too serious. We can live with it pending the establishment of an 

equitable and adequate long range financing plan. This, we hope, will be 

accomplished in 1961. In the meantime we have advised the States of the 

schedule of obligations or contracts which can be entered into with assurance of 

prompt reimbursement within the limitations of the Trust Fund."

"This is something new in Federal-aid history and something that is obviously not 

designed to make everyone happy at the outset. But, it is a step which must be 

taken in recognition of the stern realities of Trust Fund yields, and Section 209(g) 

of the Act of 1956 (The Byrd Amendment). It is obviously necessary for everyone 

to know what contracts can be liquidated within the present revenues available to 

the Trust Fund. The procedure to be followed has been outlined in a Circular 

Memorandum from Commissioner Armstrong. If the details are not yet familiar to 

all of you, I'm sure they will be before this 45th meeting is concluded."

THE PROGRAM UNDER ATTACK

"...In these general remarks I am touching only lightly on subjects which will be 

thoroughly discussed during the Committee sessions. I believe I should dwell 

momentarily, however, on a matter which will assume a great deal of importance 

to all of us. It is no secret that the Federal-aid Highway program is now under 

review by various agencies and Committees. This scrutiny involves both the 

Bureau and the State highway departments. It extends not only to the conduct of 

the program but to its underlying concepts and the legislative intent behind the 

successive Federal-aid acts. These various reviews are exhaustive and 

thorough. One of their announced aims is to reduce the cost of the Interstate 

System. Well, I'm sure any of us would welcome suggestions for cutting costs 

while still maintaining the major aims and purposes of the Interstate System. 

Several heads are always better than one in these matters and I trust that you 

will cooperate to the fullest in these inquiries into our activities. I'm confident that 

we have nothing to conceal or to fear and that the reviews may give public 

officials and the people generally a better understanding of our problems. The 

end result may well add stature to the highway official through public recognition 

of the importance of this job."

"In conclusion, it would seem that we can learn at least two lessons from recent 

events."

THE NEED FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS

"First, it is obvious to me that greater public information efforts must be devoted 

to the highway program-to its aims and purposes, to the problems confronting us, 

to the activities of the highway departments, including the what, why, where, 

when and how. Despite the efforts of the highway departments the Bureau and 

the many organizations involved in better roads movements, the general public is 
not well acquainted with what we are doing and why...I'm afraid all of us may 

have been guilty of hiding our light under a bushel at times when a little more 

illumination might have helped our cause."

THE PROGRAM UNDER SCRUTINY

"The second lesson, related somewhat to the first, is that every action of a 

highway official or agency-State or Federal-will be subject during the months 

ahead to the most careful scrutiny. I have no quarrel with that. Any of our acts, 

policies or decisions should be capable of standing on their own merits in the 

light of official inquiries. The point is that we must be able to substantiate them 

fully as to adherence to law and regulations and, where judgment is the dominant 

factor, to justify the decisions we have made. The highway official will find himself 

more than ever a man of many roles-administrator, engineer, accountant, 

efficiency expert, attorney and public relations man..."

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY AASHO- the 45th Annual Meeting.

URBAN PLANNING

Resolution No. 1 "...That the urban sections of the National System of Interstate 

and Defense Highways be constructed as planned under the provisions of the 

Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 and that the State Highway Departments which 

have the responsibility of initiating such projects cooperate with the local 

government and planning officials, to the end that land use and urban 

development features will be given proper consideration."

CONTRACT AUTHORITY

Resolution No. 2 "...That the American Association of State Highway Officials in 

Annual Meeting assembled in Boston, Mass, October 12-16, 1959, urges that 

necessary action be taken at the Federal level to reestablish the long-standing 

principle of full Contract Authority and prompt reimbursement of all funds 

apportioned, in accordance with the Federal aid highway laws."

There were four more resolutions of routine nature.

A.E. JOHNSON, Executive Secretary of AASHO-"Better Transportation for Your City"

This speech was given to the American Municipal Congress in Denver, Nov. 30, 

1959.

He reviewed Thomas H. MacDonald's forecasts and views of urban development 

and transportation going back many years and labeled him as one of the greatest 

transportation authorities the world has ever known.

AN URBAN PLANNING PRIMER

"With the enactment of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, the first ray of hope 

was apparent to many of the cities for taking care of some of the more critical 

traffic needs, but it came about with such suddenness and with a sense of 

urgency that it found many cities poorly prepared to help in planning portions of 

the new program in their areas."
"...As far as the first freeway in a city is concerned, if it follows a logical 

compromise between the desire lines developed from origin and destination 

studies and where right-of-way and construction costs are reasonable, there is 

little opportunity for an error in location, but the job is not that simple. There are, 

however, other problems than determining the routing of the facility that do 

require detailed planning."

"It is necessary to study the proper location of grade separations to prevent 

severance of communities and services. It is desirable to know how the highway 

will affect the city and how proper urban development affects highway needs and 

locations. It is necessary to know where interchanges should be located to 

integrate the freeway with the street pattern and best feed traffic to and from the 

facility. The construction of additional connecting freeway developments makes a 

comprehensive area-wide transportation plan essential."

He reviewed his role as Chairman of the Sagamore Conference on urban 

transportation planning and presented a summary of the resulting report 

"Guidelines for Action."

DEFENDS THE URBAN INTERSTATE

"A certain amount of hysteria surrounded the initiation of the big Interstate 

program. Since it is so big, many new groups and individuals were taking an 

interest in the highway program for the first time. Many were ill-advised. A 

program that historically had been primarily rural had suddenly taken on 

unprecedented urban characteristics and new problems."

"Insinuations were heard that State highway departments were incapable of 

handling the urban portion of the program. Also, that city planners wanted too 

great a part in the program and actually had little to offer that would be helpful."

"The Sagamore Conference proved these charges false and that each group had 

a place on the team. The highway engineer has designed and built most all the 

urban freeways in existence. They are the best qualified people in the world to 

handle the big assignment, but they need the help of the city administrator, the 

city planner, the city traffic engineer, the city engineer, and the civic leader if the 

maximum benefits for the urban area results."

"...I would not go so far as to suggest all Interstate highway improvements in an 

urban area should be delayed until a transportation plan is initiated and 

completed, but the planning process should be started as soon as possible, if not 

already done, so that the maximum local benefit can be derived from the big 

highway program."

"Recently, there have been several disturbing rumors circulating that proposals to 

drastically reduce or eliminate the urban sections of the Interstate System, as a 

means of cutting the cost of the big federal-aid program, are being weighed..."

"We also know that many in Congress think that the urban part of the Interstate 

System is too expensive to build, and the Interstate system should skirt the cities 

and that it should be up to the cities then to provide such highway facilities as 

might be needed to connect the urban area with the rural Interstate routes."

ACCUSATIONS OF GOLD PLATING
"...We have also heard a term, '90-itis', bandied about. The connotation placed 

on this alleges that the highway official has succumbed to a hysteria of 'gold 

plating' and overdesigning the Interstate System, especially the urban sections, 

just because 90 per cent of the construction is from the Federal till. Nothing could 

be further from the truth, and nothing is so pitifully inadequate as yesterday's 

alleged overdesigned facilities that are faced with the realities of today's traffic 

requirements..."

THE URBAN CUT-BACK A HOT POTATO

"It is my understanding that since it has become public knowledge that 

consideration was being given to reducing the urban parts of the Interstate 

highway program, as a means of reducing the cost of the program, it has become 

such a 'hot potato' that less emphasis is being given the proposal at least for the 

time being."

"No one should be lulled into complacency by this turn of events. I think my 

advice can be best illustrated by the story of the hunter and the bear that startled 

each other in the forest early one morning. The bear said to the hunter: 'Let's 

don't lose our heads and do something we will regret, let's talk this over. Exactly 

what do you want?' The hunter replied: 'I'm out for a bear skin coat.' The bear 

replied 'I'm out to find my breakfast-let us retire to the warmth of my den to 

discuss our problems.' A little later, a wood cutter saw the bear emerging from 

the den with a belch from his full stomach resounding throughout the silence of 

the forest. The woodcutter asked: 'I saw a hunter go into the den with you-What 

happened?' The bear replied: 'Well, we both got what we wanted. He is inside of 

a bear coat and I have had my breakfast.'"

"The keynote, in my words, that I would like to leave with you is: Plan your city's 

total transportation for the present and future on fact and need; it's too vital and 

too expensive to be done any other way or left to solve itself."

Excerpts From the April 1960 Issue of American Highways.

DAVID H. STEVENS, Maine, President of AASHO-March 30, 1960

This speech was given to the annual meeting of the Association of Highway 

Officials of the North Atlantic States, March 30, 1960. He reviewed the history of 

AASHO and the Federal-aid program.

THE PARTNERSHIP UNDER ATTACK

"...A review of events which have taken place during the year 1959 and looking 

forward to what is indicated in 1960 it would appear that despite the 

accomplishments which have been brought about by cooperation of the states 

and the federal government in the field of highway construction we are now being 

challenged to prove that the states cooperating with the federal government can 

carry on the federal aid highway program for the construction of highways in the 

future. It is being said that the program has now reached such proportions that 

the states are no longer capable of providing competent personnel to provide for 

the design and construction of these highways planned for the future. Some have 

said that the Federal Bureau of Public Roads has failed to adjust its procedures 

and policies to the expanded program. Charges have been made that state 

highway officials are not capable of determining locations of routes of highways, 

particularly in urban areas, and in some instances in rural areas. It has been said 
that this function should be taken over by others who, while they have come into 

this field only recently, nevertheless claim to be much more capable than 

highway officials. There have been statements to the effect that highway officials 

have become warped in their judgement by reason of the 90 per cent contribution 

by the federal government in connection with the Interstate program and that as 

a result highways are now being constructed which are overdesigned for traffic 

they will be required to carry in the future. There have been others who have 

indicated that the expanded highway program has now reached such proportions 

that questions as to financing and policy decisions must be decided at a higher 

level than that provided by the partnership between the state highway 

departments and the Federal Bureau of Public roads. There have been 

indications that we should have a national system of highways, probably 

administered by some federal agency. All of these things are apparently the 

result of those who have not had the benefit of the 45 years of experience in the 

highway field which is the result of federal and state cooperation as originally 

provided in the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1916."

THE NEED FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS

He went on to say that even though these events may shock highway officials, 

that is not the point or the remedy. They must remember that the Congress, 

State legislators, the public and other interested groups have every right to state 

opinions and to conduct investigations. In response, the highway officials must 

show competence in the stewardship of the program and they must educate by 

the presentation of facts so that the truth will emerge in the long run.

FLORIDA ROAD DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS AND NEWSMEN TOUR THE STATE

An Editorial in American Highways.

"Apathy shown by the general public last summer during the torrid fight in 

Congress over the future of the Interstate highway program proved to officials of 

the Florida State Road Department that citizens were not nearly as aware of the 

impact and importance of this new program as they should be."

FLORIDA INFORMS THE PRESS

"Realizing that nearly 85 percent of Interstate construction is on new location and 

not readily visible to the average citizen, these officials decided to conduct some 

type of program to inform the people of recent highway developments in Florida, 

particularly on the Interstate."

"...Since it was not feasible to take more than a small group on such a 

comprehensive tour, it was decided that a cross section of the State's newsmen 

would be invited so they-after looking over many of the major construction 

projects-could interpret the highway program for their readers, listeners and 

viewers."

"...The Florida Road Builders Association furnished an air-conditioned speaker 

equipped bus."

Various highway interest groups paid for meals and social hours for the members 

of the press for the tour of the entire state.

A.E. JOHNSON, Executive Secretary of AASHO
AASHO CITY PLANNING SEMINARS RE-SCHEDULED

"At the time the Sagamore Conference on Highways and Urban Development 

was held...the suggestion was made that State highway department personnel 

should learn some of the terminology and techniques used by city planners, in 

order to understand the effect of city plans on highway requirements and the 

effect on highway transportation on land use and economics in urban areas."

"...Early in 1960, contacts were made with three universities with outstanding city 

planning staffs and arrangements were made to hold seminars."

"Immediately thereafter, confusion and indecision developed in the road program 

at the national level, which threatened for a time to interrupt the Interstate 

program, at least for a year. With retrenchment possible and at least curtailed at 

the State highway department level a distinct possibility, these scheduled 

seminars were cancelled."

"At the Executive Committee Meeting at the Boston Annual Convention...the 

special Subcommittee...was instructed to proceed with a pilot seminar..."

"Consequently, the committee approached Mr. Harmer E. Davis, Professor of 

Civil Engineering and Director of the Institute of Transportation and Traffic 

Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, and the California Division of 

Highways, to plan and to hold a pilot seminar."

"...There are new techniques and theories in various stages of development to 

help the highway planner determine present and future highway needs in 

metropolitan areas. These techniques involve so many assumptions, values and 

variables that the use of the electronic computer is essential. ...You can look for 

outstanding developments in this area coming from the highway departments 

and the Bureau of Public Roads."

"...It is indicated that the highway departments will probably have to develop and 

keep current a continuing total transportation plan, areawide in extent, in order to 

know where and how to build a highway facility to serve the need."

A listing of the staff of the Conference, the papers presented and the attendees 

was given.

Excerpts from the July, 1960 Issue of American Highways.

LLOYD A. RIVARD, D.C. Highways-Traffic Assignment.

Lloyd Rivard presented a paper "Electronic Traffic Projection and Assignment". 

He reported the pioneering development of the traffic forecasting and traffic 

assignment computer process developed by the District of Columbia under 

contract with the General Electric Company in Phoenix, Arizona and supervised 

by Lee Mertz, Bureau of Public Roads.

A.E. JOHNSON, Executive Secretary of AASHO

The title of his speech to the WASHO Conference, June 21, 1960 was "The 

Responsibilities of State Highway Administrations."
"...The enlarged Federal-aid highway program is under severe attack. The 

sponsors of the program have seriously proposed cutbacks. There have been 

charges that the program was ill-conceived, is extravagant in its concept, and is 

grossly mismanaged, and that the basic legislation must undergo considerable 

change to cure the faults of a crash program."

"...The basic reports for this program started in 1922 (the first cooperative 

Transport Survey) and have continued in 1939 and 1943 and many hearings, 

concerned with the Interstate program have been held at various times; in fact, in 

1953, hearings were held for nearly a year on highway needs in the House Public 

Works Committee. In 1954, the Clay Committee held extensive hearings on the 

need for an Interstate System and in 1955 extensive hearings were held both in 

the House and Senate sides of the Congress."

THE PROGRAM UNDER ATTACK

"The program is being attacked by transportation interests that are competitive to 

highways and the program is being criticized by interests that selfishly would like 

to have a greater role in a program as big as this. The program is big enough and 

important enough that we are in the big league, and we are having big league 

headaches. These things were known risks at the time the State highway 

departments endorsed the enlarged, accelerated Federal-aid road program."

"The interest in the program is more widespread than ever before, and there are 

some neophytes, as far as highways are concerned, that occupy high positions 

of authority that are causing some concern in highway circles by their utterances 

on highway policies and attitudes."

"We are seeing a familiar set of cynical and vicious charges based on partial 

truths, many of which have been discredited, paraded in the press over and over 

again. There can only be one objective in such a program and that is to 

undermine the confidence of the public in the highway program."

"We hear charges that highways are ugly ducklings creating far more problems in 

urban areas than they solve and that rail transit programs should be expanded 

and subsidized instead of highways being built, or at least, the highway program 

should be postponed to see whether or not transit will be accepted by the public 

and will prove satisfactory. This attack seems to have the help of a large industry 

(presumably an electric company) interested in furnishing rail transit equipment. 

This same industry, for a while, showed considerable interest in trying to light the 

Interstate highway system."

ALLEGATIONS OF SCANDAL

"The Program is being investigated and the press, unable to break from their 

Roman holiday instincts, continue to speak of the widespread scandal that is to 

be disclosed in the highway program."

"All of these things, combined with the natural effects of the 90-10 matching ratio 

on the thinking of our Congressmen and Senators, together with the increased 

cost as reflected in the estimate of completing the Interstate System as reflected 

in the estimate of 1958, and the fact that we had a financial crisis in the road 

program in 1959, requiring more tax money to make up a deficit in the Highway 

Trust Fund, have all had their effects. Also the layman began to see the 
complicated geometrics of controlled access taking shape, and since he was 

unfamiliar with these things, he alleged gold plating was taking place. The 

environment was created for an investigation."

SOME IMPROPRIETIES

"With investigating processes under way and some improprieties already 

disclosed and the possibility that a certain amount of additional ones will be 

exposed, the Bureau of Public Roads has been subjected to a very natural 

human instinct and some real official pressures to exert more and more control 

over the program and to tighten up on its regulations..."

FEDERAL DOMINANCE AND RED TAPE

"...There seems to be some evidence that the Bureau of Public Roads, under 

some of the current stresses and strains, is yielding, in some measure, to the 

primitive instincts of self-preservation, and more and more are attempting to plug 

up all the holes that future investigations might find in the dyke with more and 

more paper work tied up in little bundles of red tape. To the States I am sure that 

this looks like an unconscious attempt to appear as pure as Caesar's wife if and 

when future criticisms might be directed at the program, which would leave the 

highway departments to stand the brunt of the criticisms. There seem to be 

indications of unconsciously forgetting the partnership relationship and of the 

Bureau becoming the Great White Father protecting the States from their own 

potential transgressions, which takes on more of the master-servant relationship 

instead of the partnership. I refer to some of the recent reissues of old policies 

that are tightened up a 'little' for the good of the States."

"Some of these releases, coming as a complete surprise to the States, have 

created minor crises which could have been avoided if there had been some 

arrangement made to cooperatively review the drafts of these regulations while 

they were being developed. A partnership means mutual development, 

responsibility, trust and respect and not a unilateral operation."

"There is no legal requirement that the Bureau of Public Roads discuss with the 

States any regulations or policies that it might be developing, but I think it would 

be of great assistance to both parties if such a procedure were followed as one 

cannot long exist without the other as far as the Federal-aid road program is 

concerned if they do not mutually work out the many problems."

"If each and every future investigation results in more tightening up on the part of 

the Bureau, the result will be a crippling paralysis that will finally immobilize the 

States as far as any highway prerogatives may be concerned, and the States will 

finally end up in the menial role of 'hired help,' and State highway administration 

may decline to a foreman's role."

"It is hoped that the Bureau of Public Roads will take action against a single State 

that is at fault instead of applying blanket restrictions affecting all States to cover 

each and every condition that might arise. There is currently adequate 

authorization and legislation to require proper restitution from a State or to apply 

the necessary disciplinary action for any improper act."

CRITICISM OF BPR
"...Recently the Bureau of Public Roads was criticized for not looking beyond the 

certifications of a Sovereign State in its administration and handling of a highway 

project. I agree that the Bureau of Public Roads was right in accepting these 

certifications, and I am of the opinion that for the Bureau of Public Roads to go 

further with any substantial type of inspection and checking would increase the 

Federal responsibility in the final product and would require an unjustifiable 

increase in personnel above the some 3,000 people now working for the Bureau 

of Public Roads for there are some 10,000 Federal-aid projects currently 

underway."

"...Actually, if a State is responsible for inferior construction, the effect is a self 

disciplinary action for that State is taking on the responsibility of maintaining and 

operating, at its own expense, an inferior facility."

He went on to lecture the highway departments on the characteristics of good 

management.

"...Neither should you underestimate the challenge of competitive interests of the 

various classes nor sell short the continuing repetitive press stories on our 

'highway bungle', as the Reader's Digest terms it. It seems to be the instinct of a 

large section of the press to always picture a story in its most sensational manner 

and if it continues the public forms its opinions from the repetitive exposure. In 

fact the attack on the highway program appears to be taking on a form of a well 

planned and executed attack that may well come out into the open next year 

when highway hearings are under way on Capitol Hill."

"...Under the circumstances, there seems to be very little praise for the 

overwhelming majority of the dedicated capable public servants in the highway 

departments and the Bureau of Public Roads. All of the publicity will be given to 

the extremely small percentage of those that are found to be out of line. If such 

criticisms continue, the Bureau of Public Roads will be unable to resist applying 

more and more pressures on the States with the corresponding loss of latitudes 

at the State levels and the assumption of more and more responsibilities at the 

federal level."

MORE FEDERAL CONTROL?

"...Leading highway spokesmen on Capitol Hill have been influenced by charges 

and inferences that the highway program is mismanaged and they warn that 

highway legislation will undergo drastic changes next year. These changes can 

only go in one direction and that is for more federal control."

"Many of the attacks in the press play the same record of well-worn semi-truth 

charges over and over again, and eventually public opinion will react against this 

campaign, but before that time the States position in the program can be 

seriously damaged."

"...The major responsibility of the highway administrator right now is to keep the 

federal-aid road program under State control. It is at that level where the 

experience exists and where the public interests can best be served. Your work 

is being cut out for you, for you are being seriously challenged."
"The big highway program will go ahead. If there are any changes made the 

same reservoir of trained people will do the job, only the administration will 

change."

Excerpts from the October Issue of American Highways, 1960.

J.W. McDONALD-"Freeways-a Modern Mass Transportation System"

Mr. McDonald was Manager of the Engineering Department of the Automobile 

Club of Southern California.

He labeled Los Angeles as the "most freewayed" city in the world and went on to 

give the statistical dimensions of the Los Angeles area and its transportation. He 

then defined a set of terms mostly dealing with transit, rapid transit, exclusive 

right-of-way transit. He had the most trouble defining "balanced transportation":

WHAT IS BALANCED TRANSPORTATION?

"While still considering definitions let's return for a moment to the 'middle course' 

mentioned earlier which is often referred to as a 'balanced' transportation system. 

'Balanced' is a good word-who will argue for an 'unbalanced' transportation 

system? But support of 'balance' is too often twisted to imply that present 

transportation is badly out of balance. Is it out of balance because Los Angeles 

has a relatively small transit system and a complete lack of or, some might say, 

freedom from rail rapid transit? Certainly these are not measures of 

'transportation balance'."

"Transportation balance should be defined as the matching of transportation 

modes and systems to the real transportation needs of the community."

"On the basis of these definitions then, I think it's safe to say we're all in favor of 

a balanced transportation system, we're all in favor of public transportation, we're 

probably all in favor of mass transit. I think the need for mass transit is evident. 

Also, we can see that the freeways are presently serving as a mass 

transportation system. One popular feeling, however, that remains to be proven 

is that this area has an immediate need for rail rapid transit."

"If it can be shown that rail-rapid transit could serve even part of our widespread 

population more conveniently, more efficiently and more economically than other 

modes of transportation then we should have it. To date, however, convincing 

evidence to support this case has not been produced, while many factors 

indicate that rail-rapid transit has, if anything, an extremely limited potential here."

"...In 1953 the Los Angeles motorist could make no freeway trip longer than 7 

miles. Today, uninterrupted trips of 90 to 100 miles are available from the San 

Fernando Valley to El Toro in Orange County, or to San Bernadino and on to 

Barstow..."

He described in some detail the status of the freeway system and its 

performance in peak and off peak times:

"...Although doing an amazingly good job, freeways are neither perfect nor the 

complete answer to our transportation problems. Driving them as we do, either 

regularly or occasionally, we become familiar with the freeway's capabilities and 
their limitations. However, we must remember that the system is incomplete and 

that the few, existing freeways are called upon to carry a tremendous overload of 

traffic which eventually will be distributed on new links of the system. Forgetting 

this point leads to unfair exaggeration of freeway problems."

HOW BEST TO PROVIDE MASS TRANSIT

"On the other hand, what chance has the average Los Angeles citizen to fairly 

evaluate the potential of rapid transit-particularly in this area? Some may be 

intrigued by the imaginative picture of a shiny monorail train, gliding smoothly 

and noiselessly along at 70 MPH, others by the thought of how much more 

pleasant the freeway might be if the man in the car ahead and the one behind 

had left their cars at home and been able to ride the monorail instead. But our 

evaluation must be better than this."

He then described the need for an orderly survey and analysis process to 

develop the evaluations needed for the further development of the freeway 

system and the transit system. He felt that a study of the Boston MTA could 

provide some answers but he had reservations:

"...However, in contrast with the glowing phrases contained in the national 

magazines let me quote from the October 11th. edition of the Boston Herald:

'Substantial financial losses by the MTA's highly touted Highland Branch linking 

Boston, Brookline and Newton, threaten to add upward of $300,000 to the line's 

already staggering deficit...'

'The biggest disappointment has been the failure of the Riverside Terminal with 

its tremendous parking facility and its nearness to...the Massachusetts Turnpike 

to generate the patronage the MTA counted on.'

'The argument was that commuters and shoppers alike would respond to the 

offer of clean, safe, speedy, and regular service to Boston for a bargain 20 cent 

fare.'"

"The facts show that the commuters and shoppers just didn't respond. So in 

Boston we see a rapid transit operation which appeared to have every reason for 

success, failing to make the grade. What then are the chances of success here?"

LOS ANGELES A UNIQUE LABORATORY

"This example serves two purposes-first, it proves that the prediction of success 

for a rapid transit venture can be entirely wrong, even under relatively favorable 

conditions. Equally important to us in Los Angeles, it raises the question of just 

how much pro-rapid transit material can be accepted after finding such an 

obvious case of misleading information."

"By way of summary perhaps I can boil down a few brief statements:

1. Los Angeles, in its period of tremendous growth, has been served largely 

by rubber-tired transportation.
2. The freeways which have become the primary key to mobility of our 

rubber-tired transportation system are presently doing an amazingly 

good job of moving tremendous volumes of people and goods.

3. Future growth of this area can, and should, be considered calmly, 

rationally, and optimistically. There is no reason for hysteria, 'scare' 

tactics, or radical changes in emphasis regarding transportation.

4. Almost all are in favor of a balanced transportation system-an 

atmosphere should be created within which public transportation 

potential may be optimized. It does not, however, follow that this means 

we presently have a badly unbalanced system.

RAIL TRANSIT QUESTIONED

5. The assertion that every large urban area must ultimately turn to rail 

rapid transit for the solution of its public transportation problems is 

certainly subject to question. A very good case can be made supporting 

the concept of flexible rubber-tired public transportation, utilizing the 

freeways for express runs.

6. Finally, and most important-intelligent decisions regarding our 

transportation problems can be made only on the basis of an honest 

appraisal of our present situation, coupled with equally objective analysis 

and comparison of the alternate courses which we might follow in the 

future."

Excerpts from the January 1961 Issue of American Highways-the Record of the 1960 

Annual Meeting of AASHO.

DAVID H. STEVENS, Maine, President.

"Much has been said and written in the past year in regard to the national 

highway program-some of it complimentary and in some instances of a critical 

nature..."

"It is my purpose to talk to you in regard to the future of the national highway 

program..."

THE FUTURE OF THE INTERSTATE PROGRAM

"In attempting to predict future events relating to the national highway program 

there would appear to be three questions which must be answered, (1) Does 

need for the program still exist? (2) Will financing of the program be authorized? 

and (3) How and by what agency or agencies will the program be carried on? In 

other words, what will be the mechanics of government that will be utilized to 

complete the Interstate System and to continue construction of the ABC 

Systems? Will the traditional Federal-State relationship continue or will it be 

limited or modified?

To answer the first question, he reviewed at some length the studies and debates 

leading to the passage of the 56 Act and concluded that the evidence was still 

there that the Interstate System was needed and he observed that the program's 

harshest critics did not question the need.

"Will financing of the program be authorized? In considering any governmental 

program it is almost inevitable that those who are sponsoring such a program 

must come to grips with the matter of financing. It is, of course, unfortunate that 
the original cost estimate for the Interstate System was several billion dollars less 

than that which was determined to be a more valid figure in the cost estimate 

filed with the Congress in 1958. The reasons for this difference have been 

thoroughly explained to the Congress and repetition of the explanations does not 

appear to be necessary at this time. While the cost estimate which will be 

considered by Congress in 1961 has not been officially released, rumors indicate 

that the total figure for both State and Federal funds will not vary to any great 

extent from that previously filed in 1958. However, Congress has not yet solved 

the problem of providing the Federal share of the cost of the entire Interstate 

System. Authorizations contained in the 1956 Act were based on the lower cost 

estimate."

PROSPECTS FOR NEW HIGHWAY REVENUES

"...In passing it could be stated that no doubt most of the funds necessary to 

construct the Interstate System will be derived from highway user taxation. On 

the basis of the current thinking among those interested in financing the 

construction and maintenance of highways there probably will be some attempt 

made, and it is a fair assumption that these attempts will be somewhat 

successful, to obtain a part of the funds necessary for highway construction and 

maintenance in the future from non-users of those facilities. It is expected that 

the so-called '210 Study' to be filed with the Federal Congress will contain data in 

regard to this matter. Without, therefore, being specific in regard to how the 

financing will be authorized, the answer would appear to be that financing will be 

authorized in sufficient amount to complete the Interstate Highway System in 

1972 and to carry on construction of the ABC Systems."

"The third question as to how and by what governmental agencies the national 

highway program will be continued involves the traditional Federal- State 

relationship which has existed in the highway field for the past 44 years..."

He gave a philosophical dissertation tracing the Federal-State relationship from 

the earliest times when the States were practically autonomous and postulated 

that when the States were perceived to be failing in their responsibilities, it was 

then that the Federal government moved into the function and it was almost 

always funding that was the issue.

THE HISTORY OF FEDERAL AID

"A classic example occurred in the field of welfare. Until the great depression of 

the 1930's welfare and the care of indigent persons were primarily the 

responsibility of local government. Because local government either could not or 

would not carry on in an adequate manner during the depression days the 

Federal Government stepped into the picture and we now have the tremendous 

welfare programs financed for the most part by the Federal Government which 

originated in the Roosevelt Era. There was little excuse for the Federal 

Government to be in the welfare field except from the standpoint of finances."

"...There were two governmental activities which were very close to the hearts of 

our ancestors, namely education and highways. In these two fields local and 

State governmental units have progressed to a point where they, at least until 

recently, could give a good accounting. The administration and financing of these 

programs has developed to such a point that there was little that the proponents 

of better education and highways could point to as a need for Federal 
intervention. While it is true that we had Federal Government grants-in-aid for 

highway purposes, until the so-called 90-10 program most of the funds for 

construction and maintenance of highways were appropriated by State and local 

governmental units. We now see a tremendous push for Federal funds in the 

field of education. As a matter of fact, in the recent political campaign both major 

parties indicated that they were for Federal monies for education, the only 

difference between their views being the method of making the funds available to 

the States. It is only a question of time before we will see Federal monies being 

made available to the States for this purpose and despite the rather naive 

viewpoint of our friends in the education field, Federal regulation and eventually 

supervision will follow the flow of those funds."

THE EVOLUTION OF RED TAPE

"...With the passage of the 1956 Federal Aid Highway Act it was almost inevitable 

that there would be changes in this relationship (the partnership). An examination 

of the events in the Federal-State relationship in the highway field since that time, 

and more specifically during the last two years, by an impartial person would 

certainly bring forth a conclusion that there have been increased requirements 

and regulations imposed on the States by the Federal Government."

"In exploring the reasons for the increased regulatory activity by the Federal 

Government in the highway field we are confronted with the following facts: First, 

it is not strange that there has been a tendency toward centralization. As a matter 

of fact it is only through the record that the States have made in the past years 

that centralization in the highway field has been postponed. It would be most 

unusual if there were not some tendencies toward this centralization. Secondly, 

with the passage of the 1956 Federal Aid Highway Act we came into the days of 

the 90-10 matching ratio as compared with the former ratio of 50-50. There was 

also a substantial increase in the total Federal dollars available for highway 

construction. It is inevitable that when a higher level of government, in this case 

the Federal Government, increases its proportionate share in any grant-in-aid 

program that more reports are required from the lower level of government, in 

this case the States."

"In the highway program the increase in the number and size of highway 

construction projects under the program has resulted in complaints to 

Congressmen which, in turn, have led to inquiries and some criticism of the 

Federal Bureau of Public Roads. Congress has been required to increase 

highway user taxes. It is always a very painful process for a Congressman to 

explain to his constituents the reason for increased taxes. The net result of the 

increased size of the program has been, therefore, more attempts on the part of 

the Federal Bureau of Public Roads to secure answers and to 'tighten up' the 

administrative aspects of the program."

IMPROPER PRACTICES BY SOME STATES

"The third factor has been the matter of improper handling of public funds, 

improper relationships between engineers and contractors and poor 

workmanship which have been discovered in some of the States. In any grant-inaid program, whenever improper procedures are discovered there is a tendency 

on the part of the higher level of government to act as a policeman. This in itself 

results in more reports being required of the lower level of government and 

additional instructional material. Usually this is a futile attempt as no dishonest 
person is ever made honest by a PPM. As a matter of fact, dishonesty thrives in 

an atmosphere of red tape."

"Another result of improper practices in any governmental activity is the 

investigation which is inevitably authorized in an attempt to ferret out the 

instances of dishonesty and to prevent such occurring in the future. We have 

seen the authorization of a special committee in the House of Representatives of 

our Congress charged with the task of investigating the highway program. While 

we all regret the necessity for such a committee to be created, nevertheless any 

fair-minded person would conclude that on the basis of the committee activities 

to date the committee should continue in an effort to determine all of the facts in 

regard to any improper practices that exist in the highway program. While the 

members of the committee and the committee staff have an objective approach 

to the highway program, by the very nature of the committee activities, namely in 

the investigation field, there is little opportunity for an over-all evaluation of the 

highway program. It is to be hoped that Congress in the coming session will 

provide an opportunity through hearing, probably on the Senate side, for such an 

evaluation."

MEDIA ATTENTION

"Certain segments of the public press and the news media have, of course, been 

having a field day by reason of the relatively few instances of improper practices 

in the highway program. Criticism by the press will continue. Unfortunately the 

everyday, constructive activities of government are not sufficiently spectacular to 

appeal to the readers of the public press. It is only when some improper practice 

is discovered that we have the full treatment, so to speak, by the press. This is a 

situation which exists in every governmental program and is not peculiar to the 

highway field. The answer, of course, is to eliminate the improper practices."

A THREAT TO THE PROGRAM

"In attempting to answer the question of how and by what governmental agency 

the national highway program will be continued, it is apparent that the traditional 

Federal-State relationship is in the process of being modified. If this trend is 

carried far enough it could result in the States being deprived of the opportunity 

to carry on within the Federal-State relationship as they have in the past. The 

States' role within this relationship is being threatened by, first, the size of the 

program and, secondly, by evidence of improper practices on the part of some of 

the States. The threat by virtue of the size of the program can be met only by the 

States proving their ability to cope with the program...The ability can...be 

demonstrated."

"The threat in the form of improper practices can only be met by the States 

through a demonstration to the satisfaction of the Congress and the general 

public that the States do have honesty and integrity to carry on the program in a 

proper manner. Personally I believe that the State can demonstrate these 

characteristics in a manner which will satisfy any unbiased person."

SEN. PAT McNAMARA, Mich., November 28, 1960 to AASHO

Sen. McNamara was Chairman of the Subcommittee on Roads of the Senate 

Public Works Committee.
PROGRESS

He reviewed the history of highway legislation and the Federal-aid program and 

noted the progress on the Interstate System in that 9,600 miles were open to 

traffic, 4,600 miles under construction and over $9 billion put to work. He 

registered concern that many miles of designated Interstate would have to wait 

until the tail end of the program for construction thus leaving the designated 

routes in a congested condition for the time being. He stressed the importance of 

not slighting the ABC program since it was a "keep even" program as opposed to 

a new system.

PROBLEMS FOR THE NEW ADMINISTRATION

He reviewed the financing of the Interstate provided by the 1956 Act noting that 

the estimates of cost and revenues were too low so that adjustments had to be 

made by increasing highway user taxes. He stated his opposition to the Byrd 

Amendment as slowing the program down. He felt that borrowing from the 

general fund to make up the deficits was the proper way to go. He felt that the 

new Congress would have to make some very basic decisions about how they 

wanted the highway program to go. He felt that the Cost Allocation Study and the 

new Interstate Cost Estimate would be essential in making those decisions. He 

noted that it was not very clear as to what the Administration's position was in 

regard to the Interstate since they seemed to change from advocacy to restraint 

and back again. He noted that in January the Administration and the Congress 

would be of the same party. He solicited the views of AASHO for the upcoming 

highway hearings that would be concerned with the major decisions that he 

spoke of.

REP. GEORGE FALLON, Md., Chairman, Subcommittee on Roads.

He noted that the primary problem for the new Congress was to put the highway 

program on a sound financial footing and to consider the urban aspects of that 

program:

THE URBAN PROBLEM

"As an example, consider the problem of urban transportation, Transportation is 

one part-perhaps the key part-of what has been called the most urgent problem 

confronting America today, that of rebuilding and revitalizing our cities...There is 

no doubt about the seriousness of the problem. There is no doubt about its 

complexity. However, there is no shortage of proposed solutions. The really 

tough nut to crack is the fact that the proposed solutions are all costly."

"It seems to me that any workable solution to the urban transportation problem 

must rely quite heavily on improved highway transportation. In many areas, 

thinking is running toward increased reliance on mass transit, including subways, 

commuter railroads and monorail lines. I believe that many cities are going to find 

it necessary to improve their mass transit facilities substantially."

"...Because of the great and growing need for highway transportation, it is highly 

important that highway-user revenues be spent for highways, and not diverted to 

the construction of mass transit facilities. So, you see, we come back to the 

money problem."
OPPOSED TO STRETCHOUTS AND CUTBACKS

"...There is a feeling in some quarters that the Interstate program can readily be 

stretched out. There is some sentiment in favor of curtailing the program in some 

way, to bring the program in line with the present capacity of the Highway Trust 

Fund."

"Personally, I am strongly opposed to stretchouts and cutbacks. I am in favor of 

adhering strictly to the construction schedule which was contemplated in the 

Highway Act of 1956. This means, for the Interstate program, that the final 

apportionment of funds would be that for the fiscal year 1969. Since the 

apportionment for fiscal 1962 has already been made, this means providing for 

the completion of the Interstate System in seven more annual apportionments. I 

am also in favor of increasing the annual apportionment of funds for the 

construction of ABC highways to $1 billion annually. This is the program that was 

contemplated in 1956. It is just as sound now as it was then."

INCREASE THE PROGRAM LEVEL TO FINISH ON TIME

"I am fully aware of the implications of the position I have just stated. To 

complete the Interstate program on schedule, it will be necessary to increase the 

annual Federal authorizations from the present level of $2.2 billion to about $3.5 

billion. This, together with an annual ABC authorization of $1 billion would result 

in annual Federal highway expenditures of about $4.5 billion. This program would 

require increased revenue to the Highway Trust Fund of about $10 billion over 

the next 11 years-an average of almost a billion dollars a year."

"Admittedly, this is quite a substantial sum, and finding ways and means to raise 

such an amount will be no simple task. It may be anticipated that any proposal to 

raising such a large amount of money will be met with violent opposition. But the 

urgency of the need and the economic justification of the early completion of the 

Interstate System, dictates the necessity of finding some means of finance."

He went on to point out that for such legislation to occur required public support 

of early completion of the Interstate and that required a public relations campaign 

which had to be carried out through the States, not from Washington.

B. D. TALLAMY, Administrator, BPR-"Highway Progress 1956-1961"

He gave a status report of the progress of the highway program.

"As of now, we have in use nearly one quarter of the 41,000 miles of the 

Interstate System..."

URBAN PLANNING

"...The Bureau and the States have conducted the first factual inventory of the 

status of city planning on a nationwide basis. The summary of data, so far 

received, reports information for 411 'urban places' with 25,000 or more 

population located on the Interstate System. It shows that 89 percent of these 

411 metropolitan areas have some type of urban plans; 78 percent have 

comprehensive plans. These preliminary results demonstrate the large amount of 
city planning that has been done, and run contrary to the views of some critics 

who have deplored the lack of it."

"Both the Bureau of Public Roads and the State highway departments have 

encouraged such plans for urban areas, and have advanced them through the 

use of 1 1/2 percent funds. In some cases, the best routes for Interstate and 

other urban highways are immediately obvious. After these have been finished, 

others whose locations are less obvious can be built where they will be most 

beneficial to community development..."

THE OUTLOOK

"...The outlook under present legislation is for future reimbursable obligation 

schedules of about $3.2 or $3.3 billion for each of the fiscal years 1962 and 1963 

the reimbursable obligation rate would drop back to about $2.5 billion annually, 

for the Interstate and ABC program combined. Interstate apportionments would 

drop to $1.5 billion for fiscal 1964 rising only at a slow rate thereafter. However, it 

is hoped that Congress will take action this coming year which will enable 

continuation of the program at a high rate designed to complete the Interstate 

System by 1972 as originally planned."

"Authorizations of about $3.2 billion annually are necessary starting with fiscal 

year 1963 if that objective is to be met. With the revenue schedule in effect in 

1972 under present legislation and Section 209(g) (the Byrd Amendment) 

applicable, extension of the Highway Trust Fund to the end of the calendar year 

1976 would be necessary to finish the System."

THE COST ALLOCATION STUDY

"Of course, in order to develop a long range financing program, it is necessary in 

addition to the 'Highway Cost Allocation Study' previously mentioned to take 

another look at the estimate of cost to complete the System."

"The Bureau is now putting the final touches on this estimate. We appreciate the 

meticulous work you have all done in putting this together. The new cost estimate 

will not differ materially from that submitted in 1958 and I can tell you at this time 

that it will not be greater. The soundness of the 1958 figure has been 

demonstrated by the new estimate and by recent comparison of the actual 

Interstate project costs with 1958 figures. For 47 States and the District of 

Columbia rural costs were 92 percent of the 1958 estimates, and urban costs 

102 percent of the 1958 figure. This is indeed strong support for the firm position 

we took before the Congressional Committees that the 1958 estimate of total 

cost was sound and could be used with confidence."

OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE FUTURE

"All of us should approach the new year, then, with a certain amount of 

pardonable pride in our accomplishments, also with confidence. The new 

Administration (The Kennedy Administration) is on record as favoring the 

continuation of the expanded highway program along the general course charted 

by the Act of 1956. There has been no substantial change in the complexion of 

Congress nor is there likely to be in the membership of the committees dealing 

with highway matters. The coming year is a critical year for our cooperative 

program. Nothing worth while comes easily and there are numerous roadblocks 
ahead. But I have great confidence that our mutual efforts are winning a great 

vote of confidence from the general public and will receive approval by the 

Congress."

The rest of the report was a detailed progress report.

FAREWELL

"...In closing, I wish to express my deep appreciation to this Association for the 

assistance and support you have given to me as Federal Highway Administrator. 

Without it no Administrator could carry on his work and I trust you will be as 

generous with your assistance and understanding with my successor. In the near 

future, I will submit my resignation but in doing so I want you to know that I will 

feel a sense of personal loss at the breaking off of the close associations I have 

had with all of you during my tour of duty with the Bureau of Public Roads..."

E. H. HOLMES-Asst. Comm. BPR on Urban Planning

The title of the speech given to the AASHO Annual Meeting on December 1, 

1960 was "Urban Transportation Planning and the National Highway Program"

THE ROOTS OF URBAN PLANNING

"...State highway departments have been actively concerned with urban 

problems since 1944, the year the first home-interview travel survey was started 

in Little Rock. This study was closely followed by similar studies in Tulsa and 

New Orleans, and soon thereafter by others throughout the country. They were 

designed to provide the specific data needed to permit planning of highway 

developments in urban areas, to meet the needs for highway travel consistent 

with the general plans for community development."

"...The analyses of these surveys, which showed primarily the origin, destination, 

time, and purpose of each trip by each mode of travel, produced the desire-line 

charts that soon outmoded the traffic flow map as a basis for planning. The 

analysis left much to be desired, especially in projecting the travel desires into 

the future. But the product of the surveys, checked and tested by statistical 

means and actual ground controls, was so far advanced in relation to other 

planning data that the home-interview survey became and remains the basic 

urban highway planning tool."

DEVELOPMENT OF NEW TECHNIQUES

"Highway planners were by no means satisfied with the limited analyses then 

possible, or with the extent to which the possible analyses were actually carried 

out. Highway departments made effective use of the results in planning specific 

routes or projects, but had little desire or reason to continue analyses to aid in 

broad urban planning. And city planners seemed unable or uninterested in 

capitalizing on the wealth of information available in the boxes of punch cards 

filed away in some storage area. It soon became evident, however, as planning 

and research people delved into the facts assembled and tabulated in one city 

after another, that basic relations between travel desires and land use and other 

social and economic factors of the metropolitan area must exist. But it was not 

until the high speed computer became available, and perhaps the almost 

simultaneous introduction into the field of highway planning of the sociologist, the 
geographer, the economist, and the city planner, that a real breakthrough in 

establishing these relations was achieved."

"...Technical developments of themselves can be of value only to the extent 

which they can be applied, and the application of the now available planning 

techniques requires a high degree of cooperation between State and local 

agencies. Moreover, in view of the importance of decisions in the field of 

transportation in shaping the exploding metropolitan areas, local officials must in 

their own self interest join the State officials in the developing and carrying out 

plans that are mutually most advantageous. In this area of organizing 

cooperation highway officials have also taken a leading role."

"On the national scale, one of the early efforts to improve planning techniques 

and develop State-local cooperation was made by the National Committee on 

Urban Transportation. This committee financed primarily by the Bureau of Public 

Roads and the Automotive Safety Foundation, did its job well, and having done it, 

closed its doors last July."

"The AMA-AASHO Joint Committee on Highways is and will continue to be an 

effective force in bringing about close State-local relations. This committee has 

sponsored several State and regional meetings at which State and local officials 

were brought together to consider the cooperative approach to urban 

transportation planning, and it joined with the Urban Research Committee of the 

Highway Research Board in sponsoring the Sagamore Conference."

THE SAGAMORE CONFERENCE

"The Sagamore Conference itself was a milestone along the road to better 

mutual understanding between State and local groups. Here carefully selected 

highway officials, mayors, city managers, city planners, business men, 

economists, and other specialists hammered out a statement of individual and 

mutual responsibilities of State and local officials that, if conscientiously met, 

must surely produce a sound, mutually acceptable plan for transportation best 

suited to future community and highway user needs."

"...A survey has recently been completed by the Bureau of Public Roads through 

its field offices in behalf of the AMA-AASHO Joint Committee to determine the 

extent to which the States are carrying out the recommendations of the 

Sagamore Conference. Many States were doing an effective job well before the 

Conference, but in others the report seemed to stimulate or initiate a more 

positive effort to develop the necessary State- local cooperation."

GROWTH OF URBAN PLANNING IN HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS

"This survey shows that in 36 States the highway departments have joined with 

local authorities in developing plans for urban highway systems. In 12 others 

similar cooperative approaches have been made in connection with the location 

design of one or more major routes, even though the studies have not 

encompassed the entire system. An impressive list of what we called 'noteworthy 

examples' of State-local cooperation resulted from this inquiry."

"States have placed responsibility for urban highway planning in a variety of 

organization units. In some, and probably most commonly, the work has been 

regarded as one aspect of overall highway planning, and responsibility rests in 
the highway planning division, with or without an urban highway planning unit 

separately established. In others an urban highway planning unit coordinator has 

been set up. In still others such words as 'metropolitan,' 'local roads and streets,' 

and 'urban development' appear. But under whatever title, 28 States have 

formally designated individuals or units to be responsible for insuring the 

essential cooperative approach. While some might call attention to the 22 States 

which have not given such formal recognition to the urban highway problem, it 

seems more constructive and more significant to point to the 28 States that have 

so adequately responded to this newly developing urban problem."

