because it shows the lines of thought along which I am working. When the first $50,000,000 bond issue was made the only class of road was a road built to be paid for 50 per cent by the State, 35 per cent by the county, and 15 per cent by the township. The initiative came from the county, but the local board would pass a resolution for a road and the State would meet that appropriation to build it. The result was that after a number of years of building, around the large cities there were arteries leading into the markets, but they did not connect up at county lines. The law was then amended in order to get the continuity of highways, with a certain percentage of the roads, and in the State of New York 3.75 per cent of the roads are what are called State roads. The law was amended so that these roads should be constructed entirely at the expense of the State for the purpose of continuity or connecting up. The law was then amended so that the county highways, which was the original class, should be constructed jointly by the State and by the county, leaving out the township.

The CHAIRMAN. Fifty per cent each?

Mr. DIEHL. No; 65 per cent by the State and 35 per cent by the county. In addition to that there has been an enactment for the purpose of constructing the rural or lateral roads. Those are constructed and maintained by the township authorities, and one-half of the cost is borne by the State out of an annual tax levy; that money does not come out of the bond issue the people voted for. The work on those township roads has been under the direction of the State highway commission and under the immediate supervision of the county superintendent of highways, with the result that no matter what part of the State or what part of the county a man may live in he is in favor of a State road across the State, and he is in favor of the county roads intersecting the county, because he knows when he goes to market that whereas he may have to traverse a short distance of his rural roads he ultimately comes onto the main roads which lead him to the large city. The law has worked profitably and well, and that it has been a benefit to the city and a benefit to the country is shown by the vote of the people when it carried practically without opposition, with a 400,000 majority in favor of the second bond issue. That demonstrates that not only the division of the expense is fair and proper between the cities and the rural localities, but it further demonstrates the benefits that accrue, which in the ultimate analyses would probably be the best test, better than any theoretical test.

Mr. AUSTIN. What does it cost you per annum to maintain your roads?

Mr. DIEHL. That varies from $30 to $1,000 a mile, depending on the character of the construction. If you will permit me, I would like to take up a few minutes of the committee's time to interject an idea about costs. I think there has been too much talk throughout the United States about the cost of constructing a mile of highway. There can be little comparison in the cost of constructing a highway which carries 100,000 tons a day with the highway that carries 100 tons a day. The measure of cost should be the number of tons per foot width of highway. I merely want to call attention to the fact that it is not fair to say how much it would cost to build highways

in the State of New York and how much it would cost to build them in the State of Nevada, for they are hardly comparable.

Mr. AUSTIN. What are the dimensions of the State highways in New York?

Mr. DIEHL. The roads are 32 feet wide between ditches, of which the middle 16 feet is metaled, that is, macadam, asphalt, or brick, or whatever material is used in the construction of the highways.

Mr. AUSTIN. What is the depth of the material?

Mr. DIEHL. Depending entirely on the traffic. When they first started building roads in New York State they were all 6 inches deep. Now they are of all dimensions, from 5 to 18 inches, depending on what the road is expected to perform. Regarding the distribution of the Federal fund, assuming that the Federal-aid law is passed, there have been several suggestions made, among them one that the fund should be divided according to population; another that the fund should be divided according to area.

Mr. AUSTIN. What do you think of Senator Swanson's bill on that?

Mr. DIEHL. I have forgotten his bill for the instant. I have his bill on file. What does he provide?

Mr. AUSTIN. He wants a division along the lines you mentioned. Mr. DIEHL. I was just coming to that. The first suggestion, as ] stated, was based on population, the second on area, and the third on the total mileage of all highways. The fourth is a combination of all those three and I may add that the last $50,000,000 bond issue ir New York is being divided on the combination of the first three. If I may inject a personal opinion, and I am not venturing, when I get down to the details, to say that I am actually giving the opinion of the American Automobile Association, it must be evident to you, gentlemen, that I have not been in personal consultation with every one of the 75,000 members of our association, but I would say that my opinion is that none of those plans is exactly the plan that ought to be followed, although we do not antagonize any one of them. Any one of the plans would be satisfactory to us, but I believe that money should not be divided, but rather the mileage of improved highways should be divided. In other words, if you lay out a system, a national system of highways, and the State of New York contains 5 per cent of the total national system, then every time the United States Government builds a thousand miles of road 5 per cent of that mileage should be built in New York State.

