legislature has approved the State budget, the allotments are made by the commissioners of this department. In the event that the money made available by the legislature is less than enough to match the contributions by the town and county, it is then necessary to uniformly reduce all the allotments. The chapter 90 program includes both construction and maintenance under normal conditions, but because of the present emergency, funds have been allocated only for maintenance work since 1941. The maintenance allotments are based on a contribution of one-third each, State, town, and county. In the event that the county does not have funds available for this work, it is then necessary for the town to contribute the county portion in addition to the town portion. The construction allotments have been based on a 50-percent contribution by this department to be matched with a combined contribution of 50 percent to be made by the town and by the county. Some counties do not contribute toward a construction allotment, and it is then necessary for the town to contribute the 50 percent independent of the county. There are three types of chapter 90 contracts: Force account, unit price, and work done under an advertised contract. On projects where the allotments total under $15,000, a force account contract is executed and the towns are reimbursed on the basis of the actual cost of labor, materials, and equipment. When the allotments total over $15,000, a unit-price contract is drawn up with the town, based on standard unit prices established by the department for all items involved, and the town assumes the responsibility of doing the work with town forces under these unit prices. If the town desires that a contract be advertised, a request is made to this department, a proposal is drawn up, the work is advertised, bids are received by the department for the town, the town is then advised to make the award to the lowest responsible bidder, and a contract is signed by the contractor and the town officials. Then, a so-called memo of agreement is drawn up between this department and the town which sets forth the financial arrangement. The CHAIRMAN. As I understand this, the State road commission has the entire discretion as to how this money can be distributed. They can distribute it any way they want to. Mr. MACDONALD. The $3,000,000, yes. The other amounts to about $1,250,000, and that is distributed by legislative formula, and we just turn the money over to these small municipalities. The CHAIRMAN. How would the money distributed to your State according to the terms of this bill be allocated when it reaches Massachusetts? Would it be distributed according to the discretion of your State road commission? Mr. MACDONALD. With the approval of the Public Roads Administration. Mr. WOLCOTT. Section 4 of the bill, provides that: 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 according to the latest available Federal census. Is there anything in your State law that conflicts with that formula? Mr. MACDONALD. No, sir; I don't think there would be anything in our State law that would conflict with that. I hope the committee will adopt an amendment that will make the distribution much more flexible. Mr. WOLCOTT. You will find it difficult to distribute the funds equitably under this formula? Mr. MACDONALD. Well, there is a different situation in each State, and if you make it too rigid, there would be some States that would have to spend money on systems it would not be profitable to spend it on. Whereas, if they had some leeway, with the approval of the Public Roads Administration, they could spend the money to the best advantage in each State. Mr. WOLCOTT. Then you recommend that the State highway commissioner be given a great deal of latitude in the distribution of the money within the States? Mr. MACDONALD. With the safeguard that that latitude would have to be approved by the Public Roads Administration. Mr. WOLCOTT. Have you condemned any land up there for right-ofway purposes? Mr. MACDONALD. Yes; we do right along. Mr. WOLCOTT. How is that done, by a commission, or through the courts? Mr. MACDONALD. We condemn, of course. Mr. WOLCOTT. How do you condemn it? Mr. WOLCOTT. How do you take it? Mr. MACDONALD. We negotiate by condemnation proceedings. Mr. WOLCOTT. Where is your condemnation proceeding, in a court or before a commission? Mr. MACDONALD. It is handled by the attorney general, and then if we can't negotiate with the people whose lands we take, we bring it in the court. Mr. WOLCOTT. Do they bring the case directly into court? Mr. MACDONALD. Yes. Mr. WOLCOTT. A district court? Mr. MACDONALD. State courts. Mr. WOLCOTT. A district court or county court? Mr. MACDONALD. Well, they are all State courts, except the municipal courts. But suit for land damages would be brought in the superior court. Mr. WOLCOTT. Is that trial in the court before a judge, a commission, or a jury? Mr. MACDONALD. A jury, or a judge, sometimes. Mr. WOLCOTT. Do you ever have occasion to condemn any land for other than strictly highway purposes, as an incident to highway construction? For example, off-highway parking, or small parks? Mr. MACDOnald. No. Mr. WOLCOTT. You don't know whether your courts have held that that activity would be within the State definition of highways? Mr. MACDONALD. No; I don't think that question has ever been raised in Massachusetts. Mr. WOLCOTT. That's all. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions by other members of the committee? Thank you, Mr. McDonald. I am sure your statement is very greatly appreciated. The next witness to be called is C. H. Purcell, director of public works of California. We are very glad to have Mr. Purcell here. May I say, Mr. Purcell, that we have two of your members from California on this committee, so I know you will be right at home. Mr. PURCELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; we are very pleased to have them on such an important committee as this. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF C. H. PURCELL, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. PURCELL. The subject assigned to me by the American Association of State Highway Officials is our Federal-aid System. The Federal-aid system is a system that some of the members of this committee have been active in since the original 1920 or 1921 start of the system, that has now led to the development over this country and became so valuable to this Nation at the time of the outbreak of the war. I know that every one of you who have been anywhere near defense operations along our coasts and in the interior can appreciate the part the system plays. We note it particularly in the movement of overseas industrial products, to our shipyards, to large rubber and gas plants, and the high-octane plants, where these great cylinders and drums have moved over that system. I am sure that had we not had the assistance of the Federal Government in the development of this system we would have had an emergency rush to build a system along our coasts after Pearl Harbor that would have been very costly and not built to the status that it is. The Federal-aid system has suffered in those areas of tremendous traffic. Many of them, as you know, were built many years ago. We on the coast certainly appreciate the assistance offered, and the engineering advice that went into these roads through the Public Roads Administration. I speak for a State that is different from the rural Middle West described so eloquently yesterday. We have a State where approximately 75 percent of our population lives in the cities, 25 percent live outside that area. We have conditions, I think, that are typical of many cities along our Atlantic and Pacific coasts with a great concentration of population as distinguished from the Middle West. This illustrates the great differences that occur throughout our Nation in its various activities and locations. We have 280 cities in our State. We find that a great percentage of all traffic, and all farms, are served by the State highway system in the State. I have figures here which indicate there are rural State highway systems which had daily vehicle-miles of 20,000,000 in 1941; county roads, 8,100,000; urban system, including the 9 highway routes and the city streets and roads, 68,000,000. The county roads in our State carry about 12 percent of the traffic. However, I do not mean to say that the percentage that we have is not important to the State. We have a large mileage, because California covers a large area. There are some 80,000 miles of county roads. The United States has spent the last thirty-odd years developing roads and highways to serve the Nation's motor-vehicle transportation. The results of this effort are evident in the 478,000 miles making up the several State highway systems, and in the 2,400,000 miles of county and township rural roads, and in the 300,000 miles of city streets. A considerable portion of the 2,400,000 miles of rural county roads has had little improvement. While most of the State highway mileage has had some degree of improvement, this improved mileage is in various states of repair and a notable portion now needs replacement or further improvement. It is also most probable that the State highway systems are subject to expansion up to some 10 to 20 percent by inclusion of some of the more important county routes which are not distinctly land-use roads. Of the 478,000 miles of State highways, 433,000 miles are improved. These improved State highways represent almost 91 percent of the total miles in the State systems. However, it must be understood that these improved State highways include 170,000 miles where the improvement is less than low-cost bituminous mix surface and 236,000 miles are medium- or high-type pavement. Thus, of the total 478,000 miles in the State highway systems, which are supposed to represent the best in road development in the various States, only 50 percent have been improved to standards of intermediate or high-type pave ments. To reach this minor degree of development, it is estimated that since 1910 approximately $25,000,000,000 have been expended on designated State highways, city streets, and county rural roads, exclusive of relief expenditures. Of this amount it is definitely known some 12 billion dollars have been expended on the several designated State highway systems. It is estimated that