in urban areas and for secondary and feeder roads, the division within any State between projects for urban areas and on secondary or feeder roads being made in proportion to the population in the urban and rural areas of that State.

An urban area is defined as an area included in and adjacent to municipalities of 10,000 or more population, and the boundaries of such areas would be fixed by the State highway department in each State subject to approval of the Public Roads Administration. While this provision of the bill is in harmony with road needs in some States, it is not altogether applicable to local conditions in all parts of the country since these conditions vary greatly from State to State. It is anticipated that an amendment to the bill will be submitted which will be calculated to give sufficient flexibility to the stipulations governing the expenditure of these funds within a State so that it will be possible to carry out the true intent of Congress that the expenditure of these funds on the roads and streets of any State shall be made in such a manner as will be most judicious and most beneficial to the citizens of that State.

The provision in section 3 of the pending bill, relative to the apportionment formula, has provoked a great deal of animated discussion during the past year. It will be remembered that from the beginning of Federal highway aid in 1916 the apportionment factors for normal Federal aid have been population, area, and post-road mileage, and these factors have been weighted equally. That is, one-third of the national appropriation has been apportioned among the States according to population, one-third according to area, and one-third according to post-road mileage.

In recognition of the fact, however, that there has been a substantial shifting of the population from the country to the city since 1916, and in further recognition of the fact that intercity highways have been rather better improved than their municipal extensions, and in further recognition of the fact that if unemployment develops it will be a more serious problem in urban than in rural communities, our association felt justified in recommending that the weights of the apportionment factors be shifted slightly in harmony with these changed and changing circumstances and conditions.

It was decided to recommend to Congress that the weight of the population factor be increased from one-third to one-half and that the weights of the area and post-road mileage factors be decreased from one-third to one-fourth. It was thought that this recommended change would be beneficial to the industrial States of small areas and large populations without unduly penalizing the sparsely populated States of large areas. This provision of the bill has been acceptable to a majority of the States throughout the entire period it has been under discussion, but it has been impossible to secure unanimous agreement on this point.

As we have already indicated, some of the States will ask to be heard in support of retention of the old formula, or the adoption of some entirely different plan of apportionment, utilizing different apportionment factors. This is a difficult problem but a most important one, which must be solved and which, quite frankly, must be solved by the Members of Congress after they have received all of our recommendations and have considered all of the facts and figures which

will be submitted in support of, or in opposition to, the various theories.

It is anticipated that the suggestion will be made to the committees and to the Members of Congress that the total appropriation be split in some arbitrary manner and that one part of the appropriation be apportioned among the States according to the old Federal-aid formula, or the formula proposed in section 3 of this bill, or by some other similar formula, and that the balance of the appropriation be apportioned among the various States in proportion to their urban populations. This plan has very much to commend it and is deserving of the most serious, and, we believe, the most favorable consideration. This dual plan of apportionment will tend to harmonize with varying local conditions. In this great country there is a sufficient variation in local conditions so that a single rigid formula cannot be discovered which will mete out equal and exact justice either to all States or to all communities within those States. It has come to our attention that the suggestion may be made to this committee that the recommended authorization be augmented by a quarter of a billion dollars annually and that this increased appropriation be apportioned among the States in proportion to their urban populations. This proposal has found much support and merits careful consideration.

May I interrupt the reading to introduce Congressman Wilson,

of Indiana.

Another fundamentally important provision of the pending bill is found in section 5, which pertains to the Federal share payable on account of any project provided for by the funds which will become available if this bill is enacted into law. As the bill is written this Federal share is not to exceed 75 percent of the cost of the project. Ordinarily this would mean that on a Federal-aid project the Federal contribution would be 75 percent of the cost and the State contribution 25 percent. For many years these costs have been divided equally between the Federal and State Governments, each contributing 50 percent, but this has not always been the case for it will be remembered that in the early days of Federal highway aid the Federal contribution was limited to $10,000 per mile regardless of the total cost of the project. It should be remembered also that since the beginning of Federal aid the Federal Government has contributed less than 17 percent of all highway expenditures.