The CHAIRMAN. How do you determine your first 5 per cent for New York?

Mr. DIEHL. As I have just stated under the last heading, I believe these roads should be determined by the State highway commission and the Federal authorities in charge of this work.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean you should call all of the State highway commissions together and the Federal authorities in charge of the work and let them make an apportionment and a determination as to what percentage shall go to each State?

Mr. DIEHL. No.

The CHAIRMAN. How would you arrive at your original determination?

Mr. DIEHL. By allowing the Federal authority to confer with the State highway commission and determine what constitute the highways which should be affected by this act.

The CHAIRMAN. Then your determination of the apportionment would be based entirely upon what constituted the highways already in existence and allow for the creation of no new highways at all?

Mr. DIEHL. No; not at all. They could determine any highways, except, as I stated at the outset, it should not exceed 2 per cent of the total mileage of any State.

The CHAIRMAN. How do you get your apportionment between the 48 States?

Mr. DIEHL. Just as I have stated. The State highway commission and the Federal authority agree upon the highways to be constructed. Senator GRONNA. In other words, you favor the appropriation of a lump-sum figure and leave that to this commission to apportion. Is not that correct?

Mr. DIEHL. That is practically the effect of it.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. The Federal authority would select the roads that were to be improved?

Mr. DIEHL. Yes; not exceeding 2 per cent of the total mileage. Mr. SHACKLEFORD. Let me see if I understand you correctly. Do you believe that the Federal authority, whoever it may be, the director of good roads, or some other functionary, should consult with each State highway commission, and after having consulted with them, then he would determine how many roads would go to each State and where they should be located?

Mr. DIEHL. Yes; and also determine on the location. The question arises should the Government money be expended for both construction and maintenance, or either one or the other. In my judgment the Federal money should be used for both construction and maintenance. I think it would be unwise for the Federal Government to put money into construction without having a definite system of maintenance, and the only way that you could be absolutely sure of proper maintenance of the roads would be that it should be handled exactly the same way as the original construction.

The CHAIRMAN. Under that plan what would you do in New York, for instance, where it has expended $100,000,000? Would you give it credit for its expenditures?

Mr. DIEHL. No, sir. I do not believe that this bill should be retroactive in any respect. You may be surprised to hear that coming from the State in the Union that has spent the most money on roads, but we have spent a lot of money and we are willing to spend a lot more if necessary. I do not believe you should try to go back and reimburse New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, or Rhode Island for any roads they have built. I do not think you should undertake that proposition for it would be too complicated and it would mean a lot of unnecessary expense. The road enthusiasts in those States would be for Federal aid, without being paid for it.

Mr. AUSTIN. I do not think you need discuss that proposition, for I do not believe Congress will ever do it.

Mr. DIEHL. Regarding the proportion of the expense to be borne by the National Government and to be borne by the State in the construction and maintenance, that statement from which Mr. Shackle

ford read a few moments ago said we believed that the Government should pay it all. We do, but we do not oppose other measures, and

I think most of the members of our association realize that at this time it is not possible to pass through Congress any legislation which would ask the Government to pay the entire cost of this construction. I personally feel that at the present time the Government should require the State to put in half and they should put in half. I am equally convinced that there are certain States in the United States, and I have stated examples, where the assessed valuation is low, that will have to be helped by the National Government more than onehalf. They can not afford to pay even one-half of this cost, and I think after such a statute has been in operation for several years that it would be necessary to have a graduated percentage paid by the State, the National Government paying more in the poorer States than in the richer States like New York; and I would further state that such a practical plan has worked in such a way in New York. All the counties there do not pay 35 per cent, but the poor counties are only called upon to pay 30 or 25 per cent. Mr. AUSTIN. How do you determine that? Does the commission determine that?