"It is interesting to note that 8 States reported that they now prepare 5-year 

programs of urban highway development. This step was strongly urged by the 

city officials and planners at Sagamore and its acceptance by even this number 

of States in encouraging."

CRITICS OF URBAN HIGHWAY PLANNING

"...This is a record of constructive accomplishments in which highway interests 

take pride and satisfaction. It has been recited in some detail to show the depth 

and breadth of the accomplishments. Yet, despite the soundness of the approach 

and its demonstrated success in State after State, urban highway planning is 

being subjected to increasing criticism and the responsibility of the highway 

departments for highway planning in urban areas is threatened. Misinformation 

about highway planning and the impact of highways on metropolitan and urban 

development is being widely spread."

"Why is it?"

"Some misinformation is undoubtedly the result of well-intentioned efforts on the 

part of persons of influence who, with newly acquired interest in transportation 

are still uninformed on highway planning and transportation matters."

"Others, with special interests, find the positions becoming increasingly difficult 

as the highway program advances, and in their legitimate self-interest cast doubt 

on highway plans or becloud issues by raising scarcely relevant questions of 

economic or social nature."

DEFENSIVE ABOUT RAIL TRANSIT

"Others attribute to the highway program ills that are in reality the result of 

changing times and modes of living."

"Still other groups have a sincere, if unjustified, fear that new urban highways will 

be detrimental not only to their own interests, but to their whole community."

"And we must recognize that despite the many, many examples of good 

cooperation between State and local agencies, there have been occasions when 

this was not the case. While such cases eventually are settled to mutual 

satisfaction, their existence, even if temporary in duration gives critics support for 

their positions."

"As just one example of misinformation that gains wide circulation is the assertion 

in national advertising and elsewhere that it takes twenty lanes of freeway to 
move as many people in an hour as can be moved on one rapid transit track. 

This statement has gained wide acceptance judging by the extent to which it is 

repeated by persons who evidently have not analyzed it."

He gave a lengthy analysis of the statement pointing out that it could actually be 

done but is almost never done under actual circumstances and what about the 

other 24 hours of the day and weekends and what about goods movement.

"...We have let ourselves and our whole urban highway program be placed on 

the defensive by an argument that touches only one facet of the problem of 

metropolitan area transportation, and one which has the hollowest of support."

"Most of the criticism can be answered, and doubts and fears allayed. by facts. 

But criticism and complaints reach far more ears than factual answers, and the 

very necessity for answering the critics places highway transportation in a 

defensive position. We need not be apologetic for the constructive work we are 

doing. We should not be facing daily the necessity of defending and justifying our 

work and plans. But the breadth of criticism, unjustified though it may be, is 

placing sound highway planning in jeopardy."

LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES THREATEN HIGHWAY OFFICIALS

" One result of this culminating criticism is seen in a bill introduced in the closing 

days of the last session of Congress. It represents a sincere effort to accelerate 

general urban planning and to bring about better coordination between general 

planning and highway planning. You are familiar with it, I am sure, but among 

other provisions it would increase the 1 1/2 per cent of Federal aid for highway 

planning to 2 per cent, and would make the added 1/2 per cent available under 

certain conditions to planning commissions in metropolitan areas for long range 

land-use and transportation planning. The general urban planning is expected to 

develop the transportation needs of the community and determine the location of 

highways to serve those needs. Beyond that, under the bill, plans for any 

Federal-aid highway construction in any standard metropolitan area would be 

required to be submitted to the metropolitan planning commission for its 

consideration and comment before construction could proceed. In effect, 

responsibility for urban highway planning would be taken from the highway 

official."

"This approach, giving the main responsibility for highway planning in urban 

areas to the city planners, would be a complete reversal of the cooperative 

approach we are so diligently carrying forward. Nonetheless the voices of the 

many critics have been heard and heeded, and this bill is one result. While it was 

not introduced in time for hearings this year, it or a similar one will undoubtedly 

be introduced promptly as the next session of Congress convenes."

THE DEFENSE

"The highway officials' answer to these and other efforts that tend to erode their 

responsibility and authority must be their demonstrated ability to carry out a fully 

adequate cooperative job of urban highway planning, to provide highways best 

suited to the needs of the users and the community at large. I continue to repeat 

and emphasize this last point, for the principal criticism lies in the alleged failure 

of highway officials to understand or be sympathetic to the needs of the 

community at large."
"...We can say with assurance that highway planners have produced the most 

effective and powerful tools ever available for highway planning. We are assured 

that these tools are invaluable to urban and regional planners as well. We can 

demonstrate again and again the effectiveness of these tools when cooperatively 

and skillfully used. Yet we are on the defensive."

SKILLS MUST BE INCREASED

"If we maintain the position in urban highway planning we have earned by 

constructive effort, if we are to retain our proper responsibility and authority in 

this area, we must continue to upgrade our technical competence in our own 

field. We must understand and speak the language of the planners and the 

professionals in the other fields with whom we shall be dealing as competently as 

they. We must achieve complete local cooperation and pursue with vigor the 

establishment and maintenance of sound relations with and among local officials 

and citizen support groups. And we must do a better job of informing the public of 

our effective work to place our critics, rather than the highway official, on the 

defensive."

Excerpts From the April 1961 Issue of American Highways.

AASHO POLICY STATEMENT, 1961

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS ADEQUATE TO THE TASK

"...The Association should vigorously oppose any proposals that would require a 

certain type of organization and operation for a State highway department as a 

prerequisite for the State receiving federal aid highway funds inasmuch as 

highway departments are departments of Sovereign State governments. The 

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1916 required that the State highway organization be 

adequate for the purpose and proper safeguards now exist in federal law to 

protect the federal interests."

BPR SHOULD BE THE ONLY RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL AGENCY

"...That no federal agencies or other groups, other than the Bureau of Public 

Roads, should have the approval power over federal aid projects initiated by the 

State highway departments. However, the State highway departments should 

develop their projects in close cooperation with other affected groups and 

agencies. To extend the area of project approval could invite controversy and 

delay the initiation of vitally needed highway improvements."

NO DIVERSION FROM THE TRUST FUND

"...That the Association vigorously opposes the use of any federal Highway Trust 

Fund monies for any purpose than now authorized by law. They should not be 

extended to subsidize mass transit."

RESTORE CONTRACT AUTHORITY

"That the 'reimbursement planning' or 'Contract Control' is a temporary expedient 

for an interim period and should be considered as such. The "Contract Authority' 

procedure should be restored as soon as adequate financing can be arranged for 

the program..."
STAY ON SCHEDULE WITH THE INTERSTATE

"...The Association endorses the Interstate System completion schedule as 

outlined in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, and reassures the Congress of 

the State highway department's ability to efficiently construct the program within 

that time schedule, and warns of the adverse economic impact of interruptions, 

cutbacks or stretchouts in the program."

SIMULTANEOUS COMPLETION

"The Association endorses the periodic Interstate estimates...as the only 

equitable and proper basis of apportioning funds to the several States to achieve 

simultaneous construction and completion of the Interstate System..."

DON'T ADD INTERSTATE MILEAGE

"...That adding mileage to the Interstate System at this time would result in the 

delay of the completion of transcontinental routes and would extend the whole 

program over a longer period of time..."

DON'T SLOW DOWN THE URBAN INTERSTATE

"That the urban portions of the Interstate System are an integral and very 

important part of the system, which should be planned and developed by the 

State highway departments in close cooperation with the cities. The importance 

of the urban sections of the Interstate Systems cannot be over-emphasized, and 

an eventual enormous increase in cost could be created by a failure to recognize 

the problem at this time."

A COMPREHENSIVE URBAN PLAN SHOULD NOT BE A REQUIREMENT

"That the development and adoption of a comprehensive urban transportation 

plan should not be a requirement for the approval of a federal aid highway project 

in an urban area, but State highway departments should lend all possible 

assistance in the development of such plans in order that effective coordination 

of highway and urban development may be attained..."

Excerpts From the Jan. 1962 Issue of American Highways-the Record of the 47th Annual 

AASHO Meeting Oct. 9, 1961.

D.H. BRAY, Ky., the President's Address

THE FUNDING CRISIS SOLVED

"A little less than a year ago when we met at our last annual meeting in Detroit, 

Michigan, our principal concern then was whether or not necessary funds would 

be provided so that we could go ahead with our highway program on the 

schedule originally contemplated for the completion of the Interstate 

System...Since that time...the necessary funds have been provided."

WE MUST RESTORE CONFIDENCE

"...We have been given the go-ahead signal. Now, it is up to us to demonstrate 

that we have both the ability and the integrity to carry on the work efficiently and 
honestly. I think that our ability is little questioned; but because of the improper 

conduct of a few highway department people, the entire field of state highway 

department administration has become to some extent suspect in the public 

mind. Confronted with this undesirable and regrettable situation, it behooves all 

of us to be constantly vigilant and aggressive in keeping our individual highway 

departments as scandal-free as is humanly possible..."

BE ALERT AGAINST DIVERSION

"...Presently, there seems to be a growing threat for the diversion of highway 

funds to rail transit development; and rail transit development is being promoted 

at a rather startling rate. Highway officials should keep alert in this matter to see 

that their interests are protected."

THREAT OF DIRECT FUNDING TO URBAN AREAS

"During the past session of Congress, we have seen the new housing bill which 

goes into the field of transportation planning in urban areas. We hope that the 

state highway departments will realize their responsibilities in this area and so 

conduct themselves as to maintain a position of importance in any transportation 

planning studies in their respective states. Legislation is being drafted on Capitol 

Hill by some who are extremely urban oriented, which legislation would grant 

Federal- road aid directly to the metropolitan areas. It is doubted if the best 

interest of highway transportation would be served by such an operation. 

However, it behooves state highway officials to eliminate any source of criticism 

which might encourage such by-passing of state authority. In a country destined 

to become more and more urban in character, it is essential that state highway 

administrators constantly revi ew the changing times and needs in evaluating their 

highway organizations and what constitutes a current balanced highway 

program. Our rural road responsibilities will always remain extremely important 

and will be with us permanently; but highway department operations, by 

necessity, must become more urban-oriented as time goes on..."

SEN. PAT McNAMARA, Public Works Committee and Subcommittee on Roads.

"...Last November in Detroit, I made the observation that there was great 

confusion in the Interstate Highway Program because we were unable to 

determine precisely the position of the Executive Branch in many of these 

matters."

PRESIDENT KENNEDY

"...On February 28, 1961, President Kennedy sent a special message to 

Congress concerning the highway program. He stated:

'Our Federal pay-as-you-go Highway Program is in peril. It is a peril that justifies 

a special message because of the vital contribution this program makes to our 

security, our safety, and our economic growth. Timely completion of the full 

program authorized in 1956 is essential to a National defense that will always 

depend, regardless of new weapon developments, on quick motor transportation 

of men and material from one site to another.' "The President considered as 

acceptable, the previous Administration's recommendation for an increase of the 

4 cent Federal tax on gasoline to 4 1/2 cents a gallon."
FEDERAL GAS TAX REMAINS AT FOUR CENTS

"I did not agree completely with all of the President's proposal, just as I did not 

fully agree with his predecessor's. The congress considered the President's 

proposal and arrived at what was felt to be a more equitable assessment of 

taxes."

"As you know, the tax on gasoline and diesel fuel remained at 4 cents a gallon."

"There were increases in the tax on tires and tubes and on trucks, but the 

planned transfer of automotive excise taxes into the Trust Fund was rescinded."

COMPLETION IN 72 STILL THE TARGET

"...The Congress also went along completely with the President's proposals for 

authorizations for apportionments to the Interstate System so that now we have 

authorized funds for the completion of the Interstate System by 1972, which is 

quite near the goal set when we passed the 1956 Highway Act."

"The 1961 Act will increase the funds received into the Trust Fund by $9.6 billion 

through 1972."

"This will produce a total of about $52 billion to meet the Federal share of the 

Interstate System-now estimated at $37 billion-and a stepped-up ABC program."

NO DIVERSION

"...Someone once coined a definition of the wealthy Ford Foundation that goes 

like this: 'It is a large body of money surrounded by people who want some of it.'"

"I think there are a good many people who would apply that definition to the 

Highway Trust Fund."

AVOID CRITICISM

"We in congress, have consistently taken the position that the Trust Fund was 

established to construct Interstate and ABC routes, and that any attempts to 'raid' 

the Trust Fund for other purposes should be resisted."

"...Criticism has been leveled at the Highway Program in several instances, 

because of excessive right-of-way costs and certain irregularities, and suspected 

graft."

"I am certain you recognize the importance of conducting the program in such a 

manner that the taxpayer will be satisfied that his money is not being wasted..."

REP. GEORGE FALLON, Md.-Chairman, House Subcommittee on Roads.

ON SCHEDULE

"...I feel that the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1961 is an outstanding legislative 

accomplishment, in the enactment of which the cooperation of the state highway 
officials played an important part. The 1961 Act corrects the major legislative 

deficiencies which stood in the path of the Interstate program. Congress has 

given the States the green light to go ahead, on schedule, and to complete this 

vital Interstate highway network."

"The 1961 Highway Act represents a large part of the highway legislative 

program which was sent to Congress last winter by President Kennedy. Some 

other parts of the President's program were deferred. No doubt these proposals 

will be renewed and will require careful consideration by the Congress."

HOUSING

"The President urged Congress to amend the Federal highway law to require 

assurances that decent, safe and sanitary housing be made available for all 

families displaced by future Federal-aid highway projects at prices they can 

afford and in suitable locations. The subcommittee on Roads felt that a very 

careful study should precede the enactment of any legislation along these lines, 

including a sound estimate of the costs which might be charged to the State 

highway departments or to the Highway Trust Fund, or both. There is 

considerable sentiment in Congress in favor of aiding these distressed people, 

and I feel sure that the proposal will be renewed, in one form or another."

"The President also proposed that the financing of forest and public lands 

highways be transferred from the general fund of the Treasury to the Highway 

Trust Fund, at a cost to the Trust Fund of approximately $37.5 million per year. 

This was not a new proposal. It had been proposed earlier by the Eisenhower 

Administration. Again, it is a proposal with considerable backing among members 

of Congress."

"Still another proposal of the President would have transferred aviation fuel tax 

receipts, which now go into the Highway Trust Fund, into the general fund of the 

Treasury. In the current fiscal year, these receipts will amount to about $22 

million. This proposal falls within the jurisdiction of the House Ways and Means 

Committee, but is of obvious interest to the Subcommittee on Roads because it 

would reduce the amount of money available for highways."

REIMBURSEMENT FOR TOLL ROADS

"In addition to those proposals of the President, we expect to have a number of 

other difficult highway legislative problems to consider."

"For five years now, we have been giving thought to the matter of settling Federal 

policy on reimbursing the States for toll roads and free roads built before the 90-

10 Interstate matching formula became effective and later incorporated into the 

Interstate System. Federal policy is still unsettled. Meanwhile, we have begun to 

hear expressions of concern, some questioning the wisdom of building toll links 

into the Interstate System, and some fearing that the construction of certain free 

roads may cause financial difficulties for some existing toll roads. There is a 

variety of problems regarding toll roads, and they all seem to be perplexing."

URBAN PLANNING

"I think that all of us are fully aware of the necessity for synchronizing urban 

highway construction with urban land-use planning and with the plans which are 
being made to improve mass transit facilities in the larger metropolitan centers. 

At the same time, we know that our urban highway needs are urgent and 

increasing, and that the time element is a vital factor. We recognize the 

importance of comprehensive urban planning, but we cannot afford to let our 

urban highway programs bog down. Inasmuch as the Congress is becoming 

increasingly concerned with the problems of our cities, the urban situation is 

certain to be affected by Federal legislation. What form the legislation will take, 

and how it may affect the highway program, we cannot tell..."

The rest of the speech concerned the necessity for completing the Interstate for 

defense needs because of the troubled international situation.

REP. GORDON H. SCHERRER, Ohio,-Subcommittee on Roads.

MISJUDGED THE COST

"...The 1956 Highway Act was a good piece of legislation but not that good. Wewith your help- had completely missed the boat on total cost and a number of 

other things."

"True it is, we had handed you the ball but the cost differential we got back was a 

politically hot potato! The Republicans and Democrats tossed it around so long, 

hoping it would cool off, that the construction program came dangerously close to 

a grinding halt."

"Eisenhower did not want to see the program which he started in 1953 bog down 

and, therefore, recommended to the Congress additional financing which would 

complete construction on schedule. The Democratically-controlled congress 

balked. However, when Mr. Kennedy took over in January of this year, he was 

smart enough to see that the highway program had been opening up new 

frontiers in every nook and cranny of the United States ever since 1956. He was 

not going to let a new frontier disappear merely because it had a Republican 

label."

SCANDAL

He reminded them of the speech he made in Atlantic City in 1956 where he 

warned them of the possibilities for corruption and scandal. He then recounted 

the statistics of the scandals uncovered by the Blatnik Committee and others:

"What I am trying to say is that some of these sharp practices and misuse of 

highway funds place in the hands of our opponents the most effective weapon for 

destroying the federal-state highway partnership."

CRITICAL OF DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

"...You all know that, as a Republican, I did not hesitate to lower the boom on the 

Eisenhower Administration when the White House Bragdon Committee started to 

scuttle the effectiveness of the Interstate system by deemphasizing it in 

metropolitan areas. That nonsense died a quiet death. Perhaps today if we turn 

just a little spot light on some of the political shenanigans that are taking place in 

the Department of Commerce, we can have another quiet funeral that will also 

benefit the highway program."
"...Politicians in the Department (of Commerce) are making decisions and 

reversing prior decisions in matters which are way over their heads as to all kinds 

of technical and engineering problems. Such decisions in the past have always 

been left to knowledgeable and experienced men who have national recognition 

in their field."

"...An example of this may be found in the National Transportation Policy study 

now under way by the Department. I understand that in August of this year, soon 

after the President directed the Secretary to develop such a policy for submission 

to the White House by November 1, a meeting was held by the Department to 

determine the scope and nature of the study and to receive suggestions and 

recommendations from persons representing the views of various modes of 

transportation. Fortunately, the American Association of State Highway Officials 

was invited to have a representative at this meeting."

"However, the Bureau of Public Roads was not invited and did not even know 

there was to be such a meeting. This is too obvious an oversight to ignore, for 

the Bureau has available more information on highway transportation than any 

other source..."

THE BLATNIK COMMITTEE

"...In 1959 a Special Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government 

Operations, chaired by the Congressman, John A. Blatnik, who is now the 

extremely capable chairman of the Highway Investigating Committee, held 

hearings on the selection of the location of the Interstate route through Reno. 

Although the subcommittee pointed out certain procedures which should be 

improved, it expressed complete confidence in the professional competence of 

both the officials of the Bureau of Public Roads and of the state highway 

department. The committee concluded that the location which had been selected 

was feasible and that its construction would not constitute a waste of federal 

monies."

WHITE HOUSE INTERFERENCE

"Shortly after becoming Secretary of Commerce and in response to the urging of 

the Congressman of the District, Secretary Hodges ordered the Bureau to 

rescind the approval of the route. Those who are familiar with this matter are 

convinced that this action by the Secretary was mostly politically-inspired for the 

detailed surveys, studies, and investigations made by the State of Nevada, the 

Bureau of Public Roads, and the Congress over a period of several years were 

obviously disregarded."

"Although I cannot prove it at this time, I am reliably informed that the White 

House is ready to add some 150 miles to the interstate system in West Virginia. 

This 150 miles would come from the small reserve mileage being held back for 

making vitally needed adjustments in the lengths of approved routes in the 

various states as projects are advanced to construction. Of all places where this 

valuable mileage is not needed is the State of West Virginia."

"...I hope that some of the unpleasant things that I have talked about here today 

may be corrected before this Association meets in 1962 so that, if you ask me to 

speak again, I will not want to dig down into my files and give you other examples 

of questionable practices in such places as Massachusetts..."
HOUSE HEARINGS ON THE 1962 HIGHWAY ACT

The hearings were held by the House Subcommittee on Roads of the Committee 

on Public Works during April and May 1962. The Chairman was GEORGE 

FALLON of Maryland.

The Chairman opened by announcing the purpose of the hearings was to take 

information on 3 bills, H.R.9725, H.R. 11199 and H.R. 9848. All three bills were 

to authorize highway funds for FY 64 and 65. 9725 and 9848 were very short and 

dealt only with authorizations. H.R. 11199 dealt with authorizations and two other 

sections, "Assistance For Displaced Families And Businesses" and 

"Transportation Planning In Metropolitan Areas."

REX M. WHITTON, Administrator, BPR

Mr. Whitton made it clear that 11199 was the Administration bill. He explained 

the authorization requests and:

TESTIFYING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION

"I will turn now to the specific recommendations of the President for amendments 

to the Federal-aid highway legislation made in his recent and timely message on 

transportation, a subject vital to the interests of the entire country."

RELOCATION ASSISTANCE

He first described the President's request for relocation assistance in the highway 

program that would provide the same benefits as then available in the urban 

renewal program.

"In his message on transportation, the President also recommended 'that the 

Federal-aid highway law be amended to permit more extensive use of Federalaid secondary funds for extensions of the secondary system in urban areas.'"

COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLANS

"Another of the President's recommendations relates directly to highway projects 

in metropolitan areas."

"A major objective of national transportation policy in the use of Federal 

assistance programs is to encourage and facilitate the development by States 

and local communities of balanced transportation systems consistent with longrange comprehensive development plans."

"Enactment of this provision is believed timely in view of the increased emphasis 

being given to long-range planning and programming by the Bureau of Public 

Roads and the State highway departments in connection with expenditures of 

Federal-aid highway funds. It would require the States and their metropolitan 

areas to adopt a process of planning already demonstrated by trial to be feasible 

and effective. The experience of the Bureau of Public Roads in the highway 

transportation field could be utilized to the advantage of all levels of government 

concerned."
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS

"Moreover, the proposed requirement would place the Federal-aid highway 

program in a position with respect to planning comparable to the urban 

transportation program of the Housing and Home Finance Agency (HHFA), and 

thus strengthen the coordinated approach to urban transportation development 

already informally established by the two agencies."

"The president has referred in his transportation message to...the use of 

funds...'that the Federal-aid highway law be amended to increase the percentage 

of Federal funds available to the States for research and planning.'"

The proposal would require that all of the 1 1/2 percent funds (1 1/2 percent of 

the State's apportionment of highway funds) would have to be used for planning 

or research or they would lapse. An additional 1/2 of one percent would be made 

available at the States option for planning and research.(Prior to the 1962 

Highway Act, the States could use the 1 1/2% money for either construction or 

planning and research.)

He then gave a very detailed progress report on the highway program with 

emphasis on the Interstate program.

J. C. WOMACK, Cal., President of AASHO

RAIL TRANSIT

Mr. Womack said that AASHO supported H.R.9725 which was the bill that simply 

reauthorized the program with no amendments. In support of that he introduced 

the AASHO policy statement developed at the Denver meeting in Oct., 1961. He 

also introduced the 1962 AASHO policy statement having to do with the proper 

role of highways in national transportation policy. It was a very lengthy statement 

but the key section was named "Urban transportation." It dealt with what AASHO 

felt were misguided efforts to deal with metropolitan-wide transportation problems 

by building central city-oriented rail transit systems: "Any effort to stifle a form of

transportation in order to preserve the central business district of a major urban 

area as the major retailing and service dispensing area of the region should be 

carefully weighed as to its ultimate effect on the overall economy and as to 

whether or not it is actually in the public interest. It may be that the modern 

function of the central business district is to undergo some change with retailing 

and services being adapted to a form of transportation desired by the public." 

The complete statement has been abstracted elsewhere. Mr. Womack said: "It 

was developed and presented to counteract some misinformation regarding 

highways and other forms of transportation."

He defended against allegations of scandal in the highway program and:

"We are quite concerned about the attitude in many quarters that the program is 

or should become a Federal program."

AGAINST RELOCATION ASSISTANCE

He said that sensational journalism generated by very few events had 

unnecessarily caused adverse public reactions and had caused unnecessary 
investigations, increases in regulations and red tape. He testified against the 

Administration bill provision of Assistance to Displaced Families: "We believe that 

it would be the means of introducing controversy, delay, and political pressures 

into the program to the point that it could effectively stop the highway program in 

certain areas." The AASHO position was that, if right-of-way acquisition took 

place sufficiently in advance of construction and owners received a fair price for 

their land and they were given plenty of time to relocate, there would be no 

problem.

AGAINST MANDATORY URBAN PLANNING

He also testified against the Administration provision that would require that: 

"...The Secretary shall...make a finding that such projects are consistent with 

adequate comprehensive development plans for the metropolitan areas..." Mr. 

Womack said: "Before such planning is made mandatory, we would suggest that 

we give our presently launched program time enough for tryout to determine if 

the cooperative approach with all of the agencies and levels of Government 

involved give satisfactory results, and not result in a controversial impasse...The 

wording in the bill leaves the decision as to whether a highway project properly 

fits into a comprehensive and balanced transportation plan to the Secretary of 

Commerce, but in communities where a considerable difference of opinion exists 

as to what constitutes a balanced transportation system, or where there is 

pressure to make additional expenditures on a highway project to enhance 

certain other community developments, longtime delays could be inevitable, for 

agreeing upon a plan would be almost impossible...highway transportation is the 

only mode of transportation that will be involved in a transportation plan in the 

majority of our cities, and we predict that if transportation planning is made a 

prerequisite for approving a Federal-aid highway project in an urban area, it will 

stop the highway program in our larger metropolitan areas."

CLARENCE D. MARTIN, Under Secretary of Commerce

Mr. Martin referred to the President's message on transportation: "We believe it 

is the most comprehensive transportation planning and action program ever 

proposed by a President to the Congress and the people."

A PATCHWORK APPROACH

"One of the reasons our national transportation system is burdened with pressing 

problems is the patchwork way all levels of government have administered, 

promoted, and regulated the various modes and facilities over a long period of 

years."

"More than a year ago, President Kennedy recommended that the Congress 

adopt a method of assisting families and businesses forced to move because of 

the Federal-aid highway program...You gentlemen are aware that the principle of 

relocation assistance is firmly established in the urban renewal program. In 

addition, the administration is proposing similar assistance be included in a 

Federal-aid program to help cities solve their mass transportation problems...A 

highway project is not an isolated Federal-aid activity. It is closely interrelated 

with the whole economic and social fabric of our communities. Equality of 

treatment at the hands of the Federal Government demands that assistance to 

displaced persons and families be incorporated in the Federal-aid highway 

program now."
PRESIDENT KENNEDY

"President Kennedy, in the portion of his transportation message dealing with 

urban problems, said this: 'To conserve and enhance values in existing urban 

areas is essential. But at least as important are steps to promote economic 

efficiency and livability in areas of future development. Our national welfare, 

therefore, requires the provision of good urban transportation, with the properly 

balanced use of private vehicles and modern mass transport to help shape as 

well as serve urban growth.'"

"It is to answer this challenge of our growing urban centers and expanding 

economy that the administration proposes a new section providing for 

transportation planning in metropolitan areas...We have found that the Bureau of 

Public Roads and the State highway departments have a wealth of talent and 

experience in metropolitan transportation planning."

"We believe that it is necessary to contribute this talent and experience so that a 

cooperative and coordinated program can be most beneficial to our expanding 

metropolitan areas. In this way, we can be assured that the full benefits of an 

already proven program will be considered in striving for balanced transportation 

systems in our cities."

He also noted that the administration bill would increase the 1 1/2 percent funds 

to 2 percent and require that they be matched and they must be used for 

planning and research, instead of the existing option of using them for 

construction. The primary reason for this was to provide the necessary funds for 

the comprehensive urban planning requirement.

BEN WEST, Mayor of Nashville, Testifying for the American Municipal Assn.

He favored the increase in 1 1/2 percent funds: "...A good master transportation 

plan for any community will include all of the best features of every mode, each in 

its proper place, and each with differentiating functions and services. To do this 

requires funds. Urban transportation studies do not come cheap..."

"H.R. 11199 requires the Secretary of Commerce...to determine that...projects in 

metropolitan areas are part of a comprehensive development plan or be based 

on the results of a continuing planning process before approving those projects. 

That portion of the proposal requiring that a continuing planning process be 

established seems reasonable and not overly restrictive and is supported by our 

association. That portion requiring that the projects are part of a comprehensive 

development plan does seem to be unreasonable. Unreasonable in that a 

comprehensive plan for an area can only be a general guide for development of 

the area. Even then the plan is not static but needs continual revision as a part of 

the planning process. We recommend that this requirement be deleted from the 

bill." Congressman Baldwin handed him a copy of the bill and asked him to edit 

out the words that he disagreed with.

Mayor West supported the other features of the administration bill and also 

advocated the establishment of a Federal-aid Urban System, or at least the 

Congress should commission a study on the subject and a report within a 

specified period of time.
The National Association of Counties also appeared and supported the 

comprehensive planning requirement.

SENATE HEARINGS ON THE 1962 HIGHWAY ACT

The Senate Hearings were on August 7 and 8, 1962 and were on S.3136 and 

H.R. 12135. They were conducted by the Subcommittee on Roads under the 

Chairmanship of Senator Pat McNamara of Michigan. The parent Committee was 

Public Works. The Chairman noted that H.R. 12135 had passed the House on 

July 19, 1962.

REX WHITTON, Administrator, BPR, accompanied by F.C. TURNER, submitted 

a long statement for the record in support of the Administration bill. It was 

essentially the same statement he gave the House Subcommittee.

SENATOR RANDOLPH: "...I believe, Mr. Whitton, it would be appropriate at this 

time for you to indicate the Bureau of Public Roads position in reference to the 

action or contemplated action on the elimination or the delay of three important 

highway projects in the District of Columbia."

The Senator indicated that he had read an editorial in the Washington Star the 

evening before:

"...It relates to the delay of three important District highway projects. The editor 

wrote that although we are awaiting the so-called (National Transportation 

Agency) mass transportation report in November, he (the Editor) questioned the 

delay of necessary planning and construction of highways that are vital to the 

movement of traffic here in the Nation's Capital, movement not only of the people 

that live in the area, but of the tourists and of the increasing numbers of trucks 

coming into this area."

MR. WHITTON: "Well, the program is being delayed, let me say it that way. The 

money is available, and I certainly would like to see them go ahead with it...I don't 

think anybody ever built any road in any city in the United States where there 

were no objections to it...There are objections to the inner loop and they are 

being heard, they are talking and you hear them."

SENATOR KERR: "Isn't that an area that has some very considerable historic 

significance in addition to the actual economic values of the property?..Isn't a 

great part of that effort being made by people who feel that additional 

consideration should be given to providing the transportation artery at a place 

where doing so would not cause as much damage to buildings and environments 

of what is regarded to be of great historical significance?"

WHITTON: "Yes, sir."

SENATOR KERR: "...I think we have probably one of the most efficient 

departments of Government represented in the Bureau of Public Roads, and 

certainly their job is to get on with the business and do it as economically as 

possible and as efficiently as possible."

"As far as I know, there is nothing in the law that charges them with the 

responsibility in connection with the preservation of historic environments. But I 
can well understand how people with those concepts might feel a great urge to 

impress upon the ones making the decisions, that decisions should not be made 

that would hold too lightly or disregard the effects of the proposed arteries on 

these areas in the Nation's Capital."

JOHN MACKIE, Mich. for AASHO

He entered a long statement for the record that in essence said that AASHO had 

polled its constituency and that AASHO could live with the House bill as passed. 

They objected to the additional 1/2 percent planning funds being mandatory but 

could live with it being at the State's option. They could live with the urban 

planning requirement with the House amendment restricting it to a planning 

process rather than an agreed upon comprehensive plan.

SENATOR CASE, New Jersey

Senator Case entered a long statement in the record in support of the 

administration and its initiatives in mass transit aid, urban renewal, housing and 

comprehensive planning. His appeal was for the restoration of the President's 

original wording in the section on comprehensive urban transportation planning 

which would require agreement on a comprehensive plan rather than the 

existence of an on-going process. He felt that the revised House wording was not 

strong enough to insure that adequate mass transit planning would be 

accomplished before highway projects were approved.

MRS. JOHN F. SNYDER, Federation of Citizens' Assns., Wash.D.C.

"...I have come to support S. 2928 and to suggest an additional clause which we 

feel is important to the solution of the people-space- highway problem to which 

this bill is addressed."

"We feel that it is imperative that Federal highway laws be brought up to date 

through the provisions of this bill for assuming responsibility for the relocation of 

persons displaced by highway construction. In our opinion this bill will have the 

effect of giving greater consideration to the location of interstate highways in 

nonresidential areas, which is in accord with our policies. We also feel that we 

have a collective responsibility for businesses displaced by the highway system, 

and for the record, we urge that provision for relocation aid be extended to 

businesses during the process of amending these laws."

"...If the object of this bill is to keep the highway program moving, while at the 

same attending to the needs of those to be displaced, then it should provide for 

dealing with duly constituted authorities representing the several jurisdictions in 

metropolitan areas such as Washington, instead of being geared to deal only 

with individual States for those relocated within the same jurisdiction from which 

they are displaced."

"Since Federal aid to highways has from its inception been an incentive program 

designed to achieve maximum coordination among the States, extension of its 

coordinating power into the tense jurisdictional stalemates of metro areas would 

be thoroughly in keeping with traditional objectives."

"You gentlemen are familiar with the major factors in the District of Columbia 

citizen versus highway controversy which has consumed so much yardage in the 
press and so much time in congressional hearings. The loose housing and 

welfare policies of Washington administrations, as opposed to the tight policies of 

surrounding jurisdictions have resulted in a concentration of indigent and semiindigent families in the Federal City all out of proportion; so that in the growing 

metro area of which it is the center, we have virtually all the public housing in the 

area."

"How do you meet the demand for more highways, displacing more people, who 

require more public housing on less space, with a dwindling tax base? The 

citizens who have chosen to stay and fight for the survival of this city have 

reacted, singly and collectively, to this pressure as we are prone to do when we 

find ourselves backed into a corner. The reaction ranges in intensity but it is clear 

that much of the opposition is based upon the universal conviction that the 

District of Columbia can no longer play the role of the goose that lays the golden 

egg for suburbia."

Excerpts From the April 1962 Issue of American Highways.

ELLIS L. ARMSTRONG, President, Better Highways Information Foundation.

Mr. Armstrong was Commissioner of the Bureau of Public Roads during the 

Eisenhower Administration. This speech was an address to the Association of 

Highway Officials of North Atlantic States on March 22, 1962.

"...Providing highways is one of the largest operations of Government. If we are 

to bring to fruition the plans for a greater America that we have under way, it 

must be with the understanding and support of the individual citizen. Whether we 

like it or not, individual John Q. Public in our democracy is the one who 

determines the program that can be accomplished. He is the judge. And he 

judges on the basis of his understanding."

BAD PRESS IS DAMAGING THE PROGRAM

"...It is a fact that the program is being, with a very few exceptions, competently, 

honestly, and effectively administered and accomplished. Controls built into the 

program at the state level and the Federal level have kept wrongdoings to a 

minimum. There have been some few mistakes, wrongdoings, and errors of 

judgement; perfection in the world of man is still a goal rather than an 

actuality...Even the two year probings of Congressional investigators have failed 

to uncover anything of any consequence that is new...Unfortunately these 

investigations often appear not to be entirely objective, and equally unfortunately 

have been conducted by investigators not familiar with, or trained in the 

complexities of modern highway problems..."

THE GREAT HIGHWAY ROBBERY

"These facts seem to be overlooked or discounted in some of the recent vicious, 

unfair attacks on the highway program. Some of these are doing great harm and 

point out the need to greater effort to keep the program and its problems in true 

perspective. The recent article in Parade magazine with which I'm sure you are 

familiar, is one example of the problems you face..."

"The article makes a number of rather wild, sweeping statements such as '...a 

monstrous spider, called corruption, is devouring tax dollars by the millions...' and 

'...new highways are paved with waste, inefficiency, and boondoggling.' These 
statements are distortions that are just not so! The article offers as 'proof' a score

of cases that I will discuss. The great disservice, injustice, and danger in the 

article is the innuendo and implication, the frequent use of 'for example' when 

there may have been no other example known, and the clever writing to create 

the impression of a 'Great Highway Robbery'".

"Careful review of the article's allegations, including checking by the States and 

the Bureau of Public Roads and with the Blatnik Committee and the industry, 

developed the following analysis which shows how far the article deviated from 

fairness and objectivity in its story. Probably because of misunderstanding and 

lack of research, and by reliance on 'back-fence' gossip, it fails to present the 

whole story and widely distorts actualities. Part of the allegations are true; but 

take a look at these allegations as compared with the facts."

Mr. Armstrong presented 15 allegations and stated the facts surrounding each 

case. There was an element of truth in each allegation but the presentations 

were distorted and sensationalized.

U.S. WARNS ON ROAD SURVEYS

Chicago's American-May 13,1962

Cities and states that fail to make planning surveys will not receive federal 

expressway system funds.. Rex M. Whitton...sounded the warning at a press 

conference following a 2-day meeting with 250 state, county and municipal 

officials from thruout the midwest.

Whitton said that when and if the President's pending transportation program bill 

is passed by Congress, work will be pushed on the network from coast to coast...

"The measure provides that if cities, states and counties do not have their plans 

completed by July, 1965, they will not share in the federal funds."..

WHY NOT TRIM TRANSPORT NEEDS

Boston Globe-May 2, 1962

ATLANTIC CITY-Are urban planners paying too much attention to expansion of 

transportation facilities and not enough on ways to reduce these needs?

This possibility was advanced before the American Society of Planning Officials 

convention yesterday by Tracy B. Augur, assistant commissioner for urban 

planning and community development, Urban Renewal Administration.

...On the same panel, D. Grant Mickle, deputy Federal highway administrator, 

Bureau of Public Roads, said that by July, 1965, in aid programs, the department 

will insist that road plans are consistent with comprehensive development plans 

for a metropolitan area.

Augur said two ways of meeting increasing transportation demands are to 

increase facilities for handling them or to reduce or stabilize the demand.

"The latter is apt to prove much less costly than the former"
He said he didn't think it should be assumed that increasing demands on city 

transportation systems are inevitable and that, therefore, widened pavements, 

new arterials, express highways, rail rapid transit and yet unknown devices will 

be needed to permit the continued functioning of urban areas.

"Modern urban aggregations, cannot get along without well planned 

transportation systems, but they can have better and more economical systems if 

the patterns of urban settlement and the facilities to serve them are worked out in 

concert."

AAA ON 'BELTLINES'

New Hampshire Sunday News-June 24, 1962

The venerable AAA, now in its 60th year...has joined battle publicly with forces 

endeavoring to restrict U.S. citizens in their right to operate private automobiles...

AAA centers its fire on groups and individuals seeking on one or another pretext 

to exclude the private automobile from "metropolitan areas." AAA does not 

identify these people by name but they include figures high up in the Kennedy 

administration as well as certain influential members of Congress.

These enemies of the motor car hope to curtail its use through the diversion of 

public funds from road building to the subsidization of various crack-brained 

schemes for the restoration of "mass transit."

Under this heading they propound everything from trolley-cars to the elevated 

monorail as cures for urban "traffic congestion."

In a hard-hitting broadside backed up by its member clubs over the country, AAA 

quickly explodes the idea that city congestion originated with the automobile: 

"Congestion and over-crowding have been urban problems since the dawn of 

history. The root cause of today's congestion is not the automobile, but the failure 

over a long period of years to provide adequate street and highway facilities".

...No urban freeway system can be considered complete, AAA warns, until 

coupled with an "inner belt" system of "routes leading into and through 

downtown," plus, of course, "ample downtown parking facilities."...

Excerpts From the July 1962 Issue of American Highways.

A. E. JOHNSON, Executive Secretary, AASHO on Urban Planning

The title of the speech was 'Urbanization, the Automobile and You'. It was given 

to the Mississippi Valley Conference of State Highway Departments and to the 

Association of Highway Officials of the North Atlantic States in March, 1962.

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS MUST PAY ATTENTION TO URBAN PROBLEMS

"...You may say that you have no urban problems because you have no large 

metropolitan areas in your State. But, let me assure you that you have an 

urbanization problem for it is relative and all cities are experiencing similar 

problems, irregardless of size."
"An essential part of the opportunities, challenges, and responsibilities of the 

State highway departments at the present time and in the future lie in our urban 

areas. If we fail, someone else will take over our urban activities."

"It behooves every State highway department to constantly evaluate what 

constitutes a balanced urban-rural program and make an equitable division of 

available funds to care for the needs of both areas. All systems of roads are 

needed to keep our economy strong. Eventually a more equitable representation 

in State legislatures will occur and the rural domination will be adjusted, which 

will influence the future activities of State highway departments."

He gave statistics and background to illustrate the dynamics of the urbanization 

of the country and saw no sign of slackening.

THE 56 ACT MADE THE URBAN PROGRAM POSSIBLE

"It was...the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, together with the establishment of 

the Highway Trust Fund that really caused urban highway problems to come to 

life as we know them today, because the means were furnished to actually start 

work on highways to alleviate critical urban congestion."

"This Act gave the State highway departments, through the Bureau of Public 

Roads, the legal responsibility of carrying out the program, both in rural and 

urban areas. It was a proper assignment, and it was based on a solid record of 

accomplishment of the Bureau of Public Roads and the state highway 

departments over a period of 45 years."

"Almost immediately we started having problems, criticisms and challenges. 

Without doubt some of this was encouraged by some shortcomings on the part of 

the State highway departments, but a large part of the difficulties can be charged 

to the fact that the program was big and glamorous and a lot of money was 

involved. It brought forth challenges from competitive forms of transportation and 

from agencies, officials and individuals wanting to get into the act, because of its 

size and importance. Many who had never shown any interest in the highway 

program previously, immediately displayed an intense interest in its handling."

THE HARTFORD CONFERENCE

"...The Hartford Conference, held in Connecticut, was where we first heard a 

serious proposal that the highway program in urban areas be delayed to permit 

city planners to initiate and finish planning."

SAGAMORE

"The Sagamore Conference in New York was held to spell out guide lines for 

area-wide and cooperative planning of highway facilities and urban development. 

I had the privilege of serving as General Chairman of that conference."

"Next we heard serious proposals that the urban sections of the Interstate 

program be eliminated." (This was probably a reference to the recommendations 

of the Bragdon Committee in the White House.)

CRITICISM INCREASES
"Charges were made that highway planners were incompetent to locate and 

design facilities in urban areas, although the State highway departments have 

had the main responsibility in planning and designing practically all urban 

freeways to date."

WOODS HOLE

"The Woods Hole Conference held in Massachusetts was where we first heard 

the theory that in order to conserve our resources and to hold transportation 

costs to a minimum, our transportation system should be planned and integrated 

with a national policy dictating what mode of transportation should be used for 

the movement of people and goods and to avoid a duplication of facilities or 

competition between modes."

"We heard charges that suburbs have created 'urban sprawl' which is alleged to 

be very undesirable and wasteful and has caused far too much private 

automobile travel."

CRITICIZED BY ARCHITECTS AND URBAN PLANNERS

"...We heard charges that the suburbs are making it difficult to establish rail 

transit facilities."

"We heard critical comments by many planners as to the activities of the State 

highway departments, but these planners themselves do not seem to agree as to 

how to plan the spatial form of the city or what the future land uses, especially in 

the outer fringe areas, are likely to be. Sometimes they fail to make much 

contribution to the highway planner in studying his problem. Transportation plans 

must be practical, feasible, justified and within financial possibility. Some 

planners proposals do not qualify as to the latter requirement."

"Certain architects have been very critical of the State highway departments, but 

they in themselves are very unlikely to agree as to what is the proper aesthetic 

treatment to be given highways and their criticisms have been rather vague and 

not constructive."

"...Certain rail transit promoters have put out propaganda as to the relative 

capacities of the urban freeway vs. the rail transit facility, which is entirely 

erroneous and downright misleading. Recently, one so-called authority stated 

that it required 21 lanes of freeway, completely filled with automobiles bumper to 

bumper, and loaded to capacity, to carry as many people as one rail of transit..."

"We are not in competition with rail transit and we don't believe that they should 

be with us, but, it is downright interesting to see some of the artists' depictions 

that are distributed as part of the rail transit promotion scheme along with some 

of the artists' drawings of monorail facilities, where the track is a very aesthetic, 

graceful and dainty thing, all of which is as misleading as the figures they quote."

"Charges have been made that people in the modern city are forced to own 

automobiles against their will, because of the spatial form of the city and because 

of the lack of suitable public transportation."
"In certain public hearings, we have seen incited emotional opposition to our 

proposed projects from neighborhood associations, college alumnae, and others 

who have not really checked into the need for the facility nor the reasons for its 

proposal, but who have followed a critical leader."

"We are certain that lip service has been paid to rail transit, not because of 

support for rail transit but for the purpose of delaying highway improvements for 

other reasons."

THE WASHINGTON D.C. HIGHWAY CONTROVERSY

"We have seen the Congress of the United States pass legislation establishing a 

moratorium for 5 years for the construction of an important part of the Interstate 

System in Washington, D.C., in order to give another form of transportation a 

chance."

"Although a number from that agency have been friendly and cooperative, we 

have heard a top housing official state resentment toward the State highway 

departments because of the legal authority that they have over Federal-aid 

highways in urban areas."

THE RISING TIDE OF CRITICISM

"We have heard a top housing official be very critical of the State highway 

departments activities in cities, alleging they are engrossed only in locating the 

highway along the cheapest line without thought to other factors."

"It has been rumored that certain people have pressed for Highway Trust Funds 

to be apportioned directly to cities, not necessarily for highways, but for 

transportation purposes, and that they be administered through a proposed 

Department of Urban Affairs. Federal Housing Administrator Weaver has, 

however, put the housing agency on record as not having designs on the 

Highway Trust Fund."

"We have heard a prominent National Capitol planner state that he would be 

happy if there were never another foot of highway built in the District of Columbia 

and if there were never another automobile sold there."

"We have heard city planners propose rigid housing control and zoning to force a 

spatial form of a city that would lend itself to rail transportation."

"We have seen official proposals for artificial barriers against the use of private 

automobiles in downtown areas."

"We have heard transit people press for delays in the Highway program to give 

proposed rail facilities a chance."

THE CITY AND THE AUTOMOBILE

"It is evident that improved highways are needed now for the movement of 

people, goods, and services and if rail facilities are indicated, they should be 

planned and constructed with the highway program if at all possible, but needed 

highways should not be delayed for such ridiculous reasons."
"We have heard it charged that the State highway departments do nothing to 

help displaced tenants in the metropolitan areas and that the highway program is 

destroying taxable property and making people homeless."

"We have heard anti-highway charges that evolved in the large metropolitan 

areas as part of the rail transit propaganda, used to hinder the development of 

the highway program, in cities the size that are unlikely to have the need for rail 

transit facilities in the foreseeable future, if ever, and where adequate highways 

offer the only solution. I refer to such claims that 'the automobile and the city can 

never live together,' and that 'urban freeways create far more problems than they 

solve.'"

"We have heard the statement that too much of the consumer dollar is going for 

private automobile transportation."

"We have heard an outstanding urban leader say that in the not too distant future 

it may be necessary to curb private automobile ownership to make people save 

their money."

He gave extensive statistics on automobile ownership and use.