On some limited classes of work in recent years the Federal share has gone as high as 75 percent, as on projects on the strategic network of military highways, and as high as 100 percent on defense access highways. In general, however, Federal aid has been on a traditional 50-50 basis, and the proposal that this be changed to 75-25 for the emergency post-war program has naturally attracted attention and provoked discussion.

A very comprehensive study of the abilities of the several States to match Federal funds has been made by one of the members of our association and he will present his findings to you some day later this week. I will ask you to suspend judgment on this point until you have heard and carefully considered the factual data he has compiled to assist you in arriving at the proper matching basis for the post-war program. At this time I would merely direct your attention to the fact that State highway revenues have been sharply curtailed by

98217-44-vol. 1—2

gasoline rationing, tire rationing, and by retirement of motor vehicles due to wartime conditions. It is believed to be a fact that only a very small number of States could match funds for the early part of this program, at least, on any basis higher than a 25-percent contribu tion. Should we return to the traditional 50-50 basis, therefore, it would have the effect of greatly curtailing the size of the program which we are recommending as essential.

Another feature of the bill of epoch-making importance is embraced in section 7 and pertains to the designation of an interregional highway system not to exceed 40,000 miles in total extent, so located as to connect the principal metropolitan areas, cities, and industrial centers of each geographic region of our country with centers of similar importance in all other geographical regions, and to connect at border points with routes of similar importance in Canada and Mexico. It is to be noted that the routes of this system are to be selected by the joint action of the State highway departments and that these initial selections will be reviewed by the Public Roads Administration. A further important provision is that all highways or routes included in the interregional highway system as finally selected will become, or remain, parts of the Federal-aid highway system without regard to any mileage limitation.

The members of the committee are familiar with the recent official reports recommending an interregional system of highways comprising about 34,000 miles of roads. We believe that it is time to take definite steps for the designation of such a system of highways while leaving to State highway officials a large measure of discretion as to the rapidity of their construction, and leaving also to the State highway departments a large measure of discretion in the choice of the standards of construction to be employed in improving this system. Manifestly it would be a serious mistake to require that a disproportionately large amount of the funds available to any State for Federalaid highway construction should be expended on such a limited system of highways as will be embraced in any designated interregional system. With these reservations in mind we believe that the highway officials of the country would enthusiastically endorse the designation at this time of the interregional highway system for which the pending bill provides.

The bill also contains several minor but important features such as providing Federal-aid to the States in the making of surveys and plans, in the acquisition of rights-of-way, and in the construction of off-street parking facilities. All of these features merit sympathetic consideration as they were inserted in this bill in recognition of welldefined local needs.

In conclusion may I respectfully urge the members of the committee to give early consideration to the drafting of an amended bill which they will recommend for passage to the full membership of the House of Representatives. Until Congress acts the State and local governments will continue very much in the dark in planning their post-war highway programs. As matters stand today we do not know the amount of money that will be available to any unit of government or for the making of improvements on any class of projects within that unit of government. That is, we are unable to plan improvements for the primary Federal-aid system, for improvements on State and local highways, for improvements on city streets, or at hazardous grade

crossings. These doubts must all be cleared up at an early date if we are to have a post-war highway program ready when it is required. After the points enumerated have been determined it will still be necessary for the Public Roads Administration to formulate and promulgate its rules and regulations to cover design and constructional features of the contemplated improvements, and until these rules and regulations have been received, studied, interpreted, and understood in the various highway departments throughout the country, those departments cannot proceed with any degree of assurance in preparing their detailed plans to govern the making of these improvements. It is, therefore, a matter of urgent importance for Congress to legislate in this field just as soon as proper consideration of the important problems involved will permit. The early enactment of the bill may well prove to be more important than any one of its provisions.

