confront the highway engineer now. It has never been determined accurately what is the most economic highway transportation unit, considering the highway and the motor vehicle together. We will have the cooperation of industry and all of the States. There will be an advisory committee.

Senator GORE. Do you mean all the States? Did you say all the States?

Mr. CURTISS. All but four of the States have already agreed to participate in the cost of it. Having almost a complete cross-section of industry and the engineering people concerned with highway transportation the results of the test should be accepted as being correct and applicable to future highway planning and design.

I do not think I mentioned this morning, but it is planned, after commercial-type vehicles have been used over the various sections, it is planned to use the military type, various types of military equipment.

I do not think I brought out this morning that it is the repetitive passage of heavy loads that is likely to do the damage, and not a single passage. I think every State issues permits for overloads to go over the highway, but they govern the way they use the highway, the time and so forth.

Senator GORE. When will this test begin?

Mr. CURTISS. The State highway department is, I understand, securing right-of-way for the construction now.

Senator GORE. Is the test to be on new construction?

Mr. CURTISS. Yes, sir.

Senator GORE. At the standards recommended by the Bureau of Public Roads?

Mr. CURTISS. There has been a committee that has developed the designs for the different sections, and they are acceptable to the State of Illinois and to the Bureau. The project will be built as a regularFederal-aid project on a relocation of a route in Illinois. Later, after the test is over, it will be hooked up and become one of the main arterial highways in Illinois.

Senator GORE. You say the rights-of-way are being secured now? Mr. CURTISS. They are ecquiring the right-of-way now.

Senator GORE. Then the road must be constructed?

Mr. CURTISS. Yes, sir, and then the tests started. I think shortly after the tests get under way some of the results will begin to flow from it. We will not have to wait

Senator GORE. It will be a period of months?

Mr. CURTISS. Yes, there will be some delay, as Mr. du Pont mentioned this morning; there will also be some delay in getting a large volume of new construction started on the Interstate System. If the program were enlarged, it could not be enlarged overnight.

Senator GORE. Would you say the tests would begin within a year? Mr. CURTISS. I hope so, but of course the State has to secure the right-of-way and let the contract, and the contract must then construct the highway.

Senator GORE. Then how long will the test run?

Mr. CURTISS. I believe it will run about a year and a half. But it will not have to be completed before some results begin to flow from it... Senator GORE. Do you expect the findings to be sufficiently conclu-. sive to indicate the adequacy or inadequacy of present construction standards?

61030-55-64

Mr. CURTISS. I think so; yes, sir.

Senator GORE. That brings us to one other question that I asked in the letter to the Secretary: Do you have any difficulty with the States complying with the standards of the Bureau of Public Roads? Mr. CURTISS. No, sir.

Senator GORE. Do any States exceed your standards?

Mr. CURTISS. Some States exceed the minimum standards that have been prescribed by the Association of State Highway Officials and which we accept for Federal-aid.

I have a statement on standards which I would be glad to read into the record or place in the record.

Senator GORE. We will place it in the record at this point. (The statement on standards is as follows:)

Question 3: Standards and types of construction:

(a) and (b). Recommended by and acceptable to the Bureau of Public Roads: The Bureau of Public Roads in order to avail itself of the experience and judgment of the foremost highway engineers of the country is guided by recommendations of various operating committees of the AASHO. Most committees have 1 representative for each State and 1 for the Bureau. Standards adopted by these committees are first approved by the committee on standards, made up of the chairmen of all committees, then by the executive committee and then given final approval or disapproval by a letter ballot with the States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the Bureau of Public Roads, each having 1 vote. The Bureau of Public Roads accepts AASHO approved standards for use on highways in which Federal aid participates in the cost.

Because of the demands, both present and future, for adequate design standards to provide for the potentially large increase in motor traffic, one of the most active AASHO committees is that on planning and design policies. This committee is composed of administrative engineering officials of 20 States in addition to a bureau representative who is a nonvoting secretary. The purpose behind the establishment of the committee is in a major sense the formulation of administrative policies looking toward the incorporation in practice of the design features which will give us the maximum degree of safety and utility. Attached is copy of Geometric Designs Standards for the National System of Interstate Highways as approved by this committee on March 14, 1955. This is now being processed for balloting by the entire State membership and when approved by a majority vote, it will become an association policy. The Bureau of Public Roads is willing to accept this policy since it prescribes minimum standards and is sufficiently flexible to meet the varied conditions encountered throughout the country.

