America's Highways 1776–1976: A History of the Federal-Aid Program/Epilogue
The
Success
Story
The story of the development of highways and of highway transportation in the United States, as presented here, has been limited largely to the role of the Federal Government in the construction of our Nation’s highways under the remarkably successful Federal-aid highway program. As the name indicates, the “Federal-aid” program is one involving joint Federal-State funding and execution of the design and construction of highways on approved systems of interconnected routes in all States. The Federal-State funding varies with the designated system on which the improvement is undertaken, and the States, at their option, may schedule construction without Federal funding and without Federal review.
In the Federal-aid highway program, each of the State highway departments has served as a full and equal partner in that State and merits equal credit for the program accomplishments. This text has recorded the story of the Bureau of Public Roads as one of the partners. The accomplishments of each State highway department in a common and parallel endeavor is a separate story. It has been a truly successful partnership program.
The agency that was to become the Bureau of Public Roads, and ultimately the Federal Highway Administration, was created in 1893 with an initial appropriation of $10,000 per year. The activities of the agency were limited to making “inquiries” among State and local units as to road construction and maintenance practices. The initial “staff” was the Special Agent and Engineer, General Roy Stone, and a clerical assistant, and the first year’s expenditures totaled less than $3,000 of the available appropriation. Thus, at the outset, frugality in manpower and administrative expenditures, through the years, characterized the performance of the Federal Government’s highway agency, by whatever title it was termed under law.
Initially, the interest of the Federal Government in road improvement was minimal, and years passed before the public demand for improved rural mail delivery service resulted in a Federal enactment of financial aid to the States for improvement of selected post roads. Experimentation in road construction methods and in the use of construction materials was the forerunner of today’s sophisticated program of construction and research in the highway industry. The post road improvement program led to the Federal-aid highway program and provided valuable experience which was of assistance to the Congress in its framing of the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916—the first real Federal-aid highway legislation.
Early efforts toward a system of Federal highways, constructed and maintained by the Federal Government, did not prevail. Rather, there developed an underlying concept of State ownership, State responsibility, and State program initiation, with the Federal agency advising and consulting and with the Federal Government providing financial assistance.
The Federal Aid Road Act of 1916 established the partnership role of the State and Federal Governments in a program of Federal aid for highway construction, and the Federal Highway Act of 1921, together with the Post Office Appropriation Act of 1922, provided a multiyear plan of Federal funding for the program—both essential to the continuous program that has endured to the present.
During the time period in which congressional action on the basic highway legislation was evolving, first Logan Waller Page (1905–1918) and then Thomas H. MacDonald (1919–1953) were appointed to be Director of Public Roads and ably developed the Bureau of Public Roads (as it is known to most Americans). Under these two men, the Bureau procedures implemented the basic concept of equal Federal-State partnership roles in carrying out the congressional mandate for Federal assistance in constructing a highway system in the United States. The State had the responsibility to locate and design the proposed highways, to secure the necessary rights-of-way, to advertise and award the proposed construction contracts, and to supervise the construction activity under the contract which followed. The role of the Bureau of Public Roads was that of consultation, advice, review and approval at each of the successive steps as the project developed from its initial proposal to its final contract completion. The State owned and agreed to maintain the highways on which Federal-aid moneys were spent.
While the size of the program has increased dramatically—from an authorization level of $75 million in 1922 to a program level in excess of $5 billion in 1974—the same basic procedures initiated in the beginning years of the program are still followed. This stability of program operation has resulted in widespread confidence in and acceptance of the highway program at local, State and Federal levels, both in and out of the highway program.
The success of the Federal-aid highway program is unquestioned, and the reasons are many. The Congress consistently provided advance authorizations and timely appropriations so that the States, from the beginning, could move with confidence knowing in advance the level of authorization at which they could operate and knowing that appropriated funds would be adequate to provide cash reimbursement for their expenditures. The Congress increased the level of financing as public needs required, and expansion of the scope of program activities has been authorized as special needs for highway transportation became evident. The sage action of Congress in highway legislation has been a most important factor in the success of the Federal-aid highway program. A second and equally important factor has been the development of strong, competent individual State highway organizations and their interaction with members of the construction industry in implementing the program made possible by the congressional authorizations. The States have developed organizations with the technical and administrative ability to meet the changing program demands, and the construction industry nationwide has kept pace through advancing construction technology and integrity of purpose to meet the growing needs in highway construction procedures.
