antee the obligations of localities or States which undertake to construct new, or modernize existing highways. It would be most unfortunate if proposals for enlarged programs of Federal highway aid were to induce the States to exert less than their own best efforts to finance highway needs. If it is the considered judgment of the Congress that expanded Federal highway financing programs are not necessary or feasible in view of the serious objections to them, the sooner the States (and highway user groups) can be so advised the better it will be, in order that they may take the necessary steps to finance highway requirements with appropriate user support. STATEMENT OF JOSEPH H. EHLERS TO THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC My name is Joseph H. Ehlers. I am field representative of the American Society of Civil Engineers and present this statement on behalf of a special committee on national highway program of the society. The American Society of Civil Engineers is the oldest national engineering society in the United States with a membership of 38,000 representing all types of practitioners. In the highway field we have important representation in the State highway departments both as engineers and administrators, in the Federal Bureau of Public Roads, on the faculties of most of the universities teaching highway engineering, and in private practice. Our membership includes many specialists in the design of highways and highway structures and others who specialize in traffic studies and the economic and financial aspects of highway development. Our most numerous highway group of members is in State, municipal, and Federal employ. The president of the society appointed a special committee to present a report on a national highway program. The members of this committee are men of broad engineering background. The chairman, Carlton Proctor, is a past president of ASCE; Mr. George Burpee is a partner in the firm of Coverdale & Colpitts, a national authority in traffic and financing problems; Prof. Harmer Davis is chairman of civil engineering and director of the Institute of Transportation anl Traffic Engineering at the University of California; Mr. Edmund Friedman is a past vice president of the society and a consulting engineer; Mr. Ralph Tudor is a civil engineer specializing in structures. The committee has had the advice of numerous staff and subcommittee members who have an intimate working knowledge of the highway field. We desire to assist the committees of Congress. We have no desire to promote particular types of highways or particular methods of financing them. We present this statement simply as informed observations reached in our studies of the various current highway bills and the Clay committee report on a national highway policy. It is our intention to limit our statement to those facets of the problems involved which properly fall in the sphere of the engineer, which, of course, includes engineering economics. Four important questions were among those first considered by the Committee: (1) Is the Interstate System of such national significance as to warrant giving it the highest priority and building it with a very greatly increased Federal contribution? (2) Should the system be built to special advanced standards? (3) Should the next generation be burdened with a part of the cost? (4) Is the engineering profession capable of supplying the engineers needed for a program of the magnitude envisaged in such proposals as S. 1160? 1. Priority for the Interstate System System selection.-Is the Interstate System of sufficient national significance to warrant giving it the highest priority and building it with a greatly increased Federal contribution? Our Committee believes that the Interstate System which has already been recognized in law as of special significance warrants a much larger percentage contribution of funds than for other roads. Undoubtedly there are some parts of other systems that are more important than some parts of the Interstate System. Possibly some of these should be added to the system. But as an existing entity, a system which carries over 14 percent of all our highway traffic on 1.2 percent 61030-55-68 of its mileage and which connects 90 percent of all our cities of over 50,000 population, should be of far greater Federal interest than other parts of our National Highway System. The recent study of highway needs, prepared by the Bureau of Public Roads of the Department of Commerce as required in section 13 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1954, presents to Congress for the first time a comprehensive analysis of our total highway systems. Do the various categories of road and street systems used in the study represent a proper engineering approach to future highway development? The technique of system establishment has proven to be the most effective means of achieving orderly development of the various classes of roads. It permits the assignment of responsibility to those agencies best able to manage certain sections of the whole network and it affords opportunity for an equitable division of financial responsibility in accord with predominant interest of the governmental agencies involved. It permits application of broad priority principles in relation to benefits of movement to traffic, economic development or defense operations. The system method of highway development began on a national basis in 1921 with the creation of the Federal-aid primary system. In the period since that time, many more classification plans have developed. The designation of an Interstate