priation and separate formulae; two problems widely different call for two answers. This is further emphasized by the fact that in some States the urban problem is by far the greatest, while in others it is relatively the lesser problem. Through a single formula it would be difficult to equalize these wide variations. In urban problems mileage is not a sound basic factor and neither is area; therefore, we have only one measure left, and that is population.

I might say that in my own State of Ohio we have all of these problems in a very marked degree. The urban problem has become an extremely difficult and urgent one to handle. We have 59 cities of over 10,000 population, 26 of over 25,000, 12 of over 50,000, and 8 of over 100,000, pretty well distributed over the State; not uniformly but well distributed. As a result, we have a very great urban problem. Those problems have been not entirely neglected, but they have fallen away behind the development of our other work. In addition to that, the fact that we have so many municipalities means that we have a trunk-line system which needs to a great extent modernizing. A lot of progress has been made on that work, but there is still a lot of work to be done. In addition to being more or less of an industrial Stateone of the leading States in war industries—we are more or less agricultural, and we do have the feeder-road problem along with all the others. So that I can subscribe to all of these plans, so far as my own State is concerned.

There are several different combinations which could be used. A part of the total could be allocated under the formula recommended by the Highway Officials Association and a part under the so-called urban formula. Or, by altering the amounts of the two items a part could be allocated under the existing section 21 formula and the balance under the urban formula.

There has been considerable discussion as to how the urban funds and the local and secondary road funds should be allocated within the States after the State level has been reached. There is also the problem in some States where on the State highway itself one system is much more nearly completed and in far better condition than the other system. These matters give rise to the need for the maximum flexibility possible, consistent with sound practice and subject to suitable regulation.

I think possibly equally important is the matter of setting up suitable standards for rural and secondary roads. Mr. White commented on that in his testimony day before yesterday. If we are to interest the counties in local road development, they must provide standards which will adequately take care of the needs, but at the same time will not result in an overdesign.

The next subject which I am going to discuss was commented on in the testimony a couple of days ago. I might say that my paper was written prior to that time. There was some question, as to whether or not it was advisable. However, please bear in mind that these are suggestions and subject, of course, to any modification which the committee might see fit to bring out.

It has been suggested that each State highway department submit to the Public Roads Administration an equitable plan for allocation of secondary road funds within the State. This plan should be presented after the State has consulted with duly authorized representatives of county road officials in the State. The Public Roads Admin

istration could, after investigation, accept or modify and approve the plan in each State. Due to widely different conditions in the several States it is felt that some such plan would more nearly meet local conditions than would a single and uniform plan.

I realize that that is not an ironclad, or does not put the formula method in a strait jacket, which in some respects might be desirable; but in discussing the problem the question of the widely different conditions in the States was something considered seriously before suggesting this proposal. It is entirely possible that in order to meet the situation a part of the total going to rural roads could be set up on a uniform Nation-wide formula and that the balance of it could be left open to more or less of a negotiated plan between the States and the counties. I am sure that, as far as our State is concerned, if we can agree on reasonable standards we will be able to agree with the counties on some such method of allocation.

I want to point out, however, that it is very important, in my own opinion, and I am sure that the other State highway officials agree, that we do have some control, some formula method of allocating to the counties within the States, so that they are given their fair share.

There is also the problem of working out a formula for the allocation of urban road funds within the State. This is true even though some part of the total may be expended on the Federal-aid and State systems inside the municipality and a part of it off these systems. It would seem that a reasonably fair basic plan would be to use the population of each of the several municipalities having a population of 10,000 or over. However, in order that some badly needed projects might be handled in certain distressed municipalities, some thought might be given to setting aside a part of the State's urban fund to be used on major, most needed urban projects and the balance then allocated according to the prescribed formula.

The reason I threw that in was this. One or two of the States brought out the fact that a number of their small and medium-sized municipalities had had a considerable amount of State and Federal funds expended in them within recent years, and were in reasonably good condition. Others, not so fortunate, had not yet been reached and were badly in need of further development. In order to more or less equalize that, the suggestion had been made that it might be satisfactory or feasible to set aside some portion of the total to be used where most needed, and the balance to be allocated by a formula that applied, of course, to the money that might be expended primarily on the Federal-aid trunks through the city.