the total annual motor travel in the United States approximates 292,000,000,000 vehicle-miles. Of this amount approximately 150,000,000,000 vehicle-miles is generated on rural roads and 142,000,000,000 on urban roads. Recent studies by the Public Roads Administration show that on the main rural roads of the Nation, primarily the several State highway systems which comprise about 12 percent of the total rural mileage, is generated 72 percent of the total vehicle-miles of travel. The Federal-aid highway system of approximately 226,000 miles comprises but 7.7 percent of the total national road mileage. The composition of the Federal-aid system is such, however, that most of the Nation's important and heavily traveled routes are included in it, with the result that on this 7.7 percent of road mileage is generated 56 percent of the total vehicle-miles of travel on the Nation's highways. In other words, the Federal-aid system is only one-thirteenth of the Nation's road mileage and yet is carries well over one-half of the Nation's travel. When the composition of the Federal-aid system is considered, this condition is not surprising. The Federal-aid system was primarily designed to insure improvement of the more important routes within each State and to provide for correlation of such improvements between States. The result approaches an articulated national highway system largely connecting the important areas and principal population centers of the country. That the selection of routes in the system has been well done is evidenced by the laying out of subsequent road systems on a national scale. In determination by the War Department of the 79,000-mile strategic highway network, it was found that practically all roads selected were located on the Federal-aid system. Studies by the President's Interregional Highway Committee for proposed systems of interregional highways indicate that routes to be selected for these integrated systems will be located largely upon portions of the Federal-aid system. The status of the Federal-aid routes resolves itself into the backbone of the Nation's highway transportation system, comprising the country's most heavily traveled routes, both as regards to trucking and passenger traffic. It includes within itself most of the proposed interregional routes; the military strategic highway network; principal interstate connections; and main intrastate highways. From 1917 to 1943 the total amount of Federal-aid and emergency highway appropriations was $3,745,000,000. This does not include W. P. A. or similar relief allocations. It is estimated that State funds used to match these Federal appropriations amount to considerably more than an equal figure. It may be stated that total expenditures on Federal-aid routes since the inception of the system will total between eight and nine billion dollars. At this point your attention also is directed to the fact that during the 11 years between July 1, 1932, and June 30, 1943, more than $4,200,000,000 was collected in Federal excise tax levies against the Nation's motorists. During this same 11-year period, the total of Federal-aid and emergency funds appropriated to the several States amounted to $2,500,000,000. This shows, therefore, that more than 40 percent of the Federal taxes collected on gasoline, tires, automobiles, trucks, and parts, and the $5 motor vehicle use tax were diverted from road purposes. However, improvements accomplished by expenditures of the Federal and State funds are extensive, although there has been no time during the 26 years when the Federal-aid system was completely adequate for the traffic it carried. Developments in automotive transportation have been so rapid during the past 30 years that road builders have been unable to keep their improvements abreast of the phenomenal advances in mechanical equipment. Radical changes in motor transport may be consummated in a season. Major changes in road and bridge design will require 2 years or more between inception of the idea and completed construction. Under this handicap the highway engineer has worked at a great disadvantage. However, this lag between the development of motor equipment and highway design is being shortened through cooperation between manufacturers' organizations and road designers. The extent of the discrepancies between highway construction and traffic needs on the Federal-aid system may be gaged from the survey in 1940 by the Public Roads Administration relating to the 79,000 mile strategic highway network. Practically all of this network is located on the Federal-aid system and includes about one-third of the total Federal-aid mileage. Data compiled in this study showed that: 5,500 miles of road surface were less than 18 feet wide; 14,000 miles of road surface needed to be strengthened. Of the 16,000 bridges on the network, the load capacity of 1,800 was less than 15 tons, the horizontal clearance of 1,700 was less than 18 feet, and on 150 the vertical clearance was less than 1212 feet. In the 3 years since that survey, the condition of these highway facilities has not, in general, improved. Obsolescence and deterioration have resulted in a considerable increase in these deficiencies. |