Highway System followed this well-established principle. With a continued growth in traffic movement over all systems, it is logical to utilize further the selectivity process to meet our most pressing problems. In the postwar period, following designation of the Interstate System in 1947, Congress has increased authorizations for the system from $25 million annually in 1952 to $175 million annually in 1954. The question now is—will the national interest be served best by giving higher priority to this system? A comparison of the service demands being made upon the system and the capability of the present roadways to meet the demands shows a wide gap between the two. This same inadequacy exists in some degree on all systems, but primary benefits to national interest would by all criteria be greatest in improvement of the National Interstate System. At the same time, support should be continued on all other systems at least at present levels. The Interstate System as presently constituted is a selection based upon a factual study of major traffic movements throughout the Nation. The facts supporting its selection were presented to the Congress in 1944 in a study entitled "Interregional Highways." It interconnects our major centers of populations where most traffic has its origin or destination. Those traffic movements have persisted in similarity of pattern for many years and have changed mainly in volume growth as economic development generated increased interchange of persons and commodities. While only one-seventh of our total movement is now taking place on the Interstate System, it is of outstanding significance that it takes place on just slightly more than 1 percent of our mileage. This means the traffic movement is nearly 12 times as great as the average on the total road network. Using the principle of selectivity to achieve balance and priority related to need, it is difficult to visualize any other approach that would strike most directly at the heart of our current necessity for transportation service to keep pace with our increased productivity and improved standard of living. The Department of Defense has stated that from the military point of view, this system is of the greatest importance. Thus, when the Interstate System is considered in terms of value to the Nation's commerce, its necessity for defense and the contribution to our general welfare and safety, there can remain little doubt of the importance of giving it the highest priority in the finance plan of a Federal highway program. 2. Standards Should the Interstate System be built to special advanced standards?—The policy for needs-measurement of the Interstate System differed from that for other systems. We believe that this more forward-looking policy for this system was warranted by the Interstate System's strategic value, its traffic importance and in view of its long-term value as a capital investment. Two points with respect to standards are of major significance: (1) It was estimated, on the basis of completion to fully modern standards in 10 years, to serve traffic demands forecast for 20 years ahead; (2) It was contemplated that access would be controlled throughout its length to the extent warranted by traffic. Because of the high ratio of earning value per vehicle and its priority importance, the policy of measuring the needs on a 10-year-completion basis seems fullywarranted. The values of control of access on major arteries have been fully demonstrated by experience on sections now in operation. There is no other way by which we can step up transportation service to the required level in terms of freedom of movement, time saving, lives saved and lowered vehicle operating cost and preserve those values for posterity. We believe that the present and future economies warrant these advanced standards, especially in rapidly growing urban and suburban sections and in densely populated or rapidly growing States. The difficulty or near impossibility of obtaining, 10 or 15 years from now, the additional right-of-way width probably would entail a relocation of the road at that time with destruction of many values created by the construction of a presently proposed road. Authorization for advance purchase of right of way would be an exercise of sound business judgment on the part of the Congress. The modern expressway design is the only means we have of improving the general service values and investments along the other routes from which they lift the burden of through movements. It is the modern-engineering solution to the huge public enterprise of highway transportation, and preservation of public investment in the vital road plant. 3. Postponement of financial burden Are we warranted in supporting a financial scheme which would shift to the next generation a considerable part of the cost of the proposed development? Our committee will not deal with general fiscal policies but simply offer some comments from the viewpoint of engineering economies which may have a bearing on the question. First, we believe that costs to the next generation will be lower than if a lower standard were to be adopted for the Interstate System and the added width needed in 10 or 15 years had to be provided by purchase of added right of way or relocation of the road. Certainly that part of the added initial cost may justifiably be transferred to the future beneficiaries. Second, we believe that traffic induced by the development of the Interstate System to the proposed standards will produce additions to revenue income which would not otherwise be available. Thus, even though the