America's Highways 1776–1976: A History of the Federal-Aid Program/Part 2/Chapter 1
of the
Federal-Aid
Program
Early Federal Government Interest in Roads
The first Federal financial aid specifically for the construction of roads in the States was incorporated into the Ohio Statehood Enabling Act in 1802 which provided that 5 percent of the proceeds of the sale of public (Federal) lands in Ohio was to be set aside for roads. Upon the insistence of the State of Ohio, the Act was amended in 1803 to provide that 3 percent of the funds would be available for roads within the State and 2 percent of the funds would be used under the direction of Congress for constructing roads to and through Ohio.[1]
This form of Federal assistance was later extended to all the States that had public lands when they were admitted to statehood, but the purposes for which the funds could be used were broadened to include canals, levees, river improvements, and schools.
In 1806 an act authorized the Federal Government to lay out and build the famous Cumberland Road—from the head of navigation on the Potomac River at Cumberland, Maryland, to a point on the Ohio River—provided that permission should first be secured from the Legislatures of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania to build the road within their boundaries. Funding was to be from the Ohio 2 percent fund.
The debate in Congress before the Cumberland Road Act was approved, centered on the constitutional issue of whether or not the Federal Government had the authority to build roads at all, except possibly in the territories. The Act was finally passed without resolving the constitutional issue.
Because the Cumberland Road deteriorated badly as a result of heavy traffic and lack of funds for maintenance, Congress, in 1822, passed a bill authorizing the Federal Government to collect tolls to be used for maintenance. This bill was vetoed by President Monroe on the constitutional grounds that it was an unwarranted extension of the power vested in Congress to make appropriations. Collection of tolls, the President said, implied a power of jurisdiction or sovereignty which was not granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution and could not be unilaterally conveyed by any State without a constitional amendment. He felt “. . . that it was one thing to make appropriations for public improvements, but an entirely different thing to assume jurisdiction and sovereignty over the land whereon those improvement were made.”[2] President Monroe’s position has continued to be the Federal position on highway matters to the present day.
During the next 9 years, the Cumberland Road continued to deteriorate despite a few meager Federal appropriations for maintenance, and it was finally recognized that the only solution was State operation as a toll road.[3] In 1831 and 1832 the Legislatures of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia agreed to accept and maintain their sections of the Cumberland Road.[4]
The Federal Government attempted to extend the Cumberland (National) Road westward to the Mississippi River. In 1820 Congress appropriated $10,000 to locate the road, and subsequent periodic appropriations were made for construction which ultimately totaled about $5 million. The Ohio Legislature, in 1831, passed an act which authorized the State to take jurisdiction of its portion of the road and place it under toll as each section was completed,[5] but the road was never fully completed in either Indiana or Illinois. Congress finally ceded all the Federal interests in the road to Indiana and Illinois in 1848 and 1856, respectively.[6]
A section of I-70 in Spotted Wolf Canyon between Rattlesnake Bend and Saleraters west of Green River, Utah.
From the early 1800’s through the 1860’s, a separate form of federally funded road construction existed in the building of primitive military wagon roads, most of them in the territories. They consisted mainly of little more than trails built by troops, but they did play a big part in opening up the West. Late in this period, the Army improved some of the more important wagon trails to the point that they were used for transcontinental mail routes.
Junction of the old National Road (right) and the relocated U.S. 40 (left) near Piney Grove, Md.
The last form of Federal road assistance or subsidy in the 19th century was the granting of a free right-of-way for public roads over unreserved public lands. A number of States and counties took advantage of this by declaring all section lines in those counties to be public roads, and, thus, they reserved the right-of-way before the lands might become private property.[7]
No reasonably accurate determination can be made of the total amount of Federal funds that were expended directly and indirectly for roads during the period from 1776 to about 1890 because the programs had been so very diffuse. However, in terms of actual appropriations by Congress, the Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture, 1899 mentions that from 1806 to 1838 a total of about $7 million was appropriated by Congress for the Cumberland Road and $1.6 million was appropriated for “. . . twelve other great national highways . . . making what was then regarded a complete system of roads. . . .” Large Government expenditures were then curtailed because of a monetary crisis, but from 1854 until the Civil War, over $1.6 million was appropriated for roads chiefly in the Territories.[8]
There was little further Federal interest or recognition of responsibility concerning roads until the Good Roads Movement began to reach national proportions about 1890. This movement had a profound influence on the States in their initiation of State aid for roads and the creation of highway departments and commissions. It also began to put pressure on Congress to provide some form of Federal assistance for highways.
The first State to actually create a State Highway Commission was Massachusetts in 1892. The Commission was given the authority to establish a State road system, and beginning in 1894, the Legislature appropriated the first funds for actual construction. The need for State aid in financing road construction had been recognized as early as 1891 when New Jersey enacted the first State-aid road program in the Nation. However, it was designed simply to help the counties finance their programs, and its administration was placed under the State’s Department of Agriculture. It wasn’t until 1894 that New Jersey placed the program under a Commission of Highways.
The Office of Road Inquiry is Created
In 1892, the Senate passed a bill entitled the National Highway Commission Law, but Congress adjourned before it was enacted into law. Then, in the Agriculture Appropriation Act for 1894, enacted March 3, 1893, an item for $10,000 was included to enable the Secretary “to make inquiries in regard to the systems of road management throughout the United States . . . to make investigations in regard to the best method of roadmaking . . . and to enable him to assist the agricultural college and experiment stations in disseminating information on this subject. . . .” To carry out the work directed by Congress, the Secretary created the Office of Road Inquiry, the small beginning from which the world’s largest highway program was to develop.
When the Federal interest in roads was reinstituted in 1893, the appropriation was made to the Department of Agriculture because the recognized problem was in the rural areas—there were not enough adequate roads for the farmers to get their produce to the railroad terminals and even nearby towns. The cities and larger towns were considered to be adequately satisfying their own internal road needs.
The creation of the Office did not represent the reinitiation of Federal financial assistance for the construction of roads in the States, since Congress provided only $10,000 for each of the first 3 years and then dropped the appropriation to $8,000 for each of the next 4 years. Rather, it was distinctly an educational and promotional effort, but it did represent a renewal of Federal recognition of the importance of highways in the Nation’s economic and social future.
For several years the work of the Office of Road Inquiry consisted almost wholly of collecting and disseminating road information through publications, lectures, and consultations. In 1896, a new program was administratively added. Short stretches of road were constructed as object lesson roads through contributed labor and materials and borrowed equipment. The only Federal cost was usually the salary and expenses of a road expert from the Office of Road Inquiry who designed and supervised the work.
Despite efforts to get increased appropriations to expand the object lesson roads, additional funds were not provided—probably because of some congressional concern that construction of roads by the Office of Road Inquiry might be the opening wedge for reinstitution of national roads under Federal control. It was not until 1901 that the appropriation level was increased. From then on, additional increases followed almost every year, until 1912 when the appropriation was over $160,000.
During the years between 1897 and 1912, the Office broadened its activities to include experimental use of new materials in the construction of short sections of experimental roads; free tests of road materials sent in by private citizens from all over the country; provision of onsite assistance to State and county highway authorities, ranging from solving specific problems in construction or maintenance to encouraging enactment of road laws and helping in the organization of highway commissions or departments; institution of a training program for student highway engineers; provision of specialized assistance in problems concerning bridges, culverts and drainage in general; and of considerable significance, in 1909, launching into the area of economic research and statistical investigations,[9] the forerunner to the sophisticated and extensive programs of today.
Some accomplishments had been achieved by 1912 through the joint efforts of the States, counties and townships combined with the leadership of the Office of Public Roads and the many good roads associations and similar special interest groups. In 1912 the expenditures by the States for road work totaled approximately $43 million, and it was estimated another $100 million was spent by counties and townships.[10]
A new need was gaining recognition—interconnecting roads at the local, State and national level. Few States had either the authority or the necessary funds to plan an interconnected system within their own boundaries, and each operated independently of its neighboring States. A road location in one State which was advantageous to that State for topographic, economic, or geographic reasons might not fit the situation just across the State line, so there was no assurance that a road would not simply end at the State line or some local terminus.
The landscaped median on I-19 provides a pleasant exit from Tucson, Ariz., and an effective headlight screen on the curve.
Federal Aid for the Construction of Rural Post Roads
The enormity of the road problems and their national character gradually developed a recognition that Federal aid was the only solution. Groups, such as the National Good Roads Association, the American Road Builders, and the American Highway Association, were leaders in efforts to secure necessary legislation. As a result, during the first 6 months of the session of Congress which began in December 1911, over 60 bills were introduced providing for some form of direct aid by the national government.[11] This concern led to the inclusion in the Post Office Appropriation Act for fiscal year 1913 of an appropriation of $500,000 to be expended by the Secretary of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Postmaster General, to aid in the improvement of post roads (roads which would be used by the Post Office in the delivery of mail) in rural areas. It provided “That the State or the local subdivision thereof in which such improvement is made under this provision shall furnish double the amount of money for the improvement of the be made under the supervision of the Secreary of road or roads so selected. Such improvement shall Agriculture.” The Act also provided for a Joint Congressional Committee “. . . to make inquiry into the subject of Federal aid in the construction of post roads and report at the earliest practicable date. . . .”
Among its other provisions, the 1913 Act also specifically directed the Joint Committee to consider the problem of maintenance of the roads constructed, no doubt remembering the disastrous experiences of the past Federal efforts, and particularly the National Road.
The significant features of the Act were:
- It was a direct appropriation with authorization to proceed. There was no authorization in advance of an appropriation.
- The Act authorized the Secretary of Agriculture and the Postmaster General to determine where the funds should be used. It did not specify how the funds were to be spread among the States.
- The matching principle was established by prescribing that project costs be financed on a two-thirds State, one-third Federal basis.
- The funds were available until expended.
No specific portion of the funds was made available for the costs of administering the program by the Office of Public Roads.
In the administration of the program launched by the 1913 appropriation the principle of “apportionment” was born. The $500,000 was allocated by making available $10,000 to each State (to be matched by at least $20,000 State and local funds), and $20,000 was reserved by the Office of Public Roads to supervise and administer the program.[12] However, only 13 States and 28 counties participated, and approximately 455 miles of road were built.[13][14]
While the Federal financial interest in other than demonstration and experimental roads was rekindled by this measure, the appropriation was made to the Post Office Department even though the work was to be administered by the Department of Agriculture. Congress was still concerned with the constitutional issue of Federal money going into construction of roads wholly within individual States. The national character of mail delivery provided a satisfactory rationalization, hence, the appropriation was made to the Post Office Department.
The Joint Committee made its final report on Federal aid in the construction of post roads on January 21, 1915. The report offered no particular plan for Federal aid in the cost of constructing roads but did strongly recommend such aid. Furthermore, it pointed out that a Federal-aid highway program would accomplish several objectives of the Constitution, namely, to establish post roads, regulate commerce, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare.[15]
Federal involvement in roadbuilding was justified in 1912 because of the national character of rural free delivery of the mail.
During the congressional hearings which followed the submission of the report, there was much debate but not too much opposition to the principle of appropriating Federal funds for the development of highways. The main issue was how such funds should be administered, and there were three viewpoints: (1) Those who favored total Federal funding and control—a system of national highways built, owned and operated by the Federal Government (which again brought up the constitutional issue); (2) those who favored that the Federal money be turned over to the States or directly to some 3,000 counties in the country to spend as they saw fit (at the time there were still 17 States which had no State agencies with highway responsibilities; and (3) those who favored a cooperative Federal–State relationship, with the States retaining jurisdiction over the highways and having responsibility for carrying out the work under general Federal approval.
The concept of a cooperative Federal–State program was finally adopted in the enactment of the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916.
The Evolution of the Federal-Aid Program
The 4-page Federal Aid Road Act of 1916 was a simple document entitled “An Act To provide that the United States shall aid the States in the construction of rural post roads, and for other purposes.” From this basic concept of building rural post roads, as the Nation has grown and prospered, so too the concept of roadbuilding has grown in terms of responsibilities to the economy, social and cultural needs, protection of the environment and national resources, and even to international relations.
The State highway officials had already joined together in 1914 to form the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) to provide mutual cooperation and assistance to the Federal Government on legislative, economic and technical subjects relating to highways. First on the organization’s agenda was to direct the executive committee to draft a bill authorizing Federal participation in the construction of highways. Logan Waller Page, the Director of the Office of Public Roads and Rural Engineering, worked directly with AASHO on the draft, drawing considerably, no doubt, on the experience gained during the construction of the rural post roads a few years before. The cooperative spirit was already evident when the Federal Aid Road Act was signed into law on July 11, 1916.
The Federal Aid Road Act of 1916
The basic philosophies of the Federal–State relationship in the administration of the Federal-aid program were established by the 1916 Act, and they have remained intact to the present time. These included:
- Participation of any State in the program is permissive, not mandatory.
- If a State elects to participate, it must satisfy the requirements and comply with the provisions of the legislation and its implementing rules and regulations.
- The authority and responsibility for initiation of proposed projects, their character, and method of construction is reserved to the States; Federal participation is dependent upon project approval by the Federal authority.
- The State highway department, or its equivalent, with proper legal authority to carry out its functions shall represent the State in its administration of the program in cooperation with the Federal Government (as distinguished from the individual local governmental subdivisions).
- While not specifically stated in the legislation, the absence of any provisions to the contrary made it abundantly clear that the States retain full and absolute ownership of the roads constructed or improved with participation of Federal-aid funds. The States also retain responsibility for their use and operation, with the proviso that they must be free from tolls of all kinds.
This philosophy was to be sustained in the 1973 Federal-Aid Highway Act which restated the intent of Congress as follows:
The authorization of the appropriation of Federal funds or their availability for expenditure under this chapter shall in no way infringe on the sovereign rights of the States to determine which projects shall be federally financed. The provisions of this chapter provide for a federally assisted State program.
The 1916 Act appropriated the following sum for Federal participation in the construction of rural post roads:
| Fiscal Year | Amount |
| 1917 | $ 5 million |
| 1918 | 10 million |
| 1919 | 15 million |
| 1920 | 20 million |
| 1921 | 25 million |
In addition, the Act appropriated $10 million for construction of roads and trails within or partly within national forests for the fiscal years 1917 through 1926 at the rate of $1 million per year. This action established the basic policy for providing for the development of main roads serving federally owned lands, reservations or areas. Regrettably, the Act permitted a wide dispersion of Federal funds, with the result that there was no assurance that a connected system of major roads would ever be achieved.
The Act also established principles upon which following legislation would build. These were:
- Multiyear authorizations
- Leadtime apportionment of funds
- Apportionment by a fixed formula
- Extended availability of funds for expenditure (1 year after the year for which funds were appropriated)
- Definition of type of roads for which funds could be used
- A limitation on funds that could be used by the States for engineering and contingencies
- Permanent responsibility was placed with the States for adequate maintenance of completed projects (the penalty being that the State had 4 months to repair the road or lose all further road project approvals in the State until the road was repaired)
- The costs of Federal administration of the program were provided for by reservation of 3 percent of the appropriated funds for this purpose
The legislators used foresight, too, in establishing in the Act the basic roles of the States and the Federal Government in project procedures. The Act first defined the term “construction” and then outlined these procedures:
- When proposed projects were approved by the Federal agency, the State highway department was responsible for the preparation of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) for review and approval by the Federal agency.
- Upon Federal approval of the plans, specifications and estimates, the applicable Federal funds were “obligated” and reserved for future payment to the State.
- The construction work and labor in each State was to be done in accordance with its laws and under the direct supervision of the State highway department, subject to the inspection and approval of the Federal agency and in accordance with the rules and regulations established under the authority of the legislation.
- Reimbursements to the States for the Federal share of State expenditures for projects could be made as work progressed subject to its approval by the Federal agency.
- Upon completion of any project in compliance with the plans and specifications, final reimbursement of the Federal share of the project costs was to be made upon approval of the Federal agency.