Other policies previously adopted show minimum and desirable standards for the primary and secondary systems. Copies of these are attached.

(c) Legislation needed to assist the Bureau in obtaining compliance with such standards: Prior to this year, 35 States had passed legislation dealing with controlled access authority. In about half of these States the laws are very complete; in the other half amendments are desirable. In many of the other States bills are now pending which deal with controlled access, and we have been informed that in three of the States these bills have recently been passed. In two States, under the decisions of their supreme courts, no legislation is necessary to permit the acquisition of rights to controlled access.

The economic benefits, safety, and public acceptance of access control are so well established that it seems highly desirable to insure control of access, particularly on the National System of Interstate Highways, by Federal legislation requiring access control on all Interstate Highways and by legislation similar to that included in section 208 of S. 1160, 84th Congress. This would eliminate long and costly relays in the acquisition of rights-of-way with control of access, occasioned by legal technicalities and lack of adequate statutory authority.

Mr. CURTISS. I would say in general we work with the States through the committees of the American Association of State Highway Officials. On these committees usually there is representation from every State. They have developed in that way, through these committees,

standards that are acceptable to the Bureau and represent standards that are adequate as nearly as those in responsible charge of the work can determine for our present requirements. This is A Policy on Geometric Design on Rural Highways, a most comprehensive publication. This was published by the American Association of State Highway Officials in 1954. I would be glad to leave a copy of this for the committee staff.

Senator GORE. That may be filed with the committee.

(Thereupon, the publication, A Policy on Geometric Design on Rural Highways, was filed with the committee.)

Senator GORE. Mr. Curtiss, the present Interstate System is limited to 40,000 miles. What is the position of the Department of Commerce as to this limitation of mileage? Does the Department recommend or object to increasing that mileage?

Mr. CURTISS. I have cleared this statement with the Under Secretary for Transportation.

Senator GORE. Will you read that?

Mr. CURTISS (reading):

It is the position of the Department that the legal limitation of 40,000 miles total extent of the Interstate System should not be increased at this time.

Senator GORE. Des the Department have reasons for making that recommendation?

Mr. CURTISS. Could I answer that in connection with the next question that you ask in that same category?

Senator GORE. Yes.

Mr. CURTISS. One of the questions was the most recent studies with respect to the mileage. The most detailed study was covered in the report Interregional Highways published as House Document 379, 78th Congress, 2d session, in 1944. This study was supplemented by the additional consideration connected with the designation of the Interstate System in 1947.

A further study covered in the report Highway Needs of the National Defense published as House Document 249, 81st Congress, 1st session, in June 1949, disclosed no reasons for increasing the mileage. Senator GORE. I would like to interject there an inquiry about the proposed interstate connection between Denver and Salt Lake City. I promised those appearing in behalf of that designation to inquire of you why it had not been designated, and what the prospects were. Mr. CURTISS. I think I explained this morning why it had not been designated. When the Interstate System was being selected, following the passage of the 1944 act, Colorado wished to include a route extending westerly from Denver. Some question was raised at the time as to the justification for a route constructed to Interstate standards through the very mountainous, rugged area west of Denver. But a primary reason for not giving favorable consideration to such a route was that the State of Utah at that time was not interested in a connection into Utah and there never was a joint request from the two States for the route.

So the connection between Denver and Salt Lake City goes north to Cheyenne and then west through Wyoming. This connection is not too many miles longer than one west through Colorado.

I think that when the request-and I am sure one will be submitted now, jointly by the two States-when we receive that it will be con

sidered along with the request for the circumferential and radial urban routes that the mileage was reserved for, and we will have the advice of the Military Establishment on those routes, along with the DenverSalt Lake route.