On behalf of the State highway officials throughout the country I wish to thank the members of this committee for the consideration shown us on this and on all other occasions. We have noted with the greatest admiration your understanding of the Nation's highway problems and have marveled at your grasp of their details. Please be assured that we are at your service and that we have no other purpose than to serve faithfully the people whom we represent. It may be doubted that any service of Congress to the people has exceeded in wisdom or beneficial results the inauguration of the policy of Federal aid for highways and the retention and renewal of that policy from 1916 down to date. We are confident that the present Congress will deal wisely and promptly with this problem which is more critically important now than ever before in the Nation's history. The needs of the situation are truly very great and must be matched by the adequacy of the measures we adopt to meet this unprecedented situation.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Under the procedure as outlined, Mr. Whittington, the ranking majority member, will have the first privilege of asking any questions he may have, and I am sure that Mr. Hadden will be able to answer.

Mr. HADDEN. I have a great many experts with me today, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask permission to leave some of these questions to the experts.

The CHAIRMAN. If that becomes necessary you may do So.

All right, we are ready for your questions, Mr. Whittington.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. In summary, with respect to the urban carriers, what construction is contemplated by this bill that would justify distinguishing the urban area from the rural area or the area heretofore covered generally by Federal-aid highways?

Mr. HADDEN. Well, Mr. Whittington, the highway officials feel-I believe that this is the view of most of them-that the cities have been very patient. They have contributed their funds cheerfully year after year since the inception of automotive taxation for State highway purposes, and those funds have been expended very largely on intercity highways. We feel now that those intercity highways, while not finished or perfect, are in very good shape, and the time has come to spend more of the money inside of the urban communities. So our fundamental thought is, whatever the total provisions of the bill may finally be, the time has come to spend more of this highway tax money inside the cities.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Well, isn't it true that during the depression a very much greater percentage of unemployment funds, on account of populations being in the urban areas, was spent in those areas and utilized in many of those urban areas in the construction of streets, so as to provide for unemployment, unemployment being largely in the urban areas, and there has been a larger part of the expenditures that were made for unemployment made in the urban areas? And, if that statement be true, it occurs to me that the Federal-aid highways might justly be considered of more importance at the present time. I am sure that you and the other members of the association have given great heed to it, how general funds in the depression were spent in the urban

areas.

Mr. HADDEN. Well, generally they were not spent on street work. The need today clearly indicated, is for the construction of major and extensive improvements in cities.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is the reason I asked the type you have in mind.

Mr. HADDEN. So far as I am concerned, and I believe that this reflects the views of most of the members, we have in mind arterial highways, major thoroughfares, where widening may be necessary and where the acquisition of land may be very expensive.

The right-of-way costs in cities will be, of course, much higher than they have been out in the country. Our highway problems have become exceedingly difficult. We have been solving the easy ones. We must tackle the hard ones now. Does that answer your question?

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Yes; it does. It seems to me you might include a definition of the urban areas so that a city would not use that money allocated to urban areas in general improvement of streets rather than the more important arterial highways.

Mr. HADDEN. Well, this bill contemplates that the expenditure of appropriation will be administered by the Public Roads Administration and the State highway department.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Yes. I understand that.

Mr. HADDEN. So, in theory at least, and I hope it will be the fact, only projects that are clearly meritorious will be included.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Now, under the yardstick for the distribution,

in section 33

Mr. HADDEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. While under section 21 of the Federal Highway Act the funds have generally been distributed in the ratio of onethird each of population, area, and post roads, you will recall that we made the exception during the emergency and in the last industrial recovery appropriation so that population was given more consideration, to the extent that the distribution was made on a basis of 10/24ths, 7/24ths, and 7/24ths. I am just wondering if that would not be a sufficient recognition of the population now, because a lot of these folks have got to get out of the cities and back into the country. Have you thought of that?

Mr. HADDEN. Yes. They don't seem to want to do that, though; they want to stay in town.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Well, they have to be encouraged to get back out. Mr. HADDEN. Well, of course, there are any number of theories, and I have indicated there in my paper that we have been talking