Other provisions of the 1916 Act included:
- Funds were appropriated with authorization to proceed.
- The matching ratio of State funds to Federal funds was 50 percent.
Most of the basic philosophies, principles, policies, procedures, and controls established in the 1916 Act still exist today.
Before work could be started under the 1916 Act, many problems had to be resolved to establish the radically new Federal–State partnership. Eleven States did not have highway departments within the meaning of the law and required legislation to create them. In many others, some legislation was necessary. In some States, the highway departments could not exercise the necessary direct supervision. In others, State and local funds were not available to match the Federal funds, nor could adequate maintenance assurance be given. All the States had to assent to the provisions of the 1916 Act through their legislatures or temporarily through their Governors if they wished to participate. In spite of all these problems, by June 30, 1917, all States but one[N 1] had a highway department and had agreed to the requirements and terms of the Act.[17]
Recognizing that some States would not have agencies empowered to carry out the provisions of the Act, Congress provided that the availability of the Federal funds to those particular States could be extended for an additional 2 years. This gave those States not having a State highway department both the incentive and the time to take the necessary legislative or administrative action to establish one. A “forfeiture” feature provided that any funds not expended by the end of their availability would be reapportioned among all the States. Obviously, it was advantageous for the States to create State highway departments if they did not already have them.
The rules and regulations for carrying out the Federal Aid Road Act were issued by the Secretary of Agriculture on September 1, 1916. “In them he designated the Office of Public Roads and Rural Engineering as his representative in the administration of all [sections] of the act except Section 8, which applied to roads in national forests.” Section 8 was assigned to the Forest Service for apportionment of funds and the selection of projects, although surveying and construction work on the forest roads was to be performed under the supervision of the Office of Public Roads and Rural Engineering (OPRRE).[18]
Implementation of the 1916 Act had just gotten well underway when the United States entered World War I in April 1917. The war curtailed road construction but did not bring it to a complete halt. Efforts were made to limit construction of roads to those needed for military purposes or war industry.
Hoist and dump body, built by the Washington State Highway Department, are mounted on a 1½-ton Kelly Springfield truck which was WW I Army surplus. Equipment such as this aided the accelerated postwar highway program.
By the end of the war, roads had deteriorated from inadequate maintenance and heavy traffic, and an accelerated program was necessary. It was also believed that there would be extensive unemployment as a result of demobilization of the Armed Forces and war industry. Congress responded by including in the Post Office Appropriation Act for 1920 an appropriation of $200 million for additional Federal aid under the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916. Of this amount, $50 million was available immediately for fiscal year 1919 and $75 million for each of the fiscal years 1920 and 1927. The Act also provided an additional $9 million for forest roads at the rate of $3 million for each of the fiscal years 1919, 1920 and 1921. An additional Federal subsidy to the road program was included by the transfer of surplus war materials and equipment to the Secretary of Agriculture for distribution to the State highway departments for use on Federal-aid roads. The Secretary was authorized to retain 10 percent of the material for the Department’s use. The value of the surplus materials turned over to the States totaled $139 million by July 1, 1922, when the distribution was essentially completed.[19]
The transfer of surplus war equipment played a major role in launching the postwar construction. Many States were able to continue highway construction and maintenance during that time only because they received the surplus equipment.[20]
The Federal Highway Act of 1921
The appropriations for Federal aid for roads extended only through fiscal year 1921. Consequently, Congress, in 1921, had to make a decision whether or not to continue the program, and this provided a chance to reevaluate the entire concept. There was considerable debate as to whether the Federal Government should construct a system of national highways directly or continue with the Federal–State cooperative plan. Again, the constitutional issue was raised.
Controversy also developed about what type of roads should be built with Federal-aid funds. One position was that the funds should be used for interstate highways which would serve as main lines for the State and county road networks. The other position was that the most important roads for the welfare of the country were the local roads connecting the farmer with his market and that, therefore, those should be built before the interstate roads which seemed to serve mostly the tourists.
These issues were decided in the 1921 Act. The Federal aid concept in a Federal–State cooperative program was reaffirmed.
The “character of road” issue was resolved by a most important new requirement—that Federal-aid funds should be expended only upon a federally approved, State selected system of main connecting interstate (primary) and intercounty (secondary) rural roads, limited to 7 percent of a State’s total road mileage. The 7 percent limitation was based on a concept that the system should be limted to a mileage which could be constructed in a reasonable period of time. Once the State had provided for the construction and maintenance of highways equal to 7 percent, then mileage could be added to either system as funds became available and with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture. The Act further provided that not more than three-sevenths of the total mileage could be used for the primary system, thus, a balanced program was assured. No more than 60 percent of any State’s Federal-aid apportionment could be spent on the primary system, except with the approval of the Secretary, thus, establishing the principle of categorical funding (using Federal-aid funds only for specific purposes or programs).
Another new requirement in the 1921 Act was that when the States were preparing their design standards and specifications for highway projects, they should take into consideration the durability of the type of surface and kinds of materials that would best suit each locality and that would adequately meet the existing and the “probable character and extent of the future traffic,” subject to the approval of the Federal agency. This was apparently addressed, in part to those States that had been concerned about the meaning of a provision of the 1916 Act that “. . . the Secretary of Agriculture shall approve only such projects as may be substantial in character. . . .”
Section of Missouri route 19 south of Hannibal in “Mark Twain” country. The gorge had become a dump but was reclaimed for the new road site. Scenic turnouts allow the traveler to enjoy the rustic beauty of the area.
The 1921 Act strengthened several other provisions of the 1916 Act by:
- Broadening the requirement for a State highway department, or equivalent, to require that such organization be suitably equipped and organized to administer the program to the satisfaction of the Federal agency.
- Providing that the State must have already made provisions for the State’s share of funds required each year for construction, reconstruction and maintenance of all Federal-aid highways within the State and that these funds must be under the direct control of the State highway department before any project submitted by a State could be approved by the Secretary.
- Liberalizing the 50 percent Federal–State matching funds by increasing the Federal share of project costs, on a sliding scale computed by formula, in those States having large Federal public land areas.
- Amending the availability of funds for expenditure to provide that funds would be available for expenditure until the end of the second fiscal year following the fiscal year for which they were appropriated.
- Authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to proceed to place any road in a proper state of maintenance if any State failed to do so within 90 days after having been notified to do it and to charge the costs of such work against the Federal funds allotted to that State. Furthermore, it stipulated that no other propects would be approved until the State reimbursed the Federal Government for the costs of the repairs and that the money paid would be reapportioned among all the States for construction of roads. The Secretary, then, could approve further projects submitted by that State.
- Providing that funds deducted for costs of administration could be used for highway research and investigational studies independently or in cooperation with the State highway departments and other agencies.
The Federal Highway Act of 1921, as it amended and supplemented the 1916 Act, constituted the remainder of the basic philosophies, principles, policies, procedures and controls which still exist for the program.
The appropriations in the 1921 Act provided funds for forest roads and trails in the amount of $5 million for fiscal year 1922 and $10 million for fiscal year 1923, but it appropriated Federal-aid system funds only for fiscal year 1922 in the amount of $75 million.
Contract Authority
However, when the Post Office Appropriation Act for 1923 was approved June 19, 1922, it contained provisions amending the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916 to provide for the continuance of the highway program through fiscal years 1923, 1924, and 1925. Important new language was used in the Act—instead of providing appropriations for the 3 years, it stated “. . . there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, . . . the following additional sums. . . .”
This language meant that it was still necessary to go through the appropriation process by further legislation. The actual funding of the authorization then became a matter for consideration later by the appropriations committees. In this instance the “authorized to be appropriated” language was used in an Appropriation Act—however, the following additional provision was included regarding the funds for fiscal year 1923:
Provided, That the Secretary of Agriculture shall act upon projects submitted to him under his apportionment of this authorization and his approval of any such project shall be deemed a contractual obligation of the Federal Government for the payment of its proportional contribution thereto.
The principle thus established is commonly called “contract authority,” which meant that the full sum of money authorized in the Act could be obligated before any legislation had been passed to provide liquidating cash to pay the amounts claimed by the States.
The impact of this change in the method of authorizing and funding the Federal-aid highway program was vast because:
- It was essential that the States be provided ample time to prepare to participate in the program.
- It was not reasonable to expect the States to proceed with preparatory work and costs without assurance from the Federal Government that the apportionments would be funded.
- It was essential that Federal funds be available for prompt payment of State claims for reimbursement.
- It was not efficient money management to appropriate the full program funds for a 2- or 3-year period awaiting annual apportionment and an additional 5 or more years before a given fiscal year’s need for actual reimbursement. Under this system, large sums would be tied up awaiting eventual disbursement.
- It was assurance of the continuity of the program because the program was then dependent only upon obtaining future authorizations.
The Federal–State Relationship
When Federal assistance for the development of highways was first considered, there was no “model program” to copy. While Congress must be given the final credit, many of the pioneer leaders in the emerging State highway departments, highway industries and associations, and the Office of Public Roads in the Department of Agriculture all played a major part in developing the legislation. Among all major Federal assistance programs, the Federal-aid highway program has been one of the most successful in its effectiveness, efficiency and its cooperative administration by the Federal Government and the States.
The very limited role of the Office of Road Inquiry, when it was created in 1893, was strictly spelled out in Secretary of Agriculture J. Sterling Morton’s letter appointing General Roy Stone, a prominent New York civil engineer and Secretary of the League of National Roads, to the position of Special Agent and Engineer for Road Inquiry. The Secretary cautioned: “The Department is to furnish information, not to direct and formulate any system of organization, however efficient or desirable it may be. Any such effort on its part would soon make it subject to hostile criticism. . . .”[21]
While the role of the Federal Government was to be greatly strengthened and broadened both by legislation and the personal policy of future highway administrators, the underlying philosophy behind the original directive has survived.
Of great significance in the shaping of the Federal–State relationship in the administration of the Federal-aid highway program was the appointment of Thomas H. MacDonald as the Chief of the Bureau of Public Roads on May 3, 1919. At the time of his appointment, Mr. MacDonald was the Chief Engineer of the Iowa State Highway Commission and had been a member (since 1915) of the Executive Committee of AASHO which was created late in 1914. It was on the recommendation of State highway officials that Mr. MacDonald was selected to succeed Logan Waller Page who died unexpectedly in December 1918. Mr. MacDonald, known throughout his career with the Bureau as “the Chief,” was largely responsible for the development and success of the Federal-aid highway program and, so important to that success, the building of a cooperative Federal–State relationship founded on mutual respect. The American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) declared in 1964 its view of Mr. MacDonald’s role as follows:
There were spokesmen for both plans[N 1] and they were articulate. It was in no small part due to Mr. MacDonald’s efforts that the Federal-aid program was the one that was adopted. It was his contention that such a program would encourage development of highway technology and the creation of a great network of highways throughout the Nation, instead of a few Federal routes and some spiderweb highway systems within the individual States. The results prove that contention was correct.
He felt that without the encouragement and stabilizing influence of Federal-aid, some of the States would have a difficult time developing adequate and competent Highway Departments and effective highway programs.
******
It was his belief that the States must retain the initiative in administering the Federal-aid highway programs, and that the Bureau of Public Roads should make such checks as necessary to protect the Federal interest.[22]
During his entire administration of the Bureau (1919–1953), Mr. MacDonald, clearly ran the organization. There was never any question who was “Chief.” He did not believe in staff meetings or internal group decisionmaking. He discussed policies and problems normally on a one-to-one basis with a very small group of his most trusted assistants, but in the end, he made the policy and he made the decisions.
Washington, D.C., was as popular with tourists at the turn of the century as it is today.
In his external relationships, Mr. MacDonald was a strong believer in committee or group action. He did everything possible to strengthen the policymaking role of the American Association of State Highway Officials and its numerous technical committees. Similarly, he supported the organization, cooperation and interaction of other special interest and professional groups who were interested in or affected by the Nation’s highway program.[N 2]
There was no paradox in Mr. MacDonald’s diametrically different approach to internal and external administration of the highway program. He could control the Federal internal policies—and this extended beyond him through the Federal department level to the pertinent congressional committees. On the other hand, the external elements of the total highway industry and interests were so widespread and diverse that independent and singular views could well lead to chaos, inaction and conflict. His solution was organized group policy and decisionmaking, intercommunication, interaction, compromise, all toward common goals.
Mr. MacDonald’s administrative skill, his strong sense of direction, his dedication, and his long tenure in office—spanning 34 years—permitted the basic Federal–State working relations to become fully established and to demonstrate their worth. During his tenure, agency personnel were well-trained in the MacDonald philosophy that the Bureau should maintain as low a profile as possible while quietly maintaining a role of encouragement, leadership and protection of the national interest.
Reflecting on the pioneers on the State side of the Federal–State relationship, major personal contributions were made by many individuals over the years. G. P. Coleman, Highway Commissioner for the State of Virginia, was perhaps the individual who played the most important part in the actual creation of AASHO in 1914.
Mr. Coleman, in turn, singled out A. G. Batchelder, Executive Secretary to the American Automobile Association, for special credit. Mr. Coleman also gave much credit to the assistance of some 16 other heads of State highway departments or commissions for the creation of AASHO. In any event, the creation of the American Association of State Highway Officials was a “cornerstone” upon which the successful Federal–State relationship was to be built.
- ↑ “National” highways vs. federally assisted, State administered program.
- ↑ These included, but were not limited to: The American Road Builders’ Association, Associated General Contractors, Automotive Safety Foundation, National Highway Users Conference, National Safety Council, American Trucking Association, National Association of County Engineers, American Public Works Association, American Municipal Association, Institute of Traffic Engineers, and the Highway Research Board which played a very special role in highway development.
Over the years there have been a great many outstanding and influential heads of the various State highway departments and commissions who played major roles in strengthening AASHO and in shaping the Federal-aid highway program. These men are too numerous to cite individually, but collectively, much of the success of the Federal–State relationship must be attributed to their wisdom and leadership.
The Interaction of AASHO and BPR
Since the framers of the 1916 Act agreed that the key to a successful Federal–State relationship in the administration of the Federal-aid highway program at the policy level, at least, was interaction and cooperation of the Federal Government with a “federation” of the States, the appropriate instrument to accomplish this was the American Association of State Highway Officials.
The Bureau of Public Roads became a “member department” of AASHO in 1919 and, through Mr. MacDonald, a member of the Executive Committee. By the terms of the AASHO revised Constitution, the Federal Highway Administrator became an ex officio member of the Executive Committee in 1957.[N 1][23] During this long period of time, cooperative effort toward common goals has been the basis of the relationship between the Federal agency and AASHO with each organization fully respecting the right of the other to hold individual viewpoints.
The fact that in 1923 AASHO located its headquarters office in Washington in the charge of an Executive Secretary, who traditionally has been a strong and capable representative of all the States, provided both BPR and AASHO with the opportunity for effective day-to-day communication.
The principal interaction between AASHO and the Bureau at the Washington level has been in the areas of proposed legislation; interpretation of the effects of legislation on the States and plans for its implementation; assurance of a viable AASHO committee structure; the agenda for the annual AASHO and regional AASHO meetings; joint consideration of relationships with the many other national associations that have been involved in, or have an interest in, the highway program; and other subjects of mutual interest that are best handled on a national basis rather than with the individual States.
Following the extensive hearings which preceded enactment of the 1944 Federal- Aid Highway Act, congressional highway leaders requested that in the future the States develop their policy statements on highway legislation jointly through the AASHO mechanism as a basis for testimony by an AASHO spokesman rather than appear individually to present State viewpoints. This policy continues, though upon rare occasions a State has asked permission from a congressional committee to appear individually.[24]
A very extensive and highly important area of interaction and cooperation between AASHO and the Bureau has been in the establishment and activities of the various committees of AASHO. At the top of the AASHO committee structure, as defined in the 1914 Constitution, was the Executive Committee which was responsible for legislative matters of a national character. In addition, the Constitution provided for a Finance Committee, a Committee on Tests and Investigations for evaluating various kinds of materials, and a Committee on Standards for establishing methods of construction and maintenance. Eventually, as circumstances required, other standing committees were formed, some with working subcommittees. Special committees and joint committees have been established whenever the need for such committees became apparent.