tax revenues are not segregated, the proposed expenditures will result in an actual income to reduce the debt created by any bonds issued. Unlike some other types of public works and public buildings, operating highways generate revenue or money income in proportion to vehicle usage; thus in effect there is a money contribution paid into the public coffers for each vehicle mile traveled whether a tollgate spans the highway or not. Hence, there is a special justification on a business basis for a bond issue in the case of the proposed highway development. Estimates of the losses (extra costs of transport service) due to congestion and accidents may far exceed the interest costs of a credit-financed program. It is highly likely that considerable future savings to the total economy could be made by early investment in high-type facilities on the main-line highway system. 4. Manpower factors Is the engineering profession capable of supplying the professional engineering talent needed for a program of the magnitude envisaged in a proposal such as S. 1160? In view of the present-day scarcity of engineers, this is a question of unusual importance. A survey made by the Highway Research Board late last fall indicated that an apparent shortage of some 4,000 engineers then existed in the State highway departments of the Nation. Further augmentation of the highway programs on a nationwide scale will require attention to manpower factors on a broad base, inasmuch as it appears that the total pool of experienced professional highway engineering manpower (including those in both public and private employ) will not be greatly increased in the next few years. This does not mean, however, that the demands for output of plans and construction cannot be met. Rather, it emphasizes certain steps should be taken now, to assure a productivity potential capable of meeting the demands. Ways in which the output of professional services of highway agencies can be augmented include the following: 1. Recruitment of new professional personnel. 2. Reorganization of job functions and duties so as to allocate functions and tasks not requiring the exercise of professional skills and judgment to nonengineering personnel, thus conserving and more effectively utilizing trained engineering manpower already available. 3. Further development and utilization of techniques and procedures, such as mechanized computing and photogrammetric surveying, which can conserve manpower and speed up routine work. 4. Streamlining of field and office procedures so as to reduce the number of special operations, special designs and special reviews which demand the time of skilled professional personnel; e. g. standard design procedures. 5. Effective utilization of the resources of private engineering firms, and possibly of the engineering talent of other Government agencies. While it appears that the numbers of new enginering graduates who will become available will not be sufficient to meet the national manpower demands if highway engineering agencies continue to function along traditional lines, effort should not lag in attempting to attract a reasonable share of the engineering graduates into the highway engineering profession. However, the civil engineering profession as a whole faces a prospect of a continuing inadequacy of new personnel, so that special efforts should be made to attract potential engineers into the profession, including further informational efforts even in the high schools. To provide real and immediate attraction, the rewards to practitioners in the form of salaries, collateral employment benefits, job responsibility, and job challenge must be substantial and known. The effective utilization of the talents of existing professional personnel offers the greatest possibilities for meeting demands for large increased output. Just prior to, and during the early part of World War II, the aircraft industry met the demands for enormously increased output by training large numbers of vocational personnel such as draftsmen, computers, and inspectors in specialized short-term training courses, and conserving experienced professional personnel for technical supervisory functions. Coupled with this is the possibility of greatly increased mechanization of the performance of many routine tasks. The technologic development of high-speed computers, sorting devices, electronic scanning devices, and techniques such as photogrammetric surveying and nondestructive testing, offer challenging possibilities for reducing manpower requirements, both professional and vocational, as well as of speeding up the performance of such tasks. Also coupled with the device of more effective utilization of existing manpower is the adoption of streamlined field and office methods. A number of highway departments and engineering firms are already working with these devices for conserving manpower. In the developing situation, since the total pool of experienced highway personnel in public and private employ is limited, merely to shift personnel from one State or agency to another, or from public to private employ or vice versa, would appear to offer no satisfactory overall solution to the manpower problem. Some increase in available engineering services would result from the utilization of the forces of private engineering firms now performing other than highway engineering services. The real problem here will be to integrate this source of talent into the general effort and to make most effective use of such talent. Such recent surveys of manpower for highway design and construction as are available (report of