Mr. PURCELL. I don't think there is any question about it. Mr. PURCELL. If it is on a 50-50 basis? Mr. ENGLE. Yes. Mr. PURCELL. No; that would increase the number of counties that could not. Mr. ENGLE. That would make the number larger. In other words, so far as these rural highways are concerned, if you change that percentage, it is definitely going to affect their participation in this program? Mr. PURCELL. The number that could participate under existing law and finances in California would be less, that is true. Mr. ENGLE. Will you state the number of miles in the State highway system that are not under the Federal-aid system? Mr. PURCELL. The total mileage of the rural Federal-aid system is 6,795 miles, urban and rural mileage under States control is 13,656, which makes 6,861 miles of the State system that are not on the Federal-aid system. Mr. ENGLE. In other words, you have something like 6,900 miles of road in California which is in the State system, but not under the Federal-aid system, is that right? Mr. PURCELL. That is correct, and much of that is of a rural nature. Mr. WHITTTINGTON. Mr. Purcell, what is the provision in this bill under consideration that would authorize these funds to be expended on roads other than Federal-aid and secondary roads that have been approved by the State of California, or any other State? Mr. PURCELL. When authorized-I refer to the rural roads. Mr. WHITTTINGTON. I am talking about the provision that would authorize the expenditure of this money on roads that are not a part either of the Federal highway or the secondary or feeder system, as approved by the State. What is the provision, what section? Mr. PURCELL. Right over here "the division within any State"- Mr. PURCELL. Page 4, section 4, line 6. "The division within any State between projects within urban areas and secondary or feeder road projects shall be made in the proportion which the population within urban areas and rural areas bears to the total population of the State * * * Mr. WHITTINGTON. I won't agree with your interpretation at all. I don't think that is in the provision. I would say this with respect to the question that Mr. Welch has brought to the attention of the committee, that under the act of 1943, the only funds that are being expended and are contemplated to be expended would be on roads that are strategic, and needed for war purposes, and if the Army or the Navy have approved a system of roads they say is essential for war purposes, then those expenditures may be made. Those are the only ones that can be made under the law. Mr. PURCELL. That is correct, but I am talking about this bill, if it is passed. The CHAIRMAN. If there is nothing further, the committee will recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon at 12:15 p. m., the committee adjourned to 10 a. m., Friday, March 3, 1944.) FEDERAL AID FOR POST-WAR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION FRIDAY, MARCH 3, 1944 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The hearing was resumed, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., Hon. J. W. Robinson of Utah, chairman, presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The program, as outlined, has been changed in one particular this morning, so that the first witness this morning will be Mr. H. G. Sours, director of highways of Ohio, who was scheduled to appear tomorrow. I think that is agreeable with Mr. Sours. Is he present? Mr. SOURS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I do not believe that he needs any introduction to this group of highway people. We all know him and think very highly of him, and I know that we can expect a very good discussion of this subject. I might say that Mr. Sours is not only an official of the American Association of State Highway Officials, but he is also a member of the board of directors of the American Road Builders' Association, and has also served as president of that organization. He is one of our most active men in this particular field, and I think we are very fortunate in having him with us this morning. So I will now turn the time over to Mr. Sours. STATEMENT OF H. G. SOURS, DIRECTOR OF HIGHWAYS, STATE OF OHIO Mr. SOURS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, some few weeks ago I was assigned a subject on the program and asked to prepare to discuss it with the committee. After conferring with some of my coworkers and some of the gentlemen in the various highway departments throughout the country, I came to the conclusion that I had taken on a rather "hot potato.' I want to assure you that I did not seek the subject, but, nevertheless, I have taken it on. I have listened to my two very good friends, Fred White and Herman MacDonald, give you the two horns of the dilemma, and I now have the pleasant task of trying to tell you how to formulate a happy solution in reconciling those two horns of the dilemma and to give you something which will make you happy. I have noticed in the audience some of the county and municipal officials, and I know that they are anxiously waiting for me to give them something which will please them. All of which brings me to the conclusion that if I can get through this task successfully I will be qualified for a post in the Diplomatic Service. 