Senator GORE. If you designated the Denver-Salt Lake route as interstate, that would require a lessening of the amount reserved for metropolitan areas?

Mr. CURTISS. That is right.

Senator GORE. And you would have to measure the approval of the consideration of that application alongside the application of the municipal request?

Mr. CURTISS. Yes, sir, and I would feel that the national defense aspects would be important because transcontinental travel can be taken care of through the presently designated routes.

Senator GORE. Mr. Curtiss, that answers the questions that I particularly had in mind as a summary and conclusion of these hearings. I would be glad to hear any additional summary statement you would care to make.

Mr. CURTISS. There were two other questions in your letter which I can answer rather quickly. One had to do with the question of transferability of funds between different categories.

We would support the recommendations that have been made by the State highway departments for some years for as much as 25 percent. The present law is 10.

There was another question: What has been the experience of the Department in the administration of the antifraud provisions of the 1954 act?

The answer to that is that there have been no cases that have come to our attention.

Senator GORE. You have required the submission of affidavits? Mr. CURTISS. Yes, sir. The law is being carried out in that respect. Senator GORE. Does the Bureau feel that this has had a salutary effect?

Mr. CURTISS. I think any law of that kind has a salutary effect. But I do not know that I am in a position to say more. There have been previous Federal antifraud statutes that perhaps would not have as direct application as this but which would have disclosed instances of fraud.

Senator GORE. Do you know of any reluctance on the part of any successful bidder to comply with this provision?

Mr. CURTISS. No, sir. Of course there is often criticism of paperwork required by the Federal Government. But I do not think there has been any real objection to it. If there has been it has not come to my attention.

Senator GORE. By administrative interpretation you did not acquire this test, this requirement to the secondary roads?

Mr. CURTISS. Not the secondary roads, Mr. Chairman, in those States that are operating under the so-called secondary road plan under which the State highway departments take over the major responsibility for the secondary road projects. In such States, under the law which permits the Secretary to discharge his responsibility by

accepting a certificate from the State, the standards of the States have been followed.

Senator GORE. Would it be advisable to have the same provision with its same salutary effects applied to all highway contracts in which the Government contributes as much as 50 percent?

Mr. CURTISS. I can see no objection to that being done. We interpreted the intent of Congress with respect to the secondary road plan to be, to the extent permitted by the law itself, that the Bureau was to accept the certificate of the State as to the procedures under which the secondary road projects were constructed.

We do have to ascertain that they have actually expended the money; that the projects are on the secondary system. We accomplish that initially through the programing procedure and then a final inspection of the construction; and that the costs are reasonable. But there was, you may recall, quite a bit of questioning on whether we were really going to relinquish any of our authority under that plan. Before the committee we insisted that we would if it were enacted into law, and we have tried to do that.

Thirty States are now operating under that plan.

Senator GORE. A recommendation has been made to the committee that the Davis-Bacon wage standards are required under this program. Were you aware of that?

Mr. CURTISS. We have reported on a bill to that effect. We made an adverse report. We would be rather opposed to that, in fact, quite strongly opposed. Many of the States have fair wage laws. Of course our Federal-aid legislation requires that we operate-that the States be permitted to operate on the Federal-aid program under their State laws.

Senator GORE. Did you make the report on such a bill to this committee?

Mr. CURTISS. I do not think so. It was on a House bill.

Senator GORE. You have answered, in any event, the position of the Department.

Mr. Curtiss, do you have some additional statement? If you do the committee will be glad to hear it.

Mr. CURTISS. At one of my earlier appearances you asked me for information relative to the ability of the States to match funds. Senator GORE. Yes; I had overlooked that.

Mr. CURTISS. I inserted a statement at that time, as I recall it, that we thought that about half of the States would have difficulty with their current revenues in meeting the requirements of S. 1048; that we were not in a position to provide data by States, and that the Secretary of the American Association of State Highway Officials was canvassing the State highway departments and would have the information.

This morning Mr. Johnson handed me this tabulation which I will be glad to submit for your information and for the record, if you wish. Senator GORE. Without objection it will be printed at this point in the record.