Mr. DIEHL. No. The amount is determined by statute based upon the assessed valuation per mile. A company pays 2 cents per thousand dollars on the assessed valuation, so a county that has an assessed valuation per mile of $10,000 pays 20 per cent, instead of 35 per cent. Likewise, the State, in giving aid to the townships, gives from 50 cents to a dollar, or more, based on the assessed valuation per mile.

The CHAIRMAN. Your measure is the assessed valuation per mile? Mr. DIEHL. The measure is practically the taxable assets the township has to build its highways. In other words, it endeavors to contribute according to their ability, and I believe that the Federal Government should pay to the poorer States a larger percentage than it pays to the richer ones upon a graduated scale, and notwithstanding that statement which I have introduced in the evidence, I do not believe at this time the Government should be called upon to pay the entire cost of construction. That brings us to the last point. Mr. AUSTIN. What is your estimated cost on the 30,000 miles?

Mr. DIEHL. I have not an estimated cost on that, but I would say that these highways could be constructed at an expense not to exceed ten or twelve thousand dollars a mile, which would be from three hundred to three hundred and fifty million dollars.

Mr. AUSTIN. How much for the cost of maintenance?

Mr. DIEHL. The cost of maintenance would, in my judgment, run about $500 per mile per annum, but you must understand that that is only a mere guess on my part, and I have no doubt that your experts could work it out in greater detail.

Mr. AUSTIN. When you come here and favor 30,000 miles, we want to know something about what it is going to cost.

Mr. DIEHL. I will be glad to give it as best I can. I would say frankly I would think the road would cost from ten to twelve thousand dollars a mile in original construction, the maintenance would be $500 per mile per year. That would be my best judgment, without any details at hand.

Mr. LEE. What kind of a road would you build for $10,000 a mile? Would it be brick, asphalt, or what?

Mr. DIEHL. Dependent entirely upon the travel. There would be certain highways which probably would be gravel, others would be macadam, others would be bituminous macadam, others concrete and others brick. I do not think there is any highway engineer in this country that would say you could build roads from one end of the United States to the other, all of the same width and durability, and of the same material, width, thickness, or character of construction, and the material used in the construction must be based upon the travel which not only passes over the road now but which in the immediate future can reasonably be expected to pass over it. The last point is in the supervision of the highways; who should supervise them. I believe the supervision of a highway should be exercised by the governmental authority having charge, in cooperation with the State highway commission, in every State where there was a satisfactory and a competent highway commission which has produced results, and which the gentleman in charge for the Government saw could produce results. He could avail himself of that highway commissioner to supervise the construction and maintenance if he desired. It would not be compulsory, however, on his part in States where they do not have satisfactory highway commissions, but the supervision would rest with the Federal authority.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. In the first instance that would be left to the discretion of the Federal authority whether he would put it on the State or not.

Mr. DIEHL. Yes. He could avail himself of the organization if there was one, but I think if the Government is putting 50 per cent into the cost of the road, they should be amply protected to see that the money is wisely and economically expended and that the roads are properly constructed and maintained.

The CHAIRMAN. You say you favor a plan of cooperation in construction and maintenance. How about the maintenance of the roads already constructed?

Mr. DIEHL. They should be maintained in such proportion by the United States Government and the State highway commission jointly. For instance, one of these roads would probably be a road from New York to Buffalo across New York State, which has been built by the State of New York. The maintenance of that road would then devolve upon the Federal Government and the State jointly in such proportions as the bill might carry.

The CHAIRMAN. What power of supervision would the Federal Government have over that road if it cooperated in maintenance and had not cooperated in construction?

Mr. DIEHL. There would not, in my judgment, be any difficulty whatever in getting the State to consent, by resolutions of the State legislature, to give the Government the right to come into that State. Mr. SHACKLEFORD. But you think the Government ought to have supervision of that road?

Mr. DIEHL. In cooperation with the highway commission.

Mr. SHACKLEFORD. But if there should be differences of opinion between the Government functionary and the State highway commission, which would be the dominant factor?