THE HIGHWAY ENGINEER'S IMAGE

"The result has been the development of a rather prevalent and unfavorable set 

of 'images' particularly in the urban areas. An all too prevalent 'image' of a 

highway official is a crude, single purpose individual with no sense of values of 

aesthetics, with a total disregard of public opinion, incompetent to work in urban 

areas, who shows a blood passion for wanting to displace people and who wins 

his argument, as to project location, by putting a bulldozer out in front of him and 

clearing the line for the new highway against all opposition."

THE FREEWAY IMAGE

"The 'image' being given the urban freeway is an expensive and unneeded 

facility, strangling the life out of the city, creating ugly slashes in the urban area, 

destroying taxable property, making people homeless, creating more problems 

than it solves, and a malignancy of concrete and asphalt that is consuming the 

entire area."

THE AUTOMOBILE IMAGE

"The 'image' of the automobile is that of a monster that takes too much of the 

people's money; that is holding up the establishment of a better and cheaper 

form of transportation; that is responsible for urban sprawl; that is an inefficient 

contraption wasting our resources; that is creating intolerable congestion, and is 

poisoning our air."

"Our big challenge at this time is to recreate these 'images' in their proper 

perspective, and it is indeed a challenging necessity."

"What have the State highway departments done about it?"
"Thirty nine of them have established some form of urban unit in their 

organization..."

WHAT HAS TO BE DONE

"After the Sagamore Conference, a special committee of AASHO planned and 

staged four regional seminars for the purpose of acquainting highway planners 

and city planners with the abilities of each and how they could work together in 

aiding each other in their work, and especially how the city planner can be of 

assistance to the highway official in carrying out his assignment to construct 

urban highways."

"It has been the State highway departments and the Bureau of Public Roads, 

who have been responsible for the development of most of the scientific 

techniques in urban transportation planning."

"It has been the State highway departments that have been responsible for 

initiating and conducting, to date, most of the urban transportation planning that 

has been undertaken."

"It has been the State highway departments that have developed urban freeway 

design standards."

"AASHO created a joint committee with the American Municipal Association, 

which has been very successful and constructive."

"AASHO has established a permanent committee on Urban Transportation 

Planning."

"At the 1961 Annual Meeting in Denver, Colorado, AASHO took an 

unprecedented step in developing and adopting a Transportation Policy 

Statement, spelling out the importance of highways and automotive 

transportation in our economy and their proper role in any National 

Transportation Policy that might be developed."

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE

He spelled out the elements of the policy which were based on the concept that 

urban highways are an extension of the statewide highway system and that they 

must be planned accordingly. The policy went on to state that urban highways 

must be cooperatively planned with urban development and:

"That if the modern suburb or urban automobile traffic becomes objectionable to 

the average citizen, natural phenomena will correct the problem, and changes 

would not be forced to match some pet theories, or to accommodate the profit 

incentive desires of a few."

"It is our honest belief that if the average person knows the whole story that they 

will agree with our position."

"...Very shortly a series of regional conferences will be held to explain the 

necessity for such a program (of transportation studies); to explain how the 

planning activity can be organized, how the various committees are set up, how 
to utilize the capabilities and abilities of the City Engineer, the City Planner, 

housing Officials, the City Traffic engineer, and the City Administrator, as well as 

the technical personnel, housing and administrative personnel of the County and 

other levels of Government involved in the program."

"It is important that this program be successful in an America where urbanization 

is increasing, and where we must know more about the effects of transportation 

on the city and the interaction between transportation, land use, and urban 

economics."

"...We are fortunate in that we still have the opportunity to handle this urban 

problem, and before a federal directive appears requiring such planning as a 

prerequisite for approval of any federal-aid highway project in an urban area." 

(The 1962 Highway Act requiring such planning was passed later that fall.)

"...We must demonstrate our exceptional interest and competency in the field of 

urban highway planning, even to the point of maybe 'going a little overboard' or 

stand the chance of losing the urban part of the program."

"I am certain that the State highway departments are anxious and ready to 

cooperate with anyone who can contribute constructively to planning highways in 

urban areas, but they will resist giving up their authority to any other group or 

agency or let anyone else, not presently authorized, have the veto or approval 

authority over their operations."

WASHINGTON OBSERVER

Engineering News Record-Sept. 13, 1962

Federal-aid highway construction is not keeping pace with projected goals.

In a strongly worded letter to state highway officials, BPR Administrator Rex M. 

Whitton urges "all possible measures" to put the road program into "high gear". 

Otherwise, he warns, the public may demand a "change in the legislation that for 

many years has maintained the cooperative federal - state highway improvement 

process". This is a thinly guarded way of saying the federal government may 

have to assume a stronger role.

The number of highway - contracts awarded in the first half of this year was 8% 

lower than the comparable period of 1961...The first-half 1962 rate of completion 

on the Interstate system was 4.6 miles a day.

At this rate, says Rex Whitton, the Interstate program won't be completed until 

1981, missing the 1973 goal by eight years. Between now and 1973, he warns, 

the completion rate must be stepped up to 7.8 miles a day. This is a full 70% 

faster than the progress rate of the past 12 months. Congress appears unlikely to 

act on President Kennedy's three-year, $500 million mass transit program this 

year, though the Administration hasn't given up hope of such action completely. 

The measure has cleared committees in both houses, winning comfortable 

bipartisan support. The Senate Democratic Policy Committee has cleared it for 

debate in that chamber-without setting a date.
The real rub, however, is in the House. The House Rules Committee which 

determines which bills reach the House floor and when, hasn't considered the 

measure at all. The Senate isn't likely to act unless there is a major breakup of 

the existing logjam in higher priority bills...

MASS TRANSIT AID DEAD?

New York Times, Sept. 28, 1962

"Senate Shelves Transit Aid Bill." "2.6 Billion Allotted in States' Road Aid." These 

were two recent headlines on news dispatches from Washington that betray the 

Government's one-sided interest in highway construction for the automobile, to 

the almost total exclusion of any assistance to the financially stricken railroads.

The $500,000,000 Kennedy program for helping metropolitan areas solve their 

problems of traffic congestion by improvement and expansion of mass 

transportation facilities is apparently dead.

There is no legitimate quarrel with large expenditure of funds for the Interstate 

highway program, mainly financed by user taxes, or with much other road 

construction. No one doubts that the automobile is here to stay. Our cities are 

trying to live with it, and make room for it. But it is a losing battle.

There can be no satisfactory future for New York, for instance, that does not 

make the subway, the commuter railroad, the bus the principal reliance of people 

on the move. If the general good requires, as it does, the survival of the railroads 

and their improvement-especially in respect to commuter services-then 

Government cannot remain aloof from the rail problem while enthusiastically 

accepting highway construction for the automobile as a prime and legitimate 

responsibility...

MOSES FEARS TRANSIT MAY DELAY HIGHWAYS

The Evening Star-Sept. 26, 1962

It is against the public interest to delay highway construction in the Washington 

area for a "highly problematic" rapid transit system, transportation veteran Robert 

Moses said last night.

Acceptance and financing for rapid transit is doubtful because in a city the size of 

Washington the initial cost is too great, he said. Subsidies are hard to come by 

and no fare structure can be visualized that will pay for the system, he added...

...In reference to recent congressional postponements of several District highway 

projects, Mr. Moses said:

"It is not in the public interest to delay this program on the theory that an as yet 

undisclosed and undetermined rapid transit system will make such highway 

arterials unnecessary or materially alter the proposed network."...

..."There are locations where rapid transit can be combined with vehicular lanes 

with the same right-of-way, but not many. No doubt commuter subsidies of some 

kind are inevitable, but they should depend on superior rail service after the 
relative roles of the train, bus, car and aircraft have been determined by experts 

concerned only with the truth."...

Excerpts From the October 1962 Issue of American Highways.

THE 1962 HIGHWAY ACT-An Editorial.

The 62 Act approved October 23, 1962, had several milestone developments. 

Section 5 provided payments for displaced families and businesses and required 

that the State give assurances that assistance will be provided for displaced 

persons and businesses as a condition of project approval for right-of-way 

acquisition.

THE 3C PLANNING PROCESS

Section 134, "Transportation Planning in Certain Urban Areas" was as follows:

"It is declared to be in the national interest to encourage and promote the 

development of transportation systems, embracing various modes of transport in 

a manner that will serve the States and local communities efficiently and 

effectively. To accomplish this objective the Secretary shall cooperate with the 

States, as authorized in this title, in the development of long-range highway plans 

and programs which are properly coordinated with plans for improvements in 

other affected forms of transportation and which are formulated with due 

consideration to their probable effect on the future development of urban areas of 

more than fifty thousand population. After July 1, 1965, the Secretary shall not 

approve under section 105 of this title any program for projects in any urban area 

of more than fifty thousand population unless he finds that such projects are 

based on a continuing comprehensive transportation planning process carried on 

cooperatively by States and local communities in conformance with the 

objectives stated in this section."

Section 11, "Highway Planning and Research Funds", made the use of the "1 1/2 

%" funds mandatory for planning and research instead of optional. In the past, 

those funds could be used for construction projects if the State so elected.

JAMES S. BURCH, N.C., "Cooperative Urban Highway-Street Planning"

Mr. Burch reported on the rather unique urban planning program in North 

Carolina:

"...Since 1957, when Mr. W. F. Babcock became Director, great strides have 

been made in this important field. Among these have been the creation of the 

Planning Board, the Advance Planning Department, and the enactment of the 

statute in 1959 which requires in effect that:

'Each municipality shall, with the cooperation of the State Highway Commission, 

develop a comprehensive plan for a street system that will serve present and 

anticipated volumes of traffic in and around the municipality. The plan shall be 

based on-population growth, economic conditions and prospects, and patterns of 

land development. The State Highway Commission may provide financial and 

technical assistance in the preparation of such plans.'
'After completion-the plan may be adopted by both the municipality and the State 

Highway Commission as the basis for future street and highway improvements in 

and around the municipality-based on agreement of the parties-no change to be 

made effective until it is adopted by both the Commission and the municipality."

He described the successful operation of the process for the five preceding 

years:

"Thus, great progress has been made toward the goals, which are briefly as 

follows:

1. Start with facts. Complete, unbiased, objective facts-related, and 

analyzed; in such fields as growth of population (in small segments); land 

use; traffic generation, traffic assignment, and street capacity; using 

Traffic Engineering principles based on research.

2. Vision to break through the unknown future with the best predictions 

which logic, experience, judgement and research will permit. To locate 

the future population, to anticipate its traffic needs by volume, direction, 

and time. Difficult and inexact? Yes, but definitely necessary.

3. Employ the technical abilities and disciplines of Engineers skilled and 

experienced in all applicable fields, Traffic, Construction, Water, Sewer, 

Power-and the overall vision of the Planner. It is our belief that bringing 

these viewpoints and abilities together portends the best approach to the 

projections of understanding of future need.

4. For the state, and for each community, to develop an overall plan to 

provide for an ultimate, permanently protected, adequate, coordinated, 

and connected network of highways and streets in 1980.

5. To follow the plan, in order that we may (a) guide all street-highway 

improvements, and (b) aid private and corporate development and redevelopment of land as related to transport.

6. To acquire and preserve necessary space now, and until needed.

7. To outline a continuing financial program to support progressive 

implementation toward the agreed goals.

8. To review completed plans at about five year intervals, to check on 

original forecasts and then anticipated land developments and traffic 

assignments; and to jointly revise the plans in the light of the new 

knowledge."

"That the procedure has been complex, difficult and taxing is readily admitted. It 

has involved problems and questions so difficult as to be almost imponderable. 

Mutual agreement has often required much negotiation, discussion and joint 

effort. However, all worth-while objectives are difficult of attainment, usually 

varying in complexity with their importance. Problems deferred from year to year 

in the past have been attacked, and best apparent solutions have been found 

and agreed to. Real progress has been made, and the effort is being continued 

at even a faster rate. We are confident that future appraisal will show the present 

work to have been eminently worthwhile."

INTERSTATE ROADS-LAGGING OR NOT?

Engineering News Record- Nov. 20, 1962

At the annual convention of the American Association of State Highway Officials 

in Miami Beach next week, Federal Highway Administrator Rex Whitton and 
other Bureau of Public Roads officials will urge the states to step up their efforts 

to complete the $41-billion Interstate system on time.

Last September, Mr. Whitton said:

"During the 12 months ending June 30, 1,675 miles of the Interstate system were 

completed to full standards. At that rate, we were completing 4.6 miles a day. But 

if we continue at that rate, the system won't be completed until 1981".

"We cannot afford that leisurely pace...Between now and 1973, we must sustain 

a completion rate of 7.8 miles per day...This is 70% faster than the progress rate 

of the last 12 months".

State highway officials, on their part, stoutly deny that the program is in trouble 

and is behind schedule, except in a mere handful of relatively small roadbuilding 

states...

Highway officials say there are three main reasons why federal-aid contract 

activity dropped during the first half of 1962.

?? Because of the highway scandals and resultant tightening-up of contract 

control procedures, it's harder to get decisions from both BPR and the 

state highway departments.

?? Many states are concentrating on urban work. Great controversies arise 

over these routes, and the work is more complex and slow. Therefore, 

although important projects are in the works, progress reports don't 

reflect big advances.

?? Many states are trying to acquire their urban ROWs now and this, too, is 

a slow and tedious process fraught with controversy...

The Bureau feels it is important for the states to show more progress in the form 

of completed pavement because:

?? The benefits promised to the public in safer, cheaper and more efficient 

transportation cannot be fully realized unless the maximum rate of 

construction is maintained consistent with available financial and other 

capabilities.

?? Visible progress is the best possible answer to the assorted criticisms 

being aimed at the program, since complaints have a way of 

disappearing once a completed highway materializes.

BPR is suggesting, and will reiterate at the AASHO meeting, that the states 

orient their programs to:

?? Develop long, usable sections of completed highway as "demonstrators" 

of the benefits of the Interstate system.

?? Concentrate on providing continuous stretches, rather than individual 

segments, of completed highway between principal cities, both within 

individual states and between neighboring states.

?? Otherwise, concentrate on deficient or hazardous sections. (The rest of 

the article gave a run-down by state of progress.)

HIGHWAY PUSH
The Wall Street Journal-Dec. 3, 1962

U.S. STRIVES TO SPEED LAGGING CONSTRUCTION OF VAST 

INTERSTATE SYSTEM

HALF THE STATES FALL BEHIND SCHEDULE

WILL U.S. PRODS SPUR COMPLETION BY 1972?

Federal road planners are launching a major effort to speed laggard construction 

of the vast interstate highway network in hope of completing it on schedule by 

1972.

Nearly half the states are well behind schedule with Montana, West Virginia and 

Indiana at the very bottom. Unless present lags are reduced, the 41,000-mile 

system, now one third built, won't be entirely open to traffic until sometime in 

1975. This would mean growing traffic snarls and possibly needless loss of lives 

on overburdened older highways. And there would be significant delay in the full 

economic benefits expected to flow from completion of the new system...

(The rest of the article gave a run-down of progress by state.)

BPR TRIES TO STRENGTHEN ITS ROLE

Eng.News Record- Dec. 13, 1962

To the casual eye the 48th annual meeting of the American Association of State 

Highway Officials in Miami Beach last week looked like the standard convention 

with committee meetings, pleas for progress and integrity, and discussions of 

technical developments.

But close inspection of behind the scenes developments made it clear that 

drastic changes are taking place in the federal-state partnership that has 

characterized the federal-aid highway program in the United States for more than 

40 years.

Orders apparently have gone out from the Secretary of Commerce (and others in 

the Kennedy Administration) for the Bureau of Public Roads to withdraw to arm's 

length in its dealings with the state highway departments. These actions at Miami 

Beach are symptomatic:

?? Federal Highway Administrator Rex Whitton resigned his membership on 

AASHO's executive committee.

?? Bureau of Public Roads personnel have been withdrawn as secretaries 

of nine of 18 AASHO committees on which they filled these positions, 

some of them over periods of many years.

?? The Bureau of Public Roads made, but did not announce, extensive 

shifts in its division engineers, the federal agency's state representatives.

These actions apparently reflect a growing desire on the part of federal officials 

to make BPR the "senior partner" in the federal-aid program, particularly in 

matters pertaining to the Interstate system. And, some believe, they portend an 

eventual attempt to federalize some portion of the country's vast highway system.
(The rest of the lengthy article reported on the other activities that occurred at the 

annual AASHO meeting.)

WASHINGTON NEWS LETTER

Roads and Streets-January 1963

The Bureau of Public Roads, presumably under pressure from the Department of 

Commerce, took two actions last month which captured headlines at the AASHO 

convention. In an apparent attempt to divorce itself from the state highway 

fraternity, the BPR withdrew from key positions in the organization. Federal 

Highway Administrator Rex Whitton resigned from the Executive Committee of 

AASHO and a number of BPR officials who have served as secretaries of 

committees were pulled out of these highly responsible posts. The move is being 

widely interpreted as a decision of the Department to "get out of bed" with state 

highway departments and put itself in a position where it can "lay down the law."

Thus, the 90% responsibility for financing the Interstate System which almost 

everyone urged upon the federal government in 1956, has led to changes in 

state-federal relationships which many believed could not happen. The traditional 

prerogatives of the states-in highway matters-might be threatened but never 

usurped. Throughout the long history of federal-aid for highways, every effort has 

been made to keep federal officials and the AASHO working as closely together 

as possible. Yet, within just six years after passage of the 1956 Act, giving the 

federal government more financial responsibility for highway system 

development, the inevitable has happened.

From this new position, the BPR told the states they must step up construction 

on the multi- billion-dollar Interstate System. Setting a deadline of 50 percent 

completion by 1964, the half-way mark in the long-range program, Federal 

Highway Administrator Rex Whitton spelled out the terms. This means a 

completion rate of eight miles a day, a big step from the present 4.8 miles. Also, 

BPR wants a shift in emphasis from the tediously slow, extremely complex urban 

projects to long, continuous stretches through open country. Such a showing will 

take the steam out of public criticism of the highway program, the federal officials 

feel...

Excerpts From the January, 1963 Issue of American Highways-the Record of the 48th 

Annual Meeting-Dec. 1962.

J.C. WOMACK, Cal., the President's Address.

This speech was given at the annual meeting in December of 1962 in Miami 

Beach, Florida. He stepped through the functions and progress of each of the 

AASHO Committees.

IRRESPONSIBLE ATTACKS BY THE MEDIA

"...It is regrettable that this year has also seen a continuation, in fact a worsening, 

of irresponsible attacks on the morals of the entire highway engineering 

profession, based on a tiny segment of the highway program in which 

wrongdoing took place. I am not sure why these attempts to discredit a 

remarkably successful highway program before millions of readers and television 

viewers are continuing, but if they are a necessary part of getting good highways 

built, we will just have to go ahead and get the job done anyway. After all, the 
fortunately rare sensation-peddling journalist is responsible to no one but his 

publisher or his network, and is concerned only with today's headline or show. 

The Bureau of Public Roads and the state highway departments are responsible 

to all the people and for all time; the successful discharge of that responsibility in 

the form of safe, adequate, efficient highways is a public record which will remain 

on the books long after the new pencil marks have worn away..."

SEN. PAT McNAMARA, Mich., Chmn. Subcommittee on Roads.

This speech was given at the annual meeting in December of 1962 in Miami 

Beach, Florida. It was presented for the Senator by his assistant Robert Perrin.

The Senator complimented AASHO on the progress of the Interstate System and 

expressed alarm at some of the anti-automobile initiatives that were taking place 

in urban areas. At least half the speech was devoted to the Public Works 

Acceleration Act of 1962 which was designed to provide employment and 

stimulate economic growth.

REP. GEORGE FALLON, Md., Chm., House Subcommittee on Roads.

This speech was given at the annual meeting in December of 1962 in Miami 

Beach, Florida.

"...Despite this fine accomplishment (progress on the Interstate), highway officials 

have been unduly criticized, and undoubtedly are going to be subjected to more 

abuse as time goes on."

"Of course, this is not entirely a new feature of public office, and, as Harry 

Truman once remarked, 'If you can't stand the heat you ought to stay out of the 

kitchen.' Public officials have to expect criticism."

THE REASONS FOR PUBLIC CRITICISM

"However, it is a frustrating thing to be subjected to continual criticism when you 

know there is nothing in the world that you can do to satisfy the critics."

"...You've found some shady operators and you have exposed them. But every 

time you expose some shenanigans, the situation is held up as an example of 

what is claimed to be the typical state of affairs."

"...What's the argument all about?"

"Two things."

"First, a program as big as the highway program has an impact on practically 

everything else. You are displacing families, and the families have to have some 

place to go. You are disturbing farms, schools, churches, park lands, and forest 

lands. You are bypassing filling stations, motels, and restaurants."

"Highway officials have been saying for years that the Interstate system was a

tremendous economic force that would remake the face of America. Some 

people believed you 100 percent, while others thought you were overstating the 

case, and discounted your statements accordingly. Now those claims are proving 
out. The highway program is changing America. Whenever you have change, 

you will have people who are opposed to it, because, no matter how desirable 

the change may be, it is sure to bring some problems with it."

"The fact that the road program has an impact on every American is sufficient to 

make it the center of innumerable controversies. You cannot avoid these 

controversies. You can prepare yourself for them, and you may be able to 

minimize the controversies by telling your side of the story in a convincing 

manner, but you cannot eliminate the controversies."

"That's one of the things the argument is all about."

THE EFFECT OF 90-10

"The other thing I want to mention today is the fact that a 90-10 Federal-aid 

program stirs up more watchdogs of the Treasury than a 50-50 program."

"There seems to be no more than the usual amount of controversy over the ABC 

program. The 50-50 matching ratio fits in with the generally accepted concept of 

what a partnership ought to be..."

He spoke at some length about standards and specifications and degrees of 

tolerance and how auditors look at such things as contrasted with engineers.

"The source of growing controversy- unfortunately, and, in my opinion, 

unnecessarily is a resurgence of the age-old argument summed up in three 

words-rail versus rubber."

RAIL VERSUS RUBBER

"...The argument is going on in Washington now, and the rail transit advocates 

have succeeded in bringing the District of Columbia freeway program almost to a 

complete halt. The National Capital Transportation Agency has presented a 

report to the President recommending that a large part of the District of 

Columbia's Interstate program be scrapped, and that, instead, the National 

Capital Region should embark on a $793 million program of rail transit 

construction."

"It seems to be generally agreed that Washington needs an improved mass 

transit system, principally to serve commuter traffic. Some say rail transit is 

needed, while others seem to think that buses could do the job if they were 

favored with reserved lanes and other special provisions to keep them moving 

during the peak traffic hours."

"I can agree that a mass transit system may be needed, but I cannot see the 

necessity of cutting down the Interstate program in the District of Columbia. The 

Interstate links are required to handle highway traffic moving throughout the 

Washington area. There is no chance that local truck traffic will be diverted to the 

rail transit system, and I believe that the millions of tourists who visit Washington 

each year will prefer to drive their own automobiles around the area rather than 

attempt to go sightseeing on an underground rail transit system..."

REP. WILLIAM CRAMER, Fla., House Subcommittee on Roads
This speech was given at the annual meeting in December of 1962 in Miami 

Beach, Florida. He reviewed the highway problems confronting the 87th 

Congress from funding to relocation of displaced people. He was disappointed 

that stronger laws were not passed on fraud and conflicts of interest.

He spoke at length against the proliferation of toll roads on the Interstate and 

advocated stronger measures to prevent it. He spoke of the double standard in 

Florida where the Florida Turnpike Authority had entered into agreements with 

the bonding houses not to complete I-95 before 1972 while at the same time 

Florida was representing to BPR that I-95 would proceed on schedule.

He noted that extensive hearings on the truck size and weight issue would be 

coming up the next year.

REX M. WHITTON, Federal Highway Administrator

This speech was given at the annual meeting in December of 1962 in Miami 

Beach, Florida. The title was "R.I.P.: Relations, Integrity, and Progress."

He discussed integrity first and used the Boy Scout Oath as his recommendation 

of how the highway administrators should conduct themselves.

NEED FOR GOOD PUBLIC RELATIONS PROGRAMS

In discussing relations, he pointed out all the relationships that exist in the 

highway field and the need for cooperation among all of the players. As far as 

public relations were concerned, he urged the highway departments to take 

advantage of every event, no matter how minor, to develop a story for the public. 

He felt that in that way public relations could be built in a steady way through 

accomplishment and that that would have a greater effect than the big splashes 

of sensational journalism that had been happening.

His third subject, "Planning for Progress":

"Nothing succeeds like success, someone said. Which brings me to my third 

subject, planning for progress. The Interstate System is its own best 

advertisement. Every mile that we put into service is another demonstrator of the 

benefits of freeways. A new highway is like a new automobile. No salesman can 

offer a more convincing argument than a trial ride."

"So building good highways as fast as we can is the best means we have to 

combat the carping critics and mud-slingers. Two years from now, 1964, AASHO 

will be 50 years old. Let's set our sights, as a 50th anniversary present to the 

public, on 50 per cent of the Interstate System in service."

PROGRESS ON BUILDING THE INTERSTATE

"This is an entirely reasonable goal. By the end of 1964, more than 50 per cent of 

the funds covering the estimated cost of the system will have been apportioned. 

Fifty per cent of the time allotted for completion of the system will have elapsed."

"It is an entirely practical goal, too, for the position where we now stand. At the 

end of September, over 13,100 miles of the Interstate System were open to 
traffic. But 2,300 miles were toll facilities, so we can claim credit for only 10,800 

of the miles open to traffic."

"There are 4,900 miles under construction on the Interstate. It is not 

unreasonable to suppose that all or most of that construction can and will be 

completed and opened to traffic by the end of 1964."

PROGRESS MUST BE ACCELERATED

"To meet our objective, then, we must get that done and also put under 

construction and open to traffic an additional 4,800 miles during the next two 

years. This will reach the goal of half the system in service."

"...Particularly important are those projects that will link up continuous, long route 

sections, especially those connecting the larger cities. It is such completed 

Interstate highways that best demonstrate to the public the benefits of the 

system-time saving, travel ease, and safety.

"...I look forward eagerly, a few years from now, to the opening of a route clear 

across the country."

"What an impact that will have on the public! While we won't drive a gold spike, 

perhaps we can erect a gold sign-conforming with the Interstate sign manual, of 

course."

"...I have been talking of an objective that lies only two years away. But we have 

an even more important objective. It lies a full decade ahead- completion of the 

entire Interstate System."

"...Every one of us must face up to the existing situation. It isn't enough for us to 

just say we're honest. We have to clean up, not only all possibilities of 

wrongdoings, but all possibilities of adverse criticism."

ASKS FORBEARANCE

"I ask you, please don't take any of our (BPR) actions as a personal affront. Let's 

get our homes in order, remembering that we have to live in glass houses. And 

remember that what the public sees or suspects it sees in one house, it will 

assume is happening in all our homes."

"I want to be reasonable about controls. I don't want or intend to impede 

progress. Nor am I going to ask for anything I don't believe is necessary. But the 

public has to be convinced both that we are making progress and that we are 

doing it efficiently and honestly..."

MY PERSONAL OPINION (Mertz)

(I believe that I detect the beginnings of a change in policy in the above speech. 

Before the passage of the 56 Act, MacDonald advocated the building of the 

Interstate from the city centers, where the congestion was, outward. For the first 

time, building long rural segments is being advocated in this speech. The 

reasons given are to get more miles open to traffic quicker in order to speed up 

the completion rate in order to stay on schedule. It is also apparent that another 
reason was that long stretches created good publicity and it was felt that the 

public image of the highway program was in need of repair. A third, but unstated, 

reason was the growing controversy over urban Interstate projects. The issue 

being continually discussed was the integration of urban Interstate projects into 

comprehensive city and metropolitan plans and how that would be done, even 

down to the details of techniques, but the unstated reasons, in my judgement, 

were really contests of authority. Who would ultimately decide what would be 

built in urban areas?)

REP. JOHN A. BLATNIK, House Public Works & Special Investigations

This speech was given at the annual meeting in December of 1962 in Miami 

Beach, Florida.

"...Most assuredly, I do not intend to review the work of our Subcommittee. This 

already is self-evident in the reports we have issued and in the verbatim 

transcripts of our hearings on several aspects of the highway program in a 

number of states. The important thing I would like to emphasize again is what I 

said in Boston in 1959 and have repeatedly stated since then: We have always 

tried, and I have made it a personal point of responsibility, to stress the fact that 

while we were going to be objective and fair, we were also going to be thorough 

and firm..."

"I believe we all remember that in 1959 the highway program ran into financial 

difficulties and there was a decline in the rate of highway construction because 

the necessary funds were getting short. This was three years after we had 

passed the necessary legislation and the program had really not gotten off the 

ground. When the bill to increase the gasoline tax came to the floor of the House 

the roof literally caved in on us. All kinds of wild charges were made about graft, 

corruption, inefficiency, extravagance, overdesign and operation under footloose 

and fancy free conditions. This Special Subcommittee was established because 

the House leadership decided that there should be a systematic and responsible 

way of determining if these allegations had substance."

SURPRISED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATIONS

"...To be perfectly frank about it, I thought that when we started the hearings and 

our inquiry into the highway program we would find a very minimum of so-called 

inefficiency or work not up to proper standard. We had no idea whatsoever about 

some of the things we have run into. At first I was inclined to believe that some of 

the conditions and some of the situations were peculiar to a given State or 

locality or area, but as we moved from one State to another and examined 

different aspects of the program, we began to find out things that we want very 

much to prevent from happening elsewhere."

"The most significant thing to my mind is that almost uniformly the responsible 

people, the officials in the highway departments and those who are in charge at 

both the Federal and State levels, did not know that these things were going on. 

They were shocked and surprised, as shocked and surprised as we were."

AASHO IS TOO SENSITIVE TO CRITICISM

"..None of us likes to be criticized, but there is such a thing as being too sensitive 

about it. We all get criticized at one time or another. Those of us who are in the 
political field get it constantly. I like to think of it this way: That anyone who does 

anything is subject to criticism no matter what the field of activity..."

"I think it is most important that we view criticism in proper perspective. I may be 

wrong in my opinion, but I want to be candid. I do feel that to some extent the 

very fine organization you have has been a little overly sensitive about some of 

the criticism that has come from the press, radio and TV commentators. I do not 

mean to lecture. I came here as a friend, as an associate and as a colleague of 

yours in this great undertaking in which I share the same pride that each and 

every one of you do in what has been accomplished. If there is one suggestion I 

might make it is this: Face the facts squarely and the people will support you and 

Congress will support you. Take whatever corrective measures are necessary 

and do it promptly."

CONGRESS IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE HIGHWAY PROGRAM

"...I see no reason why the people in the highway industry should be on the 

defensive. As far as criticism is concerned, be realistic about it. Pay less attention 

to what is written about some of these situations, or what is said about them, but 

give more attention to what you do about them, and the support you have in 

Congress. Insofar as Congress is concerned, I am not too concerned with what is 

written in the newspaper or what is said on TV and radio about the highway 

program. Believe me, when I tell you that we Congressmen are close to the 

people, particularly the people that support us. I think it is highly significant and 

most important for you to realize that the feeling in Congress today differs greatly 

from that which prevailed in 1959. During the last session of Congress I do not 

think any speech- certainly not any major speech-was made by a Congressman 

criticizing the program. The measure of confidence in you men and in the 

program was best exemplified in the overwhelming vote by which the multibillion 

dollar tax structure was up-graded last year to insure the completion of the 

program on schedule."

"This brings me to another point which I feel I must give particular emphasis to at 

this time. You have already heard from Rex Whitton that the Interstate program 

must be stepped up if we are to complete this tremendous road network as 

scheduled in 1972. He has already told you that the completion rate in 1962 was 

averaging 4.6 miles per day. Unless this is increased to 7.8 miles per day, this 

job will not be finished as Congress intended."

"...The responsibility and the major burden continues to rest on your shoulders, 

but I think it would be wrong for any of us to pretend that some of the things we 

have encountered do not exist. You must continue to be on the alert against 

these insidious little cancers. Just as the doctors do, you must detect them in the 

early stages, because if you wait until you start feeling pain, it is too late. That is 

why I keep saying that the need for effective controls is extremely important."

"I am confident that the Interstate program will be stepped up as the responsible 

people say that it should be. We will have more problems as we go along, but we 

will work them out together. In spite of the criticism that has occurred, I am 

completely confident that when this is all over, we will have achieved the greatest 

public works project in the history of mankind, greater than the Chinese wall and 

the pyramids and the Roman roads all combined..."

TOP KENNEDY OFFICIALS URGE TRANSIT FUNDS
Chicago Sun Times-Feb.28, 1963

Two Kennedy administration officials urged Congress Wednesday to approve a 

$500 million mass transit program but neither could estimate the eventual cost to 

the government in solving the commuters problem.

Federal Housing Administrator Robert C. Weaver and Highway Administrator 

Rex M. Whitton testified in favor of the administration's three-year program at the 

start of five days of hearings by the House Banking Committee...

VETO POWER OVER ROADS BEING EYED IN WASHINGTON

Sommerset (N.J.) Journal 4/25/63

Buried in the text of a speech made last Friday in Honolulu, Hawaii, is an 

indication that Massachusetts may be facing trouble from Washington because of 

delays in constructing the master highway system.

The address was made by H.E. Humphreys, Jr., chairman of the National 

Highway Users Conference, one of the most influential organizations in the 

country.

In a speech before the Western Highway Institute, Humphreys noted there is an 

"aggressive attack" underway in some states to "throw obstacles in the way of 

planned development" of the Federal government's blueprint for a network of 

superhighways.

"In some places," he declared "it is still in the propaganda stage. In others it has 

reached the point of Legislative threats and even enactments" to create the 

obstacles.

Massachusetts has caught attention from the national capital for its law which 

gives certain communities the power to veto any proposed route of a highway.

Several communities have invoked the state- given right.

The Humphreys statement forecasts a crackdown. The Highway users 

conference works closely with the Federal Bureau of Public Roads, grand 

overseer of the country's pattern of expressways.

In addition, there has been much speculation that Washington will take steps to 

erase Massachusetts' veto power law, on the ground it interferes with the 

national defense and welfare...

Meanwhile, some factions in Congress are seeking a drastic cut-back in the 

highway program in favor of rail rapid transit. Reportedly, a Federal agency is 

engineering the move.

Humphreys made mention of the feud in his statement saying, "eager rail transit 

hands may try to reach into the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and many 

members of congress currently seem inclined to subsidize rail transit."...

Excerpts From the April 1963 Issue of American Highways.
REX M. WHITTON, Federal Highway Administrator.

This speech was given to the Committee on Administration at the annual meeting 

in December of 1962 in Miami Beach, Florida.

A WARNING

This was generally a progress report on the status of Interstate construction but it 

was also a warning that unless progress was stepped up, the program would fall 

behind schedule. He called for early completion of long rural sections on coastto-coast routes in order to add large mileage quickly and to rebuild public 

confidence in the program.

He had asked each State to analyze its position relative to completion and to 

report on what action was needed to finish on schedule. He gave a summary of 

the results. Forty six percent was expected to be open to traffic by the end of 

1964. Inclusion of the toll sections brought that up to 49 percent at the half way 

point in time. He said that this progress was made because some States had 

progressed at a much faster rate than the rest and the inclusion of the already 

existing toll segments. Some States, about 20 percent, were lagging having only 

opened 10 to 20 miles per year. The problems seemed to center on planning, 

right- of-way, design, construction and financing. He discussed each of these 

problems in detail.

He stressed that the Congress had reiterated the urgency of completing on time 

and that they had readjusted the financing in order to achieve that.

STAY ON SCHEDULE

"Backing into the schedule, as we have just done (in this speech), will point up 

the urgency of the present situation to those States that are now lagging."

"In hearings on the highway legislation, the Congress has been given repeated 

assurance by the State highway departments, the Bureau of Public Roads, and 

the construction industry that we could accomplish this task. We can, and it's our 

responsibility to do so. I ask for full effort by every State, toward this end, and I 

offer my wholehearted support in that effort."

JOHN C. MACKIE, Mich., President of AASHO

This speech was given at the Mississippi Valley Conference of AASHO in 

Chicago, March 14, 1963. He spoke of the magnitude of the expanded highway 

program and the "regeneration" of the highway system that was taking place.

THE NECESSITY FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION

"...I suggest to you today that there needs to be a concurrent improvement in the 

attitude of highway departments in giving the public the information needed to 

make wise and proper decisions on highway programs-not only in relation to a 

specific highway route, but also in relation to the larger question of highways and 

other means of transportation."
"A public which forms opinions without adequate information can prove to be the 

biggest barrier to the future of our highway programs. If the public does not have 

adequate information on the highway effort under way, I think it is the fault of the 

highway industry and the highway agency involved; in other words, it's our own 

fault. We should blame nobody but ourselves."

He advocated the free flow of information and noted that highway developments 

were big news to the public.

"A constant flow of straight factual information from the agency to the news 

media is the best and most effective way to be sure that public information is 

playing its full and proper role in the formation of public policy..."

CORRECT ERRORS OF FACT

"There is a third level of public information and this involves the question of 

whether an agency should reply to misinformation issued by persons attacking 

the highway industry, or by people who simply do not understand what the facts 

are."

"...I submit that a governmental agency has the right to keep the public record 

straight and that it should do so promptly and consistently. If we do not correct 

errors of fact, who is going to do it? If an accurately informed public is essential 

to the proper functioning of a democracy, who is going to make sure that 

accurate facts replace errors if we don't do it? I think we will wait a very long time 

if we wait for the mythical 'someone' to do it for us."

He gave an example where the Michigan highway department was criticized in 

the press for not providing commercial services along the Interstate. A letter to 

the editor pointing out that such services were prohibited by Federal law was 

sent to the editor and it was printed.

"A question can be raised as to whether a governmental agency has the right to 

influence the public opinion which it needs to support the programs it is carrying 

on. In other words, how is the danger that the agency may become a 

propaganda organ for its own programs to be averted?"

"It has been my experience that it has been the press itself is the best guarantee 

that this will not happen since the press is quite able to distinguish between news 

and propaganda. There is, however, a responsibility that the agency act with 

integrity and honesty in its handling of public information and if it does this, it will 

not become a propaganda device."

"When we move from the simple correction of fact to the involved charges which 

arise in the political arena-charges of corruption and similar wrongdoing, the 

question of setting the record straight becomes more difficult."

SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT

"In congressional or legislative investigations, we should cooperate fully to 

provide complete information on any subject or area under review. We should at 

the same time present documented summaries of the facts to all the media. I 

think we need also to have statements issued by national highway organizations-
American Association of State Highway Officials itself as well as groups like the 

Better Highways Information Foundation."

"...we must be aware that serious charges require serious answers and that 

failure to answer is often taken as an admission of guilt."

"...I suggest that every highway department should review its public information 

programs to see to it that no barriers are put in the way of the free flow of public 

information to the citizens at large."

"We are spending public money, we are making public policy, we are changing 

public habits of transportation. We have a tremendous record of achievement in 

the highway industry-both public and private-but this record of achievement 

cannot be maintained without the continuing support of the general public."

"The highway facts need no dressing up to be exciting and interesting. The great 

highway building program under way today is as important to the economic 

growth of America in the second half of the 20th Century as the building of the 

railroads was to the second half of the 19th Century."

In the rest of his speech, he recounted the achievements and progress of the 

highway program and said that the public should know about them.

URBAN TRANSPORT PLANNING NEEDS UNITY

Engineering News Record- July 11, 1963

"Comprehensive, Cooperative and Continuing" were the words used to describe 

adequate urban transportation planning processes by representatives of federal, 

state and local governments at a regional conference staged in Albany N.Y., last 

week.

The conference was the tenth and last of a series of regional meetings 

sponsored by the American Association of State Highway Officials, the American 

Municipal Association and the National Association of Counties. Conferees came 

from the six New England states, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and 

Delaware....

Main purpose of the meeting was to explain and discuss the portion of the 

Federal Aid Highway Act of 1962 that requires cooperative transportation 

planning in urban areas of more than 50,000 population as a condition of federal 

aid to highways in such areas after July 1, 1965...

HEARINGS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 134

OPENING DISCUSSION

The formal title of the hearing was "Transportation Planning in Certain Urban 

Areas". They were held by the House Subcommittee on Roads of the Committee 

on Public Works in the eighty eighth Congress, first session, June 25, 26, 27 and 

July 9 and 10, 1963.

REP. GEORGE H. FALLON, Maryland, Chairman:
"Testimony presented to this committee during the hearings held on May 27, 28, 

and 29, indicated that satisfactory progress was being made in the construction 

of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways authorized in the 

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. However, it is evident that most of the 

progress to date has been accomplished in rural areas."

"It is generally recognized that the most difficult phase of interstate highway 

construction will be encountered in urban areas. It is here that the program faces 

complexities which, unless given the most careful attention, could defeat the 

desirable goal of completing the entire system by 1972."

"These complexities are in no sense limited to the location, design, and 

construction of the highway itself. Highway development in many urban areas 

can only proceed at a rate consistent with the overall development of other 

affected transportation systems. It was with full recognition of this fact that the 

Congress, in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962, required as a condition 

precedent to the expenditure of Federal- aid funds in urban areas the 

establishment of a continuing comprehensive transportation planning process."

DELAYS

"...there is already evidence indicating delays of sufficient magnitude to preclude 

compliance with the July 1, 1965, deadline in many areas. Lack of compliance 

with the planning deadline would prohibit the approval of any Interstate project in 

the affected areas. Such a situation could totally defeat the expressed intent of 

Congress that the entire system in all States (urban as well as rural) be brought 

to simultaneous completion."

COMPLETION IN 1972 ESSENTIAL

"In the interest of the national economy and the national defense, it is essential 

that the entire system be completed by 1972 as now planned. Because of the 

pending threat to the orderly completion of the Interstate System as planned, I 

have called these hearings for the purpose of ascertaining as definitely as 

possible existing and potential delays affecting compliance with section 134 and 

developing such amendatory legislation as may be found to be necessary and 

requisite."

CONGRESSMAN CRAMER, Florida, led off with a statement:

"I think it would be well, as a foundation for the hearings, to refer to the report 

that accompanied the legislation we have before us for consideration. On page 

12 of the House report there is language to this effect:

'This section would encourage transportation planning and improve the quality of 

urban planning generally. It would not delay the current Federal- aid highway 

program, inasmuch as reasonable time would be allowed for States and local 

communities to establish the continuing planning process that would be required.

'The committee recognizes that transportation planning is almost invariably a 

continuing process; hence, this section has been drawn in such a way as to 

make it clear that a completed comprehensive plan, as such, is not necessary to 

meet its requirements.'
DESIGNED TO EXPEDITE COMPLETION

"And I think that throughout the discussion of this section and its purpose it was 

clearly shown, in the committee report and in consideration of the bill, that it was 

not the intention of the Congress, and the section was specifically worded to 

make certain it was evidence of that intention that this section should not result in 

undue delay in the completion of the Interstate System of which urban extensions 

are a vital and an integral part. If the 41,000-mile Interstate and Defense 

Highway System should be usable and effective, I believe it is obvious that the 

limited access highways through urban areas have to be completed by the 

completion date of 1972, and that they should not be delayed. As a matter of 

fact, it is my opinion that this section was put in partially, so far as Congress is 

concerned, to expedite these constructions, to avoid conflicts, to permit planning 

that would avoid those conflicts, with the result that urban extension and 

construction would be expedited rather than delayed, and that any construction 

of this section to the contrary is subverting rather than carrying out the intent and 

purpose of the Congress."

"...So my concern is to make certain that the section (134) is not being 

interpreted in a manner that would delay rather than expedite the completion of 

the Interstate and Defense Highway System which is essential to the economic 

development and safety of highway users in this country."

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PROBLEM

"I would also, Mr. Chairman, like to have made a part of the record at this point 

the letter which I addressed to the chairman requesting hearings concerning this 

matter generally, and specifically as it relates to recommendations made 

concerning transportation planning in the District of Columbia as a part of that. I 

ask that it be made a part of the record at this point."

LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN

Hon. George H. Fallon, Chairman, Subcommittee on Roads.

House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR GEORGE: By letter dated May 27, 1963, the President transmitted to the 

Congress the transit development program of the National Capital Transportation 

Agency, together with draft legislation which would authorize the Agency to 

proceed with the construction of a mass transit system. In his letter, the President 

recommended that appropriations for the Three Sisters Bridge, the north leg of 

the Inner Loop, and further commitments for the Potomac River Freeway be 

deferred pending a "careful reexamination of the highway program of the District 

of Columbia in the light of the transit development program, and the social, 

economic, and esthetic impact of highways on the Nation's Capital.'

'The Three Sisters Bridge, the north leg of the Inner Loop, and the Potomac River 

Freeway are all designated routes of the National System of Interstate and 

Defense Highways. They have been the subject of exhaustive study continuing 

over a period of several years. For example, in 1953, a report entitled "Highway 

Transportation in the Washington Metropolitan Area of Virginia" prepared for the 

Virginia State Highway System by Wilbur Smith & Associates, recommended a 

bridge across the Potomac River at the Three Sisters site. In 1959, the mass 

transit survey prepared by the National Capital Planning Commission and the 
National Capital Regional Planning Council provided for the highway facilities 

which the President now recommends be made the subject of further study.'

'...The recommendations of the President are based upon the report and 

recommendations of the National Capital Transportation Agency. I have reviewed 

the reports and recommendations with considerable care and have not been able 

to find any indication that the Agency gave adequate study or consideration to 

the critically important aspects of the national defense and the problems of 

interstate transportation. In fact, the report and recommendations show quite 

clearly that the primary consideration was for the solution of "traffic congestion 

created by the movement of large volumes of people to and from their places of 

employment during a very few hours of peak demand each day."'

DELAY TO THE NATIONAL SYSTEM

'I do not believe that the construction of critically important parts of the National 

System of Interstate and Defense Highways should be further delayed on the 

basis of recommendations which do not take into account the purpose and 

objectives of the Interstate System. Interstate highway construction in the District 

of Columbia is already behind schedule. At the present time, the District of 

Columbia has obligated only 30 percent of the interstate highway funds 

appropriated for fiscal year 1963, compared with a national average of 97 

percent of fiscal year 1963 funds obligated. Thirty two States have advanced 

further than the District of Columbia in the construction of the Interstate 

System...However, if the restudy proposed by the President results in a 

recommendation that the Potomac River Freeway not be completed, two things 

will result: first, the part of the facility already under construction will not serve the 

purpose for which is was designed and second, it will almost certainly be taken 

off the Interstate System so that the Federal Government would bear only 50 

percent of the construction cost, meaning that the District government would 

have to refund the Federal Government several million dollars.'

'The proposal of the President based upon the report and recommendations of 

the National Capital Transportation Agency will have such an impact on the 

interstate highway construction program that I feel it is essential that 

consideration be given to this aspect of the matter as well as to the largely local 

problem of handling commuter traffic. In my opinion, the Subcommittee on Roads 

of the House Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Federalaid highway program, should hold hearings to give the highway officials and 

other interested and informed persons an opportunity to review this aspect of the 

matter. I don't think such hearings could or should be construed as opposing a 

justified and properly financed mass rapid transit program that may be needed 

but would serve notice that any such planning should not be permitted to destroy 

the effectiveness or unduly delay completion of the Interstate and Defense 

Highway System-be it in Washington, D.C., or elsewhere.'

'The purpose of this letter, therefore, is to request that you, as chairman of the 

Roads Subcommittee, arrange for public hearings on this subject at the earliest 

possible date."

REX M. WHITTON, Administrator, BPR

Mr. Whitton was accompanied by FRANK TURNER, and THEODORE (E.H.) 