Recognizing the contributions of Congress, the States, and the construction industry toward the development of highway transportation in the United States, the Bureau of Public Roads, for its part, has implemented and administered the legislation since 1916 and has fostered the successful Federal-State partnership.
In the formative years, the Bureau held a tight rein in guiding development of the program. All approval authority was administered from the central office in Washington, with assistance provided through 10 field district offices to which routine operating responsibility and authority was delegated, and a Regional Office which served as an extension of the Washington Office covering operations of the program in 11 western States in which most of the direct Federal construction work was performed. Strong central office control prevailed over all system approvals, program actions, and project plans and specifications. Construction contract administration was a more local responsibility with review at the field level.
This initial strong central control accomplished a major objective of uniformity in the administration of emerging regulations and procedures among the States, thus establishing Federal-aid programs in each State on a common basis.
Mr. MacDonald developed within the Bureau a spirit of organizational pride in professional excellence of performance combined with a dedication to public service and unquestioned integrity. The ability of the Bureau to attract competent and dedicated personnel through the years stemmed in a large part from the early organizational image. The well ordered, fully professional program was attractive to young engineers who sensed the opportunity to participate in a rewarding program and who normally remained in that service throughout their professional careers.
In the 1940’s a major organizational change established BPR offices in each State, with geographical regional offices designated to serve as intermediary between these State level organizational units and the central office in Washington. The reorganization resulted in closer operating coordination at the State level and the development of staff capability at the regional level, both of which were to be of immense value in the decentralization of program control and delegation of authority which were to follow a few years later.
The increase in the size of the Federal-aid program funding in the postwar years, the expanding Federal interest in urban transportation problems, and the anticipated legislation for separate funding for construction of the Interstate System resulted in major delegation of operating authority in 1953, and in the following 2 years, authority for all program and project approval action was delegated. The submission of project plans to Washington was discontinued as a general requirement. The Washington Office role became that of consultant and arbitrator on project matters and one of leadership in establishing program policy consistent with the total transportation program objectives of the Administration and of Congress. The result was that the Bureau effectively administered a vastly increased program with very little increase in the number of personnel.
Changes in the program have been many, and their impact has been dramatic. The program started as a rural post road improvement program. With the growth of the Nation and of its urban population, the program became one of meeting the complex transportation and social problems in urban areas and the needs for intercity and interstate motor vehicle transportation. The changing focus in national highway needs and in national transportation objectives had been anticipated by BPK leaders and had prompted their early efforts in the fields of highway planning and needs studies, highway research sponsorship, highway design and construction, highway traffic operation, and highway transportation economics. This capability to meet the demands of changing national interests with major program changes and with a modest, but flexible, staff is the real success story of the Bureau of Public Koads. It is a story of dedicated and competent public service which has earned the confidence and respect of the American people over a 60-year period. Professional excellence with total integrity has marked that performance from the beginning.
But what about tomorrow? Is it not only natural to expect that this impressive story of accomplishment will continue well into the future?
Engraved on the facade of the National Archives building is the phrase “What is past is prologue.” This is certainly true with respect to the long and successful highway building era in America. We cannot contemplate the present without knowledge of the past nor forecast the future in ignorance of either.
The national highway program is in the throes of major change in direction and emphasis. These changes are emanating from complex issues and problems associated with growing questions of government involvement. For instance, the appropriate roles of Federal, State, and local governments in highway construction, operation, and maintenance are being reconsidered. We realize that the Interstate System is going to require a continuing process of resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitation to maintain the high level of transportation service demanded by the public. This will be quite expensive and probably beyond the financial capability of the States to do it adequately. A program for Federal participation in the upgrading and rehabilitation of the Interstate System has been authorized in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976.
The Federal role in other highway systems—the Primary, Secondary, and Urban Systems—will also be examined closely and debated in the coming months and years. It appears likely that more of the responsibility for planning the construction, maintenance, and operation of these systems will shift away from the Federal and further toward State and local levels of government over time, consistent with the policy of increasing the decisionmaking flexibility of these levels of government to deal with issues of lesser national significance.