The AASHO committee system, supported by BPR personnel, has been a strong factor in the successful and invaluable contributions made to improving highway administrative and engineering technology. For many years, BPR staff members chaired many of the AASHO committees and served as secretaries on many others. Later the policy was changed to name State officials as chairmen and BPR officials as secretaries when such practice was mutually beneficial to the highway program.
Through refinement of the state-of-the-art in all aspects of highway engineering and administration—which, in turn, insured continual improvement in the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of program implementation—the committee activities of AASHO have proven to be the Association’s greatest strength.
BPR and the Highway Research Board
The need for a national program of highway research was recognized in 1919. It was envisioned as a national program of highway research that would be coordinated by the National Research Council (of the National Academy of Sciences) with participation by such organizations as AASHO, BPR, the engineering colleges and experiment stations, municipal testing laboratories, manufacturers’ research departments and associations, commercial laboratories, technical societies, and consulting engineers.[25] When the National Advisory Board on Highway Research[N 2] was established in 1920, its purpose was “To prepare a comprehensive national program for highway research; to assist existing organizations to coordinate their activities therein; and to collect and distribute information of completed and current research.”[26]
From the very beginning, the Board was organized into a series of committees headed by an Executive Director. Under the Board’s bylaws, ex officio members were designated from the Bureau of Public Roads and the National Research Council Division of Engineering. In 1945 the Executive Secretary of AASHO was also made an ex officio member of the Highway Research Board (HRB).
- ↑ To carry out the broader requirements of new legislation and the impetus of changed social values, AASHO officially changed its name to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1973. The reconstitution of AASHO resulted in the Secretary of Transportation’s designation as the Federal member.
- ↑ The name of the organization was changed to the Highway Research Board in January 1925 and to Transportation Research Board in March 1974.
During the early years, the Board was supported largely by the BPR, both in terms of dollars and in staff effort, During the first year, BPR, through a contractual agreement, supplied $12,000 of the total $14,500 budget and continued financial support averaging about 62 percent of the total operational budget for the first 24 years. Many of the States had no legal authority to make funds available to the HRB unless the funds were to be used for research projects within their own States.[27] Gradually this problem was resolved, and since 1945 the BPR’s support of the HRB’s operational budget has averaged about 14 percent and that from the State highway departments about 60 percent. The balance has come from industry and cooperating organizations and associations.[28] Incidentally, the operational budget of the HRB does not include the cost of the actual research activities the HRB may administer—such funds are provided separately for specific projects by the BPR, the States, and, as appropirate, private industry on a project-by-project basis.
Among the various regular ongoing programs of HRB, the committee activities have been the most important. Committees have been organized within subject matter areas and can be created or terminated as needs dictate. The membership of the committees have always included technical specialists from BPR and the States; often these specialists have been selected to serve as either the committee chairman or secretary. Membership on the committees has also included specialists from universities and colleges, technical and professional associations, and the private sector in the wide scope of the highway industry. By 1926 six committees had been formed on economic theory of highway improvement, structural design of roads, character and use of road materials, highway traffic analysis, highway finance, and maintenance.
Since 1922 the Board has held annual meetings. These meetings have provided a forum for the presentation of technical and administrative research papers and have presented an invaluable opportunity to all segments of the industry interested in highway research to assemble and exchange information on the latest research developments. Attendance at the annual meetings has shown an almost continuous increase from the 30 who attended the first meeting in 1922 to a level that approaches 3,500 today. From the beginning until 1962, the technical papers presented at the HRB annual meetings were published in the HRB Proceedings. Other HRB publications have served over the years to distribute research information.
A Highway Research Information Service (HRIS) was instituted in 1930 for a broader means of research exchange. At one point the Director of HRB, Roy W. Crum (1928–1951), said he had always felt that HRB was an educational institution and that “The end product of our work is usable technical information, but it will be of no value to anyone unless it is learned and put to use by the technical man.”[29] In addition, HRB has produced Highway Research Abstracts, HRB Bibliography, Annual Report, and many other publications on highway and transportation research, which effectively carries out its mission “to collect and distribute information.”
A typical “trumpet” interchange providing service to and from I-80 (approaching from left) and local route 111 near Des Moines, Iowa.
In 1945, the HRB inaugurated the Highway Research Correlation Service (HRCS) which greatly strengthened its role in implementing the concept upon which it was created. The method of operation of the HECS was “for a staff of competent engineers and other technologists who can work in the various areas of interest, travel about the country, and find out the things we need to know about facilities, personnel, and needed information. They will carry information from one State to another, or to other research agencies. In the progress of this work they will gather for dissemination much valuable and usable information.[30] Meanwhile, it had been determined that the States could use a portion of their 1½ percent Federal-aid planning apportionments for participation in the HRCS so long as State matching funds were also provided. The timing of the creation of the HRCS coincided with the initiation of the greatly expanded postwar Federal-aid highway program. This permitted the growth of HRB at a time when it was needed most to keep pace with the needs of the highway program.
In 1962 the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) was established through which a national program of highway research could be developed jointly by the States (through AASHO), the BPR and the HRB, under a plan of pooled financing by the States and BPR. This program came soon after the initiation of the Interstate program when many new problems were beginning to emerge.
Between 1964 and 1967, the HRB initiated an automated Highway Research Information Service (HRIS). Items selected for HRIS processing fell into two general categories, research-in-progress reports and abstracts of published research articles or reports. The program was extended to include foreign research-in-progress and foreign language research reports through cooperative exchange agreements arranged with international organizations and other nations. Presently, from computer storage, HRIS provides abstracts of published works and summaries of ongoing research projects in response to specific inquiries.
A research library was initiated in 1946. Today, it plays a very important role in not only providing the specialized professional library services the TRB requires for its activities, but it also maintains an awareness of the subject content of other libraries and other institutions that may possess material of TRB interest, Copies of all TRB publications are also maintained by the library.
Current Status of the Federal–State Relationship
The unique Federal–State partnership in the Federal-aid highway program still exists despite the constrictions placed upon it by the changing climate in which the highway program must be administered.
When one speaks today about the Federal side of the Federal–State relationship in the administration of the Federal-aid highway program, actually the Federal Highway Administration is no longer the only Federal agency involved. Many other Federal agencies are now legally involved in the program, e.g., the Environmental Protection Agency; the Departments of the Interior, Commerce, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, and Justice; the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; the Office of Economic Opportunity; the Urban Mass Transportation Administration; the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; the Corps of Engineers; and a number of Federal councils, commissions, and boards.
Somewhat the same situation exists when one speaks about the State side of the Federal–State relationship. Many of the provisions of recent Federal (and some State) legislation require the States to coordinate with their local subdivisions and State and regional planning groups and commissions. In some program categories, project initiation is vested with the local subdivisions.
The increasing complexity of Federal highway legislation and other interrelated and interacting Federal legislation obviously have had an inevitable impact on the administration of the Federal-aid program. The early procedures were strikingly simple by comparison with today’s requirements. The problem then was the extensive centralization of final authority at the Federal level in Washington. Over the years this problem was gradually corrected by decentralization, but intricate programs and project processing requirements were substituted by other important, but sometimes conflicting, programs, making accomplishments tediously slow.
Lansing, Mich., street scene about 1930. Note the brick pavement, railroad warning device and the municipal bus.
Legislative Developments[N 1]
Many additions and changes in the Federal-aid highway program evolved through continuing Federal legislation after 1921. Most of these have increased the effectiveness of the program but have resulted in more complex procedures for administering the program.
During the Depression years larger regular authorizations and special appropriations were made to provide employment opportunities, and special regulations were necessary to insure that this purpose was achieved. For the first time, Federal-aid funds were made available for extensions to the Federal-aid system into and through municipalities and also for secondary feeder roads.
In 1934, 1½ percent of apportioned funds were made eligible for surveys, planning, and engineering investigations. Later this was broadened to include highway research and statewide highway planning surveys. Special funds were provided for the elimination of hazardous railroad grade crossings.
- ↑ This section is a very brief summary of the legislation to identify major trends. Many of these points are discussed in more detail later in this and other chapters.
In 1944 the Federal-aid system was expanded to include a secondary system of farm-to-market roads and an urban program of extensions of primary routes in urban areas of 5,000 population or more. In addition a 40,000-mile National System of Interstate Highways was called for but no funds were provided for its construction. The 1944 legislation also permitted the use of Federal-aid funds for acquiring highway rights-of-way.
The 1965 Highway Beautification Act gave new emphasis to programs of landscaping and scenic enhancement on Federal-aid highways.
By 1950 highways were being planned or built on more new locations. To allay fears of community economic depressions, legislation was enacted which required States to hold local public hearings with respect to any proposed project that would bypass any city or town.
The Interstate System routes in each State were approved in 1947, but it was not until the 1952 legislation that specific funding was authorized for Interstate construction, and then, only in token amounts.
Congress provided substantial long-term funding in 1956 to complete the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. The funding authorizations in the 1956 Act were increased from $175 million to $2.2 billion per year for fiscal year 1957 with additional sums for other years. To finance the program, Congress established the Highway Trust Fund. The 1956 Act planned for the completion of the Interstate System in 16 years, thus, accelerating construction work in all States. It increased administrative requirements by providing for utility relocations, establishing vehicle size and weight limits on Interstate highways, providing for archaeological and paleontological salvage, and applying the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act of prevailing wage rates to Interstate construction projects.
The tremendous expansion of the Federal-aid highway program by the 1956 Act, together with its new provisions and added complexity, made necessary an intensive effort by the Bureau of Public Roads and the States (through AASHO) to simplify, standardize, and expedite procedures. Of most importance was a complete reorganization by Public Roads, together with an increased decentralization of responsibility and authority to its field offices. The basic separate Federal–State roles were not changed by the 1956 Act, but additional and more complex project steps had to be introduced to satisfy the new legislative provisions.
The highway acts and other interacting legislation after 1956 provided further program expansion, particularly for the basic Federal-aid systems, and injected more refinements, additions, and controls into the program which complicated the Federal–State relationship and introduced new procedures. One such requirement in 1962 was the continuing, comprehensive, cooperative transportation planning process (known as the 3C process) that required States and local communities to develop cooperatively long-range highway plans and programs in urban areas of more than 50,000 population and to properly coordinate them with the programs for other forms of transportation. Another requirement in the 1962 Federal-Aid Highway Act was that the State highway departments furnish satisfactory assurance that advisory assistance was provided for families displaced by Federal-aid highway construction. It also provided that limited amounts of Federal-aid funds could be used to defray the costs of relocating families and businesses. This program was broadened later and culminated in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 making relocation assistance applicable in all federal assisted programs.
In 1965 an amendment to the 1956 Highway Act prescribed measures to be taken to slow the rate of traffic accidents. These endeavors led ultimately to the enactment of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 and the TOPICS program (Traffic Operations Program to Increase Capacity and Safety) in 1968. The Highway Beautification Act of 1965 established two new programs on control of junkyards and landscaping and scenic enhancement and expanded the scope of the outdoor advertising control program.
Equal employment opportunity provisions were required to be included in the advertised specifications for contracts on Federal-aid projects in 1968.
Legislation in 1970 established a program for economic growth centers designed to revitalize rural and small urban areas, a new urban highway system, and a bridge replacement program for safety improvements to bridges considered structually deficient and functionally obsolete. In addition, there were new requirements for construction of replacement housing, noise standards to be developed and requirements resulting from the Clear Air Act.
By 1973 the requirements of highway legislation and other legislation having a direct bearing on the highway program were so complex that establishing procedures to be sure the requirements were being carried out was a monstrous task. Many new programs often had separate funding which meant 
separate budgeting procedures, as well as separate reporting and accounting procedures. The States and the FHWA were inundated with statistics.
But in 1973 major highway legislation was enacted which established more new programs: (1) Safety construction—a separate program for safer roads, roadside obstacles, high-hazard locations, and pavemen markings; (2) priority primary routes—high traffic routes on the Primary System which connected to the Interstate System; and (3) urban high density—high traffic routes in urbanized areas which connected to Interstate routes. Furthermore, highway projects on Interstate and Urban Systems could be traded for transit projects. In addition, bicycle and pedestrian paths could be constructed along highways, curb ramps for the handicapped were required, and special provisions were included to encourage carpooling.
In 1974 requirements for transporting the elderly and handicapped were enacted, along with enforced higher limitations on sizes and weights of trucks and buses and a national speed limit of 55 m.p.h. Funding was also permitted for road improvements not on a Federal-aid system for the first time since 1921.
It would normally be expected that such a large and complex program would require a large and complex organization to manage the program. This is not the case in the highway program, primarily for three reasons. The first is the unique Federal–State partnership which has already been discussed. The second reason is that as the program has grown, more responsibilities and authority have been decentralized to the FHWA field offices which work closely with the State highway departments. The third reason is that, since 1893, the Federal agency responsible for administering the highway program has had a strong interest in training and initiated its first formal training program in 1905. Since then, the organization has kept pace with the program by revising and updating its training program as new requirements arose.
Management of the Federal-Aid Program
The Federal Agency
To comprehend the management of such a large Federal-aid program, it is necessary first to understand the Federal agency charged with the responsibility for administering the Federal interest in the Nation’s principal highway programs for more than 80 years.
The original agency was established in the Department of Agriculture in October 1893 by Secretary J. Sterling Morton as a result of the $10,000 appropriation in the Department’s Appropriation Act. It is believed that the original Office of Road Inquiry consisted of the Special Agent and Engineer for Road Inquiry, General Roy Stone, and one secretary.
The Agriculture Appropriation Act for fiscal year 1897 added authority to investigate the best kinds of roadmaking materials in the several States. Through cooperation with the Division of Tests in the Bureau of Chemistry (Department of Agriculture), a laboratory was established by the Office of Public Road Inquiries in 1900 where any citizen interested in the construction of public highways could have road materials tested free of charge. The Appropriation Act for 1902 put this testing work directly under the Office of Public Road Inquiries by giving it an appropriation for the investigation of the chemical and physical character of road materials. Furthermore, by 1901 the idea of field representation had been established with the country divided into four segments with a part-time special agent for each division. This field representation over the years has been of great benefit by supporting the Federal–State relationship, and as the Federal-aid program expanded, the necessary interaction at the operational level was greatly enhanced.
In 1905 the agency’s name changed again to the Office of Public Roads and, by law, it was permitted to retain 10 employees. To carry out its major functions, the work was organized into three divisions: Highways, Laboratory Tests and Investigations, and Information. It is significant that a program of hiring student engineers (at $600 per year) was initiated in 1905 with the express purpose of training them for career highway engineer positions in the Office of Public Roads and in the State highway departments.
During 1911 part-time Special Agents were appointed for each State to improve the collection and reporting of information.
By then the Federal agency had already undergone three name changes and there were others to come. Since the identity of the Federal agency responsible for the Federal-aid highway program becomes rather obscure when the program becomes so complex and interrelated with other Federal agencies, the following table is a chronological listing:
| Date of Creation |
Organization Title |
Parent Organization |
Title of Top Executive |
| Oct. 3, 1893 | Office of Road Inquiry |
Dept. of Agriculture |
Special Agent and Engineer (1897 became Director) |
| FY 1899 | Office of Public Road Inquiries |
Dept. of Agriculture |
Director |
| July 1, 1905 | Office of Public Roads |
Dept. of Agriculture |
Director |
| July 1, 1915 | Office of Public Roads and Rural Engineering |
Dept. of Agriculture |
Director |
| July 1, 1918 | Bureau of Public Roads |
Dept. of Agriculture |
Director (1919 became Chief) |
| July 1, 1939 | Public Roads Administration |
Federal Works Agency |
Commissioner |
| July 1, 1949 | Bureau of Public Roads |
General Services Administration |
Commissioner |
| Aug. 20, 1949 | Bureau of Public Roads |
Dept. of Commerce |
Commissioner (1956 became Federal Highway Administrator[N 1]) |
| Apr. 1, 1967 | Federal Highway Administration |
Dept. of Transpor |
Administrator |
- ↑ This was a new position above the Commissioner’s position on a level with an Assistant Secretary of Commerce. The position of Commissioner was retained until 1961.
