Building the Interstate W. L. Mertz and Joyce Ritter FOREWORD What follows is the documentation of the critical events during the building of the Interstate System. The record begins with the passage of the 1956 Highway Act, which kicked off the Interstate construction program. It ends in 1974 just after the passage of the 1973 Highway Act, which was landmark legislation for the Interstate System and the highway program in general. We made several attempts to interpret the 1973 Act for the reader but abandoned it in favor of relying on quotations from those involved at the time who said what they thought it was. An earlier document named "Origins of the Interstate" explored the critical years in the conceptualization of the Interstate System culminating in the 1956 Highway Act. Both documents rely heavily on quoted excerpts of speeches made by people who were influential in charting the course of the highway program during those years. We have found that no paraphrasing expresses the essence of the issues of the times as well as the words of those who were involved and spoke them. By far the richest source of material has been American Highways, the quarterly journal of the American Association of State Highway Officials. It faithfully recorded the views of its own members, Congressmen, Federal officials and indeed, the adversaries of the highway program. The reasons for stopping the record in 1974 are several. First, our scheduled time allotted for this task was running out. Second, the events following the 1973 Highway Act are recent history. We have been involved in that history and so are too close to it to make unbiased judgments about what should be highlighted. Although the Interstate was authorized by the Congress in 1944 and most of the system was officially designated in 1947, construction did not begin in earnest until the passage of the 1956 Highway Act. Part One, "The Origins of the Interstate", documents the events leading to the 1956 Act. This Part Two begins there. The record begins with the AASHO annual meeting in November of 1956 at Atlantic City N.J., just five months after passage of the Act. Excerpts from the January 1957 Issue of American Highways. REX WHITTON, Outgoing President, Missouri. THE DEATH OF GENERAL MERRILL He expressed great regret for the untimely death of General Frank Merrill two days after he was elected President of AASHO. It was on this occasion that Whitton, the Vice President succeeded to the Presidency. (There is a story connected with that. General Merrill was the leader of the famous Merrill's Marauder's in World War II, and was a great friend and comrade of General Eisenhower. After World War II, he was highly placed in the military occupation of the Philippines where Frank Turner was putting the roads back together. They had daily interactions. After military retirement, Merrill was appointed to head the New Hampshire highway department by Governor Sherman Adams, soon to become the White House chief of staff under President Eisenhower. One of the reasons he was elected President of AASHO, so the story goes, was, it was perceived, that he would have access to the Oval Office and influence with Ike, which, it was thought, was needed for the passage of the 1956 Act.) PASSAGE OF THE 56 ACT Whitton thanked everyone involved in the 1956 Act. He noted that the passage of that monumental legislation was due largely to good public relations and encouraged all to pay more attention to that critical function in the future. He noted that Congress had asked the highway departments for four studies. Their performance on those was critical to the future of the highway program. The studies were; a new Interstate cost estimate, maximum sizes and weights, a study of a policy for the reimbursement for highways already on the Interstate System and a study on the costs of different classes of highways. NOTE: The reimbursement issue was very controversial and AASHO's recommendation for it did not survive in the 1956 Act. He appealed to the members to update their procedures to modern methods using computers, photogrammetry and efficiency procedures. JOHN VOLPE, Federal Highway Administrator. GENERAL MERRILL AND FRANCIS du PONT Volpe gave great credit to deceased General Merrill and to Francis du Pont for getting the 1956 Act started. He emphasized the great importance of the events during the crucial two years between Ike's famous speech kicking off the campaign for an expanded highway program and passage of the 56 Act. DON'T COMPROMISE ON INTERSTATE PROJECTS He warned the members to not compromise when faced with local opposition to a segment of Interstate because of the special National importance of the program. He warned them of the temptation to overbuild since the Federal Government would be picking up 90% of the cost. BEGIN THE INTERSTATE IN URBAN AREAS "We have been asked whether it is a good policy for a State to concentrate in early stages of the Interstate program on projects in urban areas, on the grounds that it is in those areas that the need for traffic relief is the greatest. Our answer is that we strongly favor such a policy provided, first, that urgent rural needs are not overlooked and, second, that firm agreement has been reached with officials of the urban areas on the location and design of the proposed improvements." "The second condition is especially important. Highway improvement in urban areas is probably the most critical feature of the program. Over half the Interstate funds will be spent there, and the extremely high cost per mile of the urban facilities makes it essential that they be properly located to insure wise expenditure of State and Federal funds. Correct location can be of even more importance to the cities themselves, however, for these freeways will become integral links in the urban transportation network, often serving transit as well as private vehicles. Properly located they can encourage good urban development, aid urban renewal, and be of great over-all benefit to the community. Improperly located they can impair or even prevent desirable growth and community life. So we must be assured that, as required by the 1956 Act, local needs be given serious and proper consideration. I urge State Highway officials to seek and to utilize the cooperation of city officials in locating these urban expressways." "Much needs to be done by the cities to insure their ability to cooperate with the States in planning these facilities. It is most gratifying that a Joint Committee of this Association and the American Municipal Association is at work on this problem. The group held its first meeting only last Friday. It is fortunate also that the National Committee on Urban Transportation, composed largely of city officials and on which the Bureau is represented, has long been at work preparing manuals for the collection of highway planning data for cities comparable to those obtained in our 20-year program of Statewide Highway Planning Surveys. These manuals are now being tested in eight pilot cities in as many States. This Committee's work will be invaluable to the Joint AMA and AASHO Committee and to all States. Both Committees deserve, and I am sure will receive, the full support of all States." THERE WILL BE OPPOSITION TO CONTROL-OF-ACCESS He noted that the concept of controlled access was new and the Interstate was the first time the concept was required for an entire system. He warned that the concept was not well understood and opposition would develop but the 2/3 reduction in accidents was well worth it. He noted the growing number of "before and after" studies that were documenting the economic advantages of controlled access. He noted particularly Rt. 128 in Boston. He called their attention to the requirements for a new cost estimate for the Interstate and periodic updates through 1968. He urged cooperation and compliance with the new labor provisions of the 1956 Act. He said that delegations of authority to BPR field offices were necessary to keep pace with the expanded program. Approval of Secondary program projects had already been delegated from Washington to the Division Offices (now Regions). Fifteen additional Supergrade positions were given to BPR as part of the reorganization. $200 million of Interstate projects had been obligated. SEN. DENNIS CHAVES, N.M., Chairman Senate Public Works Committee. THE CONGRESS WILL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK IN THREE YEARS He described the Highway program as being a 13-year program with a 3-year space to start with through 1959, after which the Congress would look the matter over and make decisions about the future. He noted that prior to the Reorganization Act (The Monroney-Mansfield Act), roads were authorized through the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads. He warned the members not to forget the views of the citizens. That was the reason that the Act called for public hearings. He worried about the affect bypasses would have on businesses. SEN. EDWARD MARTIN, Penn. COMPROMISE AND POLITICS COULD UNDERMINE THE INTERSTATE PROGRAM He stressed the importance of the Interstate in economic growth, national unity, etc. He placed great emphasis on the studies required, i.e, ICE, 210 study, etc. He stressed the importance of keeping politics and compromise from undermining the functional attributes of the Interstate System. One of the problems that he saw was the number of governmental units dealing with highways-46,000 by his count. He saw this as a threat to the program. REP. GORDON H. SCHERRER, Ohio, House Subcommittee on Roads. WORRY ABOUT FRAUD He extolled the virtues of the Interstate Program and worried aloud about the many attempts there would be for graft, fraud, inefficiency, and chicanery in a program so large.