· In any event, if the bill carries an appropriation covering 2 or more years, and if the urban and the secondary road funds are allocated within the States by formula, it should be permissible to carry out the expenditures in the several local subdivisions in a manner which would only require that the total amount in each case be used in the period as a whole and not restricted so that the alloted amount be expended each year. Practical usage of funds requires in many cases more than 1 year's allotment to be used in 1 year. The use of a 2- or 3-year apportionment makes flexibility in a law again desirable.

In summing up my testimony may I say that in my opinion the most important points which I have attempted to make are as follows:

1. There definitely should be a continuation of the formula method of allocating Federal highway funds.

2. We are facing some serious and badly neglected problems in the urban areas where the traffic volumes are the heaviest; we likewise find the local and secondary road problem becoming more important.

3. To meet these changed conditions and problems there is a need for some formula changes.

4. There should be some control by formula of the allocation of urban and of secondary road funds within the States.

5. There should be a maximum of flexibility in the use and allocation of funds, subject to sound regulation.

I trust that what I have presented in my testimony here today may be of some assistance to you gentlemen in the final shaping of Federalaid highway legislation. I am confident that this committee with its broad understanding of highway problems will as a result of its deliberations prescribe a sound and equitable allocation of whatever funds may be appropriated.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sours. I have one or two questions that have bothered me somewhat. Is it your idea that this committee should provide in a bill some system of distributing the funds within the States, or should we go to the boundaries of the States and quit? Mr. SOURS. I think, when the bill is written into law, there should be some prescribed method of allocating the funds to the counties and to the urban areas within the States themselves. Whether or not you are able to write one single formula for that purpose is a question that is open to debate. But, if not, there should be some requirement at least that each State be compelled to set up some formula method of allocating which then the Federal Government would enforce.

The CHAIRMAN. Does it not seem more logical for this committee to use the regular formula that has always existed in dividing funds; and if a special treatment is to be given to cities, to provide more funds for them; and if special treatment should be given to secondary or feeder roads, also provide more funds for them? When we have done that and have placed those funds within the States, have we not done about all that could be expected of Congress, which after all represents the 48 different States and Territories each with a different problem? Surely you would not expect us to go into Ohio and tell the Ohio people how to divide their funds after they got them, would you?

Mr. SOURS. You are speaking now of the secondary and the urban funds principally?

The CHAIRMAN. No. I am referring to a principle, rather than to any group. I am just wondering how far we should go, in deviating from a common formula. Without giving the question more than this hurried thought, it occurs to me that we should confine ourselves largely to a formula that is already in existence, and then make exceptions to it if they are necessary. For instance, if there is more money for urban highways, after we have provided for what should be divided among the States under the regular formula, then we might set up a separate. arrangement for those special needs. Or if there is more money needed for secondary roads, we could regulate that by legislation. But when the Federal Government attempts to go into the States and divide the money allotted each of these 48, that seems to me to be taking over quite a big job.

Mr. SOURS. At the State level, those with many urban areas are interested, possibly, in a separation of the total rather than two sepa

rate funds. One item could be allocated on a formula, say, the formula in this bill, or the old section 21 formula for the allocation to all States, exclusive of the amount for the urban portion. Then another item in the total could be set aside for urban development, which includes, of course, some trunk lines through the cities; and this latter part would be allocated largely on a population formula. In other words the State upon receiving its portion would allocate to the counties, their apportionment for local roads, and also to the urban units their apportionment. That is the question which I think you are raising, if I understand it correctly. The question is: Should the money be allocated in a lump sum set up for separate purposes to the States, and then let the State highway departments and the Public Roads Administration from there on allocate it according to what, in their judgment, they saw fit, or should they also do all that on the basis of some formula?