During the past 10 years, although the total investment for all highway functions by all levels of government has increased substantially, inflation has eroded the highway dollar so seriously that actual construction activities on highways has in fact decreased. In the same 10-year period, the number of miles of highways in the United States, the number of registered vehicles, and the number of vehicle miles of travel have all increased substantially. These facts indicate that, at best, we have maintained approximately the same level of performance on our highway system during the last 10 years. As more facts are gathered, however, we may learn that the highway system’s overall performance has deteriorated. A major issue, then, will be to determine appropriate funding levels to maintain a reasonable performance level on our highways and to provide for those funds fairly and equitably in accordance with the benefits derived by the users of the highway system. Included in this issue is the question of what funding mechanisms can be used to adequately finance the Nation’s highway system—for example, shall we retain the Highway Trust Fund or establish a Transportation Trust Fund? Or should we return to general revenue funding for highways? And how will rising State and local funding needs be satisfied? These are questions which will also be debated during the coming months.
More attention will be given in the coming years to upgrading public transportation, including light and heavy rail mass transit and railroad facilities. At the same time, more rigorous analytical procedures will be needed in making such large transportation investment decisions through cost-effectiveness studies and analyses of alternatives. Highway builders, the engineers who developed the highway system that is the envy of the whole world, may be expected to assist in the rehabilitation of the fixed rail systems in the Nation. We may expect that State and Federal highway organizations will become more closely involved in this new major thrust within the transportation family.
A major objective now and in the years to come will be to make better use of the highway facilities we already have. Land and other resources in many areas are becoming scarce, and fuel is becoming more precious. Accordingly, we may expect to see in the future a continuing emphasis on the more efficient utilization of our existing facilities. Better traffic management, auto-restricted zones in our dense urban areas, preferential transit bus and carpool treatments, better utilization of air space and below ground space in rights-of-way—all of these concepts will receive more attention in the coming years, especially in the more densely populated urban areas where efficiency is paramount.
More attention will be given to the conservation of energy and the development of new sources of energy. We will need to discipline ourselves to use less fuel by driving at slower speeds and developing more fuel efficient vehicles. It would be comforting to predict the development of new, clean, infinite sources of energy. After all, the United States did not become a great Nation by saving energy, but by using huge quantities of it. We may again reach a time when we can use all the energy we want without polluting the atmosphere or depleting finite resources, but this day is far off, and in the interim, conservation must be our watchword.
Improved highway safety will continue as a high priority goal. Significant improvement has been realized in very recent years, due in part to the nationwide 55 mile per hour maximum speed limit. Since 1973, the actual number of fatalities, as well as the fatality rate, have been significantly reduced. But we must continue to improve highway design and engineering so that the roads become ever more “forgiving” of errant drivers and vehicles. At the same time, we must continue to make the vehicles themselves more mechanically safe, and we must try to better equip the human beings who operate those vehicles to do so safely.
Past investments in highway improvements have provided a high level of mobility for the general population. In the future we can anticipate greater efforts to provide better mobility for the young, the elderly, and the handicapped who lack ready access to automobile transportation. In this regard, local elected officials of urbanized areas may elect to use certain apportioned highway funds for public mass transportation projects instead of for highways. Such an effort may be expected to extend to the transportation disadvantaged segment of our population the same opportunities for social, cultural, recreational, and economic benefits enjoyed by the rest of us.
The United States does not have an explicit national land use policy. The uncertainty regarding the nature and direction of changes in land use and settlement patterns is increased by the lack of a concensus regarding desirable growth within and among regions and between urban and nonurban areas. The Federal Highway Administration and the State and local highway organizations have responded to the needs of our growing Nation well in the past. As we look to the future, our efforts must be to provide even greater flexibility of choice to the States and local governments to provide highway services to meet changing population or economic developmental patterns that may emerge or be consciously pursued.
Out of all our past efforts—planning, designing, constructing, bridge building, and organizational efforts at all levels of government—has come a superb system of highways to serve a growing Nation. The challenge now and in the future is to preserve and enhance the performance level of our highways and at the same time promote within a multi-modal transportation family a more flexible and innovative transportation system. Our past performance, in all respects, would indicate that we will be equal to the challenge. We must demonstrate that we are.