HOLMES.
"...Highway planners and city planners have not always seen eye to eye. If we 

have had differences, it is at least in part due to the great contrast in our 

approaches to urban problems."

CITY PLANS NOT ALWAYS SPECIFIC

"Highway plans are necessarily specific. City plans, on the other hand, are more 

often conceptual."

"Highway plans are based on design standards and criteria developed from 

physical measurements and operations research. City plans are necessarily 

based to a great extent on intangibles, often called community values, that are 

not expressed in measurable terms."

"...there can no longer be any doubt that the highway and city planners face a 

tremendous task, and one in which they must work together. Today our citiesespecially the larger ones-are facing many critical problems."

THE HISTORY OF URBAN PLANNING

He recounted in detail the evolution of urban transportation planning beginning 

with the 1939 report "Toll Roads and Free Roads", the 1944 Act which made 

urban highways eligible for Federal aid, the 1956 Act, the Sagamore Conference, 

the Hershey Conference, the AASHO-American Municipal Association Joint 

Committee activities and testified that 200 urban transportation studies had been 

completed. He spoke of the joint committee established between the Housing 

and Home Finance Agency and the Bureau of Public Roads to jointly finance 

comprehensive transportation planning throughout the country. He said that the 

National Association of Counties had just recently joined with AASHO and the 

American Municipal Association with a resolution to accomplish studies in all 

cities over 5000 in population.

He emphasized President Kennedy's message to Congress in April of 1962: "Our 

national welfare***requires the provision of good urban transportation, with the 

properly balanced use of private vehicles and modern mass transport to help 

shape as well as serve urban growth."

The president also recommended: "***a long- range program of Federal aid to 

our urban regions for the revitalization and needed expansion of public mass 

transportation***Highways are an instrumental part of any coordinated urban 

transportation program and must be an integral part of any comprehensive 

community development plan."

WHITTON noted that many of the President's recommendations were 

incorporated into the 1962 Act by the Congress. Among them were the 

dedication of the entire 1 1/2% fund to planning and research, an increase in the 

level of the ABC program, the use of Secondary funds in urban areas and 

Section 9 (Section 134, Title 23) which established the so- called 3C planning 

process requirement.

A COMPLETED PLAN NOT REQUIRED
"I want to emphasize that the Congress has wisely required a planning process, 

not a complete plan. We have every reason to expect that by July 1, 1965, the 

planning process will be far enough along in every city so that at least some parts 

of an ultimate urban highway development plan can be justified and approved."

"...The comprehensive character of the planning process involves four features. 

First, that the economic, population, and land-use elements be considered fully. 

Second, that estimates be made of the future demands for both public and 

private movement of both people and goods. Third, that terminal facilities and 

traffic control systems be included in the planning. And fourth, that the entire area 

within which the forces of development are interrelated should be included-not 

just as it exists now, but as it is expected to be urbanized within the forecast 

period."

AGREEMENTS REQUIRED

"The cooperative character of the planning process requires that there be formal 

understanding and agreement between the State highway department and the 

governing bodies of the local communities affected. Or a properly constructed 

areawide agency, qualified to act for the local communities, might act on their 

behalf. Such an agreement should prescribe the procedure for carrying out the 

planning process."

He described the other elements and aspects of the urban planning process in 

great detail: "This, then, is our concept of the full meaning of the comprehensive, 

cooperative, continuing transportation planning process, which must be in 

operation in the urban areas of more than 50,000 population before July 1, 

1965."

"...It was to give stronger emphasis to our planning interest that in 1962 we 

established the Office of Planning as a primary unit in the public roads 

headquarters. A prominent part of that Office is the Urban Planning Division."

JOHN C. MACKIE, Mich., President of AASHO

In his statement, he noted that the planning requirements were yet another 

burden laid on the States in the development of projects but that compliance 

would not be too difficult because the requirements were the same as the 

program that the States had been pursuing voluntarily for several years.

THE HARTFORD CONFERENCE

"In 1957, at the so-called Hartford conference, we first heard serious proposals to 

stop the highway program until planning could be started and catch up. There 

were not enough trained highway planning personnel to start on the job, and the 

action was not warranted."

"...We feel very strongly as we get further into this formal urban transportation 

planning process that we will find very few, if any, of the highway facilities that 

have been planned and constructed in recent years that can be seriously 

criticized."
"We say this because there was a great deal more actual and effective planning 

accomplished on an informal basis than most critics realize."

"...There may not have been the formal type of planning operation in all areas, 

but we maintain that there has been an informal type of operation that has been 

extremely efficient."

THE HERSHEY CONFERENCE

"...Just about a year ago, the Hershey Conference was held, bringing together, in 

one group, highway planners and some of the critics of the highway program. I 

think it was evident to most highway administrators that such a meeting did not 

alleviate the criticism problem. The highway program is now so big and important 

that many interests want in the decision area, and some maintain their national 

prominence by being professional critics."

AASHO'S URBAN POLICY

"In 1961, at the Denver annual meeting, the State highway departments agreed 

that the urban transportation picture was so important that the association should 

adopt a transportation policy, with a special chapter dedicated to the urban 

phase. This policy was predicated upon the following assumptions and is the 

basis for this statement:

1. That the choice of the mode of transportation should lie with the 

individual.

2. That the individual should be allowed to live where and in the type of 

housing he chooses.

3. That highways should be planned and provided to the extent that the 

public desires them.

4. That highways and other forms of urban transportation should not be 

viewed as competitive, but, where both are needed, they should be 

planned to complement each other.

5. That whenever suburbs or the private automobile become a major 

problem, the public will react and natural phenomena will solve any 

problems of consequence, and artificial means of regulating or 

regimenting the method of travel or type of housing is not the American 

way.

6. That needed highways should not be delayed because of controversy as 

to what mode of transportation should be selected to serve commuters to 

the central business district.

7. That urban transportation planning should be done, on an urban 

areawide basis, and that it should be done cooperatively, utilizing the 

capabilities and contributions of the administrative, legal, and technical 

people of all levels of government, having direct and indirect 

responsibility in transportation. However, it should be recognized that the 

State highway departments have the legal responsibility for moving the 

State and Federal-aid highway programs and keeping them on schedule 

and, as such, should make the final decisions regarding highway projects 

if indecision and delay are to be avoided.

8. That the State highway extensions in urban areas must be considered a 

part of and planned as a part of the statewide highway system, and they 

cannot be severed and be considered only as a local matter."
He discussed the States' views of the planning process at some depth: "...It is for 

these reasons that the American Association of State Highway Officials, by 

policy, has asked that none of the planned segments of the Interstate System be 

delayed 'to give other forms of transportation a chance.'"

CONTROVERSY REGRETTED

"...We regret very much that there seems to be a controversy between highways 

and other forms of urban transportation. We observe, too, that much of it seems 

to be involved around emotion and promotion. Actually, anything so important 

should be determined entirely on a basis of fact and economics."

"We believe...that it would be highly desirable that any proposal coming before 

the Congress dealing with any phase of urban transportation should be routed 

through the Public Works Committees in order that urban transportation planning 

can be accomplished and coordinated within the Congress itself, and that 

committees having a long experience in drafting legislation and evaluating such 

programs can have an opportunity to act on them."

CONGRESSMAN FALLON observed that Mr. Mackie's statement conveyed an 

atmosphere of cooperation with urban governments and other forms of 

transportation. He then asked for Mackie's opinion as to whether the delay of 

Interstate projects in the nation's capital and the lack of cooperation by the 

National Capital Transportation Agency would have an effect on other urban 

areas.

D.C. AN ADVERSE PRECEDENT

MACKIE:" In answering that question, I should point out the American 

Association of State Highway Officials has not taken a position and does not on 

local problems. So I want to qualify my answer by saying I am speaking for 

myself and the State of Michigan. We would be very much afraid that the 

situation in the District here would establish an adverse precedent in other major 

cities."

CONGRESSMAN CRAMER had before him a copy of the House Committee on 

Banking and Currency report on the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1963. He 

complained that the wording seemed to be oriented to reviving mass transit 

systems and not toward the solution of urban transportation problems in general. 

He also noted that it seemed to be anti- highway in its tenor and devoid of any 

principle of cooperation. He deplored the fact that the Public Works Committee 

was not consulted on mass transit matters when mass transit is in fact a public 

works program and more particularly a transportation program.

There was considerable discussion of the likelihood of further delays or 

postponements of urban Interstate endangering the national defense by failing to 

connect a total system.

MAJ. GENERAL LOUIS W. PRENTISS, American Roadbuilders' Assn.

ABSENCE OF A PLAN MIGHT BE DETRIMENTAL
GENERAL PRENTISS was a Corps of Engineers career officer and a former 

Engineer Commissioner of the District of Columbia where he supervised all 

public works, including highways.

He pointed out that the District of Columbia had had for many years a 

cooperative planning process very similar to what Section 134 calls for but as of 

that time, there was not a single adopted comprehensive transportation plan 

extant for the metropolitan area. He felt that the absence of a requirement for a 

plan in the legislation might be detrimental in the long run.

He pointed out that the 1952 thoroughfare plan was about as close to an adopted 

plan as the District got. The 1959 MTS study and the Year 2000 Plan done by 

the National Capital Planning Commission, although comprehensive, were not 

formally adopted by other agencies including the highway departments. Although 

a lot of planning had been going on and a lot of cooperation in many cases, the 

District seemed to be trending toward separate factions.

"The essential reason for the transportation crisis now confronting the National 

Capital region is that the National Capital Transportation Agency has interpreted 

its legislative authority to include the power and responsibility to undertake an 

independent and unilateral review of the highway program."

CRITICAL OF NCTA

He went on to critique in some detail the NCTA report and some of the 

assumptions contained in it.

"...In developing a justification for the rail transit system, therefore, the National 

Capital Transportation Agency apparently limited its concern for the local 

transportation problem, and, in considering the relationship between the rail 

transit system and the highway system, did not concern itself sufficiently with the 

interstate and interregional demands which will be placed on the planned 

freeway system."

"...Although more adequate liaison with the agencies responsible for highway 

development probably would have avoided some of the weaknesses of the 

NCTA's report, this lack of liaison is not the only reason for the weaknesses. 

Throughout its report the NCTA gives evidence of having set itself up as a 

promoter for the proposed rail transit system rather than as an objective 

appraiser."

GRAVE EFFECTS

"...The effect of the NCTA report on transportation planning in Metropolitan 

Washington area is grave. Unfortunately, the activities of this Agency also have a 

national impact. The suspension of Interstate System projects in the District of 

Columbia is being regarded by some individuals and groups as a signal to other 

urban communities to slow down progress on their segments of the Interstate 

System. Some who have never been convinced of the value of the highway 

program are interpreting the recent events in Washington as a sign that the 

Federal Government has discovered some magic solution to urban transportation 

problems. The word is being spread that cities should wait and see what the 

discovery is rather than proceeding with their highway construction plans."
He said that a responsible body should be appointed to do a detailed and 

unbiased cost and feasibility analysis of the rail transit plan. The Potomac 

Freeway should proceed immediately to construction, the Three Sisters Bridge 

required at least a year of detailed design. The North Leg of the Inner Loop 

required detailed location, economic and even feasibility studies, as BPR 

Administrator Whitton testified, before it could proceed.

AMENDMENTS MAY BE NECESSARY

"...As we have indicated, we believe that serious difficulties will be encountered in 

some communities. Perhaps amendatory legislation will be needed to make the 

planning provision more workable. However, such legislation might well be 

considered in connection with the 1964 Highway Act, and we have no 

recommendations to make at this time."

CONGRESSMAN FALLON asked if it was possible for the District to build only 

selected segments of the Interstate System.

GENERAL PRENTISS: "Of course, the States can do that if they want to. I think 

the question then will come up as to whether they can qualify for 90 percent 

Federal aid. It is my understanding that it was the express desire of the Congress 

that this Interstate System be one which interconnects all of these major cities of 

our country, not only interconnects them, but going through and around them, 

and isolated sections of the Interstate System would not be in accordance with 

the expressed desire of Congress."

CONGRESSMAN FALLON asked to what extent the downtown loop of the 

proposed transit system served the same purpose as the Inner Loop of the 

Interstate System.

GENERAL PRENTISS: "I think it serves exactly the opposite purpose. It serves 

the purpose of getting the people who want to be in the central business area 

within walking distance of their destination, whereas the inner belt highway 

system is designed for those people who do not want to be in there and want to 

get somewhere else."

The General indicated that a cooperative planning process did not in any way 

guarantee implementation. The only guarantee in a democracy was that the 

people had to be educated and informed and ultimately they would decide. He 

felt that the detailed locations of the urban Interstate suffered from not enough 

publicity before decisions were made.

CONGRESSMAN BLATNIK asked who or what organization had the authority to 

say stop or proceed.

WHO CAN DECIDE?

"Is it within the Bureau of Roads? Do we have to go higher up to the Department 

of Commerce and call in all of these divergent land groups and governmental 

subdivisions and State departments involved?"

GENERAL PRENTISS: "I am of the opinion that the only way we are going to get 

this deadlock broken is by the public rising up and saying, 'We want this to go 
forward now.' And then those in authority will pay attention. I do not know any 

other way. I do not know of any organization that has the authority right this 

minute to say go ahead."

WILLIAM C. FLAHERTY, Auto. Mfg. Assn.

This was a very lengthy and technical report on research done by the Association 

that concluded that the central cities of the large metropolitan areas were 

declining in population but the metropolitan areas, as a whole, were growing 

explosively which meant a decline of downtown oriented traffic, absolutely and 

relatively, and great increases in suburb-to-suburb travel that could be 

accomplished only with the automobile.

EDWARD V. KILEY, American Trucking Assn.

He testified that the complete Interstate System was vital to the trucking industry. 

The urban segments were perhaps more vital because they would relieve 

congestion and expedite truck movements. He strongly objected to the 

postponement of critical segments in Washington D.C. which would greatly 

reduce the value of any remaining segments because of fragmentation.

BRIG. GENERAL FREDERICK J. CLARKE, Engineer Commissioner, Wash., D.C.

General Clarke was accompanied by HAROLD AITKEN, Director of Highways 

and Traffic and COLONEL DUKE who would become Clarke's successor in two 

weeks time.

"I hope that on the basis of 3 years association with transportation planning in the 

Washington metropolitan area I can be constructive in my evaluations and 

suggestions relative to comprehensive urban transportation planning."

"First, the new section 134 of Title 23, United States Code, stirs the 'fire under 

the pot' which hopefully will consume the embers of inaction and indecision, even 

if by the threat of project disapproval under section 105 of this title."

PIECEMEAL PLANNING IS COSTLY

"The time has come when planning agencies must halt costly piecemeal 

consideration of transportation segments whether it be for highways or rapid 

transit. Instead, we must plan at least 5 years ahead and implement usable, 

efficient, and economical systems. An example of the former is the slow progress 

that has been made in the piecemeal planning and implementation of the District 

of Columbia inner loop, which has been an accepted planning concept for many 

years. In contrast, the concept of the National Capital Beltway which soon will 

completely encircle the metropolitan area has been adhered to and typifies the 

benefits of farsighted system planning and implementation."

AUTHORITY FRAGMENTED

He noted that the National Capital Planning Commission and the Regional 

Planning Council had the legislative authority and responsibility to establish and 

maintain a comprehensive planning process. He said that there were other 

legislatively established agencies having various degrees of authority including 
the National Capital Transportation Agency and the Park Service, the Architect of 

the Capitol, the Smithsonian Institution and so on.

COOPERATION

CHAIRMAN FALLON asked about the NCTA report and asked about the degree 

of cooperation that existed with the Commissioners and the Highway Department 

during the preparation of that report.

"We shared with the National Capital Transportation Agency the metropolitan 

transportation study group that we have, which is a technical group and which 

runs computers to see what the various programs put into the computers would 

produce in the way of traffic loadings under certain assumptions. The 

assumptions that were fed into the computer were entirely the product of the 

National Capital Transportation Agency. The various systems which were to be 

studied in the computer analysis again were the product of the National Capital 

Transportation Agency."

NOTE: I, Lee Mertz, was the head of the above mentioned group.

GENERAL CLARKE and MR. AITKEN were both asked whether any expert 

advise had ever been asked for or given in the preparation of the NCTA 

recommendations. Mr. Aitken responded:

"...the first time I was briefed by the Administrator of NCTA on their plans for 

financing, or engineering, or any aspect of their study was October 10, 1962. The 

printed report was available by November 1. So presumably the report was 

ready, and perhaps in the hands of the printer by October 10. This was simply a 

briefing, and there was no question of exchange of ideas, or thought, or 

principles or policy."

CONGRESSMAN FALLON asked to what degree MR. AITKEN was in accord 

with NCTA's findings and recommendations:

MR. AITKEN:"I think I would say that we are in accord with the philosophy that 

we need improved mass transit. I find considerable difference of opinion with 

NCTA's recommendations on the highway system. We are in accord on the parts 

that are under construction, the parts that are built, the center leg and some 

restricted elements of the system. But with reference to their approach to 

planning, as indicated in their reports, I find considerable difference."

DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS

MR. AITKEN explained further that certain standards in regard to highway 

capacity and the forecasting of traffic were required nation-wide for the Interstate 

System. He said that NCTA used quite different assumptions in the preparation 

of their analysis and report. Mr. Fallon asked Mr. Aitken if the north leg, the Three 

Sisters Bridge and the Potomac Freeway were postponed as recommended by 

NCTA, would the funding revert to 50 percent Federal if they did not proceed as 

Interstate projects:

"Within the last few days I have attempted to get certain things approved by the 

Bureau of Public Roads. For example, we have submitted documents asking 
program approval for the preliminary design of interchange C, and for preliminary 

studies and design of the center leg. As late as yesterday, and confirmed again 

this morning, the Bureau of Public Roads has informally told me that they will not 

approve any such action on the center leg of the Interstate System until the 

reexamination of the north leg, Potomac River Freeway, and the Three Sisters 

Bridge is completed and until the Bureau is satisfied the District of Columbia is 

going to have a properly integrated and connected interstate highway system."

"So when you talk about the north leg of the inner loop system, this is like a block 

that holds up the house: with this one everything is in doubt."

VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND ALSO AFFECTED

He noted that the Virginia and Maryland Highway Departments had projects that 

were critical to the integrated system. There was considerable discussion as to 

whether the District could afford to build on a 50-50 matching basis. Mr. Aitken 

said they were having difficulty matching Federal aid on the 90-10. 50-50 would 

be out of the question.

CONGRESSMAN CRAMER noted that the District Board of Commissioners in 

April of 1963 had considered the NCTA recommendations and had, after 

considerable deliberation, decided to proceed with the projects that NCTA 

wanted postponed:

"Now, so far as you are concerned, has anything happened that would change 

this? All of the facts remain the same, do they not, as it relates to the necessity 

and purposes of these facilities as of April of this year?"

THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE

GENERAL CLARKE and MR. AITKEN both indicated that the new factor was 

the President's message to the Congress dated May 27, 1963 as follows:

"There is a need for careful reexamination of the highway program of the District 

of Columbia in the light of the transit development program and the social, 

economic, and esthetic impact of highways on the Nation's Capital. I am 

requesting the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia to undertake 

this reexamination in cooperation with the appropriate agencies. Decisions can 

be made at this time to proceed with two of these projects, the proposed east leg 

of the inner loop and the Fort Drive Parkway. Decisions on the appropriate 

highway facilities for the north leg of the inner loop, particularly whether it should 

be built to interstate standards, should await the outcome of the reexamination I 

have outlined above."

"Since the construction of the Three Sisters Bridge as an Interstate facility 

appears to depend on decisions which must be made with respect to the north 

leg, its construction should likewise be deferred until all of the alternates have 

been reexamined. For similar reasons, no further commitments should be made 

at this time with respect to the Potomac River Freeway."

DEFENDS THE PRESIDENT
There was discussion as to why it made sense to delay those projects that had 

been developed many years ago. General Clarke defended the President's 

decision because of the effect of the north leg on housing, family displacement 

and other effects. The Congressmen were amazed that the location and other 

critical studies had not been finalized and that the north leg was no more than a 

line on a map.

GENERAL CLARKE explained: "In 1959, when the plan was adopted, I believe 

the basic consideration was-is there a need to put a freeway through the north 

leg region? I think it was accepted by all agencies that there was a need to do it. 

And the concept that was adopted and approved was also that there would be 

built to Interstate standards a north leg."

"Now the problem of how it was to be built, precisely where it was to be built, and 

just how it was to be treated, was a matter that was deferred for later 

consideration. The District had always, in our financing of the highway system, 

planned this would be financed about 1969. This would give several years of 

study to just how to properly put it through, recognizing it was a difficult area."

STUDY ADVANCED

"As I see it now, we are going to advance that study that would have been made 

in later years. We are advancing that now to accomplish it this year so that, in the 

light of sociological considerations and esthetic and economic considerations, a 

decision will be made probably by the administration as to whether or not that it 

will be built to interstate standards."

CONGRESSMAN CRAMER asked whether the Board of Commissioners would 

make the decision after the study:

"No, sir; this is the President's decision after considering our recommendations."

CONGRESSMAN BLATNIK observed: "...we have this bounding around to 

conferences, consulting with agencies, and Good Lord, not knowing quite sure 

who makes the final decision or determination, no one charged with the 

responsibility of executing this huge program...It seems to me somehow the 

planning function has become an end in itself, and you are running around and 

around and not getting anywhere."

GENERAL DISAGREEMENT EXISTS

GENERAL CLARKE: "I think you have described the situation very well as to the 

confusion that exists...over the past year or so the planning agencies were not 

able to agree really on anything in the highway program; and, if the District of 

Columbia and the State of Maryland and the State of Virginia are to meet this 

1972 deadline, if the planning agencies cannot bring this all back in a package so 

we can make orderly progress, I think we are going to have to come back to the 

President or to the Congress and say we have got to find another way to do it 

outside of the planning agencies."

D.C. SERVES AS A NATIONAL EXAMPLE
CONGRESSMAN CRAMER: "It looks to me as if Washington, D.C., whether 

intentionally or otherwise, is becoming a national example of the hodge podge 

that results from lack of long-range planning and programming and actual 

construction, when you apparently get involved in a fight for prestige position 

between mass transit proposals and highway proposals. I am concerned with this 

example being set in the District of Columbia, which certainly does not 

accomplish the end result intended in the Interstate Defense Highway System on 

which some $41 billion is supposed to be spent. That is now being bogged down 

and is likely to be more so in the future, not only in the District of Columbia, but in 

many other major cities, as the result of this overriding consideration now of 

municipal planning in general, and mass transit planning in specific."

"The reason I became so concerned about it when it came to our attention in the 

hearings on the other bills is that, if that is the case, then the Interstate Defense 

Highway System conceivably would not, and probably would not, be completed 

by 1972 in the most critical areas, meaning the urban areas."

CONGRESSSMAN BLATNIK: "...Maybe we ought to create a planning agency 

of our own and join with the others in a real hassle and just find out what in the 

world is going on."

"I am amazed by this type of thing. I am completely perplexed. Here are these 

tremendously important complicated pieces of engineering and construction 

before us, decisions to be made, and somehow no one is making decisions. The 

whole thing is suspended...Can we ask, Mr. Chairman, that somehow, by an 

independent consulting concern, or our own staff, we have a committee report for 

our own information?"

"The Congress or the executive branch are the ones that can move and break 

the deadlock. Is that correct, General?"

GENERAL CLARKE: "That is right, sir. It is between the Congress and the 

administration, I am sure."

CONGRESSMAN BALDWIN: "Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that these 3 days 

of testimony have indicated that the National Capital Transportation Agency has 

deliberately violated the intention of Congress. It is very clear, by the wording of 

the Federal Interstate Highway Act and the act of 1962, that it was the intention 

of Congress that the responsibility for the plan to complete the Federal Interstate 

Highway System would remain in the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads as far as the 

Federal level was concerned in coordination with the highway departments of 

each of the States and the Highway Department of the District of Columbia. 

There is nothing in the Federal Interstate Highway Act or in the act of 1962 that 

said any other agency should have the right of veto over the plans to complete 

the Interstate Highway System."

CONGRESSIONAL INTENT FRUSTRATED

"Certainly it is not the intention of Congress to authorize a program of this 

magnitude and have some individual independent agency have the right to veto 

and block the intention of Congress."

"It seems to me that the National Capital Transportation Agency has violated the 

intention of Congress, and has acted in a completely arbitrary manner, because 
the testimony here has shown it has not cooperated with any other established 

planning agency, although the other planning agencies have had a far greater 

history in planning. I do not think Congress should allow this to continue."

"The only purpose of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962 was that there should 

be a comprehensive transportation planning process, that there should be 

cooperation and coordination in planning. The one that violated this is the 

National Capital Transportation Agency, and because they have acted in this 

arbitrary manner, because they have completely ignored all of the reliable 

planning agencies that have been planning and building this highway system, is 

even more reason for us not to allow this to continue."

Excerpts From the October, 1963 Issue of American Highways.

FISH AND WILDLIFE POLICY

The title of the editorial was "Federal Policy Developed to Prevent Highway 

Construction Damage to Fish and Wildlife."

"Secretary of Commerce Luther H. Hodges and Secretary of the Interior Stewart 

L. Udall today announced a joint policy of coordinated planning designed to 

protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat at Federal-aid highway projects. 

Methods for implementing the policy have been worked out by the Bureau of 

Public Roads...and the Fish and Wildlife Service..."

This was obviously a press release. The exact date did not appear but the 

announcement had to have been in mid-1963.

"...the joint policy recognizes that in order to achieve maximum effectiveness in 

the expenditure of public funds and at the same time protect wildlife, close 

coordination and cooperation are required in the planning and construction of 

highways which have an effect upon fish and wildlife preservation programs."

"...The joint policy requires that state highway departments supply to state fish 

and wildlife agencies advance plans for Federal-aid highway development 

programs. It will be the responsibility of the state fish and wildlife agencies to 

review these highway programs and make recommendations on ways to develop 

highway projects which will be compatible with fish and wildlife habitat."

"The policy is implemented through a Bureau of Public Roads Regulation which 

requires that by January 1, 1964, each State, in requesting Department of 

Commerce approval for the use of Federal-aid highway funds must certify that it 

has given consideration to the effects of the proposed highway project on fish 

and wildlife resources..."

"...The joint policy was worked out after meetings with members of Congress who 

were seeking coordination of the Federal highway and fish and wildlife 

preservation programs."

W.O. WRIGHT, Nev., Pres. of WASHO- "Jonah and the Whale"

This speech was presented to the 42nd annual Conference of WASHO, Sept. 17, 

1963 at Denver, Colorado.
JONAH AND THE WHALE

"...I intend to approach a couple of delicate subjects upon which a highway 

administrator must necessarily tread lightly..."

"I speak up in protest ...against a trend...which bids fair to wreck the excellent 

relationship of long standing between the Bureau and the states..."

THE PARTNERSHIP UNDER STRAIN

"...The 'big-brother' relationship was sound in principle and excellent in operation, 

but it appears to me now that it has changed to one of 'foster-parent and child'..."

"In view of this new relationship...to one of administration, regulation, policy 

determination, needless duplication of engineering talent, and - yes - even 

inspection, perhaps now is the time to take a second look, a fresh, new, even 

bold look, at so-called Federal-aid..."

He pointed out the differences of the highway program from normal Federal aid 

where funds are appropriated from the general fund and either used directly by 

the Federal government such as the Corps of Engineers or are made as a grant 

to some unit of lesser government. He felt that the Highway Trust Fund, highway 

user taxes, pay-as-you-go, apportionment, contract authority and state initiative 

as specified in highway law made the program so different that it should not be 

referred to as Federal aid.

"Since the principal function of the Federal government is that of a collection and 

distribution agency, such funds should not be classified as, and termed, Federalaid."

"...The image in the public's mind that the government is handing out large sums 

of money as 'Federal-aid' for highway construction is erroneous. It is the image 

which encourages juries to allow excessive awards in condemnation trials. It 

encourages those in the driver's seat to think of themselves as the great 

benefactors. In reality, the highway users have paid in hard cash in advance for 

the privilege of riding on our modern highways, built and maintained with their 

own money and not by 'Federal-aid'."

"...Again I quote: United States Department of Commerce-News Release 

Monday July 8, 1963...'The Bureau of Public Roads furnishes 90 percent of the 

cost of the Interstate system, and 50 percent of the cost of other Federal-aid 

projects.'"

"The Interstate construction identification signs at each end of a project are 

misleading in language as to Federal-aid and Highway-Users' funds. I believe we 

must agree that the Bureau does not contribute one cent of the cost, but the 

Bureau does play a major roll in the highway problem."

"...All of which brings me to the title of this address, 'JONAH AND THE WHALE.' 

Perhaps it should have read, 'THE JONAHS AND THE WHALES.' For, in my 

mind, there are several in the overall picture."
"Are we, as highway engineers and highway departments, to become whale-like 

by engulfing the highway contractors by overly-tightened specifications, overinspection and unnecessary regulations?"

"When a resident or project engineer has been pressured to the extent that he is 

afraid to make normal and proper decisions on the spot, we are failing to do our 

duty as engineers and are placing the contractor at a distinct disadvantage."

"Reason and good common sense and sound engineering judgment gained by 

experience, must prevail at all costs, lest we price the contractors out of 

competition, and ourselves out of matching funds by perhaps too much 

refinement."

"Every dollar spent beyond a normal inspection and policing system is a waste of 

public funds in my opinion. Record sampling, or the final sampling at designated 

locations by employees of the Bureau, and at their discretion, is an unfair 

practice if I ever saw one. Were this procedure to be used as a physical and 

economical analysis to determine the behavior of certain materials under severe 

stresses for revision of specifications it would be logical and informational. But 

certainly, it is not so when used to determine whether a contractor has 

conformed to specifications."

"In what other field of endeavor is a producer required to manufacture a material 

or product to certain specifications-to subject and expose that material to all sorts 

of stresses, uses, climatic elements and other factors-and then be required to 

have it meet the original specifications for final acceptance? Particularly, when 

such specifications, made in the interest of economy, can result in false 

economy."

WILL JONAH BE SWALLOWED?

"...Are we, as highway engineers and departments, to be swallowed by the 

Bureau of Public Roads?"

"Recent withdrawals of Bureau personnel from AASHO Committees, the increase 

in decisions that are made by the Bureau at all levels are indications of a trend 

toward forcing the various highway departments into the plight of Jonah."

"...Have we reached a point in our existence where the Bureau can no longer 

carry our banner in disputes with other bureaucratic agencies?"

"Do we now have to submit to the decisions of other agencies which are 

infringing on our responsibilities?"

"...We are criticized today for the narrow winding, crooked roads built thirty years 

ago. Are we to be criticized thirty years hence, or sooner, for the same mistake 

because some nature lovers, bird watchers and those who wish to hinder the 

path of progress want traffic to travel at a snail's pace? Or that a divided highway 

is not necessary?"

"The modern highway, in my opinion, must come first-then the wilderness areas, 

recreational areas, industrial areas and suburban areas will come as naturally as 

an infant's first smile and a child's first step."
"Is the Bureau of Public Roads to become a Jonah and be engulfed by its parent 

agency? (The Department of Commerce) Has it reached the point where the 

Bureau must support the views of super-level administrators rather than the 

recommendations of AASHO and the individual states?

"...Finally, let me describe the whale that looms larger in retrospect than all the 

rest. This is the whale that is making decisions without regard to engineering 

facts and decisions, that indulges in recommended citations beyond plausible 

reason and bids fair to make Jonahs of all of us. This whale takes the form of the 

auditors with their newly-found authority, who, without technical or engineering 

background, are empowered to act with an autonomy that is beyond my power of 

comprehension."

"...In conclusion, may I quote this phrase 'The heritage of the past is the seed 

that brings forth the harvest of the future'-and offer the hope, desire and yes, 

even a prayer, that we be allowed to return to the cooperation and unity, the 

wisdom and sound philosophy of our past partnership, and that we can again 

work hand in hand for the benefit of this and future highway programs."

A. E. JOHNSON, Executive Secretary, AASHO

WHAT IS EFFECTIVE VIGILANT ADMINISTRATION?

The title of the speech was "What is Effective Vigilant Administration?" It was 

presented to the 42nd WASHO meeting on Sept. 17, 1963.

He defined the terms "vigilant" and "administration" and set forth thirty vigilant 

acts that he felt State highway administrators should follow in order to practice 

good administration. The tenor of the speech was that they were all under the 

spotlight resulting from recent adverse publicity and they all needed to review 

their practices to make sure that there would be no more future surprises.

DEFENDS BPR

"...Recently two Chief State Highway Administrators advised that they were tired 

of putting forth so much effort to accommodate the Federal Government and its 

Interstate program. How ridiculous can people get? State Highway Officials 

endorsed this program in the beginning. They knew this system of modern 

highways was needed. They all wanted the opportunity to build this needed type 

of highway and this program provided their only opportunity for doing it. The 

State Highway Departments got the first chance to do it. How much of it reverts 

into a Federal program depends largely on their performance..."

"...The investigative spotlight on the use of untrained people in the highway 

program has brought forth a serious proposal for a National Highway Academy to 

train State highway personnel. There exists a distinct possibility of required 

qualifications being established at the Federal level for State employees on 

Federal-aid work. We can say the exposed cases of incompetence and 

irregularities constitute the exception and not the rule, however, we must agree 

such instances crop up with embarrassing frequency."

"Staffing State highway departments with competent people is a problem we 

must solve, or have others do it and move us further back from the driver's seat. 

You have the first chance at doing the job."
"State highway departments are going to retain just as much position in the 

program as they insist upon and deserve."

"'Vigilant Administration,' with emphasis on employee training and development, 

is the best deterrent to the loss of position..."

D. GRANT MICKLE, Deputy Federal Highway Administrator.

The speech was made to WASHO on Sept. 19, 1963. The title was "StateFederal Relationship at the State Level."

"This is a subject about which much has been said-and I suppose much more 

frequently behind closed doors and in terse impious phrases than in more formal 

and gracious public utterances."

"Of course, it isn't that bad, and we know it, if we would stop and think. It's only 

the moments of wrath that are well remembered. Yet they are just isolated 

volcanic peaks in the broad, smooth plain of generally harmonious cooperation."

A PLEA FOR FORBEARANCE

He described the recently delegated authority of the Federal highway program to 

the Division Offices which made the State Federal interactions much more on a 

face-to-face and personal level which should go a long way toward making the 

relationship less remote and bureaucratic. On the other hand, he pointed out that 

there was a great variability among Division Engineers, both in style and 

personality, just as each highway department was different.

He made frequent reference to a prior speech to WASHO by D.C. Greer, Texas: 

"Finally, Mr. Greer said to this Association-and it was 15 months ago: 'We must 

"keep our house in order" and the "skeletons out of our closets." This is our job 

on the State level and, if we fail to do this, we really have no right to complain 

about increased Federal control.'"

"Unfortunately, a few more skeletons have been discovered in closets since then. 

We are all confident that most of our closets are clean. But after all the outcry of 

the past about scandals, we can no longer afford the luxury of even one small 

skeleton."

"So, regretfully on our part as on yours, you have had increased Federal controls. 

We in Public Roads believe they are just and reasonable; that they are far from 

oppressive. If you think they are too strong, remember there are others who think 

they are too weak."

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE INTERSTATE AFTER 72?

Engineering News Record-Oct. 31, 1963

Completion of the Interstate highway system by 1972, and the nature and extent 

of the federal-aid highway program after 1972 were the dominant themes at the 

49th annual convention of the American Association of State Highway Officials 

last week, at Portland, Ore...
As he had done at Miami Beach a year ago, Federal Highway Administrator Rex 

Whitton urged the states to speed their efforts to complete the 41,000-mile 

national system of Interstate and defense highways by 1972.

"This year is probably the most critical period in this undertaking," Mr. Whitton 

said. "If we act now, and act properly, and on time."

"If you (the delinquent states) don't act now, I don't know when you expect to 

start. Time is running out," he said...

"We should begin now to list, and think about, the questions that will need 

answers," he said. "We must set the scope of our study, define the problems and 

collect and analyze relevant data. And we should arrive at single or alternative 

proposed solutions, which we as the responsible highway authorities of this 

country can recommend and support as a group.

"Although highway administrators and planners cannot draw up the final answers 

(because Congress must enact the program), they would be remiss in their 

duties if they offered to the Congress neither guidance nor suggestion on these 

complex questions."

ROAD CHIEF WARNS OF INTERSTATE CASH DEADLINE

Charleston W. Va. Gazette-12/5/63

Federal Highway Administrator Rex M. Whitton says he may soon find it 

necessary to disapprove the granting of money for interstate highway projects on 

which construction cannot begin in time for completion by 1972...

If only the 50-50 program continues after 1972, uncompleted portions of the 

Interstate system would have to be finished on this basis, instead of on the 90-10 

basis, he said.

Even if Congress provides for an extension of the Interstate program, he said, it 

may offer something less than 90 per cent federal aid...

Excerpts From the January, 1964 Issue of American Highways-The Record of the AASHO Annual 

Meeting Oct. 22, 1963.

JOHN C. MACKIE, President, AASHO

PREDICTS INCREASED INTERSTATE MILEAGE

"...Everyone would benefit if the interstate system were completed ahead of 

schedule...I predict that Congress will authorize an additional 10,000 to 20,000 

miles of interstate when the present 41,000 miles are completed. America's 

motorists like what they have seen and will, I am sure, support an expansion of 

the program."

The rest of the speech was devoted to a progress report on the Interstate and 

how highways stimulate economic growth.

REP. GEORGE FALLON, Md.-Chairman House Subcommittee on Roads.
This speech was given Oct. 22, 1963 to the AASHO Annual Meeting in Portland, 

Oregon.

EMPHASIS ON URBAN PLANNING

"This is an excellent opportunity for me to remind highway officials-those that 

need reminding- that very serious problems are arising, and will continue to arise, 

in connection with the construction of urban expressways."

"...Obviously, planning is essential. Equally obvious, the planning must be 

comprehensive-it must take into account all of the social and economic factors 

that make the city what it is and will be."

"It follows that highway planners must work closely with the planners responsible 

for guiding the development of urban areas so that highway plans and urban 

plans mesh."

"This is the thinking behind the urban transportation planning requirement which 

was written into Federal law by the 1962 Highway Act. It provides that, beginning 

July 1, 1965, the Secretary of Commerce shall not approve any program for 

Federal-aid projects in a community of 50,000 population or more unless he finds 

that the proposed projects are based on a continuing comprehensive 

transportation planning process carried on cooperatively by States and local 

communities.'"

"No doubt you are all familiar with the law. But I think it is important that I remind 

you, first, that the deadline is approaching, and, second, that while the 

requirement is reasonable and not unduly restrictive that failure to meet the 

requirement will result in the shutting off of Federal-aid funds in the affected 

urban area."

"...The House Subcommittee on Roads held hearings on this subject last May. 

We were encouraged by the testimony presented by the American Association of 

State Highway Officials, through your capable and efficient president, John 

Mackie, to the effect that the State highway departments are facing the problem 

aggressively and that rapid strides are being made in almost every State to make 

certain that the deadline will be met."

THE D.C. PROBLEM

"However, these same hearings spotlighted very serious difficulties in the District 

of Columbia. In the national capital area, a comprehensive planning process very 

similar to what is required by the 1962 Act has been in effect for several years."

"In spite of the existence of this planning process, the highway program in the 

District of Columbia and the surrounding metropolitan area is the target of 

constant sniping. The objections are numerous and varied, but the central 

argument which ties all the objections together is that highway officials insist on 

building roads without regard to the social and economic welfare of the city. They 

are accused of smashing historic shrines, destroying churches and schools, 

breaking up neighborhoods, choking off the downtown area and, in general, 

making life miserable for the city's inhabitants."
"In some circles, indeed, the notion is bandied about that it is almost unpatriotic 

to drive an automobile in city traffic because, it is said, too much valuable urban 

space is being appropriated for highways, streets and parking facilities."

"The situation in the District of Columbia, of course, is an unusual one. As far as 

local government is concerned, there are too many cooks in the kitchen. The 

United States Congress, the White House and the State governments of Virginia 

and Maryland are all involved, exercising their jurisdiction through a complex 

combination of agencies and advisory boards."

"The immediate issue in the national capital area is also somewhat unusual-a 

conflict between highway planners and the planners and advocates of a 

proposed $792 million rail transit system."

GOOD GUYS AND BAD GUYS

"But one situation, I fear, is not so unusual- the tendency to regard the urban 

planners as the defenders of what is loosely referred to as 'urban values' as the 

'good guys' in a battle against the 'bad guys'-the bad guys being the highway 

officials and the highway users..."

AFTER 72

"...I have just introduced legislation calling for a study of highway needs 

nationally. The principal objectives of this bill are to make accurate engineering 

determinations on which we can pass legislation covering an extension of the 

Interstate program after 1972. I believe it is quite important to get this study 

underway at once so there will be no gap between the end of the current 

Interstate program and whatever kind of program follows it..."

SEN. JACK MILLER, Iowa, Public Works Comm.

THE HIGHWAY IMAGE

He asked two questions: "Have you, as state officials, ignored your public 

relations image to the point where the public has become concerned over what 

they feel (whether real or imaginary) are roughshod methods of planning without 

due consideration to local situations?" and "Are you turning more and more to 

Washington to work out the highway problems in your individual states, or are 

you planning and working closely with local government officials to develop a 

coordinated approach to these problems?"

"All of you have a responsibility (in public relations) because failure to present a 

good image causes resentment which will linger long after you have completed a 

job in a local community...What price are we to pay in the coming years for the 

growing number of complaints that big government has become so preoccupied 

with highways that it has failed to give sufficient consideration to the people for 

whom they are being built?"

THE PEOPLE PROBLEM

"...James J. Morton, special assistant to the Secretary of Commerce, made a 

cogent observation. He said: '...The most serious obstacles in our roadbuilding 
program are not money, nor engineering problems, nor cruel terrain-but 

PEOPLE. In the cities we hear the growing din of controversy. We see the 

barriers erected against the United States' urgent need for a modern highway 

system. We hear false prophets sow confusion and doubt. We hear the outcry of 

civic groups who protest that highways will leave ugly scars across the face of 

the landscape. We hear that highways are going to carve up residential areas, 

ruin property values. We hear flippant remarks that every freeway we build has a 

built-in traffic jam. We hear the specious pleadings of special interests; we hear 

know-it-alls with quick and easy remedies guaranteed to solve all our urban 

transportation woes.'"

"He noted, and rightly, that highway officials are dismayed by this; that they have 

taken public acceptance for granted. And therein lies the crux of the problem of 

your public relations image-for your subcommittee on Public Information 

particularly to work on. You just cannot take public acceptance for granted."

"And the public does have a case. In this great debate over the future of our 

highway system, there is a tendency to discuss at length the 'needs' without 

thinking very hard about the purposes. Press releases are issued, parading 

statistics and tables about the growing number of miles and the billions of dollars 

spent or to be spent. Mountains of figures are furnished by various groups, 

private and governmental, that this is what has been done and this is what 

should be done. But these data are not always received with awe and reverence 

by citizens who have a right to know about 'whys' as well as the 'wheres'."

THE POWER OF PUBLIC OPINION

"...It is so much easier to talk about the many miles and the billions of dollars that 

we are tempted to become worshippers of material progress. I think we should 

reexamine our approach. Public opinion can be a mighty adversary-just as it can 

also be a vital partner. We must take the time and trouble to cultivate it so that it 

will accept material progress-and this means that progress must be defined by 

government officials in terms of both material and human values."

"...it is awfully late. What defense is there to the mounting complaints about 

routes chosen for new superhighways, high prices paid for property acquired for 

right of way, expensive designs, bridges built too low, sky-rocketing costs, and 

the failure to consider the economic future of those whose property is taken?"

"The second area of questioning...relates to close coordination at the local level 

and less reliance on planning in Washington to solve highway problems...(he 

quoted the planning requirement of the 1962 Act). Will our state officials wait until 

next year and then deliver a memorandum to city officials, warning that the 

deadline of July 1, 1965 is nearing and that they had better get moving and come 

up with something? Will their plans be drawn up so quickly that the human 

element will not have been adequately weighed?"

THE QUESTIONS

"...These, then, are the questions you are going to have to continually answer 

and continually review your answers to: (1) Are we doing enough to give 

recognition to human values in our measurement of progress, and are we doing 

enough work to build a favorable public image of this progress? (2) Are we 

thinking enough of those who will follow us in our jobs-are we doing all we should 
be doing to see to it that our highway systems are coordinated with all interested 

governmental units so that they will render the maximum service for which they 

are intended?"

REP. WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Fla., House Public Works Comm.

AFTER 72

The speech was delivered for Mr. Cramer by Clifford Enfield, Minority Counsel, 

House Public Works Committee. The first part of the speech was devoted to the 

need to proceed with studies of what the nature of the highway program should 

be after completion of the Interstate in 1972. He noted that AASHO had officially 

assured the Congress that the states had the ability to complete the system on 

schedule at the last annual meeting in Miami. He felt that it was particularly 

necessary at that time because it was imperative the big reduction in 

expenditures envisioned in 1972 should be carefully staged in to avoid economic 

dislocations:

"We want to avoid recurrence of problems such as those which arose in the early 

years of the present program."

"You may recall that the money authorizations for completion of the Interstate 

program, set forth in the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, were based upon cost 

estimates submitted to the Congress in 1955. Later estimates, prepared in 1957, 

and submitted to the Congress in 1958, showed that the cost of completing the 

designated Interstate System would be some $10 billion more than the 1955 

estimates-and a financial crisis in the highway program came into being. Some of 

you may not be aware of how near we came to losing the highway program in 

1959."

He noted that suggestions had been made that the studies should be made by a 

Congressional Committee. He said that this had been done before- in 1953 and 

called the National Highway Study. He said that this did not result in action or 

recommendations and that it was not until the Congress directed the Secretary of 

Commerce to make a study with the highway departments did action result, so 

he felt that procedure should be followed.

MASS TRANSIT

"Before closing, I'd like to make brief mention of one more subject of growing 

importance in the highway field, and that has to do with mass transit. We hear a 

great deal today about mass transit, particularly about the competition that exists 

between the highway interests and the mass transit interests. I'm sure you all 

agree with me that there should be no such competition, at least not in the sense 

that one must be the winner and the other the loser. If there is such competition, 

the only real loser is the American public."

WASHINGTON, D.C.

"...A good example of what should not but what can happen is found in 

Washington, D.C., where desperately needed highway projects are being 

delayed because of the morass of mass transit proposals. Plans for the Interstate 

highway routes in the District of Columbia include, among other things, a bridge 

across the Potomac River-the so-called 'Three Sisters Bridge'-and also include 
an inner loop which is a key part of the Interstate system in the Washington area 

around the downtown area. The bridge and inner loop were selected after 

exhaustive studies and after planning which has continued over a period of many 

years. The proposal for the Three Sisters Bridge goes back as far as 1953."

"In 1960, however, the Congress created a new agency called the National 

Capital Transportation Agency and directed it to prepare a 'Transit Development 

Program' for the Nation's Capital. In May of this year, the President transmitted 

the 'Transit Development Program' to the congress and recommended adoption 

of the program recommended therein."

"However, in addition to the recommendations with respect to mass transit 

contained in this program, the President also recommended that appropriations 

for the Three Sisters Bridge and certain essential parts of the inner loop be 

deferred pending a 'careful re-examination of the highway program of the District 

of Columbia in the light of the Transit Development Program and the social, 

economic and esthetic impact of highways on the Nation's capital.'"