Following the enactment of the Federal Aid Road Act on July 11, 1916, with its initiation of the cooperative Federal-aid highway program, the Office of Public Roads and Rural Engineering (OPRRE) created a formal field organization. The field work was organized into 10 districts, each headed by a District Engineer. At the Washington headquarters level, all of the existing divisions were grouped into two branches—the Engineering Branch and the Management and Economics Branch—headed by a Chief Engineer and a Chief of Management, respectively. In addition, two General Inspectors, independent of the branches, reported directly to the Director of OPRRE. This reorganization in fiscal year 1917 established the firist formal field structure of the OPRRE with delegated operating responsibility and authority.
Because of the large amount of forest road work in the West and the passage of the 1921 Federal Highway Act enlarging the Federal-aid program, a western regional office under a Deputy Chief Engineer, Dr. L. I. Hewes, was created in 1921 to supervise the work in the 11 western States and to dispose of a large number of routine matters without reference to Washington. In effect, the Western Headquarters, as it was called, was an extension of the Washington Office located in San Francisco. This permitted more efficient communication on matters needing the Secretary’s approval and reduced travel costs.
Another organizational change made in 1921 to help meet the demands of the accelerating program, was to divide the Engineering Branch in Washington into a Division of Design to handle all applications and steps preliminary to the execution of the Project Agreement, including the review and approval of the plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E), and a Division of Construction to monitor the construction work in progress, to check construction estimates (reimbursement claims) submitted by the States, and to monitor the maintenance of roads after construction. A Division of Control was also established to include all program and project accounting, budget activities, fiscal accounting, payrolling, purchasing, and equipment and supplies. By June 30, 1922, the staff of BPR had reached a total of 784, representing 297 in Washington and 487 in the field.
In fiscal year 1925 an office was established in Hawaii under the jurisdiction of the Western Headquarters and in fiscal year 1930, because of the reconnaissance survey proposed for the Inter-American Highway, an office was set up in Panama. Later division offices were established in each of the Central American countries. As of April 1930, the BPR had a total permanent staff of 976 persons, of whom 461 were engineers.[31]
An Eastern Parks and Forests District was created in January 1934 to handle all forest and park work east of the Rocky Mountains together with miscellaneous direct Federal construction work in the East for other Federal agencies.
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 authorized a greatly expanded postwar highway program providing authorizations for fiscal years 1946, 1947 and 1948 at the unprecedented level of $500 million per year, plus $25 million per year for forest highways. Recognizing that a considerably larger staff and extensive decentralization would be necessary in the field, a major reorganization of the Public Roads Administration was initiated July 1, 1945.
In July 1953 a further decentralization move was taken to delegate approval authority to the lowest practicable level, thereby eliminating or reducing the duplication of checking and reviewing project documents at the successive layers of organization. This delegation went to the BPR District Engineer in each State for final approval of plans, specifications and estimates.
The Inter-American Highway which today is complete except for the segment in the Darien Gap between Panama and Colombia.
Maurice Owen Eldridge
It wasn’t idle flattery when the Engineering News-Record referred to Maurice Owen Eldridge as an “engineer and road expert” in announcing his death on April 28, 1951, at age 77. The announcement further stated Mr. Eldridge, who was called “M.O.” had retired in 1946 after 52 years as a roadbuilder.
“Road expert” was the official title given to key staff members of the Office of Road inquiry in its early days. Few were as well-qualified to hold it as M.O. Eldridge.
He was proficient in many fields: roadbuilding, road research, highway economics, highway finance and taxation, highway safety, promotion of good roads, and program administration. He was a well-known lecturer, an author and editor of reports, articles, and technical papers.
Eldridge was a man of broad vision, strong convictions, great zeal, dedication, and dogged determination. These good qualities sometimes got him into trouble with his superiors, but subsequent events nearly always vindicated him.
His dream of good roads was based on good common sense and sound economics. He not only lived to see it come true, but was an active participant in its fulfillment.
Basically, his dream was that the Federal Government and the States would join together in a cooperative program of road improvement. This dream became a reality with the enactment of the Federal Aid Road Act on July 11, 1916.
Eldridge was an active participant in developing rules and regulations for implementing the new program and in preparing much of the background information which eventually led to the passage of the Federal Highway Act of 1921.
M.O. Eldridge was born July 3, 1873, on a farm near Lenoir, Tenn. Many anecdotes are told about Eldridge, some verifiable, some not.
He went to a log schoolhouse where the seats were made by splitting logs in two and the flat sides were used as seats and backs. His teacher was a Baptist preacher named Pope who believed that, in addition to being taught such classical subjects as Greek and geometry, his students should be taught manual dexterity. He showed them how to make their own compasses and to use poke and other berries from the nearby woods to color designs they had traced. Eldridge’s interest in drawing and drafting got him his first job in 1894 with the Office of Road Inquiry in Washington, D.C.
While attending the University of Tennessee, Eldridge’s talents came to the attention of University President Charles W. Dabney who shortly became the Secretary of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture was a small organization and when a man was wanted to draw some maps, Secretary Dabney knew the right individual to get and that is how M.O. Eldridge began his roadbuilding career at a princely salary of $60 a month.
Returning to Washington from a trip to Tennessee, M.O. was looking pensively out the train window at the drab, sodden countryside on a rainy November day in 1902, when the train stopped at Jonesboro in eastern Tennessee. He saw an acquaintance, Congressman W. P. Brownlow, board the train. They got into a conversation with another passenger, District Judge Hal Haines, who joined them on the train at Bristol.
The subject of conversation turned to the deplorable condition of the roads; inspiration was the view outside the train windows.
What could be done to improve them? Eldridge pointed out that most rural and small-town residents took such paralyzing road condi- tions for granted, not knowing how to go about improving them. But, said Eldridge, improvement was possible, and, in his opinion, the Federal Government should not only take the initiative in showing the people how to build good roads, it should cooperate with them in doing it. He cited as an example an operation in New Jersey under which the State cooperated with counties and local units in financing and building “mainline” intercity roads.
Both Representative Brownlow and Judge Haines agreed with Eldridge’s position. The Congressman then directed Eldridge to draft a bill that would incorporate his ideas and Representative Brownlow would introduce it.
So M.O. Eldridge went back to his Government desk, outlined the plan to his chief, Martin Dodge, who approved. They rewrote the New Jersey law to fit the national situation. Mr. Brownlow introduced the bill and thus was sown the idea of Federal-aid roads.
The speech was made in January 1903 and was printed in the Congressional Record. It attracted a lot of attention and found supporters, but not in the Administration. The leaders in the Congress were against it. The Administration was against it. James Wilson, then Secretary of Agriculture, was against it.
Then one day a telegram was delivered to the Roads Office for Eldridge. It was signed by A. R, Shattuck who requested Eldridge to come to New York to see him.
Shattuck was an executive of an organization that had just come into existence—a forerunner of the American Automobile Association. This organization believed in the idea of Federal aid for good roads. And it wanted to help the idea along. What could it do?
Eldridge suggested the greatest need was to educate the public. Eldridge was provided $10,000 a year for publicity. He said he couldn’t do anything through the Roads Office but something might be accomplished outside.
The arrangement was made. Eldridge hired an office, a publicity man and a stenographer.
The major promotion campaign was to have a million copies of the Brownlow speech printed at cost by the Government Printing Office, as can be done in such cases. These were mailed out under Government frank by friendly congressmen to a million people. On a single day a solid carload of mail went out of Washington.
It was a thorough campaign. The people responded and Congressmen were showered with questions on good roads from their constituents.
Questions arose on who was responsible for this campaign.
Finally, it was found out that M.O. Eldridge was responsible. He was called in on the carpet and summarily dismissed from service.
He was a sacrifice for this early advocacy of a policy that a dozen years later became a national enthusiasm in the passage of the 1916 Act.
Eldridge’s friends in Congress went to bat for him and they succeeded in getting him reinstated—at a reduced salary and loss of his rank as second in command in the office.
Eldridge might have directed the office, but he had pushed a right idea before its time.
When the United States entered World War I, Eldridge and the entire staff of the Office of Public Roads and Rural Engineering were diverted from peacetime activities to supporting the war effort.
For example, he and Prevost Hubbard of the Office staff served as Public Roads representatives on a subcommittee of the United States Highway Council which reviewed 7,307 applications for approval of road construction projects between June 18 and December 31, 1918.
M.O. received many commendations for the work he did.
One of his assignments with the Office of Public Road Inquiries was to construct experimental and demonstration roads, using locally available materials. Ernest F. Acheson, member of Congress from Pennsylvania, wrote on February 1, 1901, concerning a demonstration road built under Eldridge’s direction in Washington County, Pennsylvania:
. . . I wish to say that the experiments made . . . last fall under the direction of Mr. Eldridge awakened a deep interest among the farmers, and has done a great deal to promote the cause of good roads. . . .
In 1919 he joined the Washington staff of the American Automobile Association. He served in many capacities, including editor of the Association magazine, American Motorist; Director of Roads, AAA Good Roads Board; and subsequently, Executive Chairman of the Association.
Leaving the AAA in 1925, Eldridge joined the staff of the District of Columbia government to become the first Director of Traffic for the City of Washington. At the time of his retirement on December 31, 1946, he was the Assistant Director of the D.C. Department of Vehicles and Traffic.
Eldridge was a prolific writer. Mention of only a few of his efforts will indicate the breadth of his interests in highway matters.
For the 1899 Yearbook of the U.S. Department of Agriculture he wrote on the “Progress of Road Building in the United States.” To Historic Highways of America, volume 15, entitled “The Future of Road-Making in America, A Symposium by Archer Butler Hulbert and Others,” published in 1905, he contributed Chapter III on “Good Roads for Farmers.”
He provided two articles for the Third Annual Edition (1922) of the Highways Green Book, published by the American Automobile Association. These related to “Highway Financing and Taxation” and “Accident Prevention Suggestions.” Part II of the 1925 Proceedings of the National Safety Council contains a paper by him on “Traffic Control Systems.” Also, the 1935–36 Convention Proceedings of the American Road Association includes a paper he prepared on “Should Pedestrian Traffic Be Regulated?” 
The Edward M. Gatliff Memorial Bridge is on Kentucky route 90 at Cumberland Falls, Ky. It was completed in 1954 to replace a ferry crossing operation. The stone facing was obtained from a local quarry.
Early in 1955 it seemed apparent that Congress would soon enact legislation which would provide funding authorizations for the construction of the Interstate System which had been designated in 1947. The contemplated workload and manpower needs for such a program were staggering. Since an adequate supply of qualified engineers was not then available to administer the program, a task force was appointed to study the problem and develop recommendations. As a result of the studies, the field structure again was reorganized and further redelegation of responsibilities and authorities was given to the field offices. This decentralization to the field was the most important and beneficial change made by BPR in its administration of the highway program since the creation of the first operating field offices in 1917. The total BPR employment as of June 30, 1956, totaled 3,646, a reduction from the postwar peak of 4,239 as of June 30, 1949.
In June 1957 a very important functional addition was made in the Washington headquarters by the creation of a Project Examination Division in the Office of Administration. The new division initiated a broad internal and external management audit program in BPR designed to ensure compliance with program policies and procedures as well as to monitor program effectiveness and integrity at both the Federal and State levels.
In December 1961, as a result of a consultant’s study of the program’s management and operations undertaken in 1960, an Office of Planning was established as a separate unit. Previously this function was combined with research. The separate office greatly strengthened the planning function in BPR and speeded the implementation of the 3C planning process when it became a requirement in the 1962 Federal-Aid Highway Act. By now the total full-time employment of BPR was 4,521, including 206 temporary employees and 188 stationed in foreign countries.
During the next several years broadening program responsibilities and functions were to make rather frequent reorganizations of the Washington head-quarters necessary. For example, a reorganization in 1962 created an Office of Right-of-Way and Location to assume functions formerly a responsibility of the engineering staff. A very significant change in terms of program development was the creation of an Office of Audits and Investigations by transferring the Project Examination Division and the external audit functions of the Finance Division from the Office of Administration.
It became necessary to add certain specialists to the organization over the years as the requirements of the various highway acts and other legislation affecting the highway program were enacted by Congress, and the Bureau became something more than just an engineering organization to oversee the construction of highways. These specialists included economists, landscape architects, real estate appraisers, behavioral scientists, planners, historians, ecologists, contract specialists, safety experts, and civil rights specialists. By December 31, 1966, total employment was 4,839, including temporary employees and 157 persons in foreign countries.
The Department of Transportation Act enacted October 15, 1966, consolidated more than 30 transportation agenices or functions that had been scattered throughout the Government. At its inception, the Department encompassed more than 90,000 employees and an annual budget of approximately $6 billion, the bulk of it being $4 billion of highway programs.[32] The purpose of the Act was:
The Congress therefore finds that the establishment of a Department of Transportation is necessary in the public interest and to assure the coordinated, effective administration of the transportation programs of the Federal Government; to facilitate the development and improvement of coordinated transportation service. . . .
On April 1, 1967, the Bureau of Public Roads became a bureau within the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in the new Department, Other functions transferred to FHWA were the regulatory motor carrier safety functions from the Interstate Commerce Commission and the highway safety and the traffic and motor vehicle safety functions created by congressional legislation in 1966 from the Department of Commerce. The other organizational elements of the new Department of Transportation (DOT) were the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Coast Guard, and the St, Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. The Urban Mass Transportation Administration was transferred to the Department from the Department of Housing and Urban Development on July 1, 1968.
As of December 31, 1967, the end of the first calendar year following creation of the new FHWA, its employment (including the three bureaus—Public Roads, Motor Carrier Safety, and the National Highway Safety Bureau) totaled 5,366, including temporary employees and 140 persons in foreign countries.
In March 1970 the National Highway Safety Bureau was separated from the Federal Highway Administration to become the seventh DOT operating administration and was renamed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. All of the Safety Bureau’s functions went with it except that responsibility for specified highway-oriented safety standards assigned to the Federal Highway Administration.
With the separation of the National Highway Safety Bureau, FHWA again was reorganized. The reorganization that became effective August 10, 1970, abolished the “Bureau of Public Roads” as an identifiable separate organizational component of FHWA. Instead of the former bureau structure, FHWA was divided into six new components made up of Planning. Research and Development, Right-of-Way and Environment, Engineering and Traffic Operations, Motor Carrier and Highway Safety, and Administration, each to be headed by an Associate Administrator. Staff offices directly responsible to the Administrator were the Offices of Chief Counsel, Program Review and Investigations, Public Affairs, and Civil Rights, each headed by a Director. In 1971, the National Highway Institute was added as the fifth staff office.
From August 1970 to March 1975, there were continual minor organizational changes in the Federal Highway Administration to keep abreast of the ever-broadening scope of FHWA’s programs and responsibilities. However, the total employment of FHWA as of December 31, 1974, was 5,134, including temporary employees and 39 persons in foreign countries and 28 persons in territories of the United States. Comparing the 1974 employment level with the 784 employees in June 1922 when the Federal-aid highway program was just getting underway and the growth of a program from $80 million at that time to over $6 billion in 1974, the current level of staffing is remarkable in terms of efficient program administration.
The Operational System
In order to proceed with the implementation of the program provided by the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916, much had to be done at both the State and Federal levels. As mentioned earlier, the States had to enact legislation to satisfy the administrative requirements of organization, authorities, methods of financing the new Federal-aid matching requirements and future maintenance responsibilities, and the administrative and financial relationships with the States’ local governmental subdivisions.
