I might add that that rate on the old road has come down quite a bit since then but still the same ratio applies as applied on the other highways.

In Virginia we just mentioned the Shirley Highway.

In Connecticut we have quite a study for quite a period of time on the Merritt Parkway with 3.7; and on the old U. S. 1, 8.1.

In Kansas City, where they have a new expressway route in operation, they have not yet had a fatality; on a surface street that is parallel to it and serving large volumes they have 5.9.

In Michigan, the Detroit Industrial Expressway had a rate-this is 1953 of 6.7, whereas the parallel facility had 15.

I might add in that case that there again it is a short section, relatively short. The rate for 1954 dropped down to 2.5 on that particular facility. So you have to average these things out over a period of time and over a long distance to get a stable sample.

In Michigan, Senator McNamara-this is information I just got— the Detroit Expressway, the fatality rate is 3.0, and the major arterials in the city are 7.3.

In Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Turnpike this year, with improvement in enforcement and traffic control, has come down to 4.2. The New York Throughway, since it has been in operation, has a record of 3.0.

Those examples illustrate what we mean by modern highway design compared with the accident picture on the old facilities. Based on that composite analysis of those several known situations we have made an estimate that if we were to complete just the Interstate System to those standards we could save some 3,500 lives a year, and that on an average 1 life can be saved for every 10 miles that we build to that standard.

Senator GORE. One life in what period?

Mr. FRITTS. One life per year for each 10 miles that we can put into service. In a 10-year period we would save somewhere in the vicinity of 35,000 lives or the equivalent of the number of deaths for 1 whole year on our entire highway system.

We do not have the data available to make the same kind of forecast or comparison for the entire road system network. But there is no longer any doubt that modern design features and adequate capacity can contribute importantly to safety on all roads. As our highways are improved substantial savings can be anticipated in life, limb, and property, along with the increased efficiency and economy of operation over the road as components of our transportation system.

Senator GORE. Let me ask you a question about the limitation of access. Do you attach more importance to the number of access points or the type of access points?

Mr. FRITTS. I think, sir, that it would be the type of access points. Obviously you cannot have too frequent access or you would always have irritation in your traffic stream. The idea of the controlled

access facilities is to move traffic and at the same time provide access where it is reasonable and safe to do it. That means that you have to put your access points in frequently enough to provide a satisfactory service. Otherwise, you are defeating your purpose.

Senator GORE. I had planned to try to set up a schedule for the subcommittee to actually visualize the principal problems with which we are confronted. Of course Shirley Highway is easily available. I drive it fairly frequently. The access points on Shirley Highway are not too infrequent, it appears to me. There are many access points, but the entering traffic is fed in gradually and under conditions providing maximum safety. That caused me to inquire whether you would consider the number or the type of access points, the frequency or the type, more important.

Mr. FRITTS. I would think if we are going to do the job the way we should do it, we have to analyze our whole area movements when we determine the number of access points. We have to so locate our access points to serve the total area movement to the maximum. That means on some classes of highways the entrance would be much more direct than it would be on others.

Take in a suburban or even a metropolitan area, you obviously are going to bring your people in, take them in and off these facilities at a much more frequent rate than you would where there is no service requirement in a rural area where there is not any development. It depends on the amount of development that you have alongside a facility.

I could not give you a specific formula for it but that is the way we would approach it. We would see what is the movement in the area, what is the service demand, and suit our design to that.

Senator GORE. Would you suggest that Shirley Highway, and Highway 1, the examples you have taken of controlled access and noncontrolled access, of free access, would be about as good as we could find anywhere in the country?

Mr. FRITTS. It is one of the good examples. I think it is one of the very good examples. For example, the Pennsylvania Turnpike is a toll road. On toll roads they do not put in as many access points as they do on the free roads because of the administrative expense of controlling the tolls-toll operation and administration. They hold it to a minimum but do not hold it down to a point where it will cut their revenues. They generate the maximum revenue against the operation of the toll road.

The free roads are more likely to give you more points of access than a toll facility and logically so. Once you get them in you have no cost of operation on them.

Senator GORE. Do you have any statistics to show the relationship between number of access points per mile and accidents?

Mr. FRITTS. I do not believe, Senator, that we have reached the point yet where we can say that we have a bar which would show that if you had 5 access points per mile and over here we had only 3, that we have different accident rate. I do not know of any statistics that would show that.

Senator GORE. I wonder if you would be willing to look around and see if you can find such information?

Mr. FRITTS. I will be glad to look into that and report to you. Senator GORE. We will leave a place right at this point in the record for a few days if you can locate such information.

Mr. FRITTS. I will attempt to get the best information that I can. (The matter referred to is as follows:)

AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY FOUNDATION,
Washington, D. C., April 22, 1955.