"The recommendations of the President in this regard were likewise based upon 

the report of the National Capital Transportation Agency. I and many others 

connected with Congress, have studied these reports and supporting material 

with considerable care, and have not been able to find any indication that the 

Transit Agency cooperated with other agencies involved, that they gave 

adequate study or consideration to the critically important aspects of highway to 

take care of interstate transportation for national defense."

"The law specifically required this Agency to cooperate and coordinate with other 

agencies on arterial highway matters, and the law spelled out specifically that the 

responsibility and authority for the location, design, construction, and operation of 

highways shall remain with the agencies now having jurisdiction thereof. Despite 

this, testimony before several committees of the House of Representatives has 

clearly shown that the Agency did not cooperate, did not coordinate, and did not 

solicit, in fact it did not accept the views or the assistance of the highway 

agencies involved."

"Notwithstanding these and other shortcomings in the report of the National 

Capital Transportation Agency, several essential parts of the Interstate system in 

the District of Columbia which have already been exhaustively studied and which 

have already been delayed far too long are being further delayed pending 

additional studies. I cite the Washington situation merely as an example. We 

must not permit the 41,000 mile National System of Interstate and Defense 

Highways to be subordinated to mass transit proposals and to localized problems 

of urban planning and improvement. We cannot permit this unless we are ready 

to abandon the goal of completing the Interstate System in 1972."

REX M. WHITTON, Federal Highway Administrator

AFTER 72

He noted that the highway departments had a background of 50 years of 

planning. The planning surveys, the needs studies and others had created a vast 

wealth of information. He said that when all the urban transportation studies were 

done, they would add greatly to the information available. He felt that the time 
had come to begin systematic studies of what program should follow completion 

of the Interstate in 1972.

He noted that the Highway Trust Fund would go out of business at that time as 

planned, all the more reason for studies to begin. He listed the questions that he 

felt needed answering ranging from how many miles should be added to the 

Interstate System to rationalization of the Secondary System. He noted that the 

Secondary System varied greatly in size between States for no particular 

explainable reason. Another question was what provision should be made for the 

addition of capacity to the completed Interstate. Another set of questions 

revolved around the proper matching ratios and methods of apportionment. It 

was a comprehensive and well thought out speech.

A.E. JOHNSON, Executive Sec., AASHO

OUR HIGHWAY HERITAGE

"I have selected for my title today 'Our Highway Heritage'. It is being tarnished 

and eroded away and the matter deserves our most serious attention."

He recounted the golden years of the highway program partnership and then 

reviewed the troubles encountered since the 1956 Act including the right- of-way 

scandals, the urban problems, a hostile press and so on. He worried about the 

tendency of the BPR to operate more at arms-length than the old partnership. He 

said that there was increasing talk of the Federal government assuming complete 

control and the highway departments assigned the role of simply contractors 

carrying out the Federal program.

CAN THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS SURVIVE?

"Recently, I asked to head a discussion period at the AASHO-NHUC 

Management conference at Williamsburg, Virginia. The subject was not selected 

by me, but was assigned, and it was 'Can The State Highway Departments 

Survive?'"

"I have found out that this subject has been seriously discussed in various forms 

by several groups in the highway industry. They have been concerned with the 

eroding influences that are being exerted against the State highway 

departments."

"All it would take for the State highway departments to immediately be cast into a 

secondary role would be the naming of an unfriendly Federal Highway 

Administrator, one who would not allow the State highway departments any part 

in developing the design standards, specifications, and policies used in the 

Federal-aid highway program of the country."

AMERICAN HIGHWAYS, Jan. 64

"To take a stand for a continued position of importance for the State highway 

departments will either be a militant or amiable affair, depending upon the time 

and personalities of the people involved at that time. When the time comes it will 

require collective concerted action on the part of all the States. Any attempt to 
register a complaint or correct the trend by individual action or stubbornness is 

senseless."

AFTER 72

He noted that Rep. Fallon had just introduced a bill directing the Secretary of 

Commerce in cooperation with the highway departments to prepare a 

comprehensive "after 72" study of highway needs. He described this as the 

opportunity to become the architects of their own future and asked that every 

highway department support it.

He enumerated some of the things that ought to be considered in this study to be 

presented to the Congress in 1967. In the meantime, he said, there must be 

outstanding performance on the part of each highway department in order to win 

back some of the public confidence that had been lost.

Excerpts From the January 1965 Issue of American Highways-The Record of the 1964 

Annual Meeting.

J. BURCH McMORRAN, N.Y.-The President's Annual Address, December 8, 1964.

THE GOLDEN ANNIVERSARY OF AASHO

"...While this is our Golden Anniversary year, it has, in many ways, resembled the 

beginning of a great adventure...I was impressed by the vibrant sense of 

challenge and excitement generated not only by our passing the halfway mark in 

the Interstate program, but by our planning for what will follow completion of the 

Interstate System."

"...It is up to all of us to exert every effort to meet the 1972 deadline for 

completion of the Interstate System. This should be our first priority as AASHO 

begins its second half-century."

"At the same time, we must apply ourselves to completion of the study 

encompassing highway needs beyond 1972. The crucial importance of this 

undertaking is evident in the fact this study will be a basis for new Federal-aid 

highway legislation that will influence highway programs for a decade or more in 

the '70's and '80's."

OPPONENTS OF HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT

"...We find some neighborhood planners and architects-men extremely 

competent in their fields, but with no experience in ours-crying out against 

highway development. They assail what they call the despoliation of natural or 

esthetic values, belittling the esthetics of well-designed roads and ignoring the 

greatest value of all, inherent in the highway program: its service to society."

"We find others with pet projects and programs who decry the allocation of 

sizeable funds to highways while attempting to raid the treasury for their own 

purposes."

"Elsewhere-and among the same critics-are the self-appointed transportation 

experts who batter reason and logic with their argument that rail rapid transit is a 

substitute rather than a complement for urban highway systems."
"...And finally we must contend with the less publicized but no less sinister 

insistence of a minority that the highway program has grown too large to be 

administered under the cooperative arrangement born here in Atlanta, and 

proved in the tests and trials of fifty years..."

SEN. JENNINGS RANDOLPH, W.Va., Senate Public Works Committee.

He complimented AASHO on their 50th anniversary and attacked them for 

limiting the use of coal tar in their specifications. He was concerned about rumors 

of a $4 billion increase in the Interstate Cost Estimate. He suggested that the 

Congress consider repealing the Byrd Amendment so that States that could do 

so could finish by 72. He worried about whether the metropolitan areas would 

meet the 65 deadline on comprehensive planning.

RELOCATION ASSISTANCE

"The Federal-aid Highway Amendments of 1962, which provide relocation 

assistance to displaced persons and businesses, were a step in the right 

direction. But they are inadequate. For Federal assistance is limited to those 

States which provide aid under their own statutes. In addition, both Federal and 

State laws have largely ignored the responsibility to provide low-income rental 

housing for the impoverished inhabitants of the blighted areas which so often are 

the corridors for freeways. This is a problem to which I hope the 89th congress 

will give attention, but it also requires the concentrated effort of State and local 

authorities...

REP. WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Fla.

AFTER 72?

"...The 16-year period, ending in 1972, for completion of the current accelerated 

Federal-aid highway program is now half-gone. On a national basis, about half of 

the work is completed or underway. As you know, the House of Representatives 

passed a bill, H.R. 8853, on December 19, 1963, to authorize the Secretary of 

Commerce to make a comprehensive study, in cooperation with the State 

highway departments, of the needs of the Federal-aid highway systems after 

1972, and to submit a report thereon to congress by January 1, 1967. 

Unfortunately, this bill was not acted upon by the Senate. I hope that a similar 

measure will receive both House and Senate approval early next year. In the 

meantime, however, the Bureau of Public Roads, under the general authority of 

the Secretary of Commerce, is proceeding to undertake the study contemplated 

by H.R. 8853, in cooperation with the State highway departments."

"...Pertinent to future highway construction is the thought that has been advanced 

to delay construction of the Interstate System within urban areas so as to permit 

time for the construction of connections and for the improvement of city streets to 

accommodate traffic that will be "dumped" into the cities by the Interstate 

System. If such delay becomes a reality, the cities may want these connectors to 

be constructed with 90-10 Federal- State financing. Such connectors presumably 

would be constructed to Interstate standards, and considerable time would be 

required for their planning and design. It seems unlikely that this work could be 

accomplished by 1972, when the present Interstate system is scheduled for 

completion. I believe it is more appropriate for consideration of these type of 

facilities to be included in the study and possible program for highway 
improvements after 1972, thus avoiding any delay in construction of the presently 

planned urban freeways before 1972 and giving consideration for the 

construction of connections with such freeways after 1972."

APPALACHIA

"...This Act (The pending Appalachian Regional Development Act) would 

authorize the construction of a new 2,850-mile system of development highways 

and access roads in those portions of 11 States making up the so-called 

Appalachian Region. This program would be discriminatory against all portions of 

the Nation outside of Appalachia, for it would superimpose upon the longstanding and successful Federal-Aid Highway Program a completely new system 

of roads for benefit of the comparatively small Appalachian Region alone..."

"Appalachia may or may not be unique in some respects, but it is most certainly 

not unique in its lack of adequate highways. If an additional $840 million is to be 

authorized and appropriated for the construction of a new classification of 

highways, it seems obvious that the best interests of the Nation demand that 

such funds be apportioned to all of the States, not a selected few, in accordance 

with equitable formulas or criteria, such as that now applicable to the existing 

Federal-aid highway program...

Excerpts From the April, 1965 Issue of American Highways.

1965 AASHO POLICY STATEMENT

THE PARTNERSHIP

"...The proven 'partnership' between the State highway departments and the 

Bureau of Public Roads should continue to be utilized in the same manner as in 

the past in planning and constructing present and future Federal-aid programs."

"It is in the public interest that the major Federal effort in the highway field 

continue in the form of Federal-aid to the State highway construction programs."

OPPOSE ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

"That the State highway departments vigorously oppose any proposals that 

would require a particular type of organization and operation for a State highway 

department as a prerequisite for receiving Federal-aid highway funds, inasmuch 

as all State highway departments are official agencies of sovereign State 

governments and must have the latitude of determining the type of organization 

and operation preferred by the people and that best suited to the individual needs 

of the States."

"Neither should State highway department employees be required to undergo 

any Federal training program as a requirement for the State being eligible to 

receive Federal-aid highway funds."

STATES DEAL ONLY WITH BPR

"...That no Federal agency or official other than the Department of Commerce 

and its Bureau of Public Roads, should have the approval power over Federalaid highway projects undertaken by State highway departments..."
DON'T LEGISLATE STANDARDS

"That the development of controlling highway design and construction standards 

and highway signing and traffic control practices, and the selection of materials 

incorporated into highway construction, are engineering in nature and should 

never be established by legislation."

"That the Federal-aid funds provided by Section 307(c) of Title 23, United States 

Code, Highways, for planning, research and development continue to be 

available to the State highway departments as now provided by law and that the 

present use, matching and method of administering these funds be continued..."

AGAINST DIVERSION

"That the Association opposes the use of any Federal Highway Trust Fund 

monies for any purpose other than now authorized by law."

RESTORE CONTRACT AUTHORITY

"That the Contract Authority Procedure created by the Federal-Aid Highway Act 

of 1922, which gives a State highway department the right to initiate Federal-aid 

highway projects as soon as the official apportionment of funds is made, be 

restored at the earliest possible time and eliminate the modification imposed by 

the Reimbursement Planning Procedure that was installed as a temporary 

expedient in 1959, during the time a shortage in the Highway Trust Fund 

existed."

INCREASE FUNDING TO COMPLETE ON TIME

"...That the Association petitions the Congress to provide the additional 

necessary financing so that the Interstate System may be completed on or before 

the scheduled date of 1972. Encouragement should be given to provide for the 

earlier completion in those States where such is possible, however, appropriate 

legislation should also be included to safeguard the interest of those States that 

might not be able to complete their Interstate program before 1972 in order that 

any speedup in some State might not adversely affect the scheduled completion 

in others."

A SMOOTH TRANSITION AFTER COMPLETION

"The Congress should provide that no lag will occur in any State between the 

completion of the presently authorized Interstate program and the beginning of a 

new and continuing Federal-aid highway program. Any interruption in an orderly 

highway development program must be avoided because of the enormous 

highway needs of the Nation and the adverse economic effects of a slowdown of 

that magnitude."

A MINIMUM OF FOUR LANES DIVIDED

"...That the American Association of State Highway Officials, in the interest of 

highway safety and motorist comfort, recommends that the entire 41,000 miles of 

the Interstate System be constructed as a divided roadway with a minimum of 

four lane design, and that it be recommended to the Congress that the additional 
cost of changing the some 2,000 miles of Interstate roads, that had been planned 

as two-lane highways, to four-lane facilities be approved as part of the 1965 Cost 

Estimate."

INCLUDE AASHO IN DISCUSSION OF NEEDS

"That at any time the Federal Government should assemble a group to study and 

make recommendations in the field of transportation needs and policies of this 

Nation that includes persons outside of the Federal Government, it should 

include a representative of the American Association of State Highway Officials 

to present the expert viewpoint of the State highway administrator."

REIMBURSEMENT FOR TOLL ROADS

"That the American Association of State Highway Officials recommends any 

highway needs study and recommended continuing highway program that may 

be submitted to Congress give consideration to the matter of equitable 

reimbursement for toll and free roads incorporated in the Interstate System."

STATES MUST REMAIN THE DECISIONMAKERS ON URBAN SEGMENTS

"That the urban sections of the Interstate System are an integral and essential 

part of that System, which should be planned and developed by the State 

highway departments in close cooperation with the affected local government 

units and interested Federal agencies. The responsibility of initiation of projects 

must remain in the State highway departments, and final decisions regarding 

location and design must rest with the State highway departments and the 

Bureau of Public Roads."

CONSIDERATION OF MASS TRANSIT SHOULD NOT DELAY THE 

PROGRAM

"The various modes of urban transportation should not be considered as 

competitive, but where conditions and needs warrant other modes of 

transportation in addition to highways, they should be planned to complement 

each other, and controversy over the merits of the various modes in regard to 

serving the needs of a particular part of the metropolitan areas should not be 

allowed to delay essential highway construction. Decisions should be based on 

factual data and needs derived from the transportation planning process and not 

influenced by emotional opposition or competitive promotion..."

Altogether, there were 33 resolutions in the policy.

Excerpts From the October, 1965 Issue of American Highways.

HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION

This issue presented the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 in detail. The parts 

of the bill were Title I, Control of Outdoor Advertising-Title II, Control of Junkyards 

and Title III, Landscaping and Scenic Enhancement. Also presented was Senate 

Report 709 and House Report 1084 in their entirety. Both were on the subject of 

beautification.
Excerpts From the January 1966 Issue of American Highways-The Record of the 51st. 

Annual Convention, 10/4/1965.

M.L.SHADBURN,Ga., The President's Address

COMPLETION ON TIME POSSIBLE

"...every Highway Department in the country says that they can complete the 

System by 1972 if adequate funds, both Federal and State, are made available...

"...However, the horizon is not unclouded. The last estimate on the cost required 

to complete the Interstate System, which was submitted to Congress early this 

year, showed an increase in estimated completion cost of 5.8 billion dollars, 

based on 1963 prices."

"This brought the total cost of the Interstate System to 46.8 billion dollars."

MORE MONEY NEEDED

"It will, therefore, be necessary to increase the funds going into the Federal 

Highway Trust Fund by one billion dollars each year to complete the Interstate 

System by 1972. Otherwise, we will face a stretch-out by two years."

"...It is hoped that the Congress will provide sufficient funds next year to 

supplement the Trust Fund in order to complete the Interstate System without 

any material stretch-out time."

BEAUTIFICATION

"Beautification: This is a word that has created a lot of excitement among the 

gentry outside the Highway field. Many look upon it as a big plum which they 

would like to pick, with no regard to present or future costs."

"This work also disturbs many Highway Administrators because we all believe in 

more eye appeal, in all things, and want our highways more pleasing to drive on."

"But no two people-highway or otherwise-agree just what constitutes beauty on 

and off the right of way of our highways."

"All highway officials earnestly want to back President Johnson in his idea to 

beautify our roads and roadsides, and make a more beautiful America."

"At the previous conference on beautification, the highway people were very 

much in the minority and were attacked from every side by practically every 

speaker."

"...Under it, we are to double the number of rest areas on our Interstate routes, 

and to make our rest areas considerably more elaborate than had been our plan, 

including sanitary facilities."

"We are also to develop plans for some rest areas on our Primary routes, with 

some of these also to include sanitary facilities, where justified."
"We are to give considerable emphasis to landscaping on future Federal-aid 

projects, and to the landscaping of our already-completed Interstate segments."

"The program provides for the purchase of extra right of way for purposes of 

landscaping, and for scenic overlooks and parking areas where justified."

"We have been further directed to embark upon a program for removing or 

screening of junkyards, borrow pits, eroded areas, abandoned buildings and 

other unsightly areas alongside our principal highways."

"Our problems are numerous."

"First, because modern highways, especially the Interstates, are designed to 

lower the water table, and because the cost of extensive, permanent roadside 

sprinkler systems would be prohibitive, we must beautify with flora which can 

survive with little water."

"...Further, safety considerations rule out the location of trees within 30 feet of the 

pavement edge and roadside planting must be planned and executed with 

machine maintenance in mind."

"...With regard to the elimination of roadside 'eyesores,' many of these cannot be 

corrected by Highway Department action alone."

"...So voluntary action by individuals is going to be vital to the ultimate success of 

our beautification efforts."

AFTER 72 NEEDS

"After 1972 Needs Study...The present directive for the needs study specifies 

January 10, 1968, for the information to be submitted which is late. It is hoped 

that this could be advanced to 1967."

"We are all geared for peak performance, and a sudden drop in our work load 

would be costly and tragic."

A SMOOTH TRANSITION ESSENTIAL

"In fact, it could materially affect the entire economy."

"The highway departments, the contractors, the materials suppliers, and the 

equipment manufacturers have all built up fine organizations which will fall apart 

if not kept busy, and traffic needs will continue to grow; therefore, the need for 

additional roads will still be a prime question."

"...The study is not just an exercise in paperwork-one that the highway 

departments must make only to satisfy requirements of the Bureau of Public 

Roads."

"It is part and parcel of what each State should have already been doing for itself 

and if not, ought to initiate immediately."
"...Such a task is big. But it must be done. The Interstate System is a good 

example of what can be accomplished with adequate planning and a firm

financing commitment..."

SEN. JENNINGS RANDOLPH, W.Va., Public Works.

HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION AND HIGHWAY SAFETY

"...I desire to confine my comments to...Highway Beautification and Highway 

Safety."

"...President Johnson, as you recall, transmitted to our Congress on May the 

28th, 1965, four bills...declaring 'And the roads that serve it are not ends in 

themselves,' as he spoke of our national economy. 'They are meant to serve the 

real needs of the people of this country and those needs include the opportunity 

to touch nature and to see beauty as well as rising income and swifter travel. 

Therefore we must make sure that the massive resources we now devote to 

roads also serve to improve and broaden the quality of American life.'"

"I introduced the administration's proposal as one measure, Senate 2084,...In the 

Senate, we gave careful consideration to the testimony presented and, as you 

know, in Mid-September, we reported an amended bill. This measure, I believe, 

may effectively resolve most of the issues that were raised by President 

Shadburn in his presentation."

SHOULD NOT BE FINANCED FROM THE TRUST FUND

"First, the Senate committee agreed with the position of AASHO, as did also our 

counterpart committee in the House of Representatives, that this program should 

not be financed from the Highway Trust Fund especially in the light of the 

impending deficit of some three billion dollars."

He went on to point out that the penalties and sanctions contained in the original 

bill for non compliance had been considerably watered down.

SEN. JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Ky.-Senate Public Works Committee.

INCREASED INTERSTATE COSTS

"...As you know, the 1965 cost estimate for completing the Interstate System 

prepared by the States and the Bureau of Public Roads places the total cost at 

an increase of 5.8 billion over the previous estimate. Action on this cost estimate 

was postponed by the Congress and funds were authorized for only one year 

rather than for a two-year period. The report, in fact the legislation, said that 

Congress reserves the right to accept or reject the cost estimate but I think we'll 

have to meet this issue and if this increased cost estimate is accepted, it will be 

necessary to have available in some manner at least $3 billion in additional 

revenue to cover the Federal share of the increased cost. I know this is a subject 

which you know very well and so when I say it's not new to you but three 

possibilities have been suggested and have been talked about in the Congress 

and particularly in our committees, on which Representative Cramer sits, as to 

what can be done about this deficit."
OPTIONS

"One is to supplement the Trust Fund by general appropriation. In fact, last year 

amendments were offered on the Senate floor to do that, but I would doubt very 

much if the Congress will supplement the Trust Fund by general appropriation 

and while I cannot speak for anyone except myself, I would not favor this course. 

I think it's apparent that with our yearly deficit and with the great deficit which we 

will have next year because of the cost of the war in Viet Nam which could run to 

$12 billion next year if it is not escalated, I just cannot see the Congress 

supplementing the Trust Fund by general appropriations."

"The second course is to then extend the completion date of the Interstate 

System and the third is to increase highway user taxes for the Trust Fund...I 

believe that the Administration has recommended that there could be an 

extension of the time for the completion of the Interstate System and some 

increase in user taxes."

"I don't need to tell you that strong opposition is already being expressed against 

the increase of user taxes..."

He predicted there would be a modest increase in user taxes and an extension of 

the time for completion. This is the first recorded retreat by the Congress from a 

firm position of completion of the Interstate by 1972.

REP. WILLIAM C. CRAMER, Fla.-Subcommittee on Roads.

SWEEPING CHANGES IN PROSPECT

"...Some of the laws that were enacted during this session of the Congress, some 

that were not enacted, and the manner in which some of the legislation was 

handled, give me reason to fear that there may be sweeping changes in prospect 

for the nature and financing of the Federal-aid highway program and the 

traditional relationship between the States and the Federal government."

"As you know, highway legislation before the House Committee on Public Works 

has generally been handled in a bipartisan way. This session of the Congress 

began in that atmosphere. Shortly after the latest estimate of the cost of 

completing the Interstate system was submitted to the Congress, the able and 

respected Chairman of the Roads Subcommittee, Congressman Kluczynski, and 

I both introduced bills which would have approved the cost estimate for the 

purpose of apportioning Interstate funds, and would have authorized the 

appropriation of an additional $5 billion to meet the increased costs of the 

Interstate System. Enactment of either of these bills would have provided for the 

completion of the Interstate System on schedule in 1972.

COMPLETION OF THE INTERSTATE BY 75

"...However, it soon became obvious that the committee on Ways and Means 

had no plans to act on the bill despite the fact that in many States the highway 

program was being delayed pending apportionment of additional Federal-aid 

highway funds. As a result, it was necessary to act upon S.J. Res. 81, a Senatepassed measure which permitted apportionment of federal-aid highway funds 

authorized for fiscal year 1967 only, but did nothing to provide the additional 

funds necessary for completion of the Interstate system on schedule by 1972. 
This bill was passed by the Congress as a stop-gap measure only, so that the 

highway program could continue to some degree, at least. If this course is 

pursued hereafter, the Interstate System will not be completed until 1975."

"We can attribute this lack of action by the Committee on Ways and Means to 

just one thing: failure of the Administration to provide aggressive leadership or 

encouragement to keep the Federal-aid highway program on schedule. This is 

completely unacceptable in view of the fact that completion of the System will 

result in an annual saving of 8,000 lives and $11 billion in transportation costs."

PARTISAN POLITICS ON BEAUTY

"I want to turn now to the so-called 'Highway Beautification Act of 1965,' which 

the Administration insists upon converting into a partisan political issue, despite 

the long tradition of the House Committee on Public Works to handle highway 

legislation on a bi-partisan basis. Why this is being done has never been 

explained."

"...When the first public hearings were held by the House Committee on Public 

Works on the President's highway beautification proposals in July of this year, it 

became obvious that there were a number of problems and unanswered 

questions and that the bills would have to be substantially revised in order to 

provide for a workable program. In view of this, it was the understanding of the 

Committee that action on the proposals would be deferred until early next year in 

order to give the members and the staff of the Committee an opportunity to fully 

explore the matter. Despite this understanding, a sudden and unexplained 

decision was made to reopen the hearings on the highway beautification bill in 

early September. From that time on, the subject was handled on a crash basis, 

with meetings scheduled both day and night and with the Republican Members 

being kept completely uninformed as to what arrangements and agreements 

were being made behind the scenes."

"The President of AASHO, Mr. M.L. Shadburn, and the Executive Secretary of 

AASHO, Mr. A.E. Johnson, appeared before the Committee and expressed 

support in principle for the President's program. I think most people favor a 

workable program to beautify our highways. Certainly most of the members of 

the Committee on Public Works, on both sides of the aisle, favor this. 

Nevertheless, I am satisfied that many people who support the program are 

simply not aware of the details of the President's proposal and the adverse 

impacts it will have."

He went to great lengths to point out the problems with the original bill and the 

problems that remained on passage:

"...In the Senate report on the bill, it is stated that:

'It is apparent from the testimony of the Administration and State highway officials 

that there is no clear and determinate knowledge regarding the impact of the 

proposed controls on the primary system.'"

"Aside from the fact that this is a recognition of the poorly conceived legislative 

proposals of the President, it highlights the fact that the financial burden of the 

States complying with the provisions of the Act may be substantial. In fact, I think 

it is entirely possible that some States, after estimating the cost of controlling 
outdoor advertising and junkyards as provided in the bill and maintaining such 

control in the years to come may decide that it is better from an economic 

standpoint to simply lose a portion of their Federal-aid highway funds."

"...I do not believe that the Secretary of Commerce should be given the kind of 

authority he is granted under this bill without more adequate guidelines and 

limitations."

CRITICAL OF THE ADMINISTRATION

"...The President has demonstrated his willingness to use Highway Trust Fund 

monies for purposes other than the construction of highways. He has done this 

by his original proposal to finance highway beautification out of the Trust Fund, 

and his proposal to divert one-third of the funds authorized for the secondary 

system for landscaping and to build 'scenic highways'- proposals which were 

rejected by the Congress despite extreme pressure from the White House. He 

has demonstrated his unwillingness to exercise aggressive leadership in 

providing additional Highway Trust Fund revenues so that the Interstate System 

can be completed on schedule. Despite the President's lack of action with regard 

to providing additional funds for the Interstate System, the Administration has 

submitted a legislative proposal to establish an additional trust fund to be known 

as 'the highway beautification trust fund.' This special trust fund would be 

supported by a portion of the Federal excise taxes on passenger automobiles 

and trailers, and I am informed that this source of revenue will produce between 

$190 and $200 million each year..."

"...As I stated at the outset, I am deeply and gravely concerned about the future 

of the Federal-aid highway program...The President's highway beautification 

proposals were put together by persons not expert in the field of highways, and 

without consultation with the State highway departments. The bill, as reported, 

violates the traditional State-Federal relationship in the Federal-aid highway 

program. Instead of the States initiating matters and submitting proposals to the 

Secretary for approval, under this bill the Secretary of Commerce will dictate to 

the States the steps which they will have to take to carry out his concept of 

highway beautification to avoid losing a substantial part of their Federal-aid 

highway funds."

"...Whether this bill passes or not may not be determinative of the future of the 

Federal-aid highway program. But I am fearful that it has already created an 

atmosphere, a direction, that may be seriously damaging to the program..."

Excerpts From the April, 1966 Issue of American Highways.

A.E. JOHNSON, Executive Secretary of AASHO.

The address was to the Mississippi Valley Conference of AASHO in Chicago. He 

covered a number of subjects:

BEAUTIFICATION

"The White House sponsorship is a very valuable asset that we must not waste, if 

we are to start on the monumental task of eliminating the growing ugliness along 

our Nation's highways. Many of you will remember that Federal-aid funds were 

made available for roadside beautification in the 1930's; however, that program 

was born out of a period of depression and when the funds available for 
highways were grossly inadequate and neither the public, nor the State highway 

departments, were ready for such a program."

"The present program does have the public support and is born out of a period of 

affluency and it does have an excellent chance of success. I am concerned, 

however, with certain aspects of it. As far as the beautification program is 

concerned, as it relates to the highway right-of-way, I think that the program will 

be very successful."

"...With regard to the beautification program outside the highway right-of-way 

lines, it is my opinion that practically everyone is going to be disappointed."

"Those who expect a miracle overnight are going to be disappointed, for the 

program is to be accomplished over a five-year period. For those who want signs 

along the highway, there will not be enough. For those who do not want any, 

there will be too many; and for those who expect all of the junk piles and all of the 

eyesores connected with industrial layouts to be eliminated are going to be 

disappointed, for many are permitted to remain."

"One of the worst weaknesses of the program is that there is nothing in the law, 

or in the program, with respect to the upkeep and appearance of premises 

adjacent to the highway. The objectives of the beautification program are 

meritorious and it is up to the State highway departments to overcome legal and 

other obstacles that stand in the way of it being successful..."

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

"...The following assumptions are the basis for the current proposal for a 

Department of Transportation in the Federal Government:

1. "That in the next 20 years, transportation will double, and in the next 34 

years, population will double and traffic will quadruple in the United 

States, and at that time 80% of our population will be residing in our 

urban centers."

2. "That highways cannot do the job, and it is time to take a revolutionary 

approach at planning a balanced transportation system and program, 

and a national transportation policy to set out the Federal Government's 

interest and participation in the matter of transportation."

"Under this concept, certain roles would be assigned to various transportation 

forms to create a balanced, integrated, efficient transportation system, and it 

appears that from the revolutionary approach, and not the evolutionary, that is 

being proposed, the matter of the public's desires or convenience may not be a 

dominant factor. On this basis, it would be a cold determination left up mainly to 

some transportation people from industry and universities, mainly with a 

background in regulated transportation forms or teaching careers."

"There have been some rumors and reports that have concerned highway people 

and these are as follows:"

1. "That there will no longer be highway programs, by themselves, but that 

the highway program will be a part of an overall transportation program, 

with an appropriate role assigned to highways and not a highway 

program based on highway needs studies as we know them."
2. "That transportation will be planned on the basis of the financial 

investment return criteria."

3. "That transportation funds will be pooled and will be used as various 

transportation forms might need them to fulfill their assigned roles in a 

national transportation policy."

4. "That highway officials are not going to have much to say about the 

future Federal-aid highway programs."

"We hope that these reports are not entirely correct, but we have heard them 

from several sources in various forms."

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

He described the Northeast Corridor program and some of the radical thinking 

and technology possibilities being considered there, including a tunnel from 

Washington to Boston as an example of what was in the wind.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

"The expected increase in population and transportation, the expansion of our 

metropolitan areas, and the research and development proposals for the 

Northeast Corridor, constitute the main motivation for the current White House 

proposal for a Department of Transportation in the Executive Branch of the 

Federal Government."

"This new Department would gather in the rather fragmented transportation 

interests and activities of the Federal Government which is now spread over 35 

different agencies and operations. It would make sense that such a Department 

should be given favorable consideration, however, too much latitude should not 

be left to the transportation planners within that Department, or to executive 

discretion."

"The Congress should continue to have the authority to approve and authorize 

programs that might be developed by such a Department."

RESERVATIONS

"There is some concern that the draft legislation would allow national 

transportation policies, systems and programs to be planned on the financial 

investment return concept without much thought to the public's desires as to 

mode of transportation or to the public convenience. They seem to take the 

approach we must go for efficiency and planned, integrated systems on a 

revolutionary basis, instead of allowing the public to solve these things on an 

evolutionary basis. It is assumed that time is too short to allow the public to make 

the decisions."

"It is the AASHO position that the proper role of highways in the balanced 

transportation system should be based on supported factual highway needs, and 

not on some administratively determined role, which might arbitrarily subordinate 

highways and divert highway revenues to artificially fertilize the growth of some 

other transportation form."
"It would appear also that in the transportation councils of the Department, 

outstanding highway Administrators should be included in the make-up of any 

advisory committees that might be used."

"It would also appear that because of the magnitude and importance of highway 

transportation, that the man who heads the Federal Bureau of Public Roads 

should have easy access to the Secretary of the Department without having to go 

through intermediate administrative levels, and that he should continue to be a 

Presidential appointee, and be an outstanding highway administrator-engineer 

who has a good background in, and knowledge of, the Federal-aid highway 

program, and who is well known to, and respected by, the State highway 

departments. We believe this is important because of the cooperative nature of 

the Federal-aid highway program."

"There seems to be a growing tendency that in cooperative programs there be 

more Federal Government influence in the planning and administering, even 

though they are still called a partnership venture. We want to be sure that such 

things are in perspective and the partnership does not become that of the 

'master' and the 'slave'."

"The reasons for more unilateral planning and the application of the 'big stick' 

penalty, such as the withholding of Federal funds in certain situations, are laid to 

alleged inconsistencies in the practices of the States' apathy or stubbornness, 

unresponsiveness to needs and changes, or that the States are in a rut or that 

pressure must be applied to change archaic practices and laws."

"We indeed have a mobile public in the United States in this day and time and it 

will continue to be more so. Indefensible inconsistencies from State to State in 

things that affect the public interest and irritate the public must be corrected at 

the State level or there will be more and more Federal influence exerted."

TRAFFIC SAFETY

He said that the highway fatality rate in 1925 was 17.5 per hundred million miles. 

It bottomed in 1962 at 5.2 and began to climb again. Why? He said that the 

highway departments were open to criticism in building unsafe signs and guard 

rail and so on but were beginning to see the light. He advocated much more 

research in driver behavior and training and enforcement and said that the 

highway departments must take the lead in that.

WHAT IS IN THE FUTURE?

"One of the major concerns of all State highway departments, at this time, is what 

will happen after the completion of the presently authorized Interstate highway 

program. There are some strongly supported proposals that the next highway 

program be another big Interstate program..."

TWO VIEWS

"There seems to be emerging two completely different philosophies on Capitol 

Hill as to what the future Federal program is to be. Both have powerful sponsors. 

One is that starting with the submission of the 1968 Highway Needs Report, that 

we should merge into and continue with a highway program without any 
interruption of any kind and that the program would be along the lines of the 

present operation with maybe some slight modifications."

"The other philosophy would be that the Federal Government exert more 

influence and do most of the planning with highway programs being developed 

on a regional basis, each customized to what might be determined as the major 

highway needs of the particular area, based on Congressional hearings and staff 

work aided by consultants."

"In other words, a highway program based on a series of regional programs 

similar to Appalachia..."

He encouraged the States to go all out in preparing the 68 needs report and 

outlined some of his own views of the future. He saw an increasing need for 

urban programs but not too many freeways. He saw a great future for joint 

development and even exclusive truckways. He saw a need for an urban primary 

system based on classification instead of merely extensions of the rural primary. 

He saw increased attention to off-street parking and to traffic control programs.

"It is hoped that the 1968 Congressional Report on highway needs and a 

recommended program will be one cooperatively developed by the Bureau of 

Public Roads and the State highway departments, and one that AASHO can 

jointly support with the National Administration, and I know of no reason why 

such cannot be the case."

"If, however, for any reason, we find that it cannot be done, the State highway 

departments, through AASHO, should prepare their own, and have no hesitancy 

in presenting it directly to Congress."

NOTE: AASHO presented its own reports and recommendations directly to the 

Congress beginning in 1967.

"...Give thought to the changing scene and the transportation transformation that 

is taking place...Above all, hold on to the proper role of the States in the highway 

program."

"This arrangement is unique in the United States, for in the rest of the world, 

most of the highways are under Federal control."

Excerpts From the October 1966 Issue of American Highways.

THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1966

The Act, approved Sept. 13, 1966, was printed in its entirety. It revised the 

authorizations for the Interstate System in line with the revised cost estimates.

For the first time, the Congress recognized that the Interstate would not be 

completed by 1972 by extending the completion date one year.

Highway Beautification was mentioned but it was made clear that Trust Fund 

monies were not available for paying for it.

THE HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT OF 1966
It was passed on Sept. 9, 1966.

THE NATIONAL TRAFFIC AND SAFETY ACT OF 1966

Passed on Sept. 9, 1966. It dealt with the motor vehicle Safety Standards, Tire 

Safety, Accident and Injury Research and Test Facility and the National Driver 

Register.

THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT

Passed on October 15, 1966.

EDITORIAL

"The State Highway Departments in Urban America"

This was a thoughtful piece on how the highway departments must learn to deal 

with the complexities of urban America. It reviewed the criticisms that had been 

leveled at the highway departments going back to the Hartford Conference in 

1957. It was at that conference that Lewis Mumford threw down the gauntlet that 

the urban Interstate should not be built unless and until it was derivative to 

comprehensive urban plans.

The editorial reviewed the Sagamore conference in 1958 and the 

recommendations that came out of that. It then moved to the Williamsburg 

Conference held in 1966 in which objectives and "Resolves" for the urban 

transportation planning process were spelled out.

The editorial was silent on the passage of the "3 C" planning process 

requirements in the 1962 Highway act and the deadline for its implementation in 

1965, which is surprising in view of the thoroughness of the review.

A NEW ROLE FOR HUD

"Recently (August 11, 1966) the President of the United States, by Executive 

Order, took action to give the initiative in insuring better coordination at the 

Federal level to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development."

"While the order does not alter the responsibilities of the several Federal 

agencies or the State highway departments, it does fix the responsibility of taking 

the initiative in coordinating Federal programs in urban areas."

"The State highway departments must not allow any of their urban 

responsibilities to become a void to be filled by the next higher level of 

government or for a clamor to arise that a city-Federal arrangement take over 

State highway responsibilities in urban areas."

Though not said, there was concern that the new Federal DOT, the new HUD, 

and the Administration would use the plethora of new legislation just passed to 

drastically alter the Federal-State partnership.

Excerpts From the January, 1967 Issue of American Highways-The Record of the 52nd 

Annual Meeting Held on 11/29/66.
C.E.SHUMATE, Col., The President's Address.

PROGRAM CUTBACKS

"...We are all cognizant of the serious financial problems present in the progress 

of the Interstate System."

"While not totally unexpected, the cut-back a few days ago in the Federal fund 

apportionment to the States most certainly will have a serious effect on the 

nation's highway planning and development."

"We, as highway officials, are fully aware of the tremendous financial demands 

being placed on the Federal budget by the Viet Nam conflict and other 

obligations. We are also fully cognizant of the apparent need to slow down our 

so-called 'overheated economy'."

URBAN HIGHWAY CONGESTION

"...The results of studies now under way, or completed in practically all the 

States, are pointing out even more forcibly than before, the major need for 

expanded and new highway transport facilities in our urban areas."

"...The subject of mass transit is one which is being given serious consideration 

in many areas of the United States."

"Your Association has never voiced opposition to mass transit, whether it be by 

surface rail, subway or rubber tire on the street and highway system."

"In fact, in many areas of our country the individual States are working closely in 

cooperation with others in an attempt to coordinate the various forms of transit. 

Your Association supports this cooperative effort to the utmost."

"We do feel, however, that any form of transport should stand on its own merits 

and capabilities. We do not believe that the highway users who pay for the 

construction and maintenance of the highways of the nation should be called 

upon to support other modes of transportation."

THE U.S. DOT

"...In the closing days of the last Congress the Cabinet Post of Transportation 

was adopted."

"In the hearings before the committee your Association supported the creation of 

the Department of Transportation..."

"We did, however, vigorously oppose one provision of the original legislation 

creating the Department..."

"As we understood, this particular provision...the highway user taxes collected at 

the Federal level could have been placed in serious jeopardy."
"Our interpretation of this particular section of the Bill indicated that it would have 

been possible for an administrative decision to be made which would permit 

those Federal user taxes to be diverted to those forms of transportation other 

than streets and highways."

"...Another phase of the proposed transportation bill with which we were 

concerned was that which dealt with the status of the Bureau of Public Roads in 

the new Department."

"We pointed out that the 45-year State and Federal partnership which had 

created the greatest highway system in the world was still a viable progressive 

partnership and should not be altered."

"A review of the recently published staffing pattern of the new Department of 

Transportation indicates that our recommendations were accepted..."

ALAN S. BOYD, Under Secretary of Commerce.

THE NEW DOT

"...the Department will bring together most of the scattered Federal agencies 

which have been dealing for years with various aspects of transportation on a 

compartmented basis. The Department's creation reflects an awareness 

throughout the government, the industry and the Nation that our transportation 

problems have outgrown the fragmented approach which we have relied upon in 

the past. While the program-oriented organization has given us some remarkable 

accomplishments when viewed primarily from a modal standpoint, it clearly has 

failed organizationally, administratively and from the program standpoint to 

develop the kind of systems approach to transportation that our future needs 

demand."

"...As you know, the Federal Highway Administration will include the Bureau of 

Public Roads and the newly created National Highway Safety Agency, which was 

recently established...The inclusion of the traffic safety program in the Federal 

Highway Administration represents a reorganization to accommodate expanded 

highway functions and new responsibilities, somewhat similar to the creation of 

the Office of Highway Safety in the Bureau of Public Roads a few years ago."

THE DUTIES

"...It will...be the duty of the Department to study transportation systems, develop 

new information and knowledge, and make recommendations to the Congress. In 

this task, as I have indicated, the Department must take the broad view. It must 

think beyond the narrow limits of a particular mode and focus the efforts of all 

interests on our common goals, which are greater efficiency and economy in 

transportation generally and coordination of entire transportation systems- and all 

this within the context of economic and social policies."

"...The Federal-aid highway program is characterized by:

1. its dedication to the continuous, systematic improvement of the highway 

plant;
2. its well-established tradition of Federal-State cooperation in 

administering an aid program;

3. its reliance on user charges to finance the Federal investment; and

4. its responsiveness to change, both technological and social."

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS PIONEERED IN PLANNING

"...One of the outstanding contributions of the highway program has been its 

pioneer work in the field of transportation planning..."

"...This early effort paved the way for the planning and now the construction of 

the Interstate Highway System. Later it led to the establishment of the urban 

transportation planning process in some 230 urban areas...Certainly, never 

before have...elected officials been brought face to face with planning. And since 

the very first step in the planning process is the determination or estimate of 

future land use in each individual community, the requirement for joint planning 

for transportation is bound to have a far-reaching effect on general planning in 

metropolitan areas, since land use is the basis of all planning."

"Now, drawing on these years of highway planning experience, we are going to 

undertake the planning of our total transportation system. This is really the heart 

of the Department of Transportation program."

"...Within the past week you have been informed by the Bureau of Public Roads 

that the Federal-aid highway program is being limited to $3.3 billion in total 

project obligations during fiscal year 1967. This is $700 million less than the 

nearly $4 billion obligated in fiscal '66."

"...I would remind you that inflation is a very real problem for State highway 

departments, and each of you has a stake in holding it in check..."

REP. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Ill., Chairman, Subcommittee on Roads.

The speech was delivered by Mrs. Audry Warren, Staff, House Committee on 

Public Works.

OUR PRIORITIES

"...I am worried about the validity of our priorities as a nation..."

"...We have several major policy problems to deal with in the coming two 

years...There will be review of the proposed regulations under the Highway 

Beautification Act...The handling of relocation problems...If we fail to act wisely 

and affirmatively on this problem, we could very well doom highway constructionand a balanced transportation system-in our dense urban centers. There is the 

urgent need to arrive at an early and reasonable method of financing advance 

acquisition of rights of way. One way or another we must resolve the problems 

arising from our toll roads and bridges. There are safety, future highway 

programming, and the multiple problems of the cities."

"...All of these programs are important, and all of them demand your immediate 

and continuing attention. I would like to discuss, particularly, three of them, 

safety, future highway programming, and the cities."
SAFETY

"...It is, I know, a great temptation to put as much money as possible into some 

aspect of the safety program that, from a publicity standpoint, will 'look good' 

immediately. It's an enticing trap. Please don't fall into it. Build first and with all 

possible speed the tool we need the most- an accident reporting system that will 

tell you what's really happening out there, and how, and why. Then you will be 

able the more rapidly to do something about it."

FUTURE HIGHWAY PROGRAMS

"...About a year from now the Public Works Committee expects to receive your 

recommendations on highway needs for the future. In making those 

recommendations, I would ask you to bear in mind that from conception to 

completion, it will have taken us 34 years to get the Interstate System, 17 years 

to get it approved and 17 more, at least, to build it..."

"No matter how hard we work, there will be some lag between the time you 

submit your report and the time a program is approved. Thus, it is all the more 

important that the 1968 report be a truly comprehensive presentation of what it 

will take to serve potential new areas, older areas where we must be prepared to 

reconstruct thousands of miles to safe and more useful standards..., and urban 

areas where we must...solve the problems of what highways and where, but at 

the same time...relocation, housing, congestion, and coordinated transport. 

Repeatedly we in the Congress have heard rumblings that the 1968 report is 

going to be superficial; words to meet the deadline and not much more. As the 

Chairman of the Subcommittee which will receive that report, let me suggest that 

if the rumors are true, 1968 may turn out to be an unusually interesting year, 

because as far as I am concerned, if we can't get the kind of report we need 

through the present processes, we may very well undertake to get it ourselves, 

State by State, city by city, in Room 2167 in the Rayburn Building."

"In arriving at your report on highway needs, you have an excellent opportunity to 

put comprehensive planning into action. The cities and counties must inevitably 

become truly active members of our Federal-State partnership in highway 

planning and construction. Now is certainly the time to bring them fully in, if they 

aren't already there. And that brings me to the problem of the cities."

CITIES

"You have been urged to become more and more directly involved in 

comprehensive community planning, and you have certainly done so...Books and 

magazine articles and studies and committees and commissions are pouring 

forth floods...We are impressed with 'in depth analysis,' and...I'm beginning to 

feel that the only deep thing we get from it is deep stacks of paper...no given plan 

is ever put into action...Communication is a very desirable thing, but there does 

come a time when talk must end and action begin...As regards the cities, right 

now we seem to be in the continuing process of talking it to death."

"I have lived all my life in a great city. Living in the city has been and can still be 

exciting, but at the rate we are going, the excitement will shortly become hysteria. 

We cannot go on stacking more and more human beings on top of each other in 

ever more compressed city areas. If we do, they will eventually cease to be 

human beings, simply because it will be physically and financially impossible to 
provide them with the facilities and services and protections that are essential to 

civilized living."

"I have become convinced that in trying to deal with the problems of the cities we 

have persistently started from the false premise that there is something sacred 

about the city structure, particularly the so-called inner city structure, that it must 

not only be sustained but that it must keep growing to ever greater and greater 

heights-heights of buildings, heights of numbers of people, heights of industry, 

heights of profit, heights of culture. If there is anything to be had, apparently the 

inner city must have it, in large quantities. As a consequence, we are expending 

mammoth amounts of time and energy and money trying to find ways to make 

these masses of men and material habitable, beautiful, mobile, profitable, 

workable, and controllable. We wind up talking wistfully about a scientifically 

created automated life."

SKEPTICAL

"...Americans aren't going to allow themselves to be trapped indefinitely in 

increasingly congested, noisy, strangling, ill-serviced cities, and they aren't going 

to allow anyone to turn them into robots who move around when and where and 

how they're told, and they aren't going to give up their cars. We would be foolish 

to expect it, and even more foolish to want it. So let's talk about realities, about 

people and space for people and development of the space."