At the Federal level, the small Office of Public Roads and Rural Engineering (OPRRE) had to develop the implementing rules and regulations required by the Act and develop the necessary plan and organization for its role in administering the program, not only in the Washington Headquarters, but also at the field level in all the States.
The initial project procedures that were established under the Federal rules and regulations for the ad- ministration of the Federal-aid program were relatively simple and direct. These procedures included:
- A Project Statement or application was submitted to the OPRRE District Engineer describing the location, nature and estimated cost of the work. Upon review and an onsite inspection by the District Engineer, he forwarded the Project Statement with his recommendations to Washington for review by the Engineering Branch of the OPRRE and the approval by the Secretary of Agriculture.
- Upon approval, the State was authorized to proceed with the preparation of detailed plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E). The District Engineer reviewed the PS&E and made another onsite inspection with “plans in hand,” and forwarded everything with his recommendations to Washington for final review and approval.
- A Project Agreement was prepared for signature, first by the authorized State official and then by the Secretary of Agriculture, which represented the contractual agreement between the State and Federal Government, The Project Agreement established the maximum amount of the Federal participation and the State’s responsibility for adequate maintenance of the completed project. When this document was executed, the State was free to proceed with construction.
- Direct supervision of the construction was the responsibility of the State. However, a staff member of the OPRRE District Office made monthly inspections and reported his evaluation of the work to Washington. These reports were used as the basis for approval of requests for progress payments to the State. Progress pay- ments could not exceed the Federal share of the cost of the work and materials actually put in place in accordance with the plans and specifications.
- Upon completion of the project, the OPRRE District Engineer made a final onsite inspection and prepared a detailed final inspection report for the Washington office. The final payment of the remaining Federal share of the project costs was contingent upon the final acceptance of the work by the District Engineer.
- Maintenance, the State’s responsibility with no Federal funding, was monitored by the ORPPE District Engineer’s staff through annual inspections and reports to the Washington office. At the local level, deficiencies were discussed and corrective action was normally initiated promptly by the State.
The project costs not eligible for Federal participation were:
- Administrative costs of maintaining the State highway department and its staff, except those direct costs involved in providing the engineering supervision of the work after construction was initiated by contract or the actual costs of construction by force account (costs of labor, equipment, materials and overhead).
- Cost of surveys and preparing the plans, specifications and estimates.
- Costs of advertising projects for construction by contract.
- Costs of necessary right-of-way related damage costs.
- Costs incurred as a result of acceptance of other than the lowest bid unless the acceptance of a higher bid was justified and concurred in by the Federal agency.
- Costs of work not included in the approved PS&E or changes that were not approved by the Federal agency.
- Engineering inspection and contingency costs in excess of 10 percent of project estimate.
- Costs in excess of the amount provided for in the Project Agreement.
After enactment of the Federal Highway Act of 1921, two significant changes were made in the rules and regulations: (1) Because the States were required in 1921 to designate a limited State highway system of main roads, Project Statements submitted by a State for proposed construction thereafter were limited to routes or sections of routes that were a part of the approved system and (2) when the PS&E for an approved project was recommended for approval by the local Federal District Engineer, the State was authorized to proceed immediately with initiating the steps leading to construction.
In addition to selecting their Federal-aid systems, each State was required to prepare an annual program of those specific highway improvements it wished to undertake with available Federal assistance during the year and their costs. This measure was required to assure an orderly development of projects.
Another step not mentioned in the foregoing was the requirement that if a project was to be built on a new location, rather than an improvement of an existing road, the State would have to study alternative locations to decide the best route and the most economical type of road to construct. In the early days of the program, this step did not come up too often because the major portion of the work was the improvement of existing roads. However, the location of a new road was another item needing Federal approval before the project could be designed. The project design might also have several alternative designs in order that the most economical and serviceable product could be obtained.
These procedures were relatively simple and remained so until the 1950’s. The separate roles of the States and the Federal Government in the step-by-step project procedures that were thus established set the basic pattern for the cooperative administration of the Federal-aid program. For many years thereafter an evolutionary period existed during which the States and Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) were continuously developing methods and ways to improve, simplify and expedite the movement of projects through the various steps. Some of the more important efforts and actions taken were:
- The authority of the States to proceed with construction upon recommendation of the District Engineer was extended to include subsequent major revision of the plans, even when the changes would require additional Federal-aid funds.
- Arrangements for “sectionalizing” projects were developed to give the States wide latitude in placing work under contract by sections and completing sections independently of each other. At the same time, the number of Project Statements and Project Agreements was substantially reduced.
- Project Agreements were prepared in Washington for the signature of the Secretary before they were sent to the State for signature to expedite subsequent Federal payments.
- A separate division was established in the BPR Washington office to handle the review and approval of Federal-aid payment vouchers; a minimum voucher amount of $1,000 was established; and, to avoid sending vouchers back to the States for correction of small errors, a practice was adopted using a 5 percent retent or withholding to cover as many of these errors as possible.
- The principle of using stage construction on Federal-aid construction was adopted, e.g., approval of a project for grading and drainage only, with deferral of paving until a later time when justified.
To assure uniform quality of the roads and to speed up the detailed work, both at the State level and the Federal level, some standardization was needed:
- Standard specifications and format were developed by most States, eliminating the need for the development and submission of individual specifications for each project.
- Standards were developed jointly between State and BPR engineers for uniform methods of sampling, testing and reporting on road materials, and the standards were published in a department bulletin.
- Through AASHO committee action, minimum design standards were developed for various classes of roads and structures.
- Standard forms of various types were developed and approved for use, such as bid forms incorporating required general provisions, contract forms, performance and payment bonds, contractor qualification forms, Project Agreement forms, etc.
BPR officials examining a traffic counter in the late 1940’s. Traffic volume is often a factor in determining highway needs.
While the basic principle of State initiation and Federal review and approval remained intact, the continuing enactment over the years of new highway legislation with new programs and new provisions inevitably led to increasingly complex step-by-step project procedures to a degree that never could have been imagined in 1921.
With the passage of the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act came new procedural requirements which were inserted into their logical sequence of project steps to obtain Federal approvals.
The first of these was the requirement to hold public hearings, originally called for in the 1950 Federal-Aid Highway Act for highway projects bypassing a city or town, but later extended to all Federal-aid projects to be responsive to the goals and objectives of the local community. The term “public hearings” is always used in the plural because, although at first it was required only at the corridor or location stage, for many years it was administratively determined that a second public hearing was necessary at the design stage. In recent years a more flexible approach permits the requirement for public participation to be met in whatever way is considered most suitable in a specific situation.
Another procedural change resulted from a provision in the 1956 Highway Act that permitted Federal reimbursement for costs of relocating public or private utilities. Accommodation of utilities within the right-of-way is permitted as long as they do not hamper the safe flow of traffic.
The 1956 Act also required that the Davis-Bacon Act of 1935 would apply to Interstate projects. This involved the preparation and Federal approval of minimum labor wage rates to be paid to contractor construction employees on an individual project basis. The minimum rate is established by the U.S. Department of Labor and varies by geographic area. Later, the 1968 Act required extension of the Davis-Bacon coverage to all Federal-aid highway projects.
By 1962 highway projects in cities were numerous and concern for the integration of the highway with other modes of transportation, with the growth of the cities, and the potential needs of the future came to the fore. Federal assistance for planning had been available since 1934, but in 1962, legislation required that after July 1965 all Federal-aid highway projects within urban areas of more than 50,000 population must be based on the results of a continuing, comprehensive, cooperative transportation planning process. Planning was extended further in 1968 by the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act which, as implemented by the Bureau of the Budget BOB,[N 1] in Circular A-95, Notification Procedure, required that all proposed highway projects be submitted to State and areawide clearinghouse agencies for review and comments. The aim was to insure that all Federal and federally assisted projects were coordinated with the development plans of other public agencies. Thus, two general procedures were added to the already growing requirements before any physical work could begin on a highway project.
Another emerging social concern in 1962 was the plight of those persons required to move because of highway construction. At first the States were required to provide counseling for those whose property or dwelling place was taken, but in 1968 limited financial reimbursement was authorized. In 1970 the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act was passed to protect the displaced people, and Federal review and approval were required before right-of-way could be taken on any Federal-aid project.
Over the years concern had been developing for preserving our social, cultural and historical heritage. As early as 1956, Federal funds could be used for archeological paleontological salvage. However, in 1966 the Department of Transportation Act mandated protection of parklands, historic sites and other public conservation lands. Although this provision does not apply in the vast majority of highway projects, where taking these types of lands is contemplated, it results in considerable extension of preconstruction planning and review time.
- ↑ Now known as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Since about 1965 not only the number of categorical highway programs have increased, but also the highway-related considerations involved in carrying out highway programs. As a direct consequence of the Nation’s changing social values and quality of life standards, Congress enacted legislation responsive to the increasing demands of those adversely affected by highway locations. Much of this legislation necessarily had an impact upon the highway program and the complexity of its administration. Some of the pertinent legislation included:
Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968
Highway Beautification Act of 1965
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
Clean Air and Noise Control Acts of 1970
Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972
The Casselman River Bridge, built in 1813 on the National Road near Grantsville, Md., has been preserved as a historic site.
When the 1964 Civil Eights Act was passed, it prohibited discrimination on the grounds of race, color, creed or national origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. (In 1973 the Highway Act added, for the first time, prohibition of sex discrimination.) The 1964 Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 11246, promulgated in 1965, led to the eventual establishment of a formal civil rights and equal employment opportunity (EEO) program within FHWA. The development of this program was slowed by the fragmentation of internal and external concerns. In the beginning, the internal concerns were assigned to the Office of Administration and the external concerns to the Office of Audits and Investigations.
Two important factors contributed to the advancement of the agency’s civil rights and equal opportunity program. Congress enacted, as part of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, the requirement that States submit assurances that employment and training in connection with proposed Federal-aid projects would be provided without regard to race, creed, or national origin. This legislation was followed in January 1969 by civil rights and equal opportunity hearings held by the Subcommittee on Roads of the Public Works Committee of the Senate. As a result of these hearings, the Senate Subcommittee made several recommendations. Foremost among these recommendations was that the Federal Highway Administration should assume leadership in showing to all levels of the agency and the States the importance attached to equal employment opportunity efforts.
In response, FHWA took three important steps. First, the Administrator appointed a Special Assistant for Equal Opportunity in March 1969. Second, he created the Office of Civil Rights in June with responsibility for both internal and external concerns. Third, he elevated the former Special Assistant to Director of the new Office of Civil Rights.
The newly established Office began monitoring FHWA’s own internal employment practices and established and maintained minority group statistics. The initial operations of the Office were strengthened by the issuance of Executive Order 11478 in 1971 which served as the basis for the development of affirmative action plans and procedures for processing discrimination complaints and EEO counseling activities. This led to the formation in 1972 of an Internal Division with a system for self-evaluation. The FHWA Federal Women’s Program was established in 1971. In the early part of 1974, the Spanish-Speaking Program was established to deal with the employment concerns and problems of Hispanics employed by the FHWA.
To study the behavior of asphalt in service, an FHWA analyst is using a vacuum distillation technique to remove the bulk of the solvent from solutions of asphalts extracted from pavements.
Meanwhile two major changes in the EEO civil rights program took place. First, the 1970 Federal-Aid Highway Act gave the agency authority to add on-the-job training aimed at furthering equal employment opportunity. Goals were set for specified numbers of persons to receive training on selected construction projects, and supportive services for on-the-job training were provided the following year. Second, the Department of Transportation published rules and regulations in 1970 to implement Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in federally assisted programs.
Because of FHWA’s highly decentralized organizational approach, most of FHWA’s EEO responsibilities are carried out at the field level. The Headquarters develops overall policy and monitors the results through review of reports of Title VI and Title VIII (Fair Housing) activities, contract compliance, special programs (minority business enterprise, summer youth opportunity program, on-the-job training, and supportive services), and the internal employment practices of FHWA offices. The FHWA Headquarters and field EEO staffs also make onsite Federal-aid project reviews and onsite reviews of State highway agencies.
In FHWA’s direct construction program, directives were issued specifying that a clause be included in all contracts requiring contractors to take affirmative action to recruit and employ the disadvantaged, including minorities and women, and to achieve positive equal employment opportunity results on construction projects. These directives were followed by additional procedures for monitoring and evaluating the contractors’ compliance with EEO.
In June 1973, a directive to implement the Minority Business Enterprise Program was issued. This directive requires that, where feasible, direct Federal projects shall be set aside for contract negotiation and subsequent award to a minority-owned firm under the requirements of section 8(a) of the Small Business Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-536). The FHWA field and Headquarters offices have taken the initiative to implement this program to develop minority contractors with the capability to perform highway construction or perform highway research studies.
Since 1899 when the River and Harbor Act was passed requiring permits to build bridges over navigable waters, coordination, consultation or receipt of permits from other agencies has been required for highway projects as the result of various legislation. In 1958 the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act was passed, in 1966 the Historic Preservation Act, and in 1968 the Wild and Scenic River Act. Since then many new acts and requirements have emerged, such as:
Federal Water Pollution Control Amendment of 1972
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries—1972
Endangered Species Act of 1973
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974
As their titles imply, these requirements protect navigable waterways, marine and animal wildlife, the physical environment, air and water pollution impacts, floodplains, etc. This is not a complete list, but it does indicate the extent of Federal safeguards against undesirable impacts. Compliance with these new legislative requirements is very time consuming and may take up to 18 months to accomplish. This is one of the reasons why it takes much longer now from conception of a highway project until it is completed and open to traffic. It should be pointed out that all of these specific coordination and permit requirements are in addition to the basic environmental impact evaluations required for all highway projects since 1970.
As may be presumed, the Federal-aid highway program has not been without its legal complications which ultimately have wound up in courts of law. For example, a legal issue arose out of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. Section 404 of the Act provided that permits from the Army Corps of Engineers would be required for dredge and fill activities in navigable waters. A District Court order in March 1975 interpreted the term “navigable waters” as meaning all waters of the United States and thus subject to the Corps of Engineers jurisdiction in regard to the need for section 404 permits. Since almost all highway projects touch some body of water in the expanded sense, this could conceivably include a need for a permit for a highway crossing wetlands or even a stream. Congressional hearings have been held to alleviate this problem, but to date no satisfactory solution has emerged.
As a result of the enactment in 1969 of the National Environmental Policy Act and related provisions contained in the 1970 Highway Act, each proposed highway project must be evaluated to determine its impact on the environment, The States were first required to develop and use an approved process to assure that 
A tranquil spot for fishing—one of over 100 lakes in the “Chain O Lakes” along I-80 in Nebraska. These lakes resulted from borrow pits, used during the highway construction. They have since been developed into water oriented recreation areas and wildlife sanctuaries.
adequate consideration was being given to possible social, economic and environmental effects of proposed highway projects. Guidelines were issued by FHWA, and the States developed Action Plans that document the process for assessing the environmental impacts. The Action Plan explains how social, economic, and environmental factors are identified and studied, how the assistance of a wide range of professional skills is obtained and utilized, and how interested groups and citizens are involved or can participate in the highway development process.
As an integral part of the location study process, the State highway department, in consultation with the FHWA Division Engineer, must first determine whether the highway project will be a major action requiring an evaluation of its potential environmental impact. For those projects found to be major under established criteria, a study will be conducted to see if the environmental impact is significant, If it is determined that a significant impact may occur, then a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) is prepared prior to corridor public hearings. The draft is distributed for comments to interested State and Federal agencies. After comments from the reviewing agencies and from the public hearings are available, a final version of the EIS is prepared and made available to the general public. The final statement insures that appropriate consideration has been given to the views expressed and to the anticipated effects. Only after the final EIS is approved can the route locations be approved. If it is found during the environmental evaluation that there is no significant impact, a negative declaration is prepared to document this conclusion.
In the beginning a major issue arose as to whether or not the States could prepare environmental impact statements under Federal supervision. At first the Second Circuit Court of Appeals said no, that it was the responsibility of the Federal Highway Adminstration to prepare the EIS’s. Later this was changed by act of Congress to permit the States to prepare the EIS’s under the guidance and supervision of the involved Federal agency.