ARBA Task Committee No. 1, in report on the Construction Industry in a 10-year National Highway Program, American Roadbuilders Association, Washington, D. C. Jan. 1955. ENR staff survey, report in Engineering News-Record, Dec. 30, 1954) indicate that the requirements for an accelerated national highway program can be met. Informed engineering opinion, such as we have been able to sample, also indicates that the adjustments can and will be made, necessary to meet requirements for the output of engineering services in connection with an expanded program. We, therefore, affirm the ability of the civil engineering profession to meet the demands for highway engineering services in any reasonable expansion of nationwide highway development. Hon. DENNIS CHAVEZ, Chairman, Committee on Public Works, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Washington, D. C., March 23, 1955. United States Senate. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your recent request to the Secretary of Defense for the views of the Department of Defense with respect to S. 1048, 84th Congress, a bill to amend and supplement the Federal-Aid Road Act approved July 11, 1916 (39 Stat. 355), as amended and supplemented, to authorize appropriations for continuing the construction of highways, and for other purposes. The Secretary of Defense has delegated to the Department of the Army the responsibility for expressing the views of the Department of Defense. This Department, on behalf of the Department of Defense, has considered the above-mentioned bill and, while certain favorable provisions in the bill are recognized, it is believed the program outlined will not meet the immediate needs of national defense. It is believed that S. 1160 which would implement the recommendations of the President's Advisory Committee on a national highway program would more effectively meet these needs. As you know, this Department has also submitted to your committee comments on that bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend existing Federal-aid highway legislation by increasing the amount of funds authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, and each succeeding fiscal year to and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1960, and by increasing the Federal share of any project on the National System of Interstate Highways. The bill provides for an annual authorization of $1,600 million for the 5-year period. This authorization would cover Federal-aid projects on the Federal-aid primary and secondary systems including approved urban area projects, and also projects on the National System of Interstate Highways. The provisions of existing Federal-aid highway legislation relating to apportionment among the several States remain the same except for the National System of Interstate Highways. The bill would increase the Federal-aid share for any project on the National System of Interstate Highways from 60 to 66% percent of the total cost. The provisions pertaining to public lands and nontaxable Indian lands remain unchanged. The provision in the bill increasing from 2 to 5 years the authorized Federalaid highway program is recognized as a very desirable step. This would make possible a more wisely planned program and better system development. It is also recognized that the proposed bill would increase the amount of Federal funds available for the Federal-aid systems, including the National System of Interstate Highways, over that available in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1954. However, based on studies made by the States and the Federal Bureau of Public Roads, it will require over 30 years to complete the relatively small priority Interstate System to presently approved standards. This, when compared with the fact that the proposed bill also provides for completion of the Federal-aid primary and secondary systems in 20 to 25 years, leads to the conclusion that the proposed bill does not give adequate consideration to the priority needs of the National System of Interstate Highways, which has been determined by the Department of Defense to be the principal system of highways to serve the national defense. In this connection it is significant that to date not over 15 percent of the National System of Interstate Highways will meet prescribed standards. Although the force and extent of an enemy attack cannot be predicted, the possible impact of such an attack is foreseeable. Traffic congestion and the inability to maintain effective highway transportation services would seriously affect areas in and between major-population, industrial and strategic centers not served by limited-access, high-volume arterial highways. It is believed that the early completion of the National System of Interstate Highways is of far greater immediate importance, from the standpoint of national defense, than increasing the Federal expenditures for improving the other systems, particularly the Federal-aid secondary system. It is apparent that higher priority must be given to the National System of Interstate Highways if the United States is to have a relatively small system of arterial highways of uniform and modern design. It is recommended that such legislation as may be enacted provide for the completion of the National System of Interstate Highways as limited- or controlled-access highways in approximately 10 years and that this system be constructed to approved uniform standards. While the specific fiscal effect of the bill cannot be estimated, in general its effect is to authorize the appropriation of funds for the purpose of carrying out |