"It makes no sense to me that most of our population growth now takes place in 

20 metropolitan areas which occupy only 1.4 percent of the nation's land. Our 

problem is not how to jam more people into the cities; it actually is how to get 

some of the people out of them. There is plenty of space for development in this 

country. The critical factor in bringing about its rational use is a diversified 

transportation system that will link new areas to the older areas with speed and 

comfort and convenience."

"In the long run, I believe the old inner cities would benefit from such an 

approach. They have assets it would take decades to duplicate in newer 

communities, if it could be done at all. They are already industrial, transport and 

cultural centers, so the newer communities will always be dependent upon them. 

But they will have to learn to be content with the amount of industry they can 

handle on a tenable basis, and a population that can live with some measure of 

decency and safety."

WHAT MUST BE DONE

"How will they learn? The States will have to teach them. The State governments 

will have to use the legal powers they have and the strength available to them, or 

abdicate both the power and the strength to the cities and to regional coalitions of 

counties."

"State industrial development boards, instead of trying to entice more and more 

new industry into the cities, will have to start concentrating on rebuilding only so 

much as the city can reasonably handle, and putting the new industry into the 

other 98 percent of the countryside, where there is room to build the plants, and 

the homes, and the schools, and the service industries and facilities, and where 

the quantities won't be so unmanageable that the financial structure can't 
possibly support the policemen and teachers and firemen and hospitals and 

other service and protection systems that our people must have."

"...Central city planners will have to accept the fact that all their face-lifting will be 

in vain unless they come to agreement on a transport system sufficiently varied 

to be acceptable to the people whose talent, labor and money they seek."

"Highway planners will have to be transportation planners, accepting the fact that 

meeting our transportation needs can no longer be accomplished only by building 

more and more miles of running space for cars. We will need that, but we will 

also need specially constructed running space exclusively for specially designed 

express bus systems, sometimes covering fairly long runs. We will need subway 

or other transit systems, dovetailed with our traditional highway systems and bus 

systems. We will need parking facilities at terminal points along the way and in 

the inner city areas. And we must plan to have adequate highways when the new 

communities are developed, not ten years later when the agonies of relocation 

are already built in."

URBAN RESPONSIBILITIES MUST REST WITH STATES

"It is with the State governments that responsibility must rest, for it is in the hands 

of the State governments that the unfragmented power to act resides. I think we 

have the laws on the books and the decisions from the courts to make this 

approach feasible. Virtually every power that local government has, it derives 

from the State. If scattered local power will not come together voluntarily, State 

power will have to bring it together. Not sometime in the future, after we've talked 

away some more years, and spent our substance on too many projects directed 

more to drama and history than to people, but now."

"And therein lies the question of our national priorities. If the States, acting in 

concert with their local government units, must grasp the reins of decision and 

action, then the Federal Government, which reaps the lion's share of the taxes, 

must invest the lion's share of the cost."

"...I do believe that it ill becomes us to pronounce the urgency of programs for the 

rehabilitation of our cities, or the expansion of our educational systems, or 

highway safety or good road construction, or water pollution control, or air 

pollution control, and then proceed to finance those vital programs with so little 

actual money that nothing constructive can possibly be accomplished."

WE MUST MAKE CHOICES

"Obviously, we cannot finance everything and everyone everywhere at the same 

time. If our military and our international positions preclude our financing much of 

anything at home, then let us say so clearly and without equivocation. The 

American people never have failed to meet that situation before, and there is no 

reason to doubt our willingness and ability to do so now."

"But if our position permits us to make choices, then surely we should have the 

courage to make them in the greater long-term public interest at every level of 

government. If we do, it seems to me the possibilities for individual and collective 

enrichment all across this land are almost endless. If we don't, our descendents 

will probably conclude that while we may have been geniuses, we were also 

cowards."
THE AFTER 72 REPORT

"To the end that we may not be so regarded, I hope that you will sustain and 

expand the best in your long and splendid record of highway development. I 

hope you will be first, if necessary, to insist that plans for future development in 

your State represents a synthesis of the expert views from the many disciplines 

which today's problems demand. And in submitting your recommendations to the 

Congress, I hope you will bring us an uncompromised report. If we have the 

advantage of starting from a base that represents your best, we will have a much 

better chance of ultimately getting both good programs and the money to back 

them up."

REX M. WHITTON, Federal Highway Administrator.

He spoke about the tremendous changes to the highway program just during his 

tenure as being far more than the rest of the 50 years of the program combined. 

He then looked ahead with the admonition that "you ain't seen nothin yet". He 

stressed the urban transportation problems, joint development, and traffic 

management strategies. He predicted expansion of the urban primary and 

express bus programs. He stressed that something would have to be done to 

provide assistance for off-street parking to successfully deal with the urban 

problem. He gave no hint of his impending resignation.

RESIGNATION OF WHITTON, Dec. 30, 1966.

BRIDWELL APPOINTED FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR BY LBJ 1/17/67.

F.C. TURNER NOMINATED TO BE DIRECTOR OF BPR 1/17/67.

Excerpts From the January 1968 Issue of American Highways-The Record of the 53rd 

Annual Meeting- Oct.16,1967.

E.M. JOHNSON, Miss.,The President's Annual Address.

CONGRESS' VIEW OF THE PARTNERSHIP IN 1915

"...It seems appropriate at this point to review some of the original concepts of 

Federal Aid for highways. Excerpts from a document of the 63rd Congress, 

House of Representatives, entitled, 'Federal Aid to Good Roads-Report of the 

Joint Committee on Federal Aid in the Construction of Post Roads' dated January 

21, 1915, ably express the concerns and goals of the Congress as follows:

'Federal aid to good roads will accomplish several of the objects indicated by the 

framers of the Constitution-establish post roads, regulate commerce, provide for 

the common defense, and promote the general welfare. Above all, it will promote 

the general welfare.'

'Systematic efforts and cooperation of Nation, States and counties will make 

American highways the best in the world, bring remote agricultural lands within 

practicable hauling distance from railroads, materially raise the value of farm 

property, enhance the margin of profit on farm products, vastly increase the 

average standard of rural education, make the motor truck an economical vehicle 

for American farmers, lighten the labors of American horses, save wear and tear 

on harness and wagons, and add to the comfort and happiness of all rural 

residents.'

'That Congress should avoid criticism of the character above mentioned is no 

more important than that it should make careful provision for such administration 
of the Federal Highway participation as will protect the several States in their 

right to control their local highway affairs and guard against dictatorship from a 

Federal bureau in Washington.'

'To make State highway commissions or State highway engineers subservient to 

a Federal bureau would be disastrous. It would stifle initiative, discourage original 

research, and cause all State highway officials to await the action of the Federal 

authority.'

'Instead of establishing one Federal bureau with all others subservient to it we 

should encourage the highway commission of each State to surpass, if possible, 

the Federal bureau itself in the efficiency of its work and the excellence of its 

accomplishments. The desideratum is cooperation between the highway officials 

of the several States and of the Federal Government and not subserviency of 

one to the other.'

The rest of his speech was essentially viewing with alarm the recent highway 

legislation dealing with everything from safety to beautification and the formation 

of DOT.

SEN. JENNINGS RANDOLPH, W. Va., Chairman, Public Works Committee.

THE VIEWS OF CONGRESS IN 1956

"...When the program to construct the National System of Interstate and Defense 

Highways was enacted in 1956, Congress enunciated the following policy: 'It is 

hereby declared that the prompt and early completion of the National System of 

Interstate and Defense Highways,..., is essential to the national interest and is 

one of the most important objectives of this Act. It is the intent of Congress that 

the Interstate System be completed as nearly as practicable over the period of 

availability of the thirteen years' appropriations authorized..., and that the entire 

System in all States be brought to simultaneous completion. Insofar as possible 

in consonance with this objective, existing highways located on an interstate 

route shall be used to the extent that such use is practicable, suitable, and 

feasible, it being the intent that local needs, to the extent practicable, suitable, 

and feasible, shall be given equal consideration with the needs of interstate 

commerce.'"

"A number of goals are clearly stated in this policy declaration but as the program 

has progressed, it has become apparent that they are not necessarily 

compatible. I believe that by and large Federal and State officials have done their 

best to accommodate these sometimes conflicting objectives."

"For example, the 'prompt and early completion' of the system is receding farther 

and farther over the horizon. I remind you only for the purpose of setting the 

context, that as originally envisioned, this program was to be completed at a cost 

of $27 billion. We now know that the program will cost in the neighborhood of $50 

billion. While we expected that the work would be accomplished over a 13-year 

period, evidence now points to a construction period more closely approximating 

18 or 19 years."

THE GREATEST PROBLEM
"The policy declaration which has caused the greatest problems, however, is the 

requirement that insofar as possible local needs be given equal consideration."

"The urban portions of the Interstate System are a vital link in our national 

network...however, these segments which represent one-half of the effort as far 

as money is concerned and one-half of the traffic expected to be carried, 

comprise only 15% of the total miles. Judging from the news stories and editorial 

comments concerning the controversy surrounding the urban portions of the 

Interstate System, they seem to represent far more than their share of the 

unhappiness caused by the implementation of the program."

THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL'S VIEW

"On August 24, 1967, the Comptroller General of the United States filed a report 

with the Congress dealing with the Interstate Highway Program in major 

metropolitan areas. The first paragraph of his covering letter states, 'As the 

accompanying report on our examination discloses, timely and economical 

completion of the Interstate Highway System may be hindered by unresolved 

route location and design problems for segments in major metropolitan areas.' 

Comptroller General Staats goes on to say that the cause of this situation stems 

from an inability of Federal, State and local officials to reach agreement on 

suitable specific route locations or design features."

"We are all aware of the outspoken opposition to highway locations which has 

been encountered in connection with various urban segments of the Interstate 

System."

THE IMPORTANCE OF LOCAL VIEWS

"The Senate Committee on Public Works is very much concerned that such 

opposition, much of which may well be justified, will create an intolerable 

situation and cause the failure of this important public works program. The 

importance of giving consideration to local views on highway location has been 

recognized by the Congress. The Congress has enacted provisions of Title 23 

designed to enable communities affected by highway construction to give voice 

to their views. Section 128 requires a public hearing for any Federal-aid highway 

project involving the bypassing of or the going- through any city, town or village. 

Section 134, enacted in 1962, requires the development of continuing 

comprehensive transportation planning carried on cooperatively by State and 

local communities."

IS THE SPIRIT BEING FOLLOWED?

"Federal approval of projects is conditioned on each of these requirements being 

met. While I have no doubt that those responsible for administering our highway 

program have lived up to the letter of the law, there exists serious doubt that the 

spirit of these provisions has been given its due regard."

"...Our Nation is not the same demographically as it was in 1947 when the 

system was first begun. It is not even close to what it was in 1956 when the 

program was accelerated. The most profound social and economic changes that 

our Country has experienced in the past 100 years have taken place in the last 

two decades. Our economy today has soared beyond the expectation of the most 

optimistic post World War II forecasters. These changes have had their effect 
and their impact on the highway program. We have been subjected to substantial 

increases in the cost of construction. The competition for materials and men and 

money from other public programs and from private efforts has intensified. But 

most importantly, we have only recently come to the full awareness of the impact 

of highways themselves."

HIGHWAYS ARE A CATALYST

"The highway is a catalyst, changing all it touches. This is true in rural America 

as well as urban America, but the urban highway, by reason of the density of the 

population and the concentration of economic and social values, has a far 

greater effect on the environment of the city."

"We have reached that point in time when we must carefully examine the 

processes of highway planning to insure that meaningful account is taken of the 

social, economic, ecologic, demographic and other factors which constitute the 

total environment and life of the city."

"Following the urban riots this summer, investigators seeking the why's and 

wherefore's of these great catastrophes found that highway construction in the 

core city was a serious point of complaint. Among those factors which most 

disturb the residents of the ghetto are urban renewal and freeway construction. 

The highway portion of this complaint must in part relate to the method by which 

the public hearings requirement of Section 128 has been met. It must also, of 

necessity, relate to the way in which the comprehensive transportation planning 

provision of Section 134 has been implemented. Again, without ascribing fault, it 

is time to review how projects are being done and why they are being done that 

way. We must know if we are really affording people the opportunity to be heard 

and have their views considered or whether we are merely going through the 

motions of listening to their complaints, comments, and criticisms. It is their city 

through which the highway is to be built. The full range of their interests must be 

understood and served if we are to give local needs the equal consideration 

which the law requires."

GREATER LOCAL INVOLVEMENT IS NECESSARY

"...It is more and more apparent that greater local involvement in decision making 

is necessary, that local officials must assume their share of the burden."

"...we are faced with the necessity at this time of reexamining our approach to the 

highway's impact on urban growth and its stake in urban planning and urban 

transportation policy."

HEARINGS TO BE HELD

"To this end, the Committee on Public Works will open a series of policy review 

hearings during the month of November. Starting on Tuesday, November 14, we 

will begin a general investigation relating to the opportunity and problems of 

highway transportation in urban areas."

"...One of the questions which must be examined is the adequacy of existing 

Federal-aid requirements..."
He stressed that the urban planning process would be carefully investigated.

REP. GEORGE H. FALLON, Md. Chairman, Public Works Committee.

AASHO REPORTS TO CONGRESS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION

"...AASHO's Special Committee on a Continuing Highway Program appeared 

before the House Public Works Committee on June 7 to present its preliminary 

report to us. This presentation was made in executive session, but the material 

presented was of such great interest that we agreed that the hearing record 

should be published and made a matter of public information. I assume that all of 

you are familiar with the preliminary report and that many of you have read the 

House Committee Hearing Record, which includes the questioning and colloquy."

"...As you know, the Administration's report on future highway needs is 

scheduled for submission to Congress in January."

"...Spokesmen for the Department of Transportation have stated repeatedly that 

we must have a continuing highway program at least as large as the present 

program for at least the next 20 years in order to keep pace with the growing 

demands of highway traffic in this country."

PUZZLED BY THE CUTBACKS

"...This brings us directly to the puzzle of the cutback."

"...It is very hard for me to understand how we can consider a proposal to reduce 

the highway program by one-half, or even by 25 percent..."

"...Last November, you will recall, the announcement of the cutback made 

prominent reference to the war in Vietnam and the importance of deferring 

domestic programs which might detract from our effectiveness there. There was 

also a reference to inflationary pressures in the economy which might be reduced 

by deferring some Federal spending programs."

INFLATION

"...Then, at last the Administration's position emerged. It became evident that the 

cutback was made (and here I quote the statement of the Federal Highway 

Administrator) 'for the purpose of reducing inflationary pressures at a time when 

there was virtually full employment, when construction equipment purchase 

prices were at an all time high and rising, when the average number of 

contractors was decreasing, and finally, at a time when the construction price 

index for highway construction work had increased at an abnormal rate for three 

successive quarters.'"

"It was related, in other words, to an Administration finding that there had been 

abnormal inflation in the highway construction industry over a nine-month period. 

The relationship to the total economic picture and the military situation in Vietnam 

was quite indirect."

He thought the Administration was quite discriminatory in singling out the 

highway program for cutbacks.
BOYD ASKS THE GOVERNORS

"...In his October 8 telegram to the Governors of the 50 States, Secretary Boyd 

said, 'It is my desire to receive from you as rapidly as possible your comments as 

to the impact this will have upon the programs of your State as well as on your 

economy.'"

"...I assume that all of the State highway departments have consulted with their 

respective Governors and have provided information on the impact of a cutback. 

If you have not done so, you should do so at once..."

REP. JOHN C. KLUCZYNSKI, Ill., Chairman, Subcommittee on Roads.

A FREEZE

"...Last year we were facing a 'freeze' on highway funds when you met. This year 

we're facing the prospect of one. We've been told this year's proposed ceiling is 

to meet the Congressional demands for economy, so that the federal deficit will 

be less. It makes great newspaper copy, but the plain fact is that cutting highway 

construction funds won't improve the federal deficit situation by a single dime."

"We are also told, as we were told last year, that this proposed ceiling is to 

combat inflation. I have some doubts about how effective it is likely to be on a 

short term basis, and I am sure that over the long haul, it would be pretty poor 

business..."

ILLEGAL

"...It is also my personal opinion, for whatever it's worth, that these freezes, 

ceilings, or whatever, are illegal. The law says quite clearly that these funds shall 

be made available to the States. It doesn't seem ambiguous or discretionary to 

me, and it never has."

HEARINGS ON FUTURE HIGHWAY NEEDS

"...You will recall that in my message last year I said that if the official highway 

needs study report wasn't going to be adequate, the Subcommittee on Roads 

would get the information it needs direct from you. I am confident that I am not 

being in the least premature in announcing now, so that everybody will have 

plenty of time to get ready, that as early as possible in January, the committee 

will begin full-scale hearings on what the future highway needs are going to be, 

on what's creating all the trouble with the highway programs in the cities and 

what can be done about it, on relocation policies, on corridor development, and 

what it's all going to cost and where the money is going to come from..."

Excerpts From the October 1968 Issue of American Highways.

AASHO REPORTS TO CONGRESS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION IN 67

The complete title was "A Preliminary Presentation of the AASHO Special 

Committee for Planning a Continuing Federal-Aid Highway Program-1967."

"Before the Senate Public Works Committee June 5, 1967-Before the House 

Public Works Committee June 7, 1967."
This activity was carried out in secrecy. There was no indication that this activity 

was going on within AASHO and the presentation here documented was made in 

executive session in the Congress in 1967, over a year before being published in 

American Highways. The reason for the direct reporting to Congress was 

undoubtedly attributable to the uncertainty of both AASHO and the 

Congressional committees as to whether the new Department of Transportation 

would reliably represent the AASHO point of view and policies. Two reports were 

documented in this same issue of American Highways, the first was given to the 

Congress in 1967 and the second, labeled a progress report, in 1968. The 

proposals were for a post- Interstate program:

"Three years ago it was decided by the American Association of State Highway 

Officials that it was a proper time to give serious consideration to developing a 

continuing Federal-aid program recommendation for the consideration of the 

Congress, if the Congress was to have adequate time to consider the matter and 

to take action in time to assure continuity in highway development without 

interruption."

It is clear that the biggest problem on the AASHO members minds was to insure

that the highway program continue at the current or greater level without 

interruption after completion of the Interstate and that was the principal reason 

for the report. That theme recurs throughout.

"We believe that it is academic and indisputable that highway improvement and 

the role of highways in any so-called balanced total transportation system must 

be based on documented highway needs and upon the public's desires in regard 

to transportation."

"We do not believe that highway development can be based on some arbitrarily 

assigned role of highways in relation to total transportation as developed solely 

by a theoretical financial investment return concept which would artificially retard 

highway transportation and artificially fertilize other modes." This statement was 

obviously an expression of apprehension about rumors of how the new Federal 

DOT would operate when it was formed. They noted that AASHO had embarked 

on a $285,000 research program to sample all levels of society and the economy 

to find out what the public preferences were. The research was being done 

through the Highway Research Board (the NCHRP program).

CONCERN ABOUT THE NEW U.S. DOT

"...Under the new Department of Transportation, it is not clear to us exactly in 

what manner Federal highway program recommendations are to be developed, 

or whether or not the State highway department officials will be consulted or be 

asked to serve in an advisory capacity."

"At the present time, it appears that the State highway departments will not be 

asked to work with the Federal officials; in fact, we are concerned that the job is 

apparently in the hands of non-highway policy people and that the experienced 

highway people in the Federal Government will be in more the operating role 

than in policy and planning."

"We have some concern that the concept of pooling transportation funds may be 

involved."
DISTRUST OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO SPEAK FOR THEM

"It would appear, therefore, that in all probability two different highway program 

recommendations will be coming to the Congress. This could be beneficial, 

inasmuch as you would have two separate viewpoints for consideration in 

developing the next program."

"...It is our opinion that the Federal Government should continue its highway 

activities, which is the expression of the Federal interest in highway 

transportation, in the form of Federal-aid to the States. The program must 

continue to be handled in the same cooperative manner that has been so 

outstandingly productive for the past 50 years."

They noted that they had been working on the project internally for three years. 

"Before we are completed with our assignment, we expect to consult with an 

advisory committee made up of officials of local governments as well as an 

advisory committee made up of appropriate highway user and industry 

representatives, who can give completely objective and constructive advice to 

us."

"After today's appearance, it is our plan to report to you early in 1968, on the 

public preference research project, and to bring to you, in more complete form, 

our thinking on the next highway program."

"Early in 1969, we hope to bring to you our final package for your 

consideration..."

"...From analysis of the States' questionnaires and the needs brochures 

(individual State reports), it appears that there is need to add some modest 

mileage to the present Interstate System and to upgrade some of the sections of 

that system."

GREATEST NEEDS ARE IN URBAN AREAS

"However, the greatest needs of the next program are brought on by the 

continuing urbanization of our cities and expanding suburbia..."

"...Inasmuch as funds are not currently in sight to complete the Interstate 

program by June 30, 1973, the only logical assumption is that the program will be 

completed by a stretchout of the Trust Fund and its financing." This was the first 

real admission that the Interstate would not be finished as scheduled.

"...Based on an analysis of the States' questionnaires and other pertinent 

information and a review of the possible financing during the 1975 to 1984, 

inclusive, ten-year period, the committee has developed a tentative and 

preliminary program outline, based on current information and thinking."

WILL REPORT EVERY TWO YEARS

"The State highway departments feel that they would like to have some 

congressional statement of intent that the 10-year program will be a continuous 

one. However, they would like to make periodic progress reports to the Congress 

and justify continuing authorization on a biennial basis."
THE PROPOSALS

Their tentative proposal was a $54 billion program (Federal share) for the ten 

years ending in 1984. The State matching was $18 billion. The ABC match would 

be 1/3 State and 2/3 Federal. They spoke of the rapidly rising Federal 

requirements and threats of penalties. "If the threat of penalties continues and 

more complications are introduced, it might cause a reappraisal of the desirability 

of Federal aid in our highway programs, especially in some of our larger States."

The proposal called for the continuation of the Trust Fund, transfer of the Forest 

Highway and Public Lands program to the Trust Fund, ten percent of the 

program to be devoted to limited additions to the Interstate at 90-10, a new urban 

system to be selected cooperatively by the States and the urban areas involved 

funded at 30 percent of the program, 40 percent to go to the Primary System, 20 

percent to the Secondary System.

THE SECOND REPORT

A Progress Report was also published in the same October 1968 Issue that was 

presented to the Congress in June 1968 and labeled the 'After 75 Program'. 

AASHO noted that two advisory committees had been formed. They were the 

Local Governments Advisory Committee and the Industry and Users Advisory 

Committee.

"We have decided that the completion of the presently designated Interstate 

program is not so imminent that final action must be taken by Congress this year, 

so, therefore, this presentation is a progress report which makes some definite 

recommendations that will be constructive and reflects the thinking of the State 

highway administrators and lays the groundwork for action by your Committee 

next year."

AASHO ASKS FOR STUDIES TO BE DIRECTED

"...We would like for you to direct the Federal Highway Administration, and/or its 

Bureau of Public Roads, in cooperation with the State highway departments, and 

with appropriate discussions with local government officials, to make certain 

studies and recommendations and report back to the Public Works Committees 

no later than January 15, 1969."

"We refer particularly to apportioning formulas for the Federal-aid Primary and 

Federal-aid Secondary Systems, a functional classification and redesignation of 

the existing Federal-aid Primary and Federal-aid Secondary Systems, and an 

agreement on those areas that should be reserved for the Federal Government, 

and those that should be the responsibilities of the State highway departments in 

administering a Continuing Federal-aid Highway Program, if the partnership 

concept of the joint venture highway program is to survive."

COMPLETION SLIPS ANOTHER THREE YEARS

"...With the new and increased 1968 Interstate Needs Estimate complicating 

matters further (than the uncertainties already existing), coupled with the 

uncertainty that has been injected into the program by cutbacks, it appears that 

the presently designated Interstate program will not be completed prior to 1978, 
unless substantial amounts of additional moneys might be added to the Highway 

Trust Fund, which we think is highly unlikely."

A very sophisticated report was presented, replete with charts and artists 

renderings and statistical presentations.

"There are many contemporary philosophies regarding total transportation and 

the role of highways in that total transportation picture. One of the major ones is 

that transportation policies, systems and programs be developed on the basis of 

'cost effectiveness' or the 'investment return concept' with the dollar sign being 

the major ingredient in such an approach."

A PUBLIC POLL CONDUCTED

"...AASHO established a research project in its National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program...The purpose...was to get factual data regarding the public's 

preferences as to transportation and to determine those factors that mold these 

preferences, such as various types of land use, population, densities, availability 

of other transportation modes, income, size of family, etc."

"...In designing the interview questionnaire, the investigators purposely 

introduced some anti-highway questions in order to bring out the opinions of the 

persons interviewed if they had any subconscious criticisms of highways, motor 

vehicles, or the highway program."

"...From the results of the research, it indicates the continued popularity and need 

for adequate highway transportation. It established highway transportation as a 

universal and basic transportation form throughout the United States, both in 

rural and in urban centers, even the most densely populated ones."

"...The research study established beyond a doubt that there is no reason for 

combining transportation programs, nor for pooling transportation financing. 

Appropriate and completely adequate coordination of the various modes, that 

might be involved, can be accomplished through the Cooperative Continuing 

Planning Process, and through the administration and operation of the 

transportation facilities involved."

"It is established beyond any doubt that the Federal-aid highway program can 

continue as a separate and major public works program and that other major 

transportation programs involve a relatively few areas of the most densely 

populated States."

A summary was given of the responses to the questionnaires. Also, a summary 

report by NCHRP was appended.

AASHO RECOMMENDS REPLACEMENT HOUSING

In addition, a very detailed AASHO report was also appended justifying the 

recommendations already given in detail. Some additional recommendations 

were for a program for replacement housing and relocation without specification 

as to amount or how it would be administered and an advanced acquisition of 

right-of-way program funded by a $100 million revolving fund. They endorsed 

programs for fringe and downtown off-street parking but stopped short of 
advocating the use of the Trust Fund to pay for them. The report emphasized 

throughout that the "3C Planning Process" was the vehicle for working out all the 

urban problems. Also recommended was a provision for allowing segments of 

the Primary System that were upgraded to Interstate Standards and connected 

logically to the Interstate System to be signed Interstate.

THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1968

MANY NEW PROGRAMS

The Act revised the Interstate authorizations through 1975, provided $20 million 

from the general fund for beautification, established a right-of-way revolving fund 

in the treasury and authorized $100 million per year from the Trust Fund to 

operate it. It established the TOPICS program and authorized fringe parking in 

connection with mass transit. It authorized 1500 additional miles to be added to 

the Interstate and added a section to Title 23 preventing the transfer of 

administrative funds from the Federal Highway Administration for the use of any 

other agency. This was obviously aimed at attempts to assess some of the costs 

of operating the Department to FHWA, i.e., the Trust Fund, and to pay HUD for 

services rendered in the DOT/HUD agreement which contained a clause 

requiring payments to HUD for services in their role as coordinator of all urban 

programs as set forth in President Johnson's executive decree.

The Act provided for routes on the Primary system constructed to Interstate 

standards and connecting to the Interstate to be designated as Interstate without 

mileage charge. It required a nationwide highway functional classification study 

to be reported to Congress in 1970. It incorporated section 4(f) of the DOT Act 

having to do with preservation of parkland into Title 23. The Congress ordered 

the District of Columbia to proceed with the construction of all Interstate projects 

approved in the cost estimate and to study others specified. It specifically 

ordered construction to proceed on the Three Sisters Bridge, the Potomac River 

Freeway, and the North Leg within 30 days after passage of the Act.

Chapter V was devoted to a very comprehensive highway Relocation Assistance 

program.

Excerpts From the January 1969 Issue of American Highways-The Record of 54th Annual 

Meeting held on 12/3/68

JOHN O. MORTON, N.H., the President's Address.

AN APPEAL TO CONGRESS

"...I would like to address a substantial part of my remarks this morning to our 

congressional friends..." He went on to describe the highway program, the 

Federal-State partnership and the complexities of the program and the dedication 

and thoroughness with which highway department personnel carry out the 

communication and coordination with the public and the lesser units of 

government. He described how cordial the relations were with local officials.

"...I would point out that with the experience gained from conducting thousands of 

public hearings, highway officials know that certain objections will always be 

presented at a public hearing. Such objections may be valid, or without basis, or 

the result of misunderstandings...The chief administrative officer of a highway 

department has always had to recognize that in carrying out the execution of a 
program of the present magnitude, there comes a time when he must make a 

final determination and decision. Such decisions have been honestly and 

courageously made...supported by factual data and..carefully evaluated 

judgments..."

"...Our new interstate highways are anything but the atrocities the voices of 

opposition would have the public believe them to be...We have a right to take 

pride in our past accomplishments...recognition of our past accomplishments and 

the favor in which the highway program is held by the American people, are 

reflected in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968. Highway officials applauded 

the passage of this 1968 act and considered it a progressive and outstanding 

piece of highway legislation. The act preserved the integrity of the highway trust 

fund. It recognized the fallacy and waste created by ill-conceived cutbacks and 

took a positive position in opposition to future cutbacks. It provided urgently 

needed funds for added highway improvements within our urban areas. It 

increased funds for work on the federal-aid primary system. It gave additional 

support to the highway safety program and attempted to clarify the intent and to 

define the procedures to be followed in the equal employment opportunity 

program. Further, it provided a means of correcting existing deficiencies in the 

right of way acquisition program as it is currently being administered by the 

Federal Highway Administration."

OBJECTS TO NEW FEDERAL REGULATIONS

"Now, in the past month, the Federal Highway Administrator has published in the 

Federal Register, voluminous regulations regarding the future conduct of public 

hearings and covering the location and design approval format that must be 

followed by the respective states in connection with the right of way acquisition 

program. These regulations, if permitted to stand, will have the effect of bringing 

about a complete stoppage of the highway program in many of the states. They 

will have the effect of taking the highway program out of the hands of the states 

and the state highway departments, and instead thereof, placing it under the 

direct supervision of an ever-expanding federal bureaucracy. These regulations 

developed by Washington bureaucrats are in dire contradiction to the 

experienced judgment of the staffs of the various highway departments. They far 

exceed the intent of the 1968 Federal Highway Act that was so ably developed 

by Congress..."

"Contained in the regulations is a provision that would allow a single individual 

appearing in opposition to a highway project, to effectively tie up the project for 

an indefinite period of time. It is impossible to comprehend the adoption of a 

regulation which has been so devised that the desires and needs of an 

overwhelming majority of the people as presented at a public hearing, could be 

overridden by the action of a single individual, responsible or otherwise...If this is 

permitted, domination of its (the nation's) economy will also rest in the hands of 

this same irresponsible minority group."

"From the viewpoint of highway officials, this represents our first experience in 

the fifty-two year history of the federal-aid highway program, where a federal 

agency has taken over and flaunted the intent of a piece of highway legislation 

developed by the Congress. We know that people high in authority in the 

Department of Transportation have in the past made reference to the fact that the 

mentality of the highway departments should be changed..."

SHOCKED AND ALARMED
"I can say to the members of Congress that we, as highway officials are 

confused, shocked, and alarmed at such a power grab. We join with the 

governors of our states and with the highway users of this nation in seeking your 

assistance in bringing about corrective action..."

"...In the months that lie directly ahead, I urge you to join in a united action to 

obtain relief from a domineering bureaucracy. You must insist on a future course 

of action that will employ only an absolute minimum of government red tape. You 

must work for realistic controls capable of providing an expeditious, honest, and 

intelligent execution of the highway program."

"Should, in the weeks ahead, it become necessary for more drastic actions, do 

not be hesitant about taking them. The highway user groups and the American 

public are cognizant of the attempts to dominate the program at the federal level 

and they offer strong support in your efforts to seek corrective measures. Even 

though we are a powerful nation, we cannot survive the dissipation of our money, 

talent, and energy that is sought by a minority group presently working under the 

shelter of a federal bureaucracy."

SEN. JENNINGS RANDOLPH, W. Va. - Chairman, Public Works Committee.

Senator Randolph led off by telling a joke to illustrate the times: "...I recall that a 

minister united in holy wedlock two hippies, and at the end of the ceremony he 

turned to them and said, 'Will one of you please kiss the bride?' And so these are 

the periods of transition; these are the times often of misconceptions and 

misunderstandings."

"...Mr. President...I recall to you the occasion of your convention last year when 

we were beginning to think in terms of the economic social and environmental 

development of our country, particularly as highways are involved."

HEARINGS HELD

"...I announced that we would initiate a series of hearings which would deal 

particularly with the problems of urban highway development in all of its phases 

in this country. At that time I stated 'We are all aware of the outspoken opposition 

to highway locations which has been encountered in connection with various 

urban segments of the interstate system. The Senate Committee on Public 

Works is very much concerned that such opposition, much of which may well be 

justified, will create an intolerable situation and cause the failure of this important 

public works program...'"

"...These hearings began in November 1967 and were concluded in May 

1968...The witnesses who appeared before us represented almost every facet of 

interest, profession and concern with highways and our urban areas."

"...The testimony presented in our urban impact hearings was most impressive 

and as a result, a number of provisions were added to our basic highway law by 

the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1968..."

IMPORTANT CHANGES
"That Act...includes a number of important changes which will enable the 

Highway Program to meet our expanding concern for social, cultural and 

environmental values...a full fledged relocation assistance program for those who 

suffer private injury through disruption and dislocation as a result of highway 

construction...equal employment opportunity...all public hearings (must) consider 

the social and environmental, as well as the economic, impact of a proposed 

highway location..."

PUBLIC HEARINGS NOT ADEQUATE

"The report of the Senate Committee...stated: 'The public hearings held by the 

States...have been less than adequate in performing the intended functions of 

informing the public and allowing those affected to adequately voice their 

opinions, recommendations, and suggestions.'"

"One of the major problems raised before the committee was the inordinate 

amount of time that often transpires between the date public hearings are held 

and the date construction begins. Based on an examination of the situation in 

nine urban areas, the average timespan between public hearings and the start of 

construction is about 8 years..."

FEDERAL PROCESS REVISED

"The policy of the Federal Government has been merely to require the states to 

certify that a public hearing was held. The Committee is informed that consistent 

with the recommendations of the Senate this policy is being revised to require 

two hearings. One hearing will be held for the general public and another, to be 

held at a later date, called highway design hearings, for those people who are 

directly affected. We believe this revised policy will provide the mechanism for 

more timely and effective public hearings."

"Properly publicized and conducted public hearings are important so that those 

who participate in the hearings have confidence that the views they express will 

be considered and weighed in decisions relating to highway location and design. 

These hearings are intended to produce more than a public presentation by the 

highway department of its plans and decisions."

LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO BE INVOLVED

"In order to emphasize the importance of these hearings, the Congress adopted 

the additional language relating to public hearings and the matters which must be 

considered in the decision making process. These additional factors will require 

greater involvement not only by other State and local government officials and 

agencies but by private individuals and groups as well."

"The importance of the involvement of local officials in route selection, the public 

hearing process, and the resolution and establishment of community goals and 

objectives cannot be overstated. Many of the controversies which were related to 

the committee during its urban highway hearings could have been ameliorated, if 

not eliminated, had local officials been brought into the discussions at a 

sufficiently early stage in the hearing process."

CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT
"...The great controversy currently surrounding the highway program is directed 

toward the proposed regulation concerning public hearings. In view of the strong 

position taken by the committee during its consideration of the Federal Aid 

Highway Act of 1968, Senator John Sherman Cooper, the ranking Minority 

Member, joined with me in a letter to Federal Highway Administrator Bridwell in 

which we expressed our views on the proposal:"

"'We wholeheartedly commend the substance of the proposal requiring a 

highway corridor hearing and a highway design hearing. While we do not 

subscribe to all the details of the proposed regulation, we believe the basic 

content of the document is materially the same as that which you described to 

the Subcommittee on Roads of the Senate Committee on Public Works during 

our hearings on urban highway planning, location and design. We believe it is 

absolutely essential to the proper execution of our national highway program that 

interested persons be involved as early as possible in the decisions which affect 

the future of the communities in which they live.'"

"'We have received requests to make known to you our views with regard to the 

proposal. These communications have requested that we explain our position 

with respect to the regulations so that you might have the benefit of our thinking. 

It makes little difference to us whether the hearing requirements are published as 

regulations or whether they are set forth in a policy and procedure memorandum. 

There are advantages to both forms and it is our understanding that there is little 

difference in their legal effect. Of course, the regulation does have the 

advantages of wider public notice than does a policy and procedure 

memorandum; however, regulations, because of their formality, do not lend 

themselves to flexible administration. We are certain that you will carefully 

examine all the comments which you receive with respect to form and respond 

by adopting what you consider to be the most propitious arrangement.'"

AGAINST APPELLATE PROCEDURES

"'Most importantly, we are concerned with the "Appellate" procedure laid out in 

Section 3.17. It is our strong belief that such procedure will invite unnecessary 

appeals to the Federal Highway Administration and to the Courts. Highway 

location decisions are really legislative in nature.'"

NOT A MATTER FOR THE COURTS

"'This authority has been delegated by the Congress and the Legislatures of the 

respective States to the United States Department of Transportation and the 

State Highway Departments. Other than to assure that the rules have been fairly 

applied, there is no contribution which any Federal Court could make to the 

decisions relating to location and design. Decisions relating to location and 

design are based on judgment rather than on facts and law and it is our feeling 

that assuring fairness is the responsibility of both the State and Federal 

Administrators.'"

"'We earnestly request that the final version of the public hearing requirements, 

however they may be published, be published without any "Appellate" procedure 

at all. We believe that you, as have your predecessors, review a number of these 

decisions in line with the basic provisions of Title 23. We believe the decision of 

the Federal Highway Administrator should be final in all respects unless there is, 
in fact, a violation of law, in which case normal legal procedures would still 

pertain.'"

MUST BE EXPEDITED

"'It is the goal of greater public participation which these rules seek to achieve, 

and this goal has the support of the Committee on Public Works of the United 

States Senate. It is a goal which should be achieved as soon as possible. 

Adjustments of the proposal, as we have suggested, will facilitate the successful 

implementation of this important matter of public policy.'"

SUPPORTS BRIDWELL

"...Mr. Bridwell has informed me that he intends to personally review the record 

and to base his decision on its contents. I think that all of us who are concerned 

with the highway program and its place in our National, State and community 

efforts, owe a great debt to this gentleman who has served in a very difficult 

position with dignity, dedication and determination. Many of the new provisions 

contained in the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968 and many of the innovations in 

procedure and operations have been implemented under his direction or with his 

active support. I am sure that the decision which he makes with regard to public 

hearings will reflect his outstanding performance as Federal Highway 

Administrator."

POLITICAL DECISIONS

"...Many of the decisions which you will be making are not merely technical. They 

will be political decisions in the highest sense since the facilities you build are 

built to serve people. While it is a difficult task to satisfy large numbers of people, 

such difficulty can never be an excuse for retiring behind the wall of professional 

expertise."

"The provisions of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968, reflect the growing 

understanding on the part of many members of the Congress that the people 

must be involved to the maximum extent possible in the making of the basic 

decisions relating to these important public facilities. During the recent 

presidential campaign, it became obvious that there are indeed large groups of 

people not all of whom are poor, and not all of whom are young, who are terribly 

concerned by the fact that they have little to say about what happens to them. It 

is our hope that the changes which we have made will, at least with respect to 

highways, correct the situation and that alienation will give way to participation."

SUPPORTS TURNER

"...What I have said about Lowell Bridwell I can say with equal validity as to Frank 

Turner. The man-who stands alongside of Lowell Bridwell."

"'Some choose the high way, some the low, while in between on the misty flats 

the crowds drift to and fro; but every highway builder has the responsibility for 

which way his life shall go.'"

LOWELL K. BRIDWELL, Federal Highway Administrator.
PLAGUED BY PROBLEMS

"...our programs seem sometimes to be plagued by problems...problems of irate 

citizens and neighborhoods, and problems of antagonism between highway 

professionals and professionals from other disciplines. Change has seemed to 

come too fast, too disordered, and too little anticipated. Public recognition and 

appreciation for the program's past achievements have seemed to dwindle in 

direct proportion to the increases in its problems."

"To state it another way, highway programs and highway professionals are being 

confronted, with no immunity, by the same social and community forces that 

today confront every other basic national undertaking, whether in transportation, 

conservation, education, or the art of government. We and our programs are very 

much a part of, and participant in, the complex world which is America in 1968."

"...One option not available is to disassociate and insulate our activities from the 

sweep of events in America today. To pretend otherwise would be the depth of 

self-delusion. Nor, in many cases, are we masters of these events. Our decisions 

must reflect our realistic awareness of this."

COMMON THEMES OF UNREST

"...Each new event, every developing confrontation contains these common 

themes, although sometimes they are twisted so badly as to be hardly 

recognizable."

"They are themes of involvement-of the new aspiration of the so-called 'average 

citizen' to fight the tides of impersonalization, specialization, and population 

which seem at times to threaten his individual identity, and to wage his war by 

demanding a greater say in the shaping of forces and programs which influence 

his world, his community, and his family."

"There are themes of the new quest for environmental excellence-of concern 

over the injurious impact of man-generated changes in the environment upon 

man's health, his esthetic needs, his senses, and his relationship to nature."

"There are themes of community self identity-of a conscious commitment, 

particularly by densely populated urban areas, to give top priority to retaining and 

improving the social and economic ingredients which welded a group of 

individuals into a town or city in the first place."

DIFFICULT CHOICES

"The present is a time of difficult choices...matched, and possibly outweighed, by 

the opportunities available to us today to select...directions which will 

produce...beneficial results for the future."

"We have...begun to move along some of these directions, partly to forestall 

public animosity toward our programs and partly...in recognition of new potentials 

in highway development for achieving emerging social goals..."

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
"We have taken steps along the road to expanded public participation in our 

programs..."

"...The demand of a growing number of citizens, individually and communally, to 

have their views considered and reflected in our program's products is 

irreversible."

"Complex and time-consuming though it may be, the democratic process of 

citizen participation in the affairs of government is going to apply with full and 

vigorous force to all government programs, whether through some kind of 

hearing requirement or in other ways. It is the task of the highway professional to 

make that process work as effectively and efficiently as possible. To do less will 

be to imperil the usefulness, as well as stability, of the program itself."

JOINT DEVELOPMENT

He described the new concept of joint development and that instructions would 

soon be out encouraging that.

THE URBAN IMPACT AMENDMENT

"...The Highway Act of 1968 is a clear indication of directions which the highway 

program can and must pursue in meeting its obligations to communities and their 

values in the future. One provision of the Act, known as the Urban Impact 

Amendment, directs that highway programs consider the social effects, 

environmental impacts and relationship to community goals and plans of highway 

location alternatives."

"...It can only be fulfilled by a fundamental reshaping of attitudes toward highway 

development in relationship to urban goals."

"The concerns reflected in the Urban Impact Amendment call for cooperation and 

teamwork between highway professionals, urban planners and programs, 

architects, private investors, and community representatives-teamwork 

exemplified by the multi-discipline design concept teams which have worked on 

highway planning in Baltimore, Chicago, and other cities...they call for objective 

development and presentation of alternative locations, designs, and joint usesalternatives able to be discussed in public at well-publicized, well-attended 

hearings."

AN UNDESIRABLE ALTERNATIVE

"...There are simpler, less constructive options available."

"There is the option of frustrating the development of comprehensive planning 

and meaningful public participation in highway program decisions. The short-term 

outcome of that choice is to sweep the complexities and challenges of the 

democratic process under the rug, all in the name of 'eliminating delays.' The 

longer-term outcome is the annihilation, at the hands of a dispirited public, of the 

program as we know it today."

"There is the option of resting on our laurels. The highway professional who 

selects it will be content to cite the admittedly impressive accomplishments of the 
program in the past-and to insist with dulling regularity that nothing is new under 

the sun. To select that option is to ignore Bismark's warning that, 'History is 

simply a piece of paper covered with print: The main thing is to make history, not 

to write it.'"

A COLD WAR OPTION

"Finally, there is the option of conflict-of fighting the program's opponents with 

every means at hand. To choose this option is to enter into a prolonged cold war 

in which reasonable discussion is replaced by name-calling and anyone who 

questions the program becomes, at once, an enemy."

"...To resist the attraction of simple reactions to difficult challenges requires 

maturity, self-assurance, and perspective."

"...it is incumbent upon the highway professional and the highway administrator 

to know his market and, where possible, reshape his product and his way of 

doing business to reflect the new demands of the public. We cannot analyze the 

market by ignoring it. We cannot respond to its needs by wishing them away."

"On his desk, Thomas Edison kept a sign which read, 'Pioneer or Perish.' for the 

Federal-aid highway program in America today, there can be no more fitting a 

watchword."

SEN. JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Ky., Member Public Works Committee.

The speech was delivered by Bailey Guard, Public Works Committee staff.

GREAT CHANGES

"The years have brought great changes-changes in the life of our country, and 

changes in the practice and art of road building. The political structures with 

which you work-local and regional as well as State and national-are also 

changing. For example, you now deal with a Federal Highway Administration 

which encompasses the safety and beautification authorities as well as the 

Bureau of Public Roads, within the Department of Transportation. This broader 

Federal structure is one of the signs of your wider responsibilities. For I think it is 

clear to all who have thought about the problem that highways cannot properly 

be conceived in isolation, that they must be considered together with inter-city air 

travel and rail transportation, and with mass transit in urban areas-the entire 

circulatory network. And beyond the sheer movement of people and goods, your 

work is now more clearly seen as not only responsive but creative, for a highway 

made necessary by change is also generative of great change. As a result, you 

are drawn ever more deeply into fields only lightly touched a few years ago."

"Certainly, these broader concepts are increasingly recognized by our 

Committees, the Congress and the public...I know that implementing these 

provisions (the 1968 Highway Act) will require time, effort, and expense. But I 

believe they deal with problems which must not be ignored-problems which, if not 

met in the spirit of our changing times, would indeed endanger the steady 

progress of the highway programs."

SUPPORTS TWO HEARINGS
"Now you are presently concerned about the proposed regulation calling for two 

hearings on Federal-aid highway projects. I am for two hearings. I believe a 

corridor hearing at an early stage, before the general highway location is fixed, 

with a later hearing on specific location and design, will be helpful in securing 

public discussion and better understanding, and in bringing the issues into focus 

at a time when alternatives may still be open as a practical matter. I think it 

desirable also to have the assurance proposed in the regulations that there be 

full coordination with urban planning, and the opportunity at an earlier stage for 

all interested bodies to comment; that the hearings take place within three years 

of approval of route location or final design; that greater information be made 

publicly available; and that State Highway Departments submit to the Bureau of 

Public Roads a report on the alternatives they have studied together with support 

for their decision. I believe these steps will contribute to more informed decisions, 

and help reduce the lack of understanding, frustration and repeated delays which 

now occur and which otherwise may increase."

"With respect to that portion of the proposal specifying an appeal procedure, I 

note that its legal and practical effect is in dispute. Serious concern has been 

expressed that the provision might change the Federal-State relationship, or shift 

the responsibility for the determination of highway location and design. While I 

assume that such a result was not intended, the appeal provision does raise 

basic questions apart from the substance of the hearings proposal, and I believe 

should be separated from it. For that reason, I have been glad to join with 

Senator Randolph in his request that the appeal procedure be dropped from the 

proposed regulation."

NO TURNING BACK

He noted that the Public Works Committee had held 12 days of hearings on the 

urban problems before passage of the 68 Act. He further predicted that there 

would be no turning back the rising concern for the impact of urban highways.

From the April 1969 Issue of American Highways.

TURNER SWORN IN AS FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR

RALPH BARTELSMEYER APPOINTED DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS

Excerpts From the July 1969 Issue of American Highways.