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. SOURS. The counties and the municipalities, of course, are very much interested in some plan to insure them of getting their just proportion of each of those items. As I said a moment ago, the municipal problem would not perhaps be so difficult. I think we should allocate that, with possibly a few exceptions, largely on population. Conditions vary in different States. And maybe one single formula would not solve the problem within some States.

About the only way I can answer your question, however, is to say that I know the counties are particularly interested in knowing that there is some compulsory plan of seeing that each county gets its just proportion of the total. Frankly, I think there is a feeling in some States that perhaps the allocation would otherwise not be entirely equitable. In other cases it would be. Whether or not this committee will see fit to solve that by law is a question I cannot answer.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have your ideas. Another question is this: If we are going to provide special provision for different funds, such as urban funds or feeder-road funds, is there any advantage in changing the formula from the formula that has always existed to the formula that is proposed in this bill?

Mr. SOURS. Even if we are going to make a separate item of the urban part of the problem and treat that with a separate formula, is there any reason, then, for changing the old section 21 formula? Is that your question?

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. SOURS. That would depend, I would say, largely on whether or not we continue in the future with a separation of the items. It would depend somewhat on the apportionment of the two items; that is, how much would be under section 21 and how much would be under an urban formula. The suggested change in the formula gives the populous States with the urban problem some advantage. If the population factor is raised from one-third to one-half, there is some advantage gained there. If, after a period of time-and I am speaking of 3 or 4 or 5 years from now-we should permit them to set aside any part for urban development, then the proposed formula should be continued, without a doubt. If the proportion set aside for urban development is large enough, then the old section 21 formula would be satisfactory.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it not perhaps be a little simpler and also carry out the regular and usual plan, to adopt the old formula and

then make separate provisions for the urban money in some way? And, if necessary, do likewise with the money that goes to other special purposes?

Mr. SOURS. It would probably cost less in States which do not have the urban problem. I can readily see that.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any special advantage that we would have by changing it? If we are going to change anything, we ought to do it because we are getting something better. We do not want to change the old for the new unless the new is better. Is there any advantage that we would gain by adopting the formula proposed in this bill that we would not have. under the old formula?

Mr. SOURS. The principal advantage is that it gives some consideration to the more populous States, more weight to population.

The CHAIRMAN. So, if we did actually take care of that one problem by separate treatment in the bill, then we would solve the problem that you have in mind for the urban population?

Mr. SOURS. Yes. I cannot argue too much against that, provided, as I said a moment ago, the total set-up for urban development on a population basis only, was sufficiently large as compared with the amount that would be allocated under the other formula.

The CHAIRMAN. I was not going to go into the other matter, but I think I have one further question. It is not in your province, but I am just a little concerned about this question of condemnation. Inasmuch as you are one of our stand-bys here, I would like to know just why it is necessary to have that in this bill.

Mr. SOURS. I am not too familiar with that section myself, but I presume the reason it was written in was to enable some States which have rather inadequate right-of-way laws to speed up the progress of the work. It would not affect my own State.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I was going to ask. Does it affect Ohio at all?

Mr. SOURS. No, sir. We have very satisfactory right-of-way laws where we negotiate. When we cannot negotiate, we are authorized to take immediate possession. So we undoubtedly would not operate under that section as far as Ohio is concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Whittington, do you have any questions? Mr. WHITTINGTON. In that connection, I recall that previously Missouri was mentioned as one of the States that did not have a constitutional provision, but the first witness was from Missouri and I do not recall that he made any point about the inability in Missouri. In fact, when I asked him about section 9 he said it would be covered by somebody else, that he was not familiar with it. What is the occasion for section 9 at all in this bill? Nobody has brought out any reason why it should be in the bill.

Mr. SOURS. I think there is something on rights-of-way which will be presented either today or tomorrow. Probably the witness will discuss it to some extent. Other than the answer which I made a moment ago, and that is that it would expedite the work in some of the States where they do not have good condemnation laws, I know of no particular reasons. There may be others, but I think that is the principal one.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. If the States are not interested enough to at least assist in providing the rights-of-way, I do not see any reason for the Federal Government going in there and spending money, as a general