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][1] 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.[2]
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.[3] 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.”[4]
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.[5] Gradually this problem
208