RALPH BARTELSMEYER, Director, BPR to WASHO.

Most of his speech was devoted to the virtues of the Federal-State partnership. 

He said that it was spelled out in law in 1916 and must be preserved.

NO INCREASE IN FEDERAL DOMINATION

"I personally don't believe that under Secretary Volpe and Administrator Turner 

there will be any attempt at greater domination of the highway program by the 

Federal government. As to the matter of dealing with individual cities instead of 

the State highway departments, there are both legal and practical arguments 

against such a type of operation, even if the Federal agencies wished to 

undertake it."

He pointed out that by law the Federal Government could only deal with the 

States on highway matters and that dealing with all the metropolitan areas 

directly would be too much for the Federal bureaucracy to handle.
"...Nevertheless the partnership continually faces new challenges, either because 

of social changes or legislation or both. The ever-increasing emphasis on human 

environmental and esthetic values poses difficult and time-consuming problems 

for the State highway departments, especially in the urban areas. The 

enlightened goal is to provide urban traffic facilities that will not only accomplish 

the principal function of moving people and goods, but will also become 

beneficial parts of the total urban environment, preserving the best of community 

values and integrating the various modes of transportation. Contrary to what 

some of our critics say, these concepts are not new to the highway engineer, but 

he has been restricted historically-both legally and financially-as to how far he 

could go in his consideration of human and social values."

NEW VALUES HERE TO STAY

"However, Congress and the general public have become increasingly 

concerned with these values and anyone who considers this concern to be a 

passing fancy is living in a dream world. The trend is toward ever-increasing 

attention to what might be called the 'fringe benefits' of highways-to joint corridor 

development, to the provision of better housing for those displaced by highway 

construction, to reasonable beautification projects, to the development of a great 

many more rest and recreation areas, to many other items in the realm of human 

values."

NEW POLICIES TO BE DEVELOPED JOINTLY

"...It is our intention in the Federal Highway Administration-in connection with all 

of the important new policies or procedures which may be needed henceforth-to 

consult with AASHO and the State highway departments and to provide the 

fullest opportunity to States to react to such proposals before they are put in final 

form. In this way we hope to implement to the fullest both the letter and the spirit 

of the Congressional intent for the Federal-State partnership in the Federal-aid 

highway program. The partnership is a two-way street and we intend to keep it 

that way."

"I have dealt at some length on the Federal-State partnership in this, my maiden 

speech as Director of Public Roads, because I believe its preservation is 

probably the most important overall goal we have before us. You know as I do 

that certain forces have been at work to undermine it and that we must present a 

united front if it is to be preserved in the same traditional form that we have 

known it. That does not mean that there is no room for dissent within the 

partnership. Frank Turner expressed this idea very well on another occasion 

when he was Director of Public Roads."

"He said, and I quote:'

'A partnership composed solely of "yes men" would soon fall of its own weight 

because any successful venture requires the stimulus of dialogue, discussion 

and divergence of thinking and approach to preserve interest and action.'...

Excerpts From the October, 1969 Issue of American Highways.

J.C. DINGWALL, Texas, to the Governor's Conference.

THE NEW PUBLIC HEARING REGULATIONS
"...Recently there has been much discussion of the new Federal regulations 

requiring two public hearings on highway locations. In Texas we were having 

hearings on such projects for several years before the Federal regulations were 

announced-sometimes one hearing, but more usually two hearings for complex 

urban projects."

NOT OPPOSED TO TWO HEARINGS

"And while the Federal regulations do require more formal documentation than 

had normally been provided, there is no definitive indication that the additional 

paperwork enhances the intended result.'

"It is true when the Federal Highway Administration last year proposed to publish 

in the Federal Register regulations governing public hearings on all highway 

projects in which the U.S. Government was to participate, the Texas Highway 

Department did put up a terrific howl. But we were not opposed, as we stated 

before Congressional Committees, to the 'two hearing process,' as the 

regulations were commonly identified in the press."

OPPOSED TO RED TAPE AND DELAY

"Our objections centered on the fact that the regulations were to be printed in the 

Federal Register making them inflexible and equivalent to Federal law by 

administrative dictum. And we strongly objected to the appellate procedures 

which would permit anyone-land speculator or individual dissident-to hold up a 

badly needed project for almost an unlimited time."

CONVERTED TO A PPM

"As you know, the appellate proposals were withdrawn. Also, the regulations 

became more negotiable when they were made a part of the PPM processPolicies and Procedures Memorandums-between the Federal Highway 

Administration and the individual State Highway Departments."

"So our concern was to avoid unnecessary delays in the development of needed 

highway projects, and not to prevent any citizen from having his 'say' in the 

development of this or any other State highway project. We also were interested 

in preserving the half-century-old tradition of Federal-State cooperation in the 

highway program. We believe this to be no time for unilateral decrees handed 

down from Washington, far from the people who are paying for their own highway 

system and whom the system is expected to serve. This is particularly so when 

here in Texas the Federal Government actually is a minor partner to the extent of 

about 40% of overall highway expenditures."

He talked about the status of urban planning in Texas and the new concept of the 

"design concept team":

"We agree with Secretary Volpe's position and believe the employment of 

'Design Concept Teams' should be left to the discretion of the individual 

agencies-city, county or State-who, in the last analysis, are the ones to be held 

responsible for the cost and successful conclusion of the project."

NEW FEDERALISM
"Also, we heartily concur with President Nixon when he spoke to the people on 

the evening of August 8, 1969. Although he was speaking of his new welfare 

proposals he spelled out a changing philosophy of government...what he called 

'applying the principles of New Federalism.' Let me read what he had to say:

"...'Administration of a major established Federal program would be turned over 

to the States and local governments, recognizing that they are in a position to do 

the job better.'

'For years thoughtful Americans have talked of the need to decentralize 

government. The time has come to begin.'

'For a third of a century, power and responsibility have flowed toward 

Washington-and Washington has taken for its own the best sources of revenue. 

We intend to reverse this tide, and to turn back to the States a greater measure 

of responsibility-not as a way of avoiding problems, but as a better way of solving 

problems.'"

Excerpts From the January, 1970 Issue of American Highways-The Record of the 1969 

Annual Meeting.

ROUND TABLE

This was a round table discussion chaired by President Stapp. The participants 

were John Fugate, the President elect, Senator Spong, Va., Cong. Fallon, Md., 

Cong. Kluczynski, Ill., Cong. Harsha, Ohio, Sen. Gurney, Fla.

The questions were rather routine but at the conclusion REP. HARSHA had 

some important observations:

1970 WILL BE A CRITICAL YEAR

"...Let me make these observations. I think that the federal aid highway program 

is having its problems. Certainly by one of the previous questions by the 

chairman to Senator Gurney and Congressman Kluczynski it was indicated that 

you no longer enjoy the universal support that you did in 1956 when the present 

highway construction program was funded by the Congress. In fact, the program 

in recent days has been strongly opposed by many people in groups that are 

quite articulate. So in my opinion, 1970 is going to be a highly critical year for the 

future of the highway program. In fact, it may be one of the most important years 

for that program since the inception of federal aid highway construction."

SUPPORT IS ERODING

"...Again, permit me to caution you that public support for extended highway 

programs is eroding and you can no longer afford to sit idly by and say that 

things will take care of themselves. The opposition is not sitting idly by. It is 

articulate and it is persuasive, and your role as highway officials and department 

heads in the states should reflect the needs and the public attitudes in all of the 

states. You will be called upon to play a major role in the formation of any 

legislation next year. Your role in meeting this responsibility will be a most 

important one, and let me caution you that you must meet this challenge 

aggressively, effectively and thoroughly. If you fail or shirk in exercising this 

responsibility, others will accept it and you may not be happy with those results."
THE FUTURE IS IN DOUBT

"I sincerely believe the future of the highway program as you conceive it hangs in 

the balance, so again let me urge you to play the role that is yours in meeting 

these challenges which confront the Congress next year."

ROSS G. STAPP, Wy.-The President's Address.

DIVERSION

"...Diversion of Highway Trust Fund monies is one of the most pressing current 

and long-range problems that AASHO and the highway industry faces. AASHO 

must devote its resources to maintain the integrity of the Highway Trust Fund.

"If the money continues to roll in through the federal gasoline and other highway 

user taxes without being used, we increase the possibility that these funds will be 

diverted for use other than on the highway system."

"It is distressingly simple but alarmingly catastrophic that if these raids on the 

Trust Fund, this highway robbery, is allowed to succeed we simply cannot have 

any long-range programs."

SOUND PROGRAM NEEDED

"...In order to circumvent this possibility, I strongly urge AASHO and each of the 

states to become a full partner with the federal government and the Department 

of Transportation in developing a method for the continuation of a sound 

program."

"By the same token, this federal-state relationship must be met with more than 

mere approval by the powers that be in Washington. They too, must welcome the 

opportunity to accept the suggestions of highway administrators."

"Too often in the past, suggestions and objections for federal action have fallen 

on deaf ears and have gone unheeded. The states, and the Department of 

Transportation should resume a full partnership in highway programs, and 

federal-aid should be released at orderly intervals in predictable amounts."

"...Once we are assured of the continuation of the highway Trust Fund, which, 

incidentally, will be no mean task, we must then concentrate all our endeavors for 

a continuing highway program."

"On August 22 and 23 (1969), the AASHO Committee for a Continuing Highway 

Program met in Denver to formulate a proposal to be presented to the Executive 

Committee and in turn to the Chief Administrative Officers...I think it is a valid and 

timely plan which considers all areas of our country."

GREATER FUNDING MUST GO TO URBAN

"It is obvious that there will be a greater portion of highway user revenues 

allocated toward solving highway transportation problems in metropolitan areas 

than there has been heretofore."
He spoke about the need for an Equal Employment Opportunity Program, Scenic 

Highways and Beautification.

MASS TRANSIT

"...Mass transit and congestion in metropolitan areas are becoming increasingly 

difficult problems, and we must not be hard-headed in learning to accept new 

ideas in this regard...It is just as important to emphasize that...the Highway Trust 

Fund must be utilized exclusively for solving highway problems."

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION

"Functional Classification of our highway program is another of the pressing 

needs of the industry. Each state should, in the very near future begin to 

implement facts it has found from studies it is already working on for the 

Functional Classification of Highways. AASHO has long since established criteria 

which should be used for the continuation of the federal-aid system with regard to 

matching ratios...The allocation of funds to the respective states will be 

controversial, I am sure. This allocation, however, should probably be resolved 

after the completion of the Functional Classification Study."

A DEEPENING CRISIS

"Because of attacks from every quarter on the highway program and because of 

the jeopardy the Highway Trust Fund has been placed in, it is evident there is a 

deepening crisis in the highway program. Our mission in AASHO and in the 

highway community is not just to live with the crisis, but to exert every effort 

toward reversing the trends considered not to be in the best public interest."

PUBLIC SUPPORT IS ESSENTIAL

"...We must, if we are to continue to build our highways, gain the public support. 

I'm happy to say we have made some definite strides toward this end through 

such endeavors as National Highway Week and other instances whereby we 

have been able to call additional attention to ourselves and the job we are doing."

"...The highway industry is supported by a silent majority of the people in the 

country...Unless we can get some real support from this silent majority of 

highway users, certain influences could so slow down the highway improvement 

program to a degree which could result in an inadequate highway system for an 

ever increasing demand within a few years."

OUR IMAGE

"We should do everything within our power to dispel the image we have, 

unfortunately and inadvertently, assumed in the eyes of some of the public. That 

is the image of the autocratic highway builder who builds with little or no concern 

for the urban dweller, for the suburban dweller or the rancher or the farmer or 

whomever is affected by our highways...."

Excerpts From the October, 1970 Issue of American Highways.

MISSOURI TO TEST CUTBACKS IN COURT
EDITORIAL

"During its recent meeting at Lake of the Ozarks, Missouri, the National 

Governors Conference adopted several resolutions affecting highways. One of 

these read in part: Funds from the Highway Trust Fund should not be suspended 

or withheld; and we hereby request the Executive Committee to take the 

necessary steps to provide that court action be undertaken to challenge the 

authority of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government to withhold 

distribution of Highway Trust Funds."

"The State Highway Commission of Missouri has now filed a complaint against 

Secretary of Transportation John Volpe and Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget, George Schultz, in the District Court of Missouri."

BASIS OF THE SUIT

"...That under the existing provisions of law, the plaintiff is entitled to obligate for 

the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, the sum of $112,322,400 but has in fact 

been advised by the Defendant Volpe that it cannot expect to receive its 

authorization and apportionment lawfully due but will in fact be limited to an 

obligation for said fiscal year of $86,100,000."

"...That the action of the Secretary of Transportation in so withholding the right to 

obligate the sum of $26,222,400...is wholly without authority...and made wholly 

without the existence of the one situation in which he is authorized to reduce 

such allotment, namely, advice from the Secretary of the Treasury that funds are 

not and will not be available in the Highway Trust Fund to make reimbursement 

to the states in accordance with said obligation..."

"...That the unlawful decisions and determinations aforesaid have been made on 

the basis of purported public statements for the purpose of cooling the economy 

when in fact said economy in the State of Missouri is now well 'cooled' with 

unemployment at a record high, bankruptcy occurring at a highly accelerated 

rate, and all other indications by which the state of economy could be determined 

being definitely 'cooled'..."

Excerpts From the January, 1971 Issue of American Highways-The Record of the Annual 

Meeting on 11/9/1970.

PANEL DISCUSSION

This was a panel discussion held at the annual meeting. It was chaired by 

President-elect W.J. Burmeister and moderated by President Douglas Fugate. 

Participants were Sen. Everett Jordan, N.C.-Sen. Mike Gravel Al.-Sen. J. Caleb 

Boggs, Del.-Rep. George H. Fallon, Md.-Rep. John A. Blatnik, Minn.-Rep. John 

c. Kluczynski, Ill.-Rep. James C. Wright, Tex.-Rep. Fred Schwengel, Iowa.

UNCERTAINTY OF APPORTIONMENT

FUGATE: "There was a time when State highway departments could plan on 

highway legislation being cleared no later than July and the apportionment of 

funds being made to the highway departments in late summer or early fall."
"Last year, the 1971 fiscal funds were received at the eleventh hour of the year, 

due to an Administration effort to slow down the highway program as one means 

of combating inflation. This year the highway bill will not clear Congress and go 

to the White House until almost the eleventh hour to where we will be getting the 

1972 apportionment late."

"The uncertainty of when apportionments will be made seriously complicate the 

administration of the highway program in scheduling projects and in arranging 

matching funds among other problems."

"Do you believe that we will ever again get to the point that we will be able to 

anticipate, with any certainty, as to the time of the year that we will receive 

Federal-aid highway apportionments and not be surprised from time to time with 

the announcement of highway program cutbacks?"

SEN JORDAN replied that the problem lay entirely with the Executive Branch 

and read a letter from Sen. Randolph to the President protesting the 

impoundments.

TOLL ROAD REIMBURSEMENT

FUGATE: "Proposed 1970 highway legislation before the current Congress 

addresses itself to toll road problems to a certain extent, and there are 

approximately 2,200 miles of toll roads incorporated into the Interstate System."

"In your opinion, what will be the final action of Congress with regard to 

upgrading standards on such toll roads and reimbursing them for any outstanding 

debt as a prerequisite for making them a part of a free network of interstate 

highways?"

SEN. BOGGS: "...The legislation has passed the Senate, contains a provision 

changing the existing law and providing Federal support for improving toll roads 

now designated as part of the Interstate System..Highway funds...could be 

utilized for repaving and improving these roads. To qualify for such funds, a State 

would have to agree that the highway would become toll-free when the existing 

debts are liquidated."

THE ADMINISTRATION BYPASSES THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS

FUGATE: "There seems to be a current tendency by the Administration to deal 

directly on Federal-aid highway matters with elected officials at State and local 

government levels and often times the State highway administrators are the last 

to learn of the issuance of Federal-aid highway apportionments or the release of 

quarterly allotments. This is a distinct departure from the manner in which 

contacts have been handled in the last fifty years."

"In your opinion, is the State highway commissioner or commission form of 

operation, or even State highway departments as we have known them, 

obsolete?"

FALLON: "...Any attempt to alter this relationship will be opposed by the 

Committee on Public Works and I am sure the Congress itself. As for procedures 

relating to information between the Federal Highway Administration and the State 
highway departments, I would hope...would be expedited as rapidly as possible 

from the Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration 

to the various State highway departments."

SMOOTH TRANSITION AFTER COMPLETION ESSENTIAL

FUGATE: "During the next three to five years, some of the States will 

substantially complete their portion of the Interstate program with the result that 

the Federal-aid program in those States will be reduced drastically."

"What recommendations do you have for compensating for such a reduction and 

would some interim transition into a post-Interstate program be in order?"

BLATNIK: "Off hand, we cannot suggest too much right now... We are continuing 

to study the problem, and will have a full report by 1974..."

TOTAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

FUGATE: "From those opposed to highway improvements for various reasons, 

we hear that highways must be 'demphasized' that here is a threat that 

everything is going to be covered with asphalt and concrete, and that we must 

turn our attention to other modes of transport, and that the Highway Trust Fund 

should be turned into a Total Transportation Fund..."

"...In your opinion, is there any probability that Congress will yield to the antihighway pressure and start cutting back on the program with highway revenues 

being diverted to finance other modes of transportation, and if there is to be a 

total transportation fund, will revenue sources from other transportation modes, in 

pro rata amounts of the respective needs, go into such a trust fund?"

KLUCZYNSKI: "...I do not believe that Congress will yield to anti-highway 

pressures..Down the road we may have a so-called total transportation fund. If 

such develops, however, I would believe that the programs placed in it...will 

retain their separate identities and that the Highway Trust Fund would continue to 

exist as a separate entity in a total transportation fund..."

BLOCK GRANTS

FUGATE: "Do you think there is any likelihood in the immediate future of States 

getting block Federal grants for highway development and being given the 

authority to expend those funds in accordance with the State's interpretation of its 

highway needs, such as the division of funds between the various types of 

highway systems?"

JORDAN: "...I think there should be such an arrangement, but only after the 

Interstate is competed..."

AASHO PARTICIPATION IN TRANSPORTATION POLICY

FUGATE: "...The Department of Transportation is developing and it intends to 

submit early this coming calendar year, a National Transportation Policy. Later 

on, in 1972, a Transportation Needs Study and Functional Classification Study 

are to be submitted to Congress, along with a National Transportation Plan."
"The State highway officials of this country, who have the official responsibility at 

the State level of highway transportation policy, have not participated directly in 

the development of this National Transportation Policy, even though highways 

are the backbone of transportation in this country, and any National 

Transportation Policy, undoubtedly, will affect the highway program in the future."

"In your opinion, is Congress likely to take a close, analytical look at whatever is 

submitted, and will an opportunity be afforded in hearings to comment on any of 

these submissions to Congress?"

KLUCZYNSKI: "I can say that whatever the Department of Transportation will 

submit to the Congress covering either a transportation needs study, a functional 

classification study, or a national transportation plan, it will be scrutinized very 

closely by the Congress and by the Committee on Public Works..."

"In legislation now pending before the Congress we have also included 

recommendations that the individual State highway reports be submitted to the 

Congress and that their views will be considered along with the Department of 

Transportation..."

DOUGLAS B. FUGATE, Va.-The President's Address.

He traced the history of highways, the automobile, AASHO, and the highway 

program.

THE 1970 ACT

"...AASHO has attempted to aid the Congress in developing a 1970 Highway 

Act...Particularly gratifying is the absence of a proposal for additional Interstate 

mileage and the increased emphasis which both House and Senate bills place on 

primary, secondary and urban needs."

"The five-year extension of the Trust Fund provided...in the House Bill is far less 

than the fifteen-year extension recommended by AASHO, but under the 

circumstances, should be considered...as quite acceptable..."

"It is hoped that...the House and Senate will quickly resolve their considerable 

differences and proceed with enactment..."

AN ASSAULT ON THE TRUST FUND

"However, this should by no means be taken for granted, for the latest news from 

Washington is that a last minute assault on an extension of the Trust Fund is 

shaping up by powerful forces. I believe Congress will enact a satisfactory bill 

despite this trend, but the time to relax is not at hand."

"The 1972 apportionments are already late and must, by law, be made before the 

end of the year. In fact, if a highway bill is not passed before the end of 1970,

chances are there would be no Federal-aid highway program next year."

"There is also disquieting news that consideration is being given to further 

withholding of highway funds appropriated by the Congress to the States. The 

excuse would be to make the budget deficit look better."
REVERSING THE TREND TO FEDERAL DOMINATION

"...Each new Federal-aid highway act sees a renewed assault on State policy 

and control of State highway affairs. This increasing federalization is supported 

by withholding Federal-aid funds which rightfully belong to the States. The 

acceleration of Federal dictation together with the threat of Federal-aid Highway 

Trust Fund diversion, has led to support for a policy first suggested as a 

possibility by the Highway Commission of our host State of Texas-a suggestion 

that if federalism continued to accelerate that Federal-aid be reduced to the 

relatively minor role it occupied in the highway program prior to 1956. Those who 

advocate this course would abolish the four-cent Federal tax on gasoline at 

completion of the Interstate System so it might be re-enacted at the State level."

"Many of us would have serious misgivings about supporting such a policy, but it 

should serve as a warning that the States are determined to retain control over 

their own State highway programs..."

E. L. MATHES, President, WASHO-Oct. 1970

"...Most of you-I assume-are aware of Secretary Volpe's official statement on 

S.4260 and his answers to questions posed by the Senate Subcommittee on 

Roads...you may recall...the Secretary emphasized four points:

SECRETARY VOLPE'S STATEMENTS

1. That the Department of Transportation was developing a comprehensive 

National Transportation Policy Statement;

2. That his Department had embarked on a project to devise a 1972 

National Transportation Plan;

3. That his Department is looking at various funding concepts-including a 

single transportation trust fund; and

4. That the Department of Transportation had initiated a thorough review of 

the urban transportation planning process..."

"...Apparently the Secretary has no intent-or desire-to use the unique and most 

satisfactory Federal-State arrangement this country has ever known for the 

development of programs of this kind-that of the Federal-aid Highway Program."

THE NEW LEGISLATION

"...The legislation itself gives much cause for concern. Both S.4260 and H.R. 

19252 contain some features which resemble-in some way-Federal-aid 

legislation of prior years. But-as you know-it is also proposed that a number of 

new programs-totalling six hundred plus million dollars-depending upon the 

particular bill-now be financed from the Highway Trust Fund."

AUTHORIZATIONS NOT BUDGETED

"...ARBA President Ralph Heffner recently pointed out in a letter to 

Transportation Secretary Volpe that a most discouraging feature has been-and 

is-the fact that full amounts authorized are no longer even budgeted. Congress is 

the legislative body which takes the action on both these matters."
WITHHOLDING

"Then-to top things off-administrative reductions from budgeted amounts for the 

highway program have become a matter of routine policy at the Federal level. 

The appropriated rate of progress is treated as little more than a theoretical 

concept."

STATES MUST STABILIZE THE PROGRAM

"There may be at least two possible courses of action available to accomplish 

this objective."

BLOCK GRANTS

"The first...would be Federal-aid highway legislation to provide for a so-called 

'block grant' approach to the distribution of funding to the States..."

GO IT ALONE

"A second approach would be to remove the Federal user taxing structure which 

now exists and then enact State legislation to re-establish this funding at the 

State level..."

"...Some of you may have had the opportunity to read the remarks of Mr. Richard 

J. Whalen, an author-journalist-lecturer, from Washington, D.C.-which were given 

at the AASHO-ARBA Public Information Workshop at St. Louis in May of 1969."

PEOPLE AND HIGHWAYS

"...I truly believe some of his observations concerning people and highways are 

worth repeating here."

"Mr. Whalen said that he liked highways when they served his needs and disliked 

them when they encroached upon his territory. He spoke of the challenge of 

facing those who plan, build, and promote highway development. 'The challenge.' 

he said, 'is change.'"

"He commented that we are easily the most successful group of worried people 

he had ever seen."

"The American people-by and large-love highways, he commented, and can't get 

enough pavement to realize their ambitions to be on the go. The American way 

of life is an automobile centered way of life."

"Mr. Whalen then observed that 'up until a decade or so ago it was possible to 

speak of the American public, as though it were a fairly homogeneous mass of 

citizens generally agreed on what they wanted and the way they wanted to see it 

done.'"

A POPULATION DIVIDED
"Now, he says, we are fundamentally and bitterly divided in this country. We 

cannot overlook this fact or sweep it under the rug."

"Mr. Whalen comments that road builders and those of us who explain highways 

now face several different publics-all of whom seem to be angry."

POWER

"Often the highway is only a symbol of the problem. What the battle is really 

about, he says, is power-the power to enforce one set of social values over 

another."

"Mr. Whalen then suggests that road building cannot go forward in isolation from 

the divisions within society. He comments that we cannot defend established 

procedures simply on the grounds that they are established. It is not too early, he 

says, to entertain the new idea that established policies can-and probably will-be 

deestablished in the next decade and thereafter..."

Excerpts From the April 1971 Issue of American Highways.

W.J. BURMEISTER, President of AASHO, to AHONAS on 3/10/1971

NEPA, 4F, AND PROJECT DELAY

"Many of you are aware that on Friday and Saturday, February 19 and 20, the 

Chief Administrative Officers met in Denver for the purpose of discussing the 

1970 Federal Aid Highway Act, the Muskie Bill, and the Environmental Quality 

Act of 1969. The Federal Highway Administrator and his staff were on hand to 

discuss the Highway Act. Joe Cohn of the Office of Management and Budget 

discussed the Muskie Bill and Mike Cafferty presented the Environmental Quality 

Act, with particular emphasis on the Environmental Statement and 4(f) 

provisions..."

PROJECT DELAY

"Mr. Cafferty spoke in a rather positive manner about the ability of his office to 

process Environmental Statements and the ability to clear 4(f) statements. In this 

latter instance, however, he could give no assurance of speedy approval of 4(f)

statements by the office of the Secretary since he has reserved for himself the 

exclusive right of approval. Personally, I am not so sure that the Environmental 

Statements will move rapidly through the many areas of required clearance. Mr. 

Turner anticipates that the clearance of Environmental Statements could easily 

extend the lead time for projects by as much as six months. I think even this is a 

conservative estimate of the time required for some of the more controversial 

projects. One administrator informed me that he anticipated a need to clear with 

43 different State and Federal offices before the final Environmental Statement 

could be filed..."

AN ENVIRONMENTALIST

"... Within the past few days, I read the account of testimony given by an 

individual who was criticizing our Division of Highways for the location of an 

Interstate route between Milwaukee and Green Bay, and challenging even the 

need for such a highway. He lives in the Kettle Moraine area, but commutes daily 
to Milwaukee, a round trip of approximately 80 miles. He makes a considerable 

point of wanting to live in isolation in the Kettle Moraine, which is considered as a 

part of the National Ice-Age Park. Yet, he must drive into the City of Milwaukee 

each day on highways which are presently constructed and adequate to serve 

his particular purpose. I contend this is an irresponsible, antagonistic attitude 

toward an improved highway in the area, and if he is really conscientious about 

not despoiling the environment and ecology, and not contributing to the pollution, 

then he ought to live closer to his place of employment...This is the kind of 

determined opposition we face today in attempting to build the highway system 

we know will be needed tomorrow..."

THE PENDULUM

"...In closing, I would like to make a further reference to the Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969. I am sure that the provisions of this Act as applied to the Federal Aid 

Highway Program will very materially retard the approval of projects, and, in 

some instances, may completely preclude such approval. Perhaps the extreme 

activity of some of the most ardent defenders of the environment and ecology 

have overplayed their hand to the extent that the public interest will suffer rather 

than be benefited by their activities. Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in 

one direction. I do believe and I would sincerely hope that in the not too distant 

future, the pendulum will swing back to the center and we can jointly arrive at 

decisions which can be accepted by those who are now antagonistic toward the 

Highway Program..."

A.E. JOHNSON, Executive Secretary of AASHO to the Mississippi Valley Association on 3/12/71

A VOID

"...In order for the (highway) administrator to properly carry out his official 

responsibility as a public servant, he must keep the public completely informed 

as to highway needs, the condition of the system, financial requirements, etc., so 

that the public can make the necessary decisions regarding the program. Therein 

lies a void at this time!"

EDITORIAL NOTE

This is the first time I have seen the view presented from within AASHO, that the 

public should decide highway matters.

PUBLIC SUPPORT AND APATHY

"It is the history of all public works programs, that when a basic need is so 

overwhelmingly evident in the beginning, you have strong public support and 

activity. However, long before the program completely satisfies its primary and 

basic function, a number of years pass and during that time a level of tolerable 

service is usually achieved and another generation or two have come upon the 

scene, and they begin to take the great accomplishments of the program as a 

matter of fact and the public support lags and becomes apathetic."

"In addition...others want to get into the act, sophistication and appendages are 

added to the program ostensibly to improve it or better it for various reasons 

most of which are rather expensive and time-consuming, but sometimes of 

questionable value."
"After the public becomes apathetic and turns into a tacit force, the critics, 

motivated by various reasons, then are able to establish their identity because 

they are articulate, aggressive forces, and, in time , they gather supporters and it 

can become a fad to oppose the program and disenchant the public with it."

THE SPOT WE ARE IN

"That is the spot we are in right at this moment."

"Usually, the cycle is completed by the level of service of the program becoming 

so inadequate that public interest is rejuvenated, and the pendulum swings 

again. This could take a long time with effort on your part."

"Much of the situation that we face today is a direct product of highway officials 

not adequately educating and informing the public that they serve."

THE NEW LAW

"...We just got a new highway law signed at the eleventh hour on December 31st, 

1970, which gave us some of the tools we needed for coping with some of 

today's present problems, and giving us some assurance of this needed 

continuity that is so essential."

REVENUE SHARING

"Just recently, the Administration has proposed revenue sharing which has an 

awful lot of political attractiveness and appeal about it, but it certainly introduces 

a high degree of uncertainty into the future of a Federal-aid highway program."

"...Until we get some indication as to whether or not we are going ahead on an 

orthodox Federal-aid highway program, or we are going to get some type of 

revenue sharing, we cannot make many plans..."

URBAN RESENTMENT

"...I find a disturbing degree of resentment against highway departments by many 

city officials and generally it is because the highway program has been so 

successful and cities underfinanced. Many resent highway administrators on the 

grounds that they are not elected officials."

SHOCKED

"...I am shocked at the headway that the anti-highway movement is making, and 

the recent unanimous Supreme Court decision passed on the I-40 location 

through Overton Park in Memphis, Tennessee is going to give those antihighway activists an even stronger tool to use against the highway program,. A 

unanimous decision is so rare as to create a sensation within itself."

EIS REQUIREMENTS

"...The environmental impact requirements now being made for the highway 

departments can well be the straw that breaks the camel's back in stalling the 

highway program. We have college professors all over the country analyzing the 
itemized checklist in the environmental requirements of the highway program and 

developing instructions for bringing litigation and stalling highway projects with 

injunctions."

FEDERAL-AID MAY FALL

"...the Federal-aid highway program, irregardless of the uncertainty about its 

continuation on the conventional basis or becoming part of a revenue sharing 

operation, is becoming so involved in detail and red tape that it may fall of its own 

weight."

"...I have been very concerned with urban problems since 1941, when Chief 

MacDonald outlined play-by-play and line-by-line the urbanization that has 

actually occurred in this country. He was about 20 years ahead of his time, but 

he definitely made an impression upon me."

ECONOMIC GROWTH CENTERS

He cited the 'Economic Growth Center Development Highways program in the 

1970 Highway Act as the means for reversing the urbanization trend. He went 

into great detail to make the case that large urban areas have become 

ungovernable and requiring an inordinate share of public resources to proved the 

necessary public services, repair decay, and to keep them running.

DECENTRALIZATION

"The decentralization of population and industry is justified alone by national 

defense considerations."

"...Through the use of the tax incentive programs, encouraged decentralization of 

industrial expansion, Federal-aid and Federal transportation programs, public 

building programs and, presumably, works programs in the near future, we have 

an opportunity to select appropriate sites, and to create some new cities, 

complete within the meaning of a complex city, far enough away from existing 

high-density concentrations that they would not be influenced nor absorbed. Most 

all of our cities are like Topsy-they just grew."

NEW CITIES NEEDED

"...We have suburban versus central city problems and the metropolitan area 

containing a multiplicity of separate municipalities with no really adequate areawide process of government. In the creation of a new city, this problem would be 

eliminated by starting with an overall area-wide government concept from the 

beginning."

"...The highway portion of a new cities program would have to be one of the very 

first operations. Besides completing the Interstate System and modernizing the 

obsolete sections of our other road systems which cannot be delayed too long, I 

hope your role in the 1970's might also include some leadership and activity in a 

new cities program for growing America. In the old reference to the chicken or 

the egg coming first. the highway service might well be the egg that produced the 

new city."
Excerpts From the July 1971 Issue of American Highways.

RED TAPE TESTIMONEY on 6/15/71

W. J. BURMEISTER, President of AASHO, and ALF JOHNSON, Executive 

Director, presented testimony to the House Subcommittee on Investigation and 

Oversight of the Public Works Committee. They were accompanied by Dave 

Stevens of Maine and J.C. Dingwall, Texas who were members of the AASHO 

Red Tape Committee.

THE RED TAPE COMMITTEE

"...There are six other AASHO members...The other side of the 'Red Tape 

Committee' is composed of key Federal Highway Administration personnel, with 

Deputy Federal Highway Administrator R.R.BARTELSMEYER, and myself, 

serving as the Co-chairmen."

"The Red Tape Committee operation is strongly supported by Mr. Bartelsmeyer 

and by Federal Highway Administrator F.C. Turner."

"The Committee was organized in 1970, to be constructive and to offer the 

experience of the State highway people in reviewing tentative or draft 

memoranda or regulations for the highway program in advance of their being 

implemented, and to review existing procedures."

MUCH RED TAPE COMES FROM CONGRESS

"...First of all, we realize that to a certain degree the Federal people, as a result 

of past Blatnik Committee hearings into highway practices in some of the States, 

have become convinced that Federal procedures and directives must be very 

detailed and rigidly enforced. This is some of our problem, but not all, since much 

of the increasing red tape comes from Congress itself."

HAVE WE REACHED THE LIMIT?

"...under the stress and strain of the big highway program, with changes in 

administrations and personnel not only in the Administration, but in Congress, 

red tape has proliferated to the point that the States must take a good look as to 

whether or not Federal-aid is getting too unwieldy, and encroaching on the official 

prerogatives and responsibilities of the State highway commissions to the point 

that it might not be desirable, and even to the point that the program is becoming 

so top heavy that it could fall of its own dead weight."

A HISTORICAL VIGNETTE

"...We are reminded of an experience that our Director, A. E. Johnson, had in 

1953, when he was participating in the formative stages of what is now the 

Interstate highway program. The National Governors' Conference had just 

adopted a resolution opposing any more Federal-aid for highways, about the time 

the sponsors of the big highway program were wanting to make an 

announcement at the Governors' Conference, and seeking support for the 

proposed stepped up and unprecedented (Interstate) highway program."
"Mr. Johnson was assigned to contact the Governors' conference Highway 

Committee to explain the new program and its needs and benefits, and to 

attempt to get the resolution rescinded."

"Governor Walter Kohler of Wisconsin chaired the Highway Committee of the 

Conference at that time, and he voiced his objections to Federal-aid for 

highways, in substance, as follows: If a highway project in Wisconsin is financed 

with State funds, it can be awarded in six months. If we decide to take Federalaid, it would be a year and six months, and that was entirely too much lead-time 

for the benefits."

"Eventually, the resolution was rescinded, and then Vice President Richard M. 

Nixon explained (for President Eisenhower) the proposed Interstate program to 

the Governors at Bolton Landing, New York."

"Things have certainly changed since the time of Governor Kohler's statement, 

and highway departments that have made a study of it, think that the lead-time is 

at least twice now what it was in the middle 1950's, and even during the first few 

years of the big Interstate program."

"However, lead-time requirements naturally vary from State to State, depending 

on the density of population, and other controlling and complicating factors. They 

run from three to six, seven or eleven years now."

THE 3C PLANNING PROCESS

"...The 3C Planning Process, Section 134 of Title 23...was developed by the 

AASHO-National League of Cities Joint Committee, and was recommended to 

Congress by AASHO."

"We wanted this process so that it could bring together in one place all of the 

proposed or ongoing programs within urban areas for coordination purposes, and 

we wanted to bring into the planning, decision-making and implementation 

process of a highway project the appropriate elected and appointed officials at 

the local levels of the affected governments."

DUPLICATION BY CONGRESS

"In other words, we wanted to be sure that any project we built in a metropolitan 

area fit into the transportation needs of the city, and all of the matters affecting 

the interaction between highway transportation and desirable urban development 

were considered. Some of the Federal legislation since 1962 duplicates or adds 

embellishments to the 3C Process that gets into questionable detail."

"...if you will take a look at Sections 132,135,136, and 142 of the Act of 1970, you 

will see added detail and requirements being added by Congressional action, 

most of which are already covered in considerable detail in previous legislation or 

in directives controlling the highway program. This is the trend about which we 

have to be concerned."

"Section 136 adds considerable detail requirements to those included in Federal 

Highway Administration PPM 20-8, which has to do with the double hearing 
process, and many related items, and specifies 22 different and distinct 

requirements that must be considered in the public hearing process."

A STEP TOWARD NATIONALIZATION

"Originally, in the draft memorandum that was prepared, it even gave the critics 

of the project the appellant right, over the State highway commissions, directly to 

the Secretary of Transportation. It also prohibited forever the use of Federal-aid 

funds in the future on any section of highway that might be involved in a Statefinanced project if the directive were not followed in detail. This has been 

softened somewhat, but it still could be in effect in some cases. This would, in 

effect, have taken from the States their own highway program, and it would have 

no longer been a Federal-aid program to the States, but would have been a big 

step towards nationalization."

Burmeister covered in great detail the Federal requirements and commented on 

each. Also exhibited were procedural flow-charts and physical piles of documents 

as evidence of the requirements.

Excerpts From the January 1972 Issue of American Highways-The Record of The Annual 

Meeting held December 6, 1971.

CONGRESSIONAL PANEL

The Panel was composed of John Kluczynski, Ill.-James C. Wright, Tex.- William 

Harsha, Ohio-Sen. Jennings Randolph, W.Va., represented by Barry MeyersSen. J. Caleb Boggs, Del., represented by Bailey Guard.

Each Congressman made an opening statement. Some of Congressman 

Harsha's remarks follow:

HARSHA: "I want to talk a little more about the general subject that Jim Wright 

discussed with you and elaborate on some of the problems that are facing those 

of you in the highway industry, as I see it."

HIGHWAY CRITICS

"As Jim pointed out to you, highway critics seem to be growing not only in 

intensity and volume and activity but they are also developing rather ingenious 

methods with which to invade the Highway Trust Fund. They have also 

developed techniques with which to make marked, if not significant changes in 

the highway construction program as you and I have known it over the last 

several years."

1972 WILL BE A CRUCIAL YEAR

"I think that the year 1972 is going to be a very crucial year for the Federal-aid 

highway program. I say this not only because of the incidents with the media that 

Jim Wright alluded to, but because of the various attacks on the highway 

program that are coming from other segments of our society; because members 

of congress who have not been aligned heretofore with the anti-highway 

coalition, now seem to be aligned with it for various and sundry reasons; and 

because of some of the recommendations of my own Administration in 

Washington."
A YEAR OF RECKONING

"This has led me to believe that the year 1972 is to be the year of reckoning 

insofar as a so-called 'after '75 highway program' is concerned."

"If we do not enact an 'after '75 highway program' next year then, in all 

probability, we may have merely an innocuous extension of authorization's for the 

present program for two years. That means that it would be at least two more 

years, if not longer, before we could write the framework for the 'after '75 highway 

program'."

"As you know, the highway needs report for 1972 is due in January...it will 

indicate that we have need for almost $600 billion of highway improvements for 

1990 traffic.

WILL THE ADMINISTRATION ACT ON YOUR NEEDS STUDY?

"...I sincerely hope that the Department of Transportation, the Office of 

Management and Budget, and the White House will approve recommendations 

for an adequate 'after '75 highway program.' However, this may not be the case. 

The Federal Highway Administration's recommendations may become lost or 

misplaced, or be completely rewritten."

"I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Administration failed to submit any meaningful 

recommendations to the Congress next year."

"If that is so, then legislation would have to be based upon other 

recommendations and testimony and particularly upon that of AASHO..."

"...I think you have everything to gain and nothing to lose by making highway 

safety a very strong portion of your recommendations to the Congress."

"...I want to comment on some of the recommendations that have been made, 

not only by members of the Congress but, by the Administration, which I think 

may be in serious conflict with the 'after '75 highway program' you are 

contemplating."

"One is revenue sharing. I will allude to that later in the panel discussion."

REORGANIZATION OF DOT

"In addition, the Administration has submitted recommendations to the Congress 

for substantial reorganization of the Executive Branch. These recommendations 

include eliminating the Department of Transportation and transferring the Federal 

Highway Administration to a new Department of Community Development."

"We created the Department of Transportation in 1967 and further reorganized 

the Federal Highway Administration in 1970. I really do not see anything to be 

gained by reorganizing it again..."

"I do not see the logic of putting the Federal-aid highway program in the same 

agency with housing programs merely because roads and streets provide access 

to housing..."
He commented on the Bicycle Transportation Act of 1971 as another ingenious 

plan to raid the Highway Trust Fund.

"These are some of the things I see that point to the fact that 1972 is going to be 

a very, very difficult year and a very, very pertinent year insofar as highway 

construction is concerned."

TIME IS RUNNING OUT

"...We have the votes now or next year, I am sure, to enact an 'after '75 highway 

program.' The longer we delay the more difficult it is going to be."

"As I say, if we do not do it next year it may be two or more years before the 

legislation can be considered, and this gives the opponents of the highway 

program an opportunity to enhance their ranks and to increase their arguments."

SUPPORT FOR BLOCK GRANTS

MEYER FOR RANDOLPH: "...Of particular concern to the Senate Committee is 

the issue of public participation in the highway program. It is a matter of record in 

the most recent federal aid highway act that the Senate Committee on Public 

Works has been encouraging more and more opportunity for public participation 

at a much earlier stage in highway program development so that it is not at the 

very end, when the decisions have been made that the public has its opportunity 

to react and, in too many instances, to react in a negative fashion."

"...Senator Randolph believes that we should give serious consideration to 

streamlining the Federal-aid program and to loosening state and local 

government from the present ties with Washington."

"He suggests that with a few special exceptions-the Interstate system, bridge 

replacement and the federal domain roads-most existing categories of roads 

should be joined together."

"Instead of separate A,B,C and D programs, we should adopt a modified block 

grant approach."

"...Completion of the Interstate program is still a good six or seven years away. 

Although thought must be given to the post Interstate era there is no critical 

urgency to completing the revamp of the Federal-aid program. It would, in fact, 

be unwise to attempt to do so now..."

ECONOMIC GROWTH CENTERS

HARSHA: "...We have also authorized, on a demonstration basis, the 

construction of economic growth center development highways, which, if properly 

administered can provide methods of solving many of our transportation, 

economic, and social problems...The expansion of construction of this type of 

highways could eliminate many of the problems and many of the critics that we 

now have. It would enable the use of development highways to stop, or at least 

minimize, the migration from the rural areas into the urban areas. Migration into 

urban areas has created large concentrations of people in small geographical 

areas, which, in turn, creates problems of unemployment, education, welfare, 
crime, and impairment of the environment, and leaves rural or less populated 

areas in economic stalemate."

W.J. BURMEISTER-The President's Address.

FUTURE OF THE HIGHWAY PROGRAM

"...I would like to make a few comments as to my opinion of the future of the 

highway program...It is obvious to even the most casual observer that the 

philosophy with respect to highways, particularly by those who are extremists in 

ecology and the environment, is changing rapidly. We have all experienced 

extreme opposition to highway improvements in both the urban and rural 

areas...obviously, we need to pay more attention in our highway design to the 

matters of environment and ecology than we have previously...As engineers with 

a great interest in the future of this country, we must work toward minimizing 

these undesirable effects of highways..."

SERIOUS CONSIDERATIONS

"The Association will be faced with serious considerations in the next few 

months. The Congress, no doubt, will be actively considering the structure of the 

1972 Federal Aid Highway Act. There will be the alternative of an act merely 

authorizing continuing funding, or of an aggressive forward-looking act with 

amplification of some of the provisions in previous acts and the possibility of the 

injection of completely new provisions. These new provisions may deal with: 

Further considerations with respect to environment and ecology; the continuing 

highway program; financing the urban system and an accelerated primary 

program; changes in the annual amount of financing available for the Interstate 

system and determination of its probable completion date; financing for highwayrelated features of transit systems; combining of the various categories of 

Federal aids now available for various purposes and respective systems; as well 

as other completely new subjects. No doubt the Association will be requested to

take a position on revenue sharing and perhaps even on government 

reorganization as it might affect the Federal-aid Highway Program."

ALF JOHNSON RETIRES

"...Our Executive Director, Mr. A. E. Johnson, has already announced that he will 

be retiring from that immensely important position on November 1, 1972..."

JOHN VOLPE, Secretary of Transportation.

LOCAL OPTION ON INTERSTATE PROJECTS

"...there is no doubt that the interstate program must be completed and must be 

completed as rapidly as possible, except in those instances where local or state 

officials decide they just do not want them. I do not think we are going to force it 

down their throats."

EDITORIAL NOTE: This is the first sign that construction of Interstate projects 

might be optional with State and local officials.

SUPPORTS REVENUE SHARING
"I am convinced, for instance, that the President's Special Revenue Sharing 

program will result in the greatest good for the greatest number. I believe it will 

help you in your states to utilize transportation funds where they are needed 

most and the decisions will be made at the state level where the needs are 

understood best."

"Similarly, I wholeheartedly endorse the proposed re-organization of the 

Executive Branch."

"Certain essential elements of the Department of Transportation would become a 

part of the Department of Economic Affairs. However, two other key elements of 

our shop will go into the Department of Community Development."

The rest of his speech was a pep talk on the environment, mass transit and 4F.

F.C. TURNER, Federal Highway Administrator.

THE 3C PLANNING PROCESS

His entire speech was devoted to the planning process. He traced the history 

from the beginning of the planning surveys in 1934. He stressed that from the 

very beginning, local officials were brought into the process.

"...Now we have come a long way and have done a good job in planning since its 

beginnings in the late '20's. But we have still a long way to go and must 

constantly strive to keep abreast-in fact keep ahead of-the rapidly changing 

public valuements. The things I have mentioned herein are part of this effort. 

There is no need, as some are suggesting, to tear down the whole structure built 

to date and start all over anew. Indeed, to do so, is certainly to waste our already 

inadequate resources."

"Neither can we operate effectively if we bodily separate the planning process 

from the program and operational process as some people are proposing 

because proper planning cannot be done in the vacuum which such a 

divorcement from our constantly evolving program activities would create. There 

is constant feedback between these twin responsibilities of the manager which 

cannot be separated."

"There is an imperative requirement for coordination of highway planning with 

other program planning. This coordination can most adequately be achieved 

within the program operational area by not separating all the planning out to itself 

just to make it a function apart. Planning for planning's sake alone is something 

that we just cannot afford...Planning cannot and should not be separated from 

construction anymore than construction itself can be done without regard to 

appropriate planning."