Highway system statutory management requirements that do not involve Federal funding have expanded also since 1956. Initially, as already mentioned, the States were only required to properly maintain federally assisted projects. Since 1956 the States are also required to enforce maximum weight and width limits for vehicles operating on the Interstate System and to certify annually to FHWA that they are doing so. In January 1975 a provision was added to highway law effecting a nationwide maximum speed limit of 55 m.p.h. for all public highways, and the States must certify annually that they are enforcing this speed limit. In addition, all States are required to have an approved highway safety program designed to reduce the frequency and severity of traffic accidents and which must meet certain Federal performance criteria. Inventories of accident locations, bridge structural conditions and railroad-highway crossings are required to assure funding of highway priority needs. Each State must have a schedule for updating traffic signs, signals and pavement markings to meet uniform standards.
As the Federal Highway Administration turned its attention to the administration of the foregoing requirements, the States progressively assumed effective design and construction responsibility without close Federal supervision. This is the significant result of the successful Federal–State partnership.
The Secondary Road Plan
Legislation enacted in 1954 permitted the first major change since 1916 in the basic Federal–State roles in project procedures through the initiation of The Secondary Road Plan. Under the Plan, any State could request the Bureau of Public Roads to relinquish most of its engineering and administrative review and approval responsibilities for secondary road system projects by accepting a certification by the State that the projects had been designed and constructed in accordance with State standards and procedures established for general application to all projects on the Secondary System. To qualify for this procedure, a State had to submit its Secondary Road Plan for review and approval by BPR, The BPR review and concurrence actions under the Plan were limited to system changes, programs of proposed projects, program changes, project agreement, a final inspection, and a fiscal review and audit of voucher claims. All the States adopted this greatly simplified plan, although one State has since dropped it.
The philosophy behind the Secondary Road Plan was to let the States assume more independent responsibility and to permit the BPR staff to devote its principal efforts to the more nationally significant Primary System, including the National System of Interstate Highways which, it was anticipated, would soon be authorized funds. Secondary projects accounted for 30 percent of all Federal-aid projects administered by the BPR in 1954 prior to enactment of legislation permitting the Secondary Road Plan.
Certification Acceptance
The Secondary Road Plan not withstanding, by the 1970’s a growing sentiment was developing among the State highway administrators, FHWA officials, and the involved congressional committees that something had to be done to reduce the complexity and red tape that was rapidly growing in the administration of the Federal-aid highway program. At the same time, however, support for the protection of social values was becoming stronger and much more vocal. As it gained momentum, considerable anti-highway sentiment arose. The many additional controls, requirements, considerations and clearances added to the administration of the highway program in response to the public demands were inescapable.
Congress reflected its definite awareness of the problems by including in the 1973 Highway Act a new procedure called Certification Acceptance, an effort to reduce FHWA monitoring of projects by extending the Secondary Road Plan concept to all projects on Federal-aid systems except the Interstate System.
A secondary road project through the mountains of northwestern Montana.
The Certification Acceptance procedures superseded the highly successful Secondary Road Plan, but unfortunately, it did not succeed very well. The success of the Secondary Road Plan lay in the fact that the State was certifying that “. . . the plans, design, and construction for such projects are in accord with the standards and procedures of such State applicable to projects in this category . . .” [italics supplied] which the Federal Government (Secretary of Commerce) had approved. The Certification Acceptance procedure required the State to certify that “. . . such projects will be carried out in accordance with State laws, regulations, directives, and standards establishing requirements at least equivalent to those contained in, or issued pursuant to, [title 23].” [Italics supplied.] Thus, Federal program demands and complexities still governed. It also prescribed that the new optional procedure would not affect or discharge any responsibility or obligation of the FHWA under any Federal law outside of title 23, U.S. Code, such as the environmental impact statements, right-of-way acquisition methods, relocation assistance, minimum wage rates, etc. None of the complexities w T ere eliminated since the States had to have requirements equivalent to Federal laws. Because the secondary road system now came under the Certification Acceptance procedure, more work actually was generated. As a result, States did not elect to use Certification Acceptance procedures.
Congress then took another look at the situation, and in the 1976 Highway Act, the Certification Acceptance section of title 23, U.S. Code, was amended by striking out “. . . establishing requirements at least equivalent to those contained in, or issued pursuant to, this title” and substituting “. . . which will accomplish the policies and objectives contained in or issued pursuant to this title.” In addition, the Act reinstated the Secondary Road Plan.
It is too soon to know just how or to what extent the amended Certification Acceptance procedure will be accepted by the States. However, the States and FHWA are continuing to work together to reduce paperwork, needless duplication, and unnecessary delays in administering the highway program, giving full recognition to the capabilities of State organizations and the limited need for detailed Federal involvement.
The operational system or technical administration of the physical program is only half of the story of the management of the Federal-aid highway program. Since the Federal agency is responsible for protecting the Federal Government’s investment in the highway program, the other half is concerned with the financial management of funds and the accounting for expenditures. This, too, involves very complex procedures that are not independent of the operational system procedures.
Financial Management
The system that has evolved over the years for authorizations, apportionments among the States, and the overall funding of the Federal-aid highway program has been prescribed largely by the Federal legislation. While it was developmental in the sense that its concepts were developed in bits and pieces, the basic rules or principles were established early in the history of Federal-aid legislation. The one major new element was the creation of the Highway Trust Fund in 1956.
The ground rules used in the legislative and financial administration of the program comprise the steps, principles, authorities, and limitations that must be followed in administering, or managing, the Federal-aid highway funds that are made available by congressional legislation. The system is integrally related to the operational system; i.e., the technical administration of the physical program.
The system for the financial administration of the Federal-aid highway program is unique in relation to most other Federal assistance programs in that it has recognized that the States must know what to expect from the Federal Government with a substantial lead-time to provide for their own adequate legal, fiancial, and administrative planning.
The legislative process has not changed much over the years. The Administration submits its proposed program to Congress and individual members of Congress may also submit bills. Extensive committee hearings are held, and eventually the House and Senate committees develop and report out proposed bills for consideration by the whole Congress. Differences are resolved by conference committee made up of members of both Houses. After final approval by both the House and the Senate, the bill is sent to the President for signature which constitutes enactment.
Traditionally, the Administration has submitted its proposed highway legislation to Congress shortly after the first of each even-numbered year. This was an endeavor on the part of Congress to assist the States in their planning for participation in the program, since most State legislatures convene on a biennial basis in the odd-numbered years. Thus the coming availability of Federal funds to the States was known in advance so that the State legislatures could provide their highway moneys, including the State matching funds and the advance funds which the States needed to first pay highway contractors and which would be later reimbursed from the Federal Government.
The committee hearings usually have been initiated in Congress in the spring, and the highway act is usually enacted any time from early summer to the end of the year. Over the years, there have been exceptions to this timing, but the pattern has been fairly consistent.
When the 1916 and 1921 Highway Acts were passed, they appropriated funds for the new highway program. This appropriated money had specific limitations as to amount, purpose, and duration. In addition, these Acts specified that a percentage of the appropriation was to be set aside for administering the program and for research. It also specified how the money was to be apportioned, or divided, among the States based on a prescribed formula in the law. By appropriating the funds, Congress provided budget authority which allowed the Bureau to incur obligations (a commitment by the Bureau to pay out the money).
After a State received its certificate of apportionment from BPB telling it how much money the Federal Government was committing for its use, the State was free to go ahead with obligations for work to be performed. When the Project Agreement had been executed and signed by the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary notified the Treasury Department, and the money was thus reserved for payment of the State’s voucher when received and approved by the Bureau of Public Roads.
The Post Office Appropriation Act for fiscal year 1923 did not appropriate any funds directly because it only “authorized [sums] to be appropriated.” This was the beginning of contract authority for the Federal-aid highway program which permitted obligations of the full authorized amounts before any legislation had been passed to provide liquidating cash to pay the amounts on the vouchers. When the appropriations committees met to consider the estimated total of funds that would be required during the coming year to pay the claims submitted by the States, they had simply to evaluate the accuracy of the estimate and provide the money in the legislation that the Federal Government had already made a legal commitment to pay.
Subsequent to 1923, the Federal-aid highway legislation generally contained some or all of the following: (1) Permission to start new or to revise existing programs; (2) permission for specific project demonstrations or requests for reports; and (3) funding for the highway operations programs.
The dollar amounts in these acts have always been provided for specific fiscal years. These amounts were usually apportioned or divided among the States by a formula established by law. The apportionments had to be made at least 6 months before the fiscal year for which they were authorized and were available for obligation for a period of 2 years after the end of the fiscal year for which authorized, at which time they lapsed. Therefore, sums apportioned were usually available for obligation for a minimum of 3½ years. What had been authorized, apportioned, and made available was the authority to incur obligations on behalf of the U.S. Government. No cash had yet exchanged hands.
Not all funds were apportioned, however. Some funds are not governed by a legislatively mandated apportionment formula. In these cases, the sums are divided among the States at the discretion of the Secretary of the department or, as in the case of emergency relief moneys, sums of money are triggered by events. These discretionary or administrative divisions are called allocations, as compared to the statutory formula divisions or apportionments.
Although funds were authorized for specific Federal-aid systems and programs, it was recognized that the apportionment formulas, equitable as they may be, would not always provide funds in the relative proportions that States required them. Therefore, Congress provided flexibility in the use of apportionments by permitting transfers between funding categories.
From 1923 to 1956 there were no significant changes in the basic system of legal and financial administration of the program. Some new categories of funds were created and special apportionment formulas were prescribed for specific funds, but the basic system remained intact.
When the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act was passed, it became title I of a two-part piece of legislation, the second part, title II, being the Highway Revenue Act of 1956. Title II created the Highway Trust Fund from which Federal-aid highway appropriations were to be drawn as well as the BPR administrative and research funding. The Highway Revenue Act also provided for the revenue sources to support the Fund.
Prior to the 1956 Act, all appropriations for the Federal-aid highway program came from the General Fund of the Treasury. Although Federal taxes on motor fuels and automotive products were in existence, there was no relationship between the level of revenues obtained from these excises and the level of funding for the highway program. The Highway Revenue Act increased some of the previously existing highway user taxes, established a number of new ones, and provided that most of the revenues would, be credited to the Highway Trust Fund and dedicated solely to the financing of the Federal-aid highway program.
The change in the method of financing the Federal-aid highway program was dictated primarily by the legislative decision contained in title I to provide authorizations for the completion of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways by June 30, 1972. Title I provided Interstate authorizations for fiscal years 1956 through 1969 totaling almost $25 billion. In addition, the Act greatly increased the level of authorizations for the regular primary, secondary and urban programs. The creation of the Highway Trust Fund made it possible for the public to accept the increased and new highway user taxes by placing the program on a wholly user-supported, pay-as-you-go basis.
Other significant changes made by the 1956 Act in the system of financial administration applicable only to the Interstate System were:
- The Federal share of the cost was 90 percent plus a computed increase for the public lands States to a total not to exceed 95 percent.
- The apportionments of authorizations to the States, beginning with fiscal year 1960, were to be made “. . . on a date as far in advance of the beginning of the fiscal year for which authorized as practicable but in no case more than eighteen months prior to the beginning of the fiscal year for which authorized.”
- Beginning with the authorization for fiscal year 1960, the apportionment to the States was prescribed to be “. . . in the ratio which the estimated cost of completing the Interstate System in each State . . . bears to the sum of the estimated cost of completing the Interstate System in all of the States.” The cost estimates were to be prepared at frequent intervals to assure that no State was given more than was required to complete the System within that State and ideally to assure the completion of the System in all States at an approximately uniform rate.
- The States were authorized to proceed with the construction and completion of Interstate projects beyond the total of their currently available Federal apportionments, but they could not expect reimbursement for the Federal share of costs of these projects until the State was apportioned additional Interstate funds.
- If the Interstate apportionments were unobligated at the end of the second fiscal year after the fiscal year for which they were authorized, the apportionments would be reapportioned to all the other States and become a part of the new obligational authority for that particular year with the same availability.
In addition to the creation of the Highway Trust Fund and its sources of revenue, the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 also prescribed how the Fund should be managed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The most significant features were:
- Repayable advances from the General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund were authorized to be made as might be needed to meet expenditure demands on the Trust Fund in excess of available balances during a fiscal year. However, this feature was suspended by the next one.
- Before the apportionment of the Interstate authorizations for any fiscal year, the Secretary of the Treasury had to determine that anticipated revenues to be credited to the Trust Fund by the end of the fiscal year would be adequate to meet the expenditure requirements. If deficits were projected, then the Interstate apportionment had to be reduced to meet anticipated revenues. This feature placed the program on a “pay-as-you-go” basis by permitting apportionments to be made only to the extent that revenues would be available to reimburse obligations and by prohibiting the Trust Fund from entering into a deficit condition.
A charming relic of another age. Although an orthotropic steel deck for structural safety is concealed by careful design, this covered bridge at West Cornwalk, Conn., makes the motorist a bit nostalgic.
The provision in the 1956 Act for short-term loan provisions from the General Fund of the Treasury was in effect nullified by the pay-as-you-go requirement added to the Act before final passage.
However, in 1958 the United States found itself in the grip of an extended economic recession, and one way to hasten recovery seemed to be through an acceleration of the Federal-aid highway program. For this and other reasons, the 1958 Highway Act increased the annual Interstate authorizations. It also set aside the pay-as-you-go provision of the 1956 Act for 2 years and directed apportionment to the States of the full amounts, but these provisions were not matched by a commensurate provision for the necessary additional revenue.
The effect of the 1958 Act was that the Federal-aid program annual expenditures exceeded annual Trust Fund revenue, making it necessary for the BPR to institute reimbursement planning. This was a new procedure establishing a limitation on the total dollar amount of Federal-aid project obligations that could be incurred in a given year, regardless of the unobligated balance of apportionments that were available to the States. This new program control was to insure that obligations incurred by the States did not exceed the amounts that could be subsequently paid from currently available Highway Trust Fund revenues when work was done and the States claimed reimbursement for the Federal share.
In 1961 the pay-as-you-go principle was reinstated.
The Highway Trust Fund is not a physical depository in which its dedicated revenues are actually deposited. It exists only in the accounting records of the U.S. Treasury. Estimated Trust Fund revenues are transferred by an accounting transaction from the General Fund to the Trust Fund early in each month and then adjusted later on the basis of the actual tax receipts.
It is important to recognize that even though the Highway Trust Fund was created specifically to finance the Federal-aid highway program, the revenues that accrue to the Trust Fund cannot be used to pay any of the costs of the highway program until they are made available for expenditure by enactment of appropriations acts by Congress as was the case before the creation of the Trust Fund. The budget estimates for appropriations from the Highway Trust Fund must be confined to the estimated availability by the end of the fiscal year of sufficient revenues in the Fund to finance the appropriations.
With a few exceptions, the Federal Government does not pay for the entire cost of Federal-aid highway projects. Originally the States were required to match the Federal funds on a 50/50 basis, except in States with large areas of public lands where there have been statutory increases in the Federal share. In 1973 the matching basis was revised for most projects, other than Interstate, to be funded on a 70 percent Federal/30 percent State basis. The Inter- state System has been funded 90/10 since the 1956 Act, again with an increased Federal share in public lands States.
Although the Federal share of a project’s cost was established by law, there were periods when this provision was waived or temporarily suspended. In 1932, to aid in fighting the Depression, Congress authorized $120 million which could be used to provide the State share of a project’s cost. This advance of funds, or suspension of the matching requirements, was to be repaid over a 10-year period beginning with fiscal year 1938 by deductions from regular apportionments. There were several other acts authorizing additional funds during the Depression.
In 1958, again to fight a recession, additional authorizations for the Primary and Secondary Systems and their urban extensions were enacted. The Federal share for these supplemental funds was raised but a separate authorization was also made to assist the States in providing matching funds. The amounts used to increase the Federal share had to be repaid from future apportionments.