Hon. ALBERT GORE,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Roads,
Committee on Public Works,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR GORE: I am pleased to submit the following additional information on the relationship between highway design and accidents as requested in the hearing of April 1, 1955.

The statements and data contained herein pertain to the effect of highway intersections and their frequency on the accident rate, particularly on modern, fully controlled access facilities.

The distance between interchanges is controlled basically by three factors: 1. The volume of traffic requiring entrance or exit from the various intersecting routes along the major artery and the type of adjacent development, such as agricultural, industrial, retail business or housing;

2. The costs of construction for providing adequate highway separation structures and roadways; and

3. The minimum distance required for safe merging into or from the main traffic flow.

The accident rate is affected primarily by the third of these major factors, the first two being matters of traffic service and economics.

Where large volumes of traffic are generated in built-up areas, a maximum number of interchange points are required and warranted. But between interchange points, ample distance must be provided for three types of driver-vehicle ma

neuvers.

First, for vehicles entering the major artery, an accelerating lane of about 1,000 feet is required to allow safe merging with traffic in the outer lane.

Second, for vehicles leaving the major artery sufficient distance must be provided to leave the main traffic stream at reasonably high speeds and enter a decelerating lane to slow down to a speed safe for a departure on connecting facilities. This distance may also be 1,000 feet.

Third, in between the points of entrance and exit on multilane facilities, there also must be provided ample distance for vehicles to negotiate movements from inner lanes to outer lanes preparatory to exit without retarding other vehicles and to make the change safely.

All told, these requirements indicate that interchanges can be located at intervals as frequent as one per mile and still provide both safety and efficiency of movement. This frequency generally serves the pattern of major traffic movement in congested areas.

Experience on facilities existing in metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, and elsewhere establishes the validity of these principles.

The experience thus far shows that the accident rate will remain low even though traffic service requires entrance and exit on the controlled access facility at frequent intervals. Service for facilities in between interchanges is provided on outer roadways or service roads for the short distances of travel to interchange points.

Sincerely yours,

C. E. FRITTS,
Vice President in Charge of Engineering.

Senator GORE. The committee is very grateful to you for your appearance. You have been very helpful indeed.

This was your last chart?

Mr. FRITTS. Yes, sir.

Senator GORE. Thank you very much.

Mr. FRITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator GORE. The next witness is Mr. H. A. Thomson, secretary, Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors, Upper Darby, Pa. He is also president of the national association.

We are glad to see you, Mr. Thomson.

STATEMENT OF H. A. THOMSON, SECRETARY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS, UPPER DARBY, PA.

Mr. THOMSON. My statement will be brief in accordance with your request. I will summarize.

We appreciate the opportunity of presenting to the membership of this committee the viewpoint of township government upon the road problem being considered by your committee. We might note that our townships are responsible for a tremendous road mileage about one-half million miles and are naturally interested in any road problem as a road-construction program at any governmental level must inevitably affect our township roads which are largely of the rural character.

Basically our position may be stated as being in general in favor of more and better highways, but we do feel that the rather revolutionary method proposed in legislation before your committee may, in the long run, do more harm that good as under its policy it will strengthen and enlarge an already large Federal bureau at the expense of State and local governments.

Roadbuilding is now and has been historically a State and local function and in the case of our townships one of the largest functions of our township government. We believe it is still true in this function as in other governmental functions that the closer you can keep the government to the people the better that government will be and we are firmly convinced from our experience in our respective States that at the township level the township dollar expended for these governmental functions is producing more value in cents than the tax dollars collected and spent at the higher governmental levels.

We are not financial or economic experts and do not wish to comment at length upon the financial aspects of this legislation. They have been commented upon by experts and I might note in that connection that we particularly admire the statements made thereon by United States Senator Harry Byrd, of Virginia, but we do recognize the fact that any financing program such as is proposed here which must inevitably speed up and increase inflation will inevitably as well produce less roads per dollar in the final analysis.

We would call to this committee's attention that our township-road system is entirely ignored in this legislation and also to the fact that while our township roads do not carry great volumes of traffic still the traffic over those roads is important enough to the economy of this Nation and of far greater importance than the traffic count would indicate.

We are, therefore, pleading for more help for our township-ruralroad system. If this cannot be done in the legislation before your committee then more consideration should be given in the regular Federal-aid legislation also considered by your committee. Not only an allocation to secondary roads but more particularly in the attitude of the Federal Bureau of Public Roads toward the improvement of these rural-road systems.

It is the opinion of our organization that the Federal 2 cent tax on gasoline should be repealed. It would undoubtedly be reenacted promptly by the various States where it would also just as inevitably