EDITORIAL NOTE: I think that the above was a reference to the proposals being 

made by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation and OMB that the 3C 

Planning Process be administered in the Office of the Secretary since it was 

multi-modal.

CHANGE IS INEVITABLE
"...For in this era, as in each one before us, as well as those ahead of us, change 

is certainly the order of the day. You and I must be alert and responsive to it in 

the planning process which is the fundamental base on which we build the 

program, not only in highways but as highways are a part of the total 

transportation. It must be strengthened. It must be understood by the public. And 

you must defend, explain, and show to the critics that we are doing transportation 

planning that recognizes all of the modes and all of the needs; that planning is 

not dominated by the highway program and people for the selfish and narrow 

purpose of insuring that the decision at the end will come out in favor of 

highways..."

Excerpts From the April 1972 Issue of American Highways.

AASHO POLICY COMMITTEE

THE PLANNING PROCESS

"...The Committee on Policy also took the following action concerning the role of 

the member departments in the transportation planning function:

'It is the position of AASHO that the State highway departments must be active 

participants in any major transportation planning function, that has a major 

impact on the highway program that is their responsibility, and that it is 

impracticable to separate the planning function from the State highway 

departments responsibilities for planning, building, maintaining and operating an 

adequate highway system for the public and budgeting financing for same.'

"...There have been some rather strong efforts made to take the planning 

responsibilities or participation away from the State highway departments and the 

Federal Highway Administration, and to lodge it in an Assistant Secretary's office 

in DOT and in urban area planning organizations, or regional planning 

organizations."

"We do not believe that the State highway departments can become 'operating 

agencies' only, subjugated to the planning, programming and implementation of 

some other separate agency or consortium of planning agencies that do not have 

the basic highway responsibility."

REVENUE SHARING

"...It is felt that many of the objectives in the 'Special Transportation Revenue 

Sharing' concept can be accomplished through a combination of existing 

allocations and transferability between allocations to create flexibility, all of which 

can be accomplished within Title 23, U.S. Code, without jeopardizing or 

eliminating an essential, adequate and continuing Federal-aid highway program."

THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

"It is the position of the American Association of State Highway Officials, with 

respect to the Federal Highway Trust Fund, that it should be continued to be 

dedicated to highway development with flexibility to include 'highway - related 

activities' where and when indicated and justified by comprehensive, cooperative 

transportation planning to be in the public interest, and for the best method of 

relieving traffic congestion."
REORGANIZATION OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

"...AASHO considered the proposed Federal Executive Reorganization plan as it 

pertains to the highway program, and is not opposed to any attempt at any level 

to achieve a more efficient organizational structure best suited for attaining 

national goals and objectives, however, AASHO does oppose any 

reorganizational proposal that would result in the fragmentation of a single, 

identifiable, integrated, multi-modal Federal transportation agency, and such 

agency must include an identifiable and adequate highway unit, that concerns 

itself both with national highway transportation systems and community 

development transportation systems."

Excerpts From the July 1972 Issue of American Highways.

PRESIDENT DINGWALL'S SENATE TESTIMONY on 5/11/72.

"...This is the fourth time that we have presented recommendations to you that 

were developed by our 'After 75 Committee', and balloted upon by our Member 

State highway departments. This presentation supplements the previous 

presentations made to you in May 1967, May 1968, and May 1970."

TWENTY TWO RECOMMENDATIONS

"...Attached to this Statement are 22 Recommendations...developed through our 

"After 75 Committee'...and balloted upon by our Member State highway 

departments at a Special Meeting on March 14, 1972, in Chicago."

"It was during this Chicago meeting that we first learned of the contents and 

recommendations of the Department of Transportation's so-called 1972 National 

Highway Needs Report."

DISAGREES WITH THE NATIONAL NEEDS REPORT

"Although the basic material, upon which it was to have been predicated, was 

supplied almost entirely by the several State highway departments, we have to 

take issue with the recommendations, and the manner in which our basic data 

has been interpreted."

"In our review of this 1972 National Highway Needs Report at Chicago, it was 

apparent that it was primarily intended to divert highway revenues to other 

purposes, and to incorporate in the Federal-aid highway program a version of the 

Administration's Revenue Sharing Plan."

ALLOTMENT CONTROLS

"...We fervently hope that your Committee can help us eliminate the quarterly 

allotment controls over the Federal-aid highway funds."

"These quarterly allotment controls were injected into the highway program in 

1959, by the Budget Bureau, when at that time, there was some danger of 

overdrawing the Trust Fund balance..."

"This condition no longer exists, so there is no need for the quarterly allotments, 

which are being used to throw uncertainty into the program..."
"When one adds up the four quarterly allotments, for the year, either for a single 

State, or for all of the States, it is less than the total authorized apportionments, 

thereby adding to a manipulated balance in the Highway Trust Fund."

SOME RECOMMENDATIONS

DAVE STEVENS from Maine presented AASHO's 22 recommendations 

excerpted as follows:

1. The ABCD authorizations should be increased such that the total 

program at the new 70-30 match would be the same as at the 50-50 

match and to pull down the Trust Fund balance.

2. Change from two-year authorizations to four.

3. Continue the Interstate program at the $4 billion level and extend the 

Trust Fund appropriately.

THE 3C PROCESS

4. $1 billion for the urban system at 70-30.

5. Planning and Research moneys be increased by 1% to "help assure 

adequate planning in urban areas...through the 3C Transportation 

Planning Procedure...and the language be strengthened to make it clear 

that the State Highway Departments continue to participate in such 

cooperative planning...It is further recommended that there be no 

language included in...legislation that would impair or encroach upon the 

authority of State Highway Departments over..system extensions...in 

urban areas..."

AN AREAWIDE CONSORTIUM

6. "That urban areas...be encouraged to provide an effective areawide 

official 'authority' or 'consortium' to represent the urban area...in the 3C 

Transportation Planning Process, and that such an 'authority' or 

'consortium' have the power to commit the affected local 

governments...in the implementation of...highway 

improvements...approved by the State Highway Department..."

7. Full use of the Trust Fund balance and the end of cut-backs or 

impoundments.

RURAL REDEVELOPMENT

13. "That Congress call for studies...to emphasize rural redevelopment, the 

latter to help reverse the present pattern of urban migration...The 

highway network performs both the skeletal and circulatory functions of a 

city...and can do much to...supply the basic highway transport 

accessibility as a necessary prerequisite for new city development."

TOLL ROAD REIMBURSEMENT

14. "That Congress give attention to an equitable reimbursement to the 

States for the toll and free roads, including toll bridges and toll tunnels 

that are incorporated into the Interstate highway system, with the goal of 
all sections of this National network...being free of tolls to the public upon 

the final completion of the Interstate program."

RESOLUTION OF CONTROVERSIAL PROJECTS

15. "That it is essential that the intent statement of Congress of 1956 

regarding the early completion of the Interstate program be carried out, 

and in order to accomplish this goal of completing a connected 

nationwide network that 1972 Federal-aid highway legislation direct the 

appropriate responsible officials at all levels of government having any 

official interest or responsibility for any section of the Interstate program, 

where the location and design remains unresolved as of July 1, 1973, 

make a sincere and recorded effort to negotiate a compromise solution 

satisfactory to the Secretary, that will satisfy the intent of Congress of 

completing a connected system..."

LITIGANTS SHOULD POST BOND

17. "That language be included in the Federal-aid highway legislation for 

1972 that would protect the substantial Federal and State interest in the 

Nation's highway programs, against legal action that would cause costly 

delays or interruptions in a Federal-aid highway project, by requiring the 

plaintiff in such injunctive proceedings to post a bond of sufficient amount 

to show sincerity of purpose and responsibility of action, and to 

discourage any irresponsible harassment and delaying tactics..."

CONTRACT AUTHORITY

19. "That Section 118...be strengthened and clarified to express the original 

intent of Congress regarding the contract authority concept in the 

Federal-aid highway program, and eliminate the administratively 

imposed issuance of quarterly obligational authority...Federal legislation 

should make it clear that the apportioned funds are to be used for the 

programs and purposes in amounts specifically authorized by the 

Congress."

SYSTEM REALIGNMENT

21. Had to do with system realignment based on functional classification and 

needs, setting the mileage in each system at a size that could be 

improved with the funds available.

POST INTERSTATE

22. Urged the Congress to establish the post-Interstate Federal interest and 

level of funding such that the transition to non-Interstate could be made 

smoothly and without interruption.

FRANK TURNER RETIRES ON 6/30/1972

Excerpts From the October, 1972 Issue of American Highways.

ALF JOHNSON'S RETIREMENT SPEECH
The title of the speech was "A Commentary on My Years in Washington." It was 

presented at the Regional Highway Association meetings during 1972.

"...It is my intention to fully represent the State Highway Departments to fullest of 

my abilities until 5:00 p.m. on October 31, 1972, at which time I retire."

"It will complete almost 46 years of continuous service in the Highway Program; 

27 and two-thirds years in my native State Highway Department of Arkansas 

and, lacking two months, 18 years in Washington as Executive Officer of 

AASHO."

SOME LITTLE KNOWN HISTORY

"...In commenting on my years in Washington, I will cover a 20-year period, 

inasmuch as while serving as Chief Engineer-Director of the Arkansas Highway 

Department in 1953 and 1954, I spent a considerable number of the work days in 

Washington working on the formative stages of what is the Interstate Highway 

Program, at the request of the Bureau of Public Roads Commissioner, Francis V. 

du Pont and Sherman Adams, Special Assistant to the President at the White 

House."

"I chaired an informal Drafting Advisory Committee that put together the format 

and the highlights of what was to be the Interstate highway program to be 

sponsored and promoted by President Eisenhower. The Committee's 

recommendations were made to Commissioner du Pont."

"The people who have to be credited with the concept of our Interstate program 

were Chief Thomas H. MacDonald and his deputy, Herb Fairbank of the Bureau 

of Public Roads. However, those credited with actually taking the reports off the 

shelf and turning them into an action program are Francis V. du Pont and Frank 

Turner."

"I was asked to name the informal drafting committee, and it included Bert 

Tallamy of New York, George McCoy of California and General Frank Merrill of 

New Hampshire, and General Jimmy Anderson from Virginia..."

"I was also asked by Mr. Sherman Adams to work with the Governors 

Conference, inasmuch as that group had just proposed a resolution opposing 

any more Federal aid for highways."

"I was given the task of getting the Governors Conference to rescind that action, 

so that the then Vice President, Richard Nixon, could appear before the 

Governors Conference at Bolton Landing, New York and brief them on President 

Eisenhower's proposed grand highway plan and obtain their support." (Nixon was 

substituting for the President who could not be there because of an illness in his 

immediate family.)

"I ran into a little difficulty with the Chairman of the Governors Conference 

Highway Committee, Governor Walter Kohler of Wisconsin, who objected to the 

additional lead time it required to put a Federal-aid project under contract."

"He indicated that if he could go the State route he could get a contract underway 

in less than a year. If he took Federal-aid it would require an additional year. An 
additional year does not appear too serious at the present time when Federal-aid 

projects average 77 months or more, and it is one of our major problems in the 

program."

"I had a good friend, Governor Kennon of Louisiana and Chairman of the 

Governors Conference, who at that time invited me and the governors making up 

the Highway Subcommittee to meet with him at his mansion in Baton Rouge."

"I am happy to report that I was successful in getting the Governors Conference, 

through the efforts of Governor Kennon, to withdraw any opposition that they 

might have to the new Interstate Highway Program."

"The informal drafting committee which I have referred to previously reviewed the 

Interregional Report coming from the Delano Committee of 1941, which was put 

in official form and submitted in 1944, which treated several different systems or 

mileages as possible programs, ranging from 20,000 up to 77,000 miles. We 

recommended 40,000 miles. (Actually, 40,000 miles was established by the 

Congress in the 1944 Highway Act.) We recommended complete control of 

access roads and the building of any major bridges as might be required instead 

of making the Interstate routes cross existing bridges as some of the more 

conservative people in the highway activity had wanted to do. We also after 

much study recommended the 90-10% matching ratio to insure the participation 

of every State, which was deemed essential."

"All of these recommendations and the first highway needs study made by the 

States together with considerable information gathered by Frank Turner, who 

was made staff man, was considered by the Clay Committee in 1954."

"In 1954, I had the privilege of serving as special advisor to the Clay Committee, 

which put the frosting on the cake of the new program, but it changed our 

recommendation from a Highway Trust Fund, financed with largely highway user 

imposts, to a bond program which Congress in its good judgment laid aside in 

favor of a Trust Fund in 1956."

"I also had the opportunity of giving the State Highway Departments in 1954 at 

the Seattle AASHO Annual Meeting, while having the honor of serving as 

AASHO President, the first knowledge that they actually had as to the kind of 

program that was being envisioned."

"I advised that I did not know exactly what time the proposal would become a 

reality, but that it was gaining momentum and we would have an Interstate 

Program, which was so badly needed in this country because the Primary 

highway system was no longer capable of handling the normal traffic assigned to 

it, plus the increasing amount of high speed, long-haul highway traffic."

"I indicated that the need for this class of road was being manifested by the toll 

road era in the United States at that time."

"I also advised the State Highway Departments that if we undertook the program 

as a partnership with Federal-aid financing, it involved some calculated risks 

because of the amount of money involved and the kind of program, but that if we 

did not undertake it, the big highway program would be done by another group 

wishing to have it as an expanded civil works activity."
"One of the elder statesmen in the Highway Departments at that time was 

Commissioner Sam Hadden of Indiana. He was not opposed to the program per 

se, but he was concerned that it was so big and there was so much money 

involved that it would cause many problems in the future and might even cause 

the demise of AASHO, and lead to the federalization of the Highway Program. 

He indicated that when you 'hang up the meat, the wolves will gather under it.', 

and the money we were talking about was a lot of meat. However, the Highway 

Departments did decide, if and when the opportunity came along, they would 

undertake the job."

"We had a great deal of creative guidance from Frank du Pont. He had vision and 

was in a position to get things done, since he had been a major money raiser for 

the new Republican administration."

"In a meeting with the informal drafting committee, he made the statement that 

he could envision the Federal contribution to such a program running to $40 to 

$50 billion, whereupon some of the mouths flew open in shock and 

astonishment."

"He replied that the program was expensive, but it would be more expensive not 

to have it, and to 'aim at the moon because it wasn't any harder on the gun, and 

someday somebody was going to hit it.'"

"Frank Turner's dedication in those years was a great factor in getting the 

program underway. I have known Frank Turner personally for 40 years, starting 

at the time he came to my home State as a young and extremely well-liked 

Bureau of Public Roads engineer, where he and I learned to respect each other 

professionally and personally."

"...At the Seattle annual meeting, AASHO's Executive Secretary, Hal Hale, 

submitted his resignation, which was not expected."

"A Search Committee was named, and I was asked to take over the AASHO 

executive spot. I indicated that I would consider it only if I were acceptable to 

each and every State Highway Department, which I was, and on December 31, 

1954, I moved to Washington."

"...After the Clay Committee had finished its report, it got hung up in the Budget 

Bureau of the Executive Branch of Government, which is not uncommon. And 

there were some hard feelings on Capitol Hill by some of the Republican highway 

leaders who had not participated in the development of the 'Grand Highway 

Plan'." (This was the term used by President Eisenhower in the speech to the 

Governors delivered by Vice President Nixon.)

"One of the first things I had to learn in coming to Washington was that the 

Budget Bureau is the Executive Branch and that everything in Washington is 

over organized and over-complicated, and generally tied up in a neat bundle of 

red tape."

EDITORIAL NOTE:

I have compared notes with Frank Turner on these events having to do with the 

launching of the Interstate System. He corroborates Alf's recollections and adds 

some of his own. According to Frank, du Pont came to his job as Commissioner 
of Public Roads with a very clear intention of developing a program to finance 

and build the Interstate. This was not unusual because he was Highway 

Commissioner of Delaware for some 25 years and knew the program very well 

and the critical need to up-grade the deteriorating highway system. He was very 

influential in high Republican circles and in the business community as well as in 

the highest social circles. His father, Coleman du Pont, was very influential in the 

creation of the Federal-aid program in the first place having been the Chairman 

of the National Highway Association which advocated a National Program in the 

early part of this century. He also built, at his own expense, a divided median 

parkway from Wilmington to Dover beginning in 1913.

In order to get the program going, Commissioner du Pont had to have the 

support of the Administration and the States. Alf has documented the interactions 

with the Governors. Access to the Oval Office was developed through General 

Merrill, head of the New Hampshire Highway Department. (He lead the famous 

Merrill's Marauders in many heroic feats in World War II and so was not unknown 

to President Eisenhower). After the war, he was assigned to a high post in the 

Philippines at the same time Frank Turner was putting the highways back 

together there. They developed a close working relationship.

General Merrill was appointed to head the New Hampshire Highway Department 

by Sherman Adams when he was Governor. They developed a close 

relationship. It was through those channels that complete access to the Oval 

Office was established when Sherman Adams was Eisenhower's chief of staff.

AASHO elected General Merrill President at their New Orleans annual meeting in 

1954. He died on the way home. We all know the man who succeeded him as 

President. Rex Whitton.

ALF JOHNSON:

"Almost immediately after taking over the AASHO job, I received a call from the 

office of the Secretary of Commerce under whom the Bureau of Public Roads 

operated at that time. I was requested to permit them to review and edit any 

mailing I made before it was mailed to the Member Departments."

"I very forcefully indicated that such a privilege would not be extended, and if it 

ever came to pass that AASHO letters had to be approved that there was no 

need for the American Association of State Highway Officials. That was the last 

time I had such a request."

"The Chairman of the Senate Roads Subcommittee at that time was a good 

friend of mine, Albert Gore from Tennessee."

"Albert knew that the President's Grand Highway Plan was tied up in the Budget 

Bureau, and he introduced an Interstate Highway Bill on his own, which actually 

treated the Interstate Highway as an addition to the Federal-aid Primary system. 

He did this on February 5, 1955, and it jarred loose the Administration's Highway 

Bill from the Budget Bureau."

"The Bill was defeated in Congress that year, and the post mortem of that defeat 

was indeed very interesting. Some rather diverse groups had a great deal to do 

with the defeat. Some were pro-highway and some were anti-highway."
"George Fallon of Maryland was the Chairman of the House Roads 

Subcommittee, and he took the defeat rather seriously. It was only through the 

efforts of some of his friends that he introduced the Bill again in 1956, at which 

time it was successful, with Title I being the program and Title II the funding, and 

the creation of the Trust Fund."

"...Almost immediately upon going to Washington, I received a letter from Jere 

Cooper of Tennessee, of the House Ways & Means Committee, to serve as a 

highway finance advisor, which I was happy to do."

"Later, when Congressman Cooper died, an old friend of mine, Wilbur Mills, 

became Chairman of that extremely important Committee, and our long 

friendship has been I think very much in the public interest. Chairman Mills is 

very informed on highway matters."

EDITORIAL NOTE:

Both Frank Turner and Alf Johnson knew Wilbur Mills when he was a judge in 

Arkansas. If one is given to philosophizing, one can speculate on what would 

have happened to the highway program if all of these great and talented 

personalities had not come together at that particular time.

ALF:

"I have usually had excellent relations on Capitol Hill and with Congressional 

staffs. And I am reminded of a comment that was once made, 'To some of us you 

are a straight-laced conservative, but we realize to some of your own State 

Highway Departments, you are probably a raving liberal, so you are probably on 

the right track.'"

"...in 1959, I learned that there was going to be a deficit in the Highway Trust 

Fund, and the Administration intended for it to become a surprise to the Highway 

Departments, and they in turn would have to carry about $400 million on the cuff 

for several months."

"As a result, in contacting the Executive Branch and the Chairman of the 

Appropriations Committee we were able to get an amendment making $400 

million available to the Program from the General Fund."

"And it was added as an amendment to the Foreign Aid bill, since it was in the 

waning days of the Congressional session, too late to start any separate action 

and, as the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations committee said, he would 

add it to a bill that the Administration couldn't veto, and that he always kept the 

Foreign Aid Bill on his desk until the last days for such purposes."

"...As a member of the National Advisory Council on Urban Transportation, I was 

named the chairman of a special task force to review the National Transportation 

Study of 1972. I was somewhat concerned over the general fabric of the report, 

such as:

a. Describes the highway needs estimate as the 'Highway Want List'.

b. Criticizes the Highway Departments for use of geometric standards as a 

basis for computing their needs.
c. Attempts to determine priorities in transportation almost wholly on the 

cost-benefit ratio or cost-effectiveness approach, without considering the 

public's wishes or desires.

d. Low rates rural highway priorities by using a per capita measurement in 

which only rural population is used, whereas most of the traffic on a rural 

primary highway comes from urban areas..."

"...In 1972, AASHO testified in the House against a new Department of 

Community Development, which would transfer the Federal-aid Highway 

Program into a reorganized and expanded HUD. The Administration proposed 

such a switch by citing highway transport as a community matter and rail and air 

as national transportation systems."

"...I have maintained a very low profile. I assumed this low profile in 1955, after 

there was some talk of investigating my influence in Federal highway legislative 

activities. And I do not think it is proper for the State Highway Departments, 

agencies of sovereign States, who have the major basic highway responsibilities 

to the public, to operate through a lobbyist. I further believe that my Hill activities 

should never adversely affect the best interests of the States."

"...I was kicked out of one executive session of the House Public Works 

Committee, when Congressman Buckley of New York was its chairman. 

Congressman Buckley only spent four or five days in Washington each 

Congressional session and, as a result, Congressman Fallon always chaired the 

meetings, and he asked me to attend the session. This was one of those few 

days that Mr. Buckley showed up. He took the chair and wanted to know what I 

was doing in there, and he kicked me out. While I was in the hall licking my 

wounds, out came Frank Turner who had suffered the same indignity, so I didn't 

feel too badly."

"After the death of Chairman Chavez on the Senate side, a new staff for the 

Public Works Committee was retained. I was called to the Hill and advised that 

they were federalists and that there was going to be a decline in the role of State 

Highway Departments in influencing highway legislation, and they would not be 

looking either to the Federal Highway Administration or to AASHO for highway 

needs, estimates, etc. but intended to hire a consultant periodically who could get 

the sort of information on short notice that they would need to draft their 

programs."

"They had in mind breaking the Federal-aid Highway Program into a group of 

regional programs and holding hearings around the country at frequent intervals, 

presumably to get more political mileage."

"When Jennings Randolph became the chairman of the Senate Public Works 

Committee, this matter cleared up as those staff people left Capitol Hill. This did, 

however, cause me considerable concern at the time."

"...Many of you may remember the NBC-TV presentation entitled 'The Great 

Highway Robbery' and in my opinion it brutalized the highway program and then 

Federal Highway Administrator, Rex M. Whitton. I had information that the two 

sponsors of that show had a preview of it before it was shown to the nation, and 

they should have known it had the potential of damaging the character of some 

very fine highway officials, as well as leaving untrue impressions regarding the 

program on the public mind. The next morning after the showing, I wrote the 
State Highway Departments a confidential letter which was leaked by someone, 

and as a result I was threatened with a sizable personal lawsuit by an attorney of 

one of the sponsors."

"I immediately contacted the members of the AASHO Executive Committee for 

authorization to retain some legal assistance and they declined, saying that this 

overall issue was something that they could not individually become identified 

with by association or any other way, which left me hanging in mid-air."

"Finally, one of the Members of the AASHO Executive Committee made his own 

general counsel available, and after some discussions with the sponsor's 

attorney, the threat of litigation against me disappeared. I am of the opinion that 

neither the sponsors nor the network wished to risk a legal challenge as to 

whether or not the ubiquitous disclaimer clause generally used would actually 

save harmless the sponsor. however, I learned a lesson and from that day I have 

kept myself protected by a liability insurance policy, and I strongly recommend 

that my successor do the same..."

This was a very long speech and covered a lot of ground. I have heavily 

excerpted it. It is recommended reading in its entirety for those who want deeper 

insights into the highway program.

Excerpts From the January, 1973 Issue of American Highways-The Record of the 58th 

Annual Meeting, November 27, 1972

J.C. DINGWALL, Texas, The President's Annual Address

"This past year has brought a changing of the guard in the leadership of the 

highway program in the United States the likes of which we have not seen 

before."

"...The year has brought with it retirements and departures from the halls of 

Congress of many of the statesmen who participated in the revitalization of the 

Federal aid highway program in 1956."

"Among them were leaders in the establishment of the Highway Trust Fund. 

Among them were authors of the legislation that brought the Interstate Highway 

system into being. These are giants, unafraid to dream big dreams and then work 

to bring those dreams to realization."

"...The changing of the guard is perhaps best exemplified by the retirement of our 

friend and colleague, Mr. Alf Johnson, the executive director of AASHO."

"...At the Federal level also, the muster rolls are missing the name of another 

great captain, Frank Turner - a longtime trusted friend. I can truly say that he is a 

man who is dedicated to principle always over expediency. Frank was a protege 

of Thomas H. MacDonald, the man generally acknowledged as originator of the 

Interstate system concept. I predict that history will record that the student, in 

Frank Turner's case, exceeded the achievements of the coach."

"...it seems that for most of the year, we spent most of our time preparing for or 

appearing before Congress about one matter or another."
"To understand this, I think one must understand what's going on in our society. 

Highways are under attack from all directions. I think that this is so because there 

is a substantial protest subculture in the United States whose chief targets are 

the successful elements of the so-called Establishment. There is an amazing lack 

of protest over the failures of other programs. But show me a successful 

program, or organization, or institution and I'll show you a target for these 

attacks."

"...We must tell the story like it is, and we must be certain we are chipping away 

at everything that doesn't really look like our particular elephant."

"Let me give you an illustration or two of what I mean."

"First, and probably most noteworthy, the State of Missouri on its own filed suit 

against the Secretary of Transportation and the Office of Management and 

Budget, contending that the withholding of funds authorized by Congress is 

illegal. The federal district court said the State was correct and the funds were 

order restored. Even though the case in now on appeal, it is evident that one 

State's willingness to take a stand has turned an apparently hopeless situation 

into a possible victory."

"At the same time, Senators Randolph and Bellmon together with others in the 

Congress have spoken out loudly and clearly on this procedure by the OMB. In 

this way, the situation has reached the front pages..."

"...Now, as we all know, the proposed 1972 highway legislation died in the 

waning hours of the 92nd Congress."

"Without blaming anyone or any group, without pointing the finger, and without 

rancor, let's all talk to our congressional people and see if we can't get this going 

again in the very early days of 1973..."

RALPH BARTELSMEYER, Acting Federal Highway Administrator.

TROUBLED TIMES

"...We meet here today in a troubled time. As we all know, Congress did not pass 

any highway legislation this year, and you are, I am aware, deeply concerned. I 

understand and sympathize with your concern. Undeniably, there are some dark 

clouds hovering over us at the moment. However, AASHO has met in troubled 

times before, and adversity - of whatever nature - has always been overcome. 

This crisis, too, will be resolved. As Shakespeare phrased it, 'The morning steals 

upon the night, melting the darkness.' Our dark hour will also pass."

"...I am aware that several key members of Congress will appear on the program 

here this afternoon, and I believe it is proper to defer to them concerning a 

probable Congressional timetable on the needed legislation."

THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION POSITION

"...I think I should explain, however, the Department of Transportation's position 

on the type of legislation we feel is needed. As you know, we supported the 

provision in the Senate Bill which would have permitted $800 million annually 
from the Highway Trust Fund to be allocated on a 'pass thru' basis to urbanized 

areas - and which would have permitted local officials to help decide how the 

money would be spent, whether for highways, mass transit or a combination of 

the two."

"There will be no retreat from that general position. The Department will hold firm 

on that. It will support and seek similar legislation in the coming session."

"When the Department submitted draft legislation to Congress early this year, it 

recommended that some Trust Fund monies be made available for urban mass 

transit facilities, both rail and highway oriented."

"We thought then that this was desirable and necessary. We think now that it is 

desirable and necessary."

LOCAL DECISIONMAKING MUST BE PERMITTED

"...The local officials should be permitted to make these vital decisions. Ample 

Federal approval provisions will remain to assure that local decisions represent 

sound and viable programs."

THE ENERGY CRISIS

"...Even if the congestion problem did not exist, there would be another 

compelling reason for providing our cities with adequate mass transit facilities. 

That is the critical fuel shortage this Nation faces in the near future. This is a 

most serious problem - one that must concern all of us deeply - and it is

imminent. Obviously, one of the necessary remedial measures is to reduce fuel 

consumption; and this can be done, in part, by significantly reducing the use of 

private automobiles in urban areas during rush hours, and using, instead, mass 

transit systems."

A NEW ERA

"...We must accept the fact that the Federal-State highway program has entered 

a new era - an era in which the role of highways is a changed one, but not a 

diminished one..."

AN APPEAL

"...You, the members of AASHO, are being given the opportunity - now - to 

assume the leadership in this total transportation challenge. If you do no accept 

it, someone else surely will! I say let's accept this challenge eagerly and 

enthusiastically;.."

"Let this, the 58th Annual Meeting of the American Association of State Highway 

Officials, be a historic one. Let it be remembered as the occasion when 

America's highway officials moved on a new course of total transportation 

responsibility, with highways remaining that important common factor upon which 

all other modes depend to a great degree for success in the Nation's total 

transportation scheme."

"Thank you."
CONGRESSIONAL PANEL DISCUSSION

Panel members were Rep. John C. Kluczynski, Ill.- Rep. James C. Wright, 

Texas-and Rep. Don Clausen, Cal. All were members of the House 

Subcommittee on Roads. President Dingwall moderated the session.

DINGWALL: "Since the failure of the 1972 Federal-aid Highway Act, Secretary 

Volpe in a speech before the New York Board of Trade indicated that one of the 

objectives of the Administration in 1973 will be to again urge upon the Congress 

to permit the utilization of the Highway Trust Fund for urban public transportation 

with local option on how funds should be spent. Given the estimated needs for an 

adequate highway transportation system at work (network?) obtained in the 1972 

National Transportation Needs Study, what is your position on this matter?"

KLUCZYNSKI: He pointed out that the needs study indicated a $570 billion 

highways need with about $300 billion of that to come from the Federal 

Government. At that rate, the Highway Trust Fund would have to be doubled just 

to meet the highway needs, much less pay for transit. He remained unalterably 

opposed.

DINGWALL: "...Is the new highway construction effective tool to develop new 

economic growth centers and to provide a better way of life by eliminating some 

of the problems of the old city?..."

CLAUSEN: He gave a lengthy answer. The essence was that he had advanced 

a demonstration project on economic growth centers in 1970 and that a $150 

million on-going program had been accepted by the conferees on the 1972 Act. 

He felt that too much past emphasis had been placed on population and traffic 

counts as the indicators for the allocation of funds instead of paying attention to 

where people ought to live. He felt like the idea was going to catch on.

He felt that the way out of the legislative deadlock was to create a transit trust 

fund and then follow the highway pattern of an intensive inventory of transit 

needs and then hold extensive hearings to determine the funding levels and the 

allocation methods of the legislation.

DINGWALL: "...In the proposed 1972 Highway Act as it emerged from 

conference containing a greatly expanded safety program tied to it, could you 

highlight that part of the Bill for us and what would it mean in terms of new, 

added dimensions to the safety program?"

WRIGHT: He described the intense interest in the Congress for reducing the 

number of highway fatalities in the years ahead.

"We included a total of some $436 million of authorizations for fiscal year 1973, 

approximately $1.1 billion for fiscal '74 and $1.5 billion in all of fiscal '75." He 

expected any bill passed to contain at least those levels. He cited safety as a 

good reason that the highway program would pass in 1973 without transit 

diversion.

DINGWALL: "In the Conference Committee when the 1972 proposed Federal 

Highway Act was being discussed, was there any general agreement that 

general funds be provided to meet the needs for mass transportation?"
KLUCZYNSKI: "...I would like to make it perfectly clear at this point that the 1972 

Highway Act, as it came out of Conference, was not only a great Highway Act, 

but Title III of that proposal contained the largest and most comprehensive transit 

program ever to come before Congress. It contained an additional - just get this -

an additional three billion dollars over and above the $3.1 billion authorized in the 

Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1970. It also contained for the first 

time operating subsidy authorization of a hundred million dollars for 1973 and 

three hundred million dollars for 1974. All of this would be under contract 

authority as in the highway program, but it would all come from the general fund."

"Can you imagine a highway bill with such a big boost for mass transit? If the bill 

had passed in the House on the final date of October 18th, it would be a law 

today. Of course, that assumes it would have escaped President Nixon's big veto 

stamp. That is a pretty uncertain assumption to make these days, but at least we 

did our part in the conference to produce such a bill."

"I might add as a direct response to your question that there was not general 

agreement in the conference that general fund monies should be used for transit. 

You highway administrators know this only too well because you all received, in a 

move unprecedented to my knowledge in the history of Congress, a telegram 

from seven of the Senate conferees which indicated the thinking of some of the 

Senate conferees implying that they had given in on the Cooper-Muskie proposal 

to take mass transit funds from the Trust Fund. What they neglected to say was 

that the only reason they wanted a one year extension of the ABCD (highway) 

program instead of the two years which was in both bills, was to insure that the 

subject would have to be treated again early in the next Congress. As it turned 

out, of course, we have no bill and not even a one year extension, so those 

people got their way anyway."

"It certainly is my hope that we can address ourselves to this problem in the next 

session by recommending a third Trust Fund for mass transit and leaving the 

Highway Trust Fund and the Airway Trust Fund alone...Of course there are many 

people who profess to be in favor of a transit program, but are in reality simply 

opposed to highways..."

DINGWALL: "Congressman Clausen...In the 1972 proposed Federal-aid 

Highway Act, there was developed a program of a 10,000 mile priority primary 

system to connect with the Interstate...Could you give us some of the 

background..."

CLAUSEN: "...I would like to allude and read from the committee report as it 

came out of the House, and I think it best details essentially what we were 

attempting to get at. As a result of this needs study, they made a 

recommendation that as the Interstate highway system reaches a point of 

completion in this country, and as Mr. Wright has stated so eloquently, the very 

serious problem of unsafe highways, unsafe bridges throughout the United 

States, that there was a need for a follow-on program. There was much in the 

way of support in the Congress to expand the Interstate highway system after the 

'79 completion date..., the Interstate highway system having reached about 80 

percent of completion. But in the wisdom of the committee itself, it felt that what 

should be done is to go back to that needs study report and come forth with a 

10,000 mile intermediate highway program based upon priorities that would 

come from the States in cooperation with the local units of government."
"...This supplemental system in conjunction with the Interstate system would 

provide accessibility to over 90 percent of all urban population, and nearly all 

urban places over 50,000 population, as well as to the rural regions through 

which it would pass...data from the '68 Needs Report was utilized to arrive at the 

figure of 10,000 miles..."

DINGWALL: "Now I would like to ask the Congressmen if they would like to 

make a closing statement, and we will begin with Chairman Kluczynski."

KLUCZYNSKI: "...You didn't get your normal highway bill in 1972, and your 

program is slowly grinding to a halt in many States." He encouraged them to pull 

out all of the stops next year and present the hard facts to the Congress.

"I understand that the President has ordered everybody to resign down there and 

in the same breath has asked them how the whole outfit should be reorganized. I 

also understand he may not fire anybody at all, just shift them around to a 

different job. Maybe we will see Henry Kisssinger in charge of the highway 

program and Ralph Bartelsmeyer advising the Russians and the Chinese..."

CLAUSEN: He warned them that they could no longer depend on the 

Congressional Committees having jurisdiction over highways to get the job done. 

The Congress was taking on a whole new complexion and the committees would 

not possess the power that they had in the past. He felt that the future of the 

highway program would depend more on public sentiment than anything else.

E.J. PELTIER, President, American Road Builders.

REVENUE SHARING LEGISLATION

"As a starting point, let me suggest to you that historians may note that enacting 

the general revenue-sharing bill was the most important action taken by the 92nd 

Congress. It will have that kind of historic impact if it sets a trend for future 

actions. If it fails to set a trend, historians will tag it as a mere aberration - a small 

kink in the thread of history.

THE ADMINISTRATION WILL PRESS FOR IT NEXT YEAR

"...While $30 billion is a lot of money, the significance of the legislation...is that 

the Administration will press the fight next year for the enactment of six special 

revenue-sharing proposals, including Special Transportation-Revenue Sharing."

"This is what John Ehrlichman, special assistant to the President for domestic 

affairs says, and I quote:

'The philosophy of general revenue sharing is pervasive in the President's 

approach to domestic policy, and we expect that the real test will come next 

Congress when we press for the six special revenue sharing reforms...'"

"...Some of you, perhaps, have forgotten about Special Transportation RevenueSharing. The proposal, which the President first made in his State of the Union 

Message in January, 1971, has lain dormant in Congress. In essence, it involves 

a pooling of the revenues from the Highway Trust Fund, the Airports and Airways 

Trust Fund, and funds appropriated for the urban mass- transit program. This 
pool of money was to be distributed to State and local governments for 

application to any transportation program whatsoever, including maintenance 

and operating costs."

VOLPE'S PROPOSAL

"The program presented last spring by Secretary Volpe, which centered around 

the proposed single Urban Fund, is a step in the direction of Special 

Transportation-Revenue-Sharing."

"The Cooper-Muskie Amendment to the 1972 Highway Act (to open the Highway 

Trust Fund to mass transit), which the Administration supported in the closing 

weeks of the 92nd Congress represents a much smaller step in the same 

direction."

THE EXECUTIVE REORGANIZATION PLAN

"One more proposal needs to be mentioned to put the situation in proper context. 

The Executive Reorganization Plan would, among other things, abolish the 

Federal Department of Transportation. DOT's highway and urban mass- transit 

functions would be assigned to a new Department of Community Development. 

DOT's Airport function and national transportation policy function would be 

transferred to a new Department of Economic Development."

THE END OF FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT

"...the Cooper-Muskie Amendment represented only a very small fraction of the 

Administration program for transportation. In its totality the Administration plan 

would result in...the end of Federal involvement..."

"In this broad context, the matter of opening up the Highway Trust Fund for some 

diversion to support the urban mass-transit program is only a detail. The real 

issue is whether we want to abandon the Federal role in transportation 

development."

He discussed the pros and cons of the Federal role in some detail.

SUPPORTS CONTINUING FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT

"There are more substantive reasons for continuing the Federal-aid program, the 

most important of which is that a strong Federal position is going to be required if 

we, as a Nation, are going to meet the most urgent of our transportation needs."

He talked against operating subsidies for mass transit at some length but 

defended Federal involvement in capital outlays for major transit improvements:

"...the Federal Government does have an interest in developing modern efficient 

urban public transportation systems. The Federal Government, properly, is the 

leader in accomplishing the research and development work which is essential to 

the building of better transit systems. Furthermore, since these systems require 

large capital outlays, it seems proper for Federal assistance to be channeled in 

this direction."
SUPPORTS USER TAXES

"...it is basically sound to support these transportation development programs 

from special taxes which are related to the use of the transportation facilities and 

which are levied on the beneficiaries of the programs as equitably as possible."

"The 93rd Congress, which convenes January 3, will be considering new 

authorizations for highways, airports, and urban public transportation. There is an 

opportunity, as these authorizations are discussed, to broaden the discussion to 

cover the total, multi-modal, transportation problem of this country."

"We need that kind of discussion."

SUPPORTS INCREASED TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

"We need to make it understood that the highway, airport, and urban mass 

transportation programs are all underfunded."

"We need to emphasize that the Department of Transportation has a 

responsibility to relate its legislative requests to the needs of the programs."

"Concurring in the belief that local transportation decisions can be made at the 

local level, we also need to clarify whether the Federal government also has a 

responsibility to exert leadership in developing a national transportation 

system..."

VOLPE STEPS DOWN AS SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION-12/72

CLAUDE BRINEGAR APPOINTED SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION-12/72

WILLIAM DUNN, Executive Vice-President, Associated General Contractors.

GOOD ECONOMIC PROSPECTS

He expressed optimism for the future because of the success in holding down 

inflation and the stimulation of productivity which would result in economic 

growth:

"...What does all this euphoria, this optimism, mean to us if there is no highway 

program?"

SUPPORTS AASHO RECOMMENDATIONS

He supported the AASHO recommendations for a separate transit trust fund and 

no diversion from the Highway Trust Fund:

OPPOSES THE U.S. DOT

"The Department of Transportation believes that it is indeed proper to permit 

urbanized areas to use some Highway Trust Fund monies to obtain needed 

transit systems - even if they happen to be rail oriented - because, after all, 

anything that we can do to eliminate or reduce congestion is beneficial to the 

highway systems of those areas, and the motorists who use them. We oppose 

this without reservation..."
NORBERT TIEMAN APPOINTED FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR-5/73

At the 59th Annual Meeting held in Los Angeles Nov. 12, 1973, the Policy 

Committee approved the change in name from the American Association of State 

Highway Officials to the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials. At the same time, a new Constitution was approved 

which broadened the purpose of the organization to include mass transportation 

and to include representation of transit officials. Minor changes in geographic 

representation were also made.

At the same time, the official journal of the organization was changed to the 

American Highway and Transportation Monthly instead of the traditional quarterly 

publication. The new format was more oriented to news reporting than the old 

publications.

Excerpts from the March, 1974 Issue of the American Highway and Transportation 

Monthly-The Record of the 59th Annual Meeting.

THOMAS F. AIRIS, D.C.-The President's Address-Nov. 12, 1973.

"...The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 was signed into law by President Nixon 

on August 13th and it is old news now. As Governor Tieman, Federal Highway 

Administrator remarked in a recent speech, 'it is a complex and significant piece 

of legislation.'"

"For a matter of fact, some of its provisions depart from traditional practice to the 

extent that in spite of a number of explanatory bulletins by various organizations, 

we State officials still don't know fully all of its far-ranging implications. Even now, 

the AASHO staff, plus four AASHO Task Force Committees, are still consulting 

with Federal Highway Administration officials in an attempt to solve some knotty 

problems of interpretation..."

"...One thing for certain. The States do have a Highway Act. We anticipate it 

would be adequate for the next two to three years. This, alone, is very much a 

plus over last year..."

"The single feature of the Act that made headlines, of course, was the 

compromise in Section 137 that permits, under certain conditions, equivalent 

amounts of general funds for construction of non-highway public transit including 

fixed rail in lieu of authorized Interstate projects, local and State Governments no 

longer consider necessary. This is a novel feature, but the provisions dealing with 

priority primary routes, the urban high density traffic programs, economic growth 

center development highways, public mass transportation studies, the special 

earmarking of urban funds, and the addition of the extensive Title II Safety Act 

provisions, from a practical standpoint, are also equally new and novel and no 

less significant..."

"...I would like to conclude by philosophizing just a little bit. We hear a great deal 

nowadays about changes or innovations in the transportation field - about total 

transportation. Yesterday the glamour term was 'balanced transportation,' and 

Governor Tieman, our Federal Highway Administrator, spoke recently of the 'The 

Quiet Revolution.' This indicates, I think, that in urban areas, particularly those of 

the Northeast, there is unrest over our present mix of modes; there is too much 

traffic congestion on city streets and highways caused, to a sizable extent, by 

commuters' preference for their private vehicles on the home-to-work, work-to-
home movements. There is the feeling that something ought to be done about 

this situation."

"The corrective action, I think, is going to require some 'real doing' in the form of 

furnishing the large metropolitan area commuter a better alternative - a 'better 

mousetrap' if you will. We need better coordination between existing modes, and 

perhaps someday, even new modes."

"...Too often nowadays the tried and proven principles are unpopular simply 

because they are not new."

"When to stand firm and when to adopt innovative approaches is where good 

judgment apparently has no substitute."

"It appears to me that top administrators dealing with urban areas need not only 

to be intimately familiar with all the facts, but also sufficiently nimble to avoid 

losing their heads over unpopular positions on inconsequential matters. On the 

other hand, I don't think, since we are, after all, professional people, we stand to 

gain much respect or popular support by emulating the ethics and practices of 

the world's oldest profession and have no principles at all."

CLAUDE S. BRINEGAR, Secretary of Transportation

"For nearly 60 years the American Association of State Highway Officials has 

held a position of leadership in supplying public highways in response to public 

demand..."

"But now, 3.8 million miles of highways and 100-plus million automobiles later, 

we have come to a turning point. Clearly, our long-term concentration on cars 

and highways is no longer appropriate. The four big problems of urban 

congestion, pollution, safety, and now, perhaps the most important of them all -

the energy shortage - demand a rethinking of direction and a shift of emphasis..."

The rest of his speech was devoted primarily to the energy crisis and the need to 

limit automobile travel.

In the same issue, comments on the 1973 Highway Act were presented by the 

Secretary, the Federal Highway Administrator and the Urban Mass 

Transportation Administrator.

CLAUDE BRINEGAR

"You will find that the chain of command has changed a little under the 1973 

Amendments to Title 23, but only in the sense that either the Federal Highway 

Administration or the Urban Mass Transportation Administration will exercise 

Federal responsibility over transportation projects, depending on their nature. 

The delegations of authority for implementing the 1973 act will appear this week 

in the Federal Register and will reflect that new chain of command..."

NORBERT TIEMAN

"The changing State-local role which is evolving out of the '73 Act may be 

causing you some uncertainty - but I really do not believe that it should. On the 
Urban System local officials will now have the responsibility for initiating projects 

- but they still must have the concurrence of the State highway department. We 

feel that our urban areas should have responsibility for determining their own 

futures with respect to transportation systems, and that local officials working 

through metropolitan organizations, should stand up and be counted, and make 

tough decisions on transportation issues. But nothing has changed the 

requirement of Section 134 of Title 23 for a State- local cooperative process. You 

are going to continue to be very much in the act - as you should be."

"For example, consider Section 137 of the Act which allows Interstate System 

deletions for mass transit projects. Who initiates the proposal? Under the law it 

must be a joint request by the State governor and the local government. Who 

determines that the substitute mass transit project is in accord with the planning 

process and has a priority? The State highway department. And there are many 

more such examples. In short, the only possible way I could foresee a loss of 

State control is where there is an absence of State leadership - and I do not 

expect that to happen."

"Under the '73 Act, you have the option of ridding yourselves of some Federal 

red tape. I refer, of course, to the Alternative Certification Acceptance procedure, 

under which a State can elect to build all but its Interstate Federal-aid highways 

under its own laws and regulations, if they are at least equivalent to the Title 23 

laws."

FRANK C. HERRINGER

"The flexibility of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 allows us, by working 

together, to take advantage of the environmental and energy saving advantages 

of mass transit, while continuing the appropriate use of highways."

"The key provision of this bill, and the one that has received the most publicity, is, 

of course, the use of Trust Fund monies for transit purposes. Over the next three 

years, about $2 1/2 billion that would have been earmarked for highways alone 

may now be used for either highways or mass transit. This new flexibility is 

immediate...President Nixon and Secretary Brinegar have made it clear to me 

that we should encourage local areas to spend the Urban Systems money on 

transit now, if that is what they wish to do. We will take the amounts out of 

general revenues until the provisions regarding the Trust Fund take effect..."

NOTE: The Act provided for a staging of Trust Fund monies for the Urban 

System over several years.

"The flexibility in the highway bill has received much publicity. But, I believe that 

the most far reaching effect of the bill may ultimately be the closer relationship 

that will be encouraged between transit interests and highway interests at all 

levels."

"To me, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 is only the first step in giving State 

and local authorities the tools with which they can make and implement 

transportation decisions."

Ralph Bartelsmeyer Died Jan. 25, 1974.