98217-44-vol. 1-8 109 In approaching the subject of the Formula let me say, first of all, that it is not a simple matter to dispose of. Different conditions in the different States and the rise of new and changed problems are factors which contribute to the complexity of the problem of equitable allocation of Federal highway funds to the States. There is a natural tendency on the part of the highway officials representing each of the several States to work for provisions in a bill which would best meet the problems of their respective States. No one can be criticized for honestly and fairly representing his own State. In the final analysis, however, the problem will call for a meeting of minds from which there may come a solution which will give due consideration to the combined problems of all States. It is one problem to meet the requirements of a single State and an entirely different one to meet what the 48 States would like to have. We want to stress the fact that Federal-aid highway funds should be allocated by formula rather than on the so-called need basis. We recognize the formula method may result in some inequities. On the other hand, such inequities as may arise would not compare with those which could arise under the so-called need plan. The need plan can readily lead to pressure and favoritism, regardless of actual highway needs. Unrestricted control of the dispensing of public funds for improvements of such widespread usage as our highway system would be most unsound. Under the formula method of allocating funds the Members of Congress are spared from pressure groups and condemnation which might result when the Congressman does not produce the needed funds for some favored project in his district. The almost universal use of our highways directly and indirectly by everyone in their everyday lives makes it important that the allocation of funds be on a well-defined, fair, and equitable plan subject only to such well regulated changes as may be adequately provided for by law. Briefly reviewing the history of the "formula" we find that the present formula which gives equal weight to each of three factors, area, post road mileage, and population in the respective States was written in the original Federal Aid Road Act of 1916. This formula, with some temporary modifications, has carried on through each successive enactment of Federal-aid highway legislation. A great amount of study was given to various possible factors which might have been worth considering before the adoption of the formula in 1916. In the final selection it was determined that whatever factors were used, they should be readily ascertainable. In considering changes in the formula it would be well to adhere to this fundamental concept that all factors be readily ascertainable and not subject to shifting items difficult to predict. I would like to emphasize that-that whatever factors are used, they should be readily ascertainable. In 1921 there was adopted a proviso that no State should receive less than one-half of 1 percent of each year's allotment. In 1933 special emergency road funds were provided in an amount not less than $400,000,000. This authorization carried with it a modification of the formula. It provided that seveneighths of the total fund should be apportioned in accordance with the original section 21 formula and one-eighth in the ratio which the population of each State bears to the total population of the United States. In 1936 special authorization was first provided for railroad gradecrossing elimination funds. These special funds were apportioned to the States on the basis of one-half on population, one-fourth on mileage of the Federal-aid highway system and one-fourth on railroad mileage. So much for the history of the formula and the modifications. In the beginning and for many years thereafter the prime purpose of and need for Federal aid for highways was to enable the States and the Federal Government to develop a system of main highways between the principal centers of population without regard to State lines, and to assist the States in completing their intercity routes within the States. Good progress has been made on this problem although there still remains to be done an enormous amount of construction and reconstruction. Federal aid to the States however accomplished more than the building of additional mileage. It brought up the standard of work being done by the State highway departments and forced the weaker departments to organize and staff themselves so that they could perform more satisfactory work. Should Federal aid be abandoned there would in due time through changing State administrations be a tendency in some States to slide backward rather than to progress. We come up to the present with some new problems on our hands; or rather we have arrived at a point where some of these problems which have been growing for some time must be tackled. We recognize the dire need for the development of urban highway facilities, particularly the trunk line and express ways through the cities and the principal feeders to them. In the presentation of the subject Necessity for Urban Development of Highways before this committee, Mr. H. A. MacDonald, of Massachusetts, very ably and clearly pictured the problem and the needs in the urban field. Likewise, the secondary-the local and feeder road problem-has been recognized more strongly than ever before. This problem may call for some different type of consideration. The problem was presented to the committee by Mr. White, of Iowa, who so clearly outlined the problem that I need not further comment on it. The changing pattern of needs on the Federal-aid system, the demand for modernizing of existing main highways, and all of the involved problems were clearly presented by Mr. Purcell, of California. Summing up these changed problems, we can arrive at only one logical conclusion-the formula needs some changing. The American Association of State Highway Officials a year ago recommended a change in the existing formula, using the same factors but giving one-half of the weight to population, one-fourth to area, and one-fourth to post-road mileage. However, I believe it is the consensus of the majority of the members of the association that they would favor some additional appropriation or part of the total for urban improvements to be allocated through a separate formula having one factor only-that being population of municipalities over 10,000. This matter has been discussed at length, and I feel there would be little objection and much support. The Congress in the past has never given the urban problem any special consideration. This is a new problem and calls for separate and different treatment from the regular Federal-aid and rural highway problems; hence the need for a separation of items in the appro |