The latest example of increasing the Federal share occurred in 1975, and a recession was again the reason for it. In this instance, all matching was waived for a 6-month period in 1975 with the proviso that the State share be repaid by January 1, 1977. This repayment provision was extended by the 1976 Act to provide for a staggered repayment to be completed by January 1, 1979.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of the Executive Office of the President has authority to establish obligational limitations for the highway program and to specify the maximum amount of obligations to be incurred in a given fiscal year. The OMB limitation also may specify the rate at which obligations can be permitted to be incurred.
The OMB limitation on obligations does not apply to any particular fiscal year’s apportionment, but rather applies to the sum of all obligations within a particular fiscal year. Because of the multiyear availability of funds, if funds for a fiscal year are not obligated in that fiscal year, they are still available until they lapse according to the law.
The highway program, like other Federal programs, is subject to overriding national concerns, such as the rising rate of inflation which has led to controls being placed on highway spending. From fiscal year 1966 through fiscal year 1975, the Office of Management and Budget, through authority delegated to it by the President, regulated the rate at which Federal-aid highway funds were obligated in a given time period. It must be stressed that limitation on obligations, or impoundment, of highway program funds is somewhat different from impoundments for other Federal programs since there is no refusal to spend funds, only a slowing down in the rate at which funds may be spent.
The appropriations acts usually contain the wording “not otherwise provided” because not all of the highway programs are reimbursed from the Highway Trust Fund. For example, until the 1970 Highway Act, the forest highways and public lands highway programs were not funded from the Trust Fund, but had separate funding authorizations from the General Fund. There are still numerous safety and other highway-related programs with separate funding accounts, some with contract authority and some that must await each annual appropriations act for budget authority to spend money. Thus, the appropriations acts provide liquidating cash with which to reimburse the States under the normal Federal-aid highway programs, provide budget authority for certain other programs, and may provide limitations on obligations equivalent to previous Executive Branch impoundments for specific programs.
Although most Federal-aid highway programs obtain their budget authority in the form of contract authority rather than through appropriations acts, in recent years Congress has made several major changes. The one that may have the most impact on the highway program was enactment of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) which was an effort to gain budgetary control over “backdoor spending,” spending not subject to year-to-year congressional or executive scrutiny. The contract authority exercised by the Federal Highway Administration is considered a form of “backdoor spending.” The Budget Act requires that future Federal-aid highway acts contain provisions limiting new budget authority to the estimated amount provided in appropriations acts, and this was first done in the 1976 Federal-Aid Highway Act.
This requirement would seem to negate all contract authority, but Congress, recognizing that some programs require advance knowledge of the size of future Federal funding commitments, permitted several exceptions. One of these exceptions relates to programs whose new budget authority is derived from trust funds, 90 percent or more of whose receipts are user related taxes.[33] The Highway Trust Fund, which is wholly supported by user taxes, meets the requirement, but its life term has been limited by law since 1956. Its term has been extended numerous times, the latest, in 1976, extended the Fund to September 30, 1979. Should the Trust Fund be terminated, or its uses or revenue altered so that it no longer meets the exception requirements, the highway program would have to obtain its budget authority through appropriations acts as other Federal agencies do. Of course, the appropriations acts could provide for multiyear funding, but this would be in opposition to the principle of annual review of expenditures.
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976 has made other changes in the legal and financial management of the highway program. Some of the more important points are:
- Apportionments and allocations are now available for obligation for a total of 4 years. Interstate apportionments are made 1 year in advance of the beginning of the fiscal year for which they are authorized and remain available until 2 years after that fiscal year ends. Non- Interstate apportionments are made on the first day of the fiscal year for which authorized and remain available until 3 years after that fiscal year ends.
- In the future there will be greater flexibility in the expenditure of highway funds, such as substitution of programs and transfer of funds.
- Some highway programs were consolidated, but instead of reducing the number of separate fund- ing accounts, several new ones were added.
In summary, the legal and financial management cycle can be considered to begin with the authorizing legislation. These acts set the upper limits on Federal commitments which can be incurred for Federal-aid highways. Deductions from the authorized levels are then made for administration of the program and urban transportation planning, with additional amounts earmarked for other planning and research activities. These normally amount to about 4 or 5 percent of the authorizations.
The remaining amounts are then apportioned or allocated (divided) among the States. Apportionments and allocations are considered “new obligational authority” and, when added to the unobligated balances of previous apportionments and allocations, constitute the total amount of obligational authority available to the States. This is not money, but authority to incur obligations.
Apportionments are available for obligation for a total period of 4 years.
The States may obligate funds subject to the availability of apportionments and allocations and to any limitations on obligations which may have been imposed for that fiscal year. These limitations regulate the rate of obligations by imposing a maximum amount on obligations which can be incurred during a given fiscal year.
Once funds are obligated and a project is underway, progress payments may be made to the States for completed work. This liquidating cash is appropriated annually by Congress and is derived from revenues accruing to the Highway Trust Fund.
The final step in the legal and financial administration of the Federal-aid highway program is reimbursement to the States for the Federal share of the cost of approved projects or programs.
Initially the States, or their local governmental subdivisions, finance the costs of Federal-aid projects. After authorization by the Division Administrator, work can proceed on a Federal-aid project. Once the Project Agreement has been executed between the State and FHWA, the State can submit progress vouchers claiming reimbursement for the Federal share of costs of work satisfactorily completed and for materials stockpiled for use on the project.
After the project has been completed and final FHWA acceptance has been issued by the Division Administrator, the State submits a final voucher for the project. The final voucher summarizes the final project costs in accordance with the contract, change orders, extra work orders and the project agreement.
Final vouchers are subject to a complete fiscal and engineering and right-of-way review. A number of projects are subjected to in-depth engineering and fiscal audit by FHWA to insure the integrity of the State’s project administration and documentation.
In 1921 when Chief MacDonald was organizing the Bureau for the basic Federal-aid highway program, he included a Division of Control responsible for program and project accounting, budget activities, fiscal accounting, payroll, purchasing, and equipment and supplies.
The accounting activity was the only functional element that was specifically created by law. Until 1921 the Bureau had kept program and fiscal records, but the function was fragmented and treated as a routine clerical operation. Congress, recognizing that administration of the Federal-aid highway program would require detailed accounting records, directed in the 1921 Act that an accounting division be established. This later was to become the Finance Division and the Program Analysis Division in the Bureau. Over the years, the function has progressed from a routine bookkeeping operation to a very professional financial management organization.
Because of the need to maintain very detailed financial and project records, a records section was established in 1921 with the primitive data processing equipment of the day—a tabulating machine, a key punch and a sorter. As the data processing technology and equipment developed and became more sophisticated, the increased data processing capability became one of the primary tools in the administration of the highway program and made it possible to cope with the program without a corresponding growth in the staffing requirements.
The finance function in the Bureau extended beyond the Bureau’s internal financial management operations to the development of the financial management operation in the States. The American Association of State Highway Officials created a Subcommittee on Uniform Accounting in 1926 to assist the States in developing a uniform system of highway accounting, but little progress was made because of the diversity among the States. By 1936 BPR had joined in this effort, but no formal procedures were established before World War II suspended operations of the AASHO Subcommittee.
It was not until 1955 that the AASHO Executive Committee directed that work resume on a uniform accounting system and that a uniform accounting manual be developed. Between 1957 and 1960 a uniform accounting manual was developed, and today virtually all the States have adopted the principles of this manual.
After the passage of the 1956 Highway Act, it became evident that the State highway departments would need assistance in modernizing their accounting systems and the Bureau of Public Roads would have to improve its own internal accounting system. In 1959, a special staff was created to develop and implement a cooperative financial management improvement program with the States and to strengthen the Bureau’s accounting operations.
The cooperative financial management improvement program with the States focused its immediate attention on the modernization of the State highway departments’ accounting systems, particularly in the areas of establishing reimbursement claims and substantiating them, and in providing advice to the States. This program was called “current billing.” Current billing is a concept whereby the States were encouraged to centralize their financial operations and relate all highway construction costs to projects through project cost accounting techniques. To achieve this, it was necessary to revise their accounting procedures, install sophisticated data processing systems, and make some organizational changes. An important feature of current billing was the computer-produced tabulation of costs supporting the billing voucher to the Bureau for reimbursement of the Federal share. All 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia have implemented current billing procedures.
The adoption of current billing enabled the Bureau auditors to change their audit techniques. Formerly, it was necessary to audit the transactions of each project due to the lack of adequate centralized cost accounting techniques. This resulted in portions of claims being prepared from other than the States’ accounting records, costs being omitted, variations in cost methods and controls from project to project, and similar peculiarities in the States’ accounting systems. As a result of the improvements made under the current billing concept, the auditors were able to concentrate their reviews on the States’ procedures and controls, thus substantially eliminating the time-consuming examination of project documentation.
Under the authority and direction of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1950, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), an administrative support tool of the Congress, initiated comprehensive management-type audits of the departments and agencies in the Executive Branch. These audits were designed to evaluate for Congress the administration and effectiveness of agency operations and programs. The provisions of the Act also encouraged the agencies and departments to initiate their own internal audit or review programs. As a result of these review efforts, the GAO approved FHWA’s accounting systems and procedures in 1967, one of the few to receive GAO’s approval up to that time.
Of course, the financial operation includes cost accounting, but the information necessary for this function is so complex that early in the highway program, a special division was created to maintain the data on project obligations on a nationwide project-by-project basis.
Program analysis is the continuous maintenance of the official records of the current status of all Federal-aid and other FHWA program authorizations together with the current status, cost, and physical characteristics of each project authorized for financing. Over and beyond this generalization, it also includes the determination of the apportionments of authorizations (and obligational limitations) which are made available to the individual States; the control and maintenance of the record of transfers of funds between apportionments ; the determination of the maximum percentage of Federal participation on Federal aid, emergency relief and other special categories of funds; the monitorship of the interrelationship of obligations and disbursements and the development of data to control the rate of obligations within the limit of funds available in the Highway Trust Fund; the maintenance of the official project obligation records; and the management, at all levels, with interpretations and evaluations, of program progress by States, by funds, by limitations, by highway systems, by classes of projects, etc.
The records for the program analysis function are maintained by computer. Before the days of the electronic and digital computers, the scope of the information for each project was necessarily quite limited in comparison with the current data that is maintained. However, because of the sophistication and flexibility of modern computers, a vast amount of data is collected, stored in the computer and used on a day-to-day basis to monitor the progress of the program and insure compliance with all legal and administrative requirements.
The total program is implemented through individual projects throughout the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the American territories. There are nearly 40 categories of funds or programs for which records must be kept separately. The total number of active projects at any given time is approximately 30,000. For each project the physical characteristics and fiscal data must be maintained on a current basis.
This record information is not one-time data—rather, much of it is “fluid” and changes to reflect current status as the projects progress through the project steps from initial authorization to final completion.
An innovative feature of the system is the method used to obtain the computer input data. A “shuttle form” is used. When a project first enters the system at the obligation stage, a form is completed by the FHWA field division office reporting all the currently available project data, and it is sent to Washington. The data is recorded in the system and a printout confirming form is sent back to the field, reflecting the data which has been recorded. The field office holds the form until the next action, change or addition takes place at which time the form is pulled, the changes or additions are indicated on the form, and it is again sent to Washington. The new data is recorded and another printout is sent back to the field for verification and storage until the next change in status occurs. This “shuttle system” continues until the project is finally completed. Each month a summary printout reflecting the basic project data for all projects in the State is sent to each FHWA division office. This system eliminates the need for duplicate project records.
The program analysis work and the mass of detail stored in the computer are vital to the effective administration of the highway program. A case in point is the need for the operating records for budget purposes. The FHWA budget office not only serves FHWA, but serves indirectly as a budget office for all the States since it must accurately provide the budget estimates for liquidating cash for all Federal-aid highway programs. This is a unique budget responsibility, especially in view of the complex procedures used for the financial administration of the Federal-aid highway program.
The key to the economic and effective operation of FHWA’s budget office is the use of program, fiscal and personnel records which must be maintained by other offices. Following World War II, the budget process, content and format prescribed by the Bureau of the Budget became more detailed and sophisticated. The preparation of the various budget schedules, especially for “personal services,” became very time-consuming and required extensive compilation and analysis. At the time, the Public Roads Administration was already using automatic data processing (ADP) equipment to prepare its payroll and to maintain its employment and personnel records. Since the bulk of the source data required for budget purposes already existed in the ADP records in raw form, the budget office decided in 1947 to develop an ADP system which would use the same records, but supplemented with the additional data required for budget purposes. The system proved to be remarkably effective and provided practically any data or personal services which might be required with accurate statistics to support the budget statements and schedules. Significantly, no additional staffing was required in the operating offices to do the minimal amount of additional coding that was required, and the budget office today, although responsible for an annual budget of over $6 billion, operates with a total staff of 11 people.
Auditing
Within the Federal Highway Administration, external audit is concerned with the means and methods used by the States to administer the Federal assistance program. The ultimate objective is to ensure FHWA management that (1) financial operations of the States are properly conducted; (2) that financial reports and claims are presented fairly; and (3) that the States are otherwise complying with applicable law, regulations and administrative requirements.
Internal audit is concerned with an intensive performance-compliance-effectiveness program audit of an organizational unit of FHWA or, perhaps, of a functional program phase through all levels of the organization. The internal audit is a management-type activity designed to evaluate operational effectiveness, and it normally involves review of some State records and files and discussions with State officials as a necessary part of the evaluation of FHWA’s own program administration.
A third functional area, investigations and special inquiry, became a part of the audit complex in more recent years and is concerned with investigations of allegations of irregularities, fraud, bribery, collusion, impropriety, etc., involving employees of FHWA, the States, their political subdivisions, contractors or others dealing with funds for FHWA administered programs.
From the inception of the Federal-aid program until 1953, the audit activities of the Bureau were confined to the external audit of State claims for reimbursement, normally at the final voucher stage. These audits were made after the engineering staff (and later also, the right-of-way specialist) had reviewed the physical aspects of the work and accepted the completed project as having been built in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Following the passage of the 1956 Highway Act, financial audit was also made of the costs of any railroad or utility changes that were involved in the project. This audit was made at the accounting offices of the railroad and utility companies.
As the size of the Federal-aid program, and the resulting audit workload, increased over the years, the organizational arrangement for accomplishing the audit necessarily changed. Originally all external audit was performed by auditors attached to the Washington headquarters, and they traveled out of Washington to make the audits. In the next evolutionary stage, the very small group of auditors were headquartered at various geographically strategic locations in the field to reduce travel costs—however, they still reported to the Washington headquarters. At the next stage, at least one auditor was placed in each regional office. At the end of World War II, as a part of the major reorganization for the greatly expanded postwar highway program, the audit function was decentralized to the district offices which were established in each State. During this evolutionary period, there was no significant change in the concept or form of the audit.
The external financial audit program experienced many progressive changes over the years to keep the Bureau’s audit program consistent iwth the latest and most sophisticated audit concepts and procedures as they were developed.
It was not until 1954 that the Regional Enigneers, for the first time, were delegated authority to approve payment of final construction vouchers, and those only if they did not include any costs for rights-of-way or railroad or utility work. This was a significant step because it involved making the final evaluation and decision on audit findings.
In 1961 the current billing and concurrent audit procedure was developed and authorized. This concept permitted those States using electronic data processing equipment to make a single consolidated monthly claim for reimbursement of the Federal share of all project earnings. Under this procedure, BPR auditors utilized a “system audit” or concurrent audit concept in lieu of a voucher and record audit. It constituted an audit of the State’s total accounting system, including the flow of source data and the State’s own auditing processes rather than an audit of individual projects. Under the new system, the final audit was essentially complete when the final voucher was received and only a minimum of additional review was required.
In 1968 operational auditing was initiated to further supplant the traditional audit procedures. Operational auditing is a continuing and comprehensive audit of the administrative, accounting, and operational procedures and controls employed by the State in the administration of the Federal-aid program. It allowed the auditor to express an opinion on costs claimed as representations of the system rather than having to use claims as the medium through which audits were conducted.
In 1971 a single audit concept was authorized where the State agreed to perform an independent audit of the Federal program. The FHWA auditors reviewed and accepted the State-performed audits.
In 1974, as a condition of receiving funds, the States were asked to perform an internal financial audit of all Federal-related activities at least biennially. If the reports and work papers were available for review, if audit standards under which the work was done were adequate, and if they otherwise met Federal requirements, FHWA auditors were directed to use and rely on it in lieu of Federal audits.
The professional development and continuous improvement of the external financial audit activities of FHWA were possible only because the States’ financial management and audit activities kept pace with FHWA’s objectives. This required a great deal of Federal–State cooperation and responsive professional leadership on both sides.
As mentioned earlier, the Budget and Accounting audit programs in the agencies and departments. Accordingly, in 1953 BPE established an internal review office in the Audits and Accounts Division of the Washington headquarters.
At first the new internal review activities were mainly confined to the administrative areas of program management, but the office provided a staff capability to evaluate and recommend action on the General Accounting Office comprehensive audit reports of elements of the highway program.
Following enactment of the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act, the internal review program was broadened and a project examination office was created in 1957, which included the internal review functions.
The new project examination office was given broad and independent responsibility to review program and project administration at all levels of the Bureau and in the State highway departments. The reviews were to be made by four-man teams consisting of a professional investigator who was in charge of the team, an engineer, a right-of-way specialist, and a fiscal or administrative auditor. An intensive and highly selective recruiting effort was put forth to obtain well-qualified professional civil and criminal investigators, a skill until then not utilized in BPR. The emphasis on investigative talent was two fold: (1) It was anticipated that the large sums of money that would be involved in the construction of the Interstate System, in combination with the greatly expanded highway program in general, would require close vigilance to prevent scattered incidents of irregularities, collusion, bribery, etc.; and (2) it was believed that professional investigators would be particularly skilled in the plan- ning and conduct of investigative reviews, while the subject matter specialists would provide the required program evaluation and compliance expertise.
The creation of the project examination office proved most timely. Problems of irregularities involving highway department employees, contractors, and others did in fact develop and, in many instances, were first identified by the project examination reviews. Unfavorable publicity which followed these incidents resulted in congressional interest and the creation in 1959 of a Special Investigative Subcommittee on the Federal-Aid Highway Program under the House Public Works Committee. The Subcommittee was under the chairmanship of the Honorable John A. Blatnik of Minnesota and became commonly known as the Blatnik Committee. A well-qualified and experienced investigative staff was employed by the Blatnik Committee. In the ensuing months and years, the Committee became very active in terms of both investigations and public hearings.
Interstate 10 through the rugged Texas hill country west of Kerrville blends with the terrain because care has been taken to preserve the natural vegetation and to make the highway and interchange design compatible with their surroundings.
To augment the limited resources of the project examination office and the efforts of the Blatnik Committee staff, an active effort of encouragement, persuasion and professional guidance was initiated by the Bureau to get the States to initiate their own programs of internal review and investigation. The leadership in AASHO actively supported this effort with the result that many States instituted their own internal review processes.
In 1962, as an administrative action designed to strengthen the independence of BPR’s internal and external audit and investigative programs, a new office was established with its Director reporting directly to the Federal Highway Administrator. This change separated the audit and accounting functions which had been organizationally combined since the creation of an accounting section. The responsibility for the financial audit of State reimbursement vouchers remained at the field level while the headquarters office provided technical direction, leadership, and guidance in all financial audit activities. In 1971 the internal audit function was absorbed into a centralized departmental internal audit office.
Training
A key to the successful administration of the Federal-aid highway program has been the outstanding people in most of the top positions in the organization and a strong supporting staff with a remarkably low employee turnover rate—recently running at an annual rate of 11 percent, about half that of the Federal Government as a whole,[34] Part of the reason for this was that the program itself attracted bright young engineers but also because the Bureau offered specialized training.
A strong interest in training dates back to 1893 when the Office of Road Inquiry was established. One of the primary purposes of that organization was education, but mainly in the external sense. This included encouraging the colleges and universities to teach highway engineering since, at that time, there were few academically trained highway engineers.
In the Annual Report for fiscal year 1903, Director Martin Dodge recommended the establishment in the Office of Public Road Inquiries of a post-graduate national school of roadbuilding similar to the L’Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees that was established in Paris in 1747. No action was taken on this recommendation, although the idea resurfaced many times in later years.
In 1905 the Office of Public Roads (OPR) initiated its first formal internal training program. Graduates of engineering colleges were appointed after a competitive civil service examination to the position of civil engineering student at a salary of $600 per year. A course of instruction included experience in the construction of object lesson or experimental roads, instruction in the office routine, laboratory work and theoretical instruction through lectures and reading assignments. After completing the year’s training, the students were promoted to the position of junior highway engineer in OPR at $900 per year. This program continued until 1916 with the number of appointees ranging from 4 to 10 per year.[35] During the period of this first engineer training program, a total of 78 students were appointed.[36]
In 1921 the engineer training program was reinstituted. The emphasis in this program was quality recruitment. Most students were recruited during their junior year of college and placed on a production cost study. They were evaluated for future employment and, if they met the desired standards, were appointed to a junior engineer position after graduation. They were then given a 2- to 3-year period of training throughout the country in production cost studies, equipment development and design, and economic studies. The program was gradually phased out by 1936 because of economic conditions. During the span of this second training program, approximately 150 college graduates were appointed.[37] A high percentage of these men ultimately moved into key positions in the Bureau, the most notable of whom was Francis C. Turner who became the Federal Highway Administrator in 1969.
At the end of World Was II, the Junior Engineer Training Program was reactivated and administered by a professional training officer. For the first time, Public Roads had a specific organizational unit responsible for training.
The new Junior Engineer Training Program was planned to provide 3 years’ training in rotational assignments in different parts of the country and to give the trainees the best possible foundation for a career in Public Roads. Subject to satisfactory performance, the trainees received a scheduled promotion during training and a promotion upon graduation and a regular assignment. Recruiting was directed toward graduating seniors in colleges and universities, but highway engineers within Public Roads could be selected for entry into the program.
The Highway Engineer Training Program (HETP), as it is now called, has continued without interruption since 1946. Recruitment started modestly with an annual quota of approximately 15; from 1949 through 1956, the annual recruitment averaged about 33 per year. Following enactment of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 with its greatly expanded program, 76 individuals were enrolled in 1957 and 170 in 1958.
In 1961 a master’s 18-month training program was added to provide a training vehicle for approximately 10 candidates with master’s degrees per year. This program was directed toward development of a quality source of individuals for positions in research, planning and structures. From 1961 to 1972, the recruitment for both programs averaged about 75 new trainees per year. Since then the average has been about 60 trainees per year in both programs.
From 1946 through 1974, a total of approximately 1,600 individuals have entered the Highway Engineer Training Program. Approximately 85 percent of all graduates have remained with the organization. A number of these graduates have reached key positions in the FHWA organization: six of nine Regional Administrators are HETP graduates; two of six Associate Administrators; and 33 of 52 Division Administrators. The FHWA Executive Director, Lester P. Lamm, was a 1960 graduate.
To insure that the program would continue to be responsive to the needs of the Bureau and the career development of its engineers, there have been periodic searching reviews of the entire program. Two other major management efforts have contributed to the effectiveness of the HETP in providing engineering manpower consistent with the Bureau’s projected needs. The first of these occurred in 1961 when a task force was named to conduct a manpower utilization study on field engineers. Engineering manpower needs—numbers and skills—were projected 10 years into the future. In 1974 a similar task force conducted a complete manpower utilization study of the entire organization and projected FHWA’s personnel needs and skills over the next 10 to 15 years. The annual recruiting quotas for the HETP have been based largely on the two studies.
Until 1953 formal inservice training was limited to the Highway Engineer Training Program. In that year, inservice training was formalized and greatly expanded. Field enigneers were encouraged to attend courses and conferences held in the Washington headquarters. Then in 1955 an annual comprehensive inservice and outservice agencywide training program was initiated to assess training needs on a priority basis.
With enactment of the Government Employees Training Act of 1958, an active outservice training program began. The Act not only authorized the use of agency funds for training in Government and non-Government facilities, but it prescribed that all agencies must establish, operate and maintain a program and plans for the training of their employees. The two major new areas of training which were opened up as a result of this Act were: (1) Full-time or part-time enrollment in colleges and universities; and (2) attendance at meetings, conferences, seminars, etc., that would contribute to improved performance of the employees’ duties and responsibilities.
The Bureau immediately initiated an extensive Full-Time Graduate Study Program. Over a period of approximately 18 years, 240 employees have enrolled in full-time graduate study.
As the program has grown both in size and into disciplines other than engineering, the Bureau has added several other professional career intern programs structured basically on the format established for the successful Highway Engineer Training Program. The procedures were the same, that is, to employ outstanding college and university graduates and to provide rotational training assignments during a formal training curriculum. Other employee career development programs have also been instituted for employees in all grade levels.
These programs have included formal curriculums for management specialists (1960), right-of-way officers (1962), auditors (1964), civil rights specialists (1969), and a national upward mobility program for administrative and professional type positions (1974). Other areas of career development have included executive development, environmental specialists, and motor carrier safety investigators. As a part of FHWA’s equal employment opportunity action plan, an upward mobility education program was begun in 1973 to assist lower grade employees to attend courses so that they may be qualified to compete for better positions.
Obviously, the strong emphasis on training within FHWA has influenced the economical staffing of the Federal agency that administers the Federal-aid highway program. Congress saw the validity of this philosophy and, in the 1970 Highway Act, authorized the creation of a National Highway Institute (NHI) with the express purpose to “. . . develop and administer, in cooperation with the State highway departments, training programs of instruction for Federal Highway Administration and State and local highway department employees engaged or to be engaged in Federal-aid highway work.”
The NHI is not a physical facility, such as a school with classrooms, but is an administrative organizational element. Its operating costs are funded from FHWA’s regular appropriation for administrative expenses, which tends to limit the amount of direct training that the Institute can undertake.
The Institute has established itself as a significant source of training in the highway field. During fiscal year 1974, the NHI sponsored 10 separate courses and workshops at various locations throughout the United States, involving about 5,500 State, local, and FHWA personnel. In most instances, the workshops and courses were developed and conducted by universities and training consultants under contracts funded and supervised by the NHI.
Under the terms of the 1970 Act, the States may use up to ½ percent of their apportioned Federal funds for highway purposes (except Interstate funds) for education and training of State and local highway department employees with two conditions: (1) The States may not pay more than 70 percent of the costs of tuition and direct educational expenses from this fund, which leaves the States to provide at least 30 percent of the costs; and (2) no Federal funds can be used for travel, subsistence, or salaries of the employees being trained.
One of the major efforts of the Institute has been to encourage the States to take advantage of this optional program to broaden their own training programs. Since this Federal financial assistance is not an independent source of funds—it is highway construction funds being used for training purposes—the States have been slow to take advantage of this opportunity. Presently, approximately 20 States are programing a portion of their eligible Federal funds for training and educational activities.
However, the NHI program for fellowship and scholarship awards to FHWA, State, and local employees has been very successful. Currently, the Institute is awarding approximately 40 annual fellowships in highway transportation research and education and 40 in highway safety at $5,000 each, and about 50 scholarships are awarded annually in highway technology at $2,500 each.
At the time the Institute was established, it was assigned the responsibility for administering FHWA’s ongoing orientation and training programs for foreign highway officials and engineers, which had been handled by the Foreign Projects Division along with its foreign construction program. The activities arranged by the Institute for the foreign groups range in duration and depth from a 1-day meeting with selected officials to a year or more of academic study at a university offering the type of highway-related curriculum desired. In fiscal year 1974, the NHI arranged programs for a total of 763 foreign officials and engineers from 56 different countries.
The NHI also serves as a clearinghouse of useful information related to training and education of highway employees. It seeks to assist the States in identifying particular types of training and maintains a referral service of training aids.
To give direction to the extensive training effort of FHWA, the Administrator has moved lately toward establishing national training goals, or areas of training emphasis, for managers throughout the FHWA. While these national training goals are pointed toward the development of FHWA employees, they also have implications for State highway and transportation officials in two ways. In one instance, the FHWA employees will be using their new knowledges and skills to assist the States with their highway and transportation missions. In the other instance, the State officials will be invited to make use of courses developed to achieve the FHWA’s national training goals.
Training has been one of the key elements to the successful administration of the Federal-aid highway program throughout the years. It will most likely continue to be a main support of the greatest public works program in the world.
REFERENCES
- ↑ A. Hulbert, Historic Highways of America, The Cumberland Road, Vol. 10 (Arthur H. Clark Co., Cleveland, 1904) p. 19.
- ↑ Id., pp. 57–61.
- ↑ Id., p. 64.
- ↑ Id., p. 199.
- ↑ Id., pp. 73, 86, 92.
- ↑ P. Jordan, The National Road (Bobbs-Merrill Co., Indianapolis, 1948) p. 175.
- ↑ 43 U.S.C, Sec. 218 (1964).
- ↑ M. O. Eldridge, Progress of Road Building in the United States, Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture, 1899 (GPO, Washington, D.C., 1900) pp. 374, 375.
- ↑ W. Holt, Service Monographs of the United States Government, The Bureau of Public Roads, No. 26 (Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1923) pp. 7–13.
- ↑ Id., p. 13.
- ↑ Hearing on S.J. Res. 106 Before the Comm. on Agriculture and Forestry United States Senate, 62d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 5 (1912).
- ↑ Joint Report of the Progress of Post-Road Improvement, H. Doc. 204, 63d Cong., 1st Sess., p. 3.
- ↑ Bureau of Public Roads Annual Report, 1914, p. 4.
- ↑ Bureau of Public Roads Annual Report, 1916, p. 2.
- ↑ Federal Aid to Good Roads, H. Doc. 1510, 63d Cong., 3d Sess., p. 14.
- ↑ AASHO—The First Fifty Years, 1914–1964 (American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, D.C., 1965) p. 239.
- ↑ W. Holt, supra, note 9, pp. 19, 20.
- ↑ W. Holt, supra, note 9, p. 19.
- ↑ Id., pp. 22–24.
- ↑ C. Borth, Mankind On the Move (Automotive Safety Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1969) p. 199.
- ↑ Bureau of Public Roads Annual Report, 1893, p. 586.
- ↑ A. E. Johnson, History of the Origin, Development and Operation of the American Association of State Highway Officials, AASHO—The First Fifty Years, 1914–1964 (American Association of State Highway Officials, Washington, D.C., 1965) pp. 52, 53.
- ↑ Supra, note 17, pp. 5, 6.
- ↑ A. Johnson, supra, note 22, p. 56.
- ↑ Ideas and Actions: A History of the Highway Research Board, 1920–1970 (Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1971) p. 133.
- ↑ Id., p. 105.
- ↑ Id., pp. 25, 135.
- ↑ Id., p. 136.
- ↑ Id., p. 53.
- ↑ Id., pp. 57, 58.
- ↑ P. Wilson, Organization of the Bureau of Public Roads (file copy of article prepared for U.S. Daily, Apr. 1930).
- ↑ Dept. of Transportation, The United States Department of Transportation—Its Organization and Functions (GPO, Washington, D.C., 1967) p. 1.
- ↑ P.L. 93-344, Sec. 401 (d) (1) (B) ).
- ↑ Federal Highway Administration, Manpower Utilization Study—1974 (Dept. of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 1974) p. VI–4.
- ↑ W. Holt, supra, note 9, p. 12.
- ↑ Bureau of Public Roads, Report On the Junior Engineer Training Program—July 1, 1946 to October 1, 1955 (Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1955) p. 